Tuesday, January 23, 2018

750 Words: Feminism, Narcissism, and Consent.


Narcissism and Consent: An Other Way that Feminism Justifies Rape.



Narcissists are only interested in power. Even a sexual narcissist will only use sex in order to assert a sense of dominance. Consent is central to a narcissist, because it is only by winning the approval of a partner that he can assert his superiority not only to all other prospective mates, but all so to the partner herself. He will never apologize for disadvantaging those closest to him, even including his lovers and best friends. He is the epitome of the emotivist who uses moral language devoid of an actual conscience. He may take years to make his feelings “known” to his prospect*, and he will appeal to any Rational Man’s sense of Justice by citing every known social dictate and sexual more, however dated, to avoid being disadvantaged or hurt. Yet when confronted with an opportunity to act swiftly and with predation, he will shed all moral pretense and patience. He will never atone for the misdeed to his friends whose relationships he has destroyed in a fit of wildfire, even if that would mean to save the life of the lover he has won. His victims will agonize for years in confusion and despair over those they have lost to the narcissist, only to find that not only is the victor apathetic to the feelings of both the loser and the lost; even the lost become apathetic to the loser, who must watch the lost die of despair as more and more of the lost lover’s attention is wasted on the psychopath. A narcissist will not even stop at supplying an addict with drugs in order to get what he wants. To his outspoken mind, he is simply respecting the autonomy of the Other. To his innermost heart, or lack thereof, he is simply asserting dominion over the addict’s life, conditioning that person on both a conscious and unconscious level. The narcissist’s science will destroy one’s entire faith in Reason; his abuses will drive one to shed all pretense of rationality, even as the narcissist maintains a rational veneer in the face of apparent cruelty. There are not people. And they should not be regarded as such. Any ideology that enables them must be put to an end. Feminism empowers the will without regard for unconscious motives. It formalizes politeness in a manner that any idiotic sociopath can emulate. It espoused sexual freedom, but only within the limits of consent, and without the confines of decency or consistency. Feminism kills women and blames those men who try to save them. And I know this with certainty. Though if you have narcissists in your life then you will all ready question the entire CONCEPT of certainty. And you will only be among the lost.



*The prospect may easily find out, and this might become common knowledge. Yet the narcissist will pretend to value privacy and secrecy by denying that this was ever made public. He will deny having any lingering intent or feeling towards the prospect by attesting to the attraction as a thing of the past. When he is revealed to retain these feelings, he will most probably pretend that he had never precluded the possibility. But since it was all ready known publically (as he has denied) that he had ONCE had feelings for this person, how else was one to interpret the news that he “used to have a crush”? A narcissist cannot tolerate rejection; he will only pretend to, hiding his feelings yet again until he can make them an other man’s burden and at the expense of a new woman. This example can also work with the genders reversed.



Dm.A.A.



[It was unconsciously that this text numbered 617. 617 is the 113th Prime Number. 113 is itself the 30th Prime Number. At some point I was considering using 619 (a beloved area code), upon discovery of the number 617 as the Word Count and desiring to append two additional words to the text. I kept it at 617 for both aesthetic reasons and upon discovery that 619, whilst Prime, is the 114th Prime Number. 114 is of course not Prime, since it is an even integer greater than two, and is therefore divisible by two. It was only upon discovery that 619 was the 114th Prime Number that I inferred that 617 was Prime Number 113.]

The text above numbered 733. This is all so a Prime Number: Prime Number 130.

Enjoy. DM.A.A.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Band Wars: Return of the Did I Just?


I know why I stopped going to Kettle, and it is not just because they owe me money and there’s no getting through their Kafkaesque bureaucracy. Two words: (that I would not be typing weren’t I drunk, most probably) Danielle Moore. The delightful little Taurus girl was a Princeton student of Philosophy whom I met on the Flag Football Field of Grape Day Park. She was doing some course work at St. John Paul the Great University on Grand. I spoke to her beside a big tree. I wrote for her a list of all of the Taurus philosophers I knew at the time.



1.    Soren Kierkegaard.

2.    Karl Marx.

3.    William James.

4.    Ludwig Wittgenstein.

5.    Bertrand Russell.



I don’t know if she ever ended up looking them up. All that I know is that she never added me online. I saw her outside Plan Nine Alehouse, before I was banned without cause (Kafka would have a field day) and asked her to share a drink with me. She smiled and told me later. Later never came. I past her at Kettle and got the distinct feeling in my sympathetic nervous system that told me it was over.



But then: that never stopped me and Alanna.



So I kept coming back. Like Wittgenstein said: a philosopher who does not engage in intellectual debates is like a boxer who does not go to matches. I disagree with him, of course. And it is a bit too late to get into a debate with the old, dead weirdo. Whatever. The best writers got their biggest audience post mortem, Wittgenstein included. And I know enough about Debate from experience to know that it does not reveal the truth; it is a form of aggressive and amoral sophism that leaves you in contempt of Truth Itself. But then: who ever did live up to Wittgenstein’s saintly expectations? Genius has a way of projecting itself onto the ordinary; I Know This. And I don’t need any more triggering memories of people reciting the same old collegiate bullshit that earns them a fast pass to the top of a dogmatic pile of dog pile.



And yet, and yet, and yet:



What is a musician who does not play shows??



Dm.A.A.

528 Words: Music.


With not much left going for me, I fall back upon my old devices: Music. I have surmised the reason underlying my long hiatus from Spontation. Not only is my own work underappreciated. Even when it is appreciated, I struggle to find peers, especially in what little there is of a lingering local scene. One would think that in an age f hip-hop and electropop my fellows in San Diego would be living on the map. But no such luck. Corporate persuasion has crept in. The most innovative producers that I have had the tragedy of knowing have either sold out or fallen off the radar. Many of them are sitting on entire piles of gold like so many Smaugs the Dragons. They hoard their works of genius and drug-induced religious inspiration, but they do not DO any thing with them. It’s like Joseph Campbell said: the Western Dragon, unlike the Eastern One, hoards VIRGINS. He has no use for them. He simply hoards them. Christ: even Islamic Extremists are more humane. At least they surely plan to DO something with their harem* in the next life.



*Why did I make this italic? I am such a hipster now. “Harem” is so predominant an Arabic loan-word in English, especially amidst men, that I really need not treat it like some sort of Middle Eastern delicacy.



I guess I don’t mind. I have my own work. I never was shy to use as many as three free SoundCloud accounts to give even my most challenging work exposure. I know what Rob said: that it is too “busy”. I know what Alex said: that it’s too “chaotic”. But were they not operating as much out of their own reservations as from a position of honest criticism? Had either of them simply found the nads to publish their most psilocybin-infused efforts, would they not have held me to the same generic corporate standards as they hold themselves? Life’s too short to worry about the Man, man. I knew that when I first discovered Modest Mouse. I suppose I still owe a debt to my best friend Jeff Carter. Wherever that old Venutian bull might be. He was right: he’s a Taurus, through and through. I guess it’s true what they say about them and Pisces. Where would I have been without him and his musical contributions in high school? Even if Gemini Awilda called him a “Music Nazi”. I hope he enjoys my birthday mix for him.



Funny enough: my critics are operating under suggestion by the same people who all ways push the envelope, and in the WRONG DIRECTION. It’s not like Drake is not daring; he is just generically so. I am reminded of that guy I met downtown at Witching Hour once: the Aries who gave me a hit and told me that his Spirit Animal was the Wolf. He told me THEY control Reality with only their thoughts.



Why ought not we?



At the very least: we may get laid. I know that exposure helped me get a few numbers. And I pray that Jeff has found someone as well. Wherever that crazy bull might be.



Dm.A.A.

Friday, January 19, 2018

The Nard-Dog and the Walking Stick.


The Nard-Dog and the Walking Stick.



I have turned nocturnal of late. Today I went to sleep just as my father was getting up. I left him in the kitchen at around eight in the morning. I slept up until around five in the afternoon. My dream was interrupted by a phone call from some service provider. The woman spoke in a Southern accent that was reminiscent of both Nicole’s mother and of my music professor. I wondered why they were calling so early. Then I wondered why they would not call my Father directly. Then I wondered why my Father had not called them first. Then I hung up. It was slim pickings, but I managed back to sleep. My ass was itching like a cat and I had to keep making repeated visits to the restroom, to dig my nails into the soft pink flesh of the ovoid bar of soap that sat beside the faucet. I awoke again a little after nine. I went downstairs. My father was down there, dressed in his pajamas. I looked at the clock and feigned alarm. I told him that he had better get to work quickly. I had conked out for just an hour and a half, during which time he had not left the kitchen, even to get dressed. I all so informed him that the Sun had broken. He told me he knew. I ran upstairs to repeat the news to Mother.



I don’t read much of late. I haven’t read much since I finished the Divine Invasion by Philip K. Dick. It took me about a month to finish, whereas Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said took me about three days at Barnes and Noble’s. It makes sense; that one took only a week to write. As I reached the end of Flow My Tears I had to walk all over the bookstore in order to avoid every conceivable distraction. I suppose that the paranoia had made its way under my skin.



What I do predominantly at night is watch The Office. Yet when my sister hinted that the episodes with Steve Carrell in it were funny, she had neglected to mention that the ones WITHOUT him would be miserable. Of course: I was all ready miserable by a certain point. But back in Season Seven I was still ENGAGED. Now come Season Eight, since B.J. Novak stopped doing the writing, I feel like I am just waiting for this thing to die. And I can’t look away. Because every thing that made it painful and addictive to watch remains just as painful and addictive, but without the High.



So I usually watch an episode or two and then return to my new computer. I play Chess and Yume Nikki. I contemplate the mental landscape of the latter’s creator. I theorize about its semblance to my own, and what that says about the Collective Unconscious. I maintain invented arguments with old traitors (“friends”) about the sanctity of the Individual Mind and the Introvert’s Intuition. I expound silently upon my theories about the creator’s gender and extraversion. Sometimes I write these things down in a Platonic format that I insert into one of my many plays in progress, not one of which may ever live up to my magnum opus, which has yet (To my knowledge) to be read in its entirety, save for by me. I do my best.



I have compiled a list of my favourite characters from the Office, based on Season:



1. Dwight.

2. Michael.

3. Pam.

4. Kelly.

5. Ryan.

6. Andy.

7. Erin.

8. Gabe.



It’s a surprise to realize that Pam became one of my favourites as early on as Season Three. At first I gave that to her out of pity. Then I thought that I should choose the season wherein she spoke up for herself for the first time.

Then I realized that they were one and the same Season.



I rooted for Andrew Bernard ever since he got out of Anger Management. It seems that overnight he went from being the sycophantic, privileged and self-entitled “Office Pariah” to the “lovable underdog” that his managers would praise him for being. I lost my faith in Dwight when I saw Dwight live up to his own alpha-male pretense. I lost some respect for Angela, though ultimately I feel the most overwhelming sympathy for her unwritten plight. The subtext speaks loudly enough. Dwight won it back by becoming the Nard-dog’s friend. He has his moments, even if he has to be put in a concussion (or run over by a car) to do it.

For the record: this can be extended to Meredith.



The same cannot be said for Andy and Gabe.

When Erin first came onto the scene, I had grown used to hot girls on the show. I do not doubt that B.J. Novak owes some considerable debt to Mindy Kaling for the deeply human-hearted twists and turns that the romantic plot takes at every one of its branches, including even Dwight’s affair with Pam’s surprisingly hard-nosed (and veritably kinky) cousin. I all so do not doubt that Ryan and Kelly are in many ways indiscernable from the actors and writers who portray them.

At any rate: I had grown accustomed to the apples of B.J.’s eye being either rotten or not yet ripe. This was proven by Michael and Dwight’s visit to Ryan’s parties in Season Four. It persisted as a motif for some time.

But Erin quickly became the Perfect Girl of the Office. At first: her very seeming LACK of a personality made her seem like just a stand-in for the pregnant Pam, who carried within her womb not only the seed of new life but all so the seed of her own transmutation from the silent partner to the Criminal Mastermind. Erin even sums up the character foil in that episode when she wants to break up with Gabe and says to Pam: “I can’t be mean like you,” to which Pam replies, “when am I ever –” and then stops herself, remembering whom she is addressing.



Erin is Perfect. Every quiet girl elicits curiosity because there is an air of mystery surrounding her. As layer upon layer of Erin’s kindness are revealed like some sort of strip-tease (or, to be relevant in scope of innocence: an artichoke that is no ways [a] tart) she becomes no LESS perfect, but moreso. Though we have not yet reached the root of this particular flower, we can certainly expound upon the branches of her awesomeness. She is nice. She is (com)pliant. She is an amazing dancer. She is candid. She is innocent. And unlike a sociopath that wears a thousand faces, each of Erin’s virtues is contingent with the rest. It is as though each desirable attribute is a fractal that contains within it the whole, or a water droplet that mirrors all the others, which in turn mirror itself amidst their other neighbours, infinitely and interdependently.

Erin’s perfection is not something whose early onset is a fleeting mirage or a veneer that must be picked away with time. Its earliest intimations are apparent, even if unconsciously, from the moment that she appears on screen. It begins even before its symptoms serve as evidence, yet we overlook it prior to the symptoms because we have been taught to tread with caution and to dismiss offhand. Yet as her character becomes more and more complex in scope, as we see more and more about her, she becomes MORE awesome, not less. And this is what Andy Bernard sees in her. Even though he is given pause when she breaks up with him and starts to date Gabriel, we can tell that the Feeling lingers. And it is (by then, as from the beginning) absolutely mutual. And it’s a good thing, too, as Jim and Pam become one collective bitch greater than the sum of its parts.



Andy deserves Erin. Gabe deserves Erin. Erin deserves them both. But she can only have one. And this is what I am unable to resolve. And I have just reached the point that I have all but lost faith in that the series will resolve it. When B.J. and Mindy were writing, I was confident. Now, I am confused. And my cynicism is painfully mirrored in the cynicism of the character.



Andy fell for Erin quite quickly and easily. In a very subtle fashion typical of great mockumentary, Erin let slip that she reciprocated the feeling. Their courtship was like a game of chess where in neither player knew what was going on exactly in the game. Finally they kissed in the midst of a garbage landfill. Their romance was swift as justice, but less just. Despite having been resistant to the concept, describing her as a “rube”, Michael Scott agreed to take Erin out to Lunch. Erin threw a hysterical fit about the paltry detail that Andy had at some point long ago been engaged to Angela. Erin tried to rationalize her hysteria by pointing out that Andy never TOLD her about the relationship with Angela. Of course, this is a foolish criterion (though one must not presume heavy-handedly that Erin is herself to be BLAMED for it). The fact that Angela had not crossed Andy’s lips serves as evidence that she had not crossed his mind, in part because, truth be told, Andy has a tendency to say things at the very moment that they COME to mind, without either tact or calculation. His initial manipulative tendencies disappeared after he learned how to manage his own anger, and without that driving force he has no visible motive to be secretive on purpose. Andy never repressed his passions successfully; he only changed passions. Plotting never did him any favours, so he shed the habit, and he became a Great Guy, and in fact a Hero.



Erin might elicit frustrations because she elects to be alone instead of giving Andy an other chance. Enter Gabriel, the stocky, twenty-six-year-old bureaucrat who looks like he could have worked for Lord Vader back in the Day. Andy is desperate to win Erin back, expending all most as much energy and capital in his own theatrical manner as he did during the initial courtship. Erin does not deliberately torture him. In fact, she defends him when he is made again into the Office Pariah at the end of Season Six. Her story parallels that of Michael Scott, whose romantic misadventures see the light on the horizon again when Gabriel’s boss, Jo, suggests that she could arrange for his ex-lover Holly Flax to return to the Office. Throughout the following Season, Michael’s story runs parallel to Andy’s story. Erin breaks her promise to Andy by beginning to date Gabe. Apparently, Andy permitted this, but only in the spirit of preserving Chivalry. Deep down, he is heartbroken. Gabriel is secure in his position because he knows himself to be In the Right. He has observed every necessary social dictate, corporate and interpersonal. Yet his relationship with Erin lacks one principal quality: Eros. This Andy supplements. The audience cheers for Andy as he delivers a triumphant performance as the Sailor in Sweeney Todd, giving credit where credit is due when Erin thinks that Andy himself wrote the musical (originally by Stephen Sondheim, though Andy’s improvisations on stage make it a real treat after his phone goes off; he was waiting for an unplanned text from Erin). Erin shows up to the performance in PERSON, and the audience loves her for it, even though Jim and Pam decide never to leave baby Cecilia with Erin again. Ceci’s cries from the back of the theatre put an end to what would have been a very awkward moment that we were rooting for Andy to get through. He does so, unscathed, but not without the disappointment of realizing that Erin still prioritizes Gabriel. As endearing as their friendship is, it cannot last, because what Andy needs from Erin Erin can only provide for Gabe. Why bother to romanticize friendship for its own sake when it is tarnished by this impersonal and unjust restriction?



As Andy struggles to redeem himself and to ascertain the celibacy of his former lover, forced to confront an impersonal system via the very man who had put him in this disadvantage, Michael suffers through the notion that he “romanticizes” women. He fights to assert his own Subjectivity as Absolute. Spoiler: he is victorious. But fate is not so sweet for Erin and her lovers. Erin breaks up with Gabe under the tutelage of Pam Beasley, but she does so (as most kind people do when they try to be severe for the first time) with an utter absence of tact or context. Gabriel is embarrassed and humiliated in front of the entire Scranton Branch, within moments of the fact that his girlfriend received an award for Cutest Redhead from Michael Scott, her de facto father figure now.



Erin broke up with Gabe for Andy. But she has her regrets for how she treated Gabriel. She confides her inner turmoil in Michael, who advises (with charming hypocrisy) that she should date neither. Of course: his hypocrisy is incomplete; Michael only set his sights most fervently on Holly after he realized that his other lovers were a collective “freak show”.



Phyllis acts as Mother for the foster girl, advising when the time is right (both in the sense of her advice and the strategy that it posits) to go for whom Erin wants. Erin does so, asking Andy out in a sock puppet show that she delivers from behind her Receptionist’s Desk. Her bashfulness is lovely and endearing to ALL MOST a fault. But Andy turns her down. His pride affronted by the fact that she chose Gabriel over him, he has reservations about dating Erin again, though he respects their friendship. This sense of bruised pride might have something to do with his sudden confrontation with his rival’s True Nature in the Men’s Restroom. Perhaps he only fully internalized the Injustice that was done to him when Erin’s paramour and replacement for Andy turned out to have been the obsessive type. But then: it would have only been because he was seeing himself reflected in the eyes of the Victim. When Gabriel tells Andy to stay away from her, Andy complies in part out of SYMPATHY for Gabe. Any sane man would.



I relate with them both. What is tragic about self-identifying with a Victim is that you acknowledge the existence of an Oppressor. What is tragic about identifying with BOTH Victims, in whose eyes the Other is Oppressive, is that one eliminates the Oppressor. But one can never shake the feeling of OPPRESSION.



I am neither Gabriel nor Andy. One represents the formality and calculating idealism of the Corporate State. The other is the perpetual adolescence of being born into Old Money and unable to escape one’s social role of privileged white male. I have both sides. I am neither exclusively. And both are simply games. The conflict is in right brain and left brain. My own plight has been one of role fulfillment. This was not the role of either the bureaucrat or the rich kid. It was the role of the friend who had to watch his friends die on behalf of his other “friends”. I was more than the spited lover. I was the provider and the victim. And I was left friendless, for better rather than worse.



My Oppressor did not have Andy’s decency. Nor did he have Gabriel’s formality. My oppressor was a sociopath. But parasites thrive in an environment wherein most conflicts of interest have no one exclusively to blame.



As a child I was the one who would be able to handle such situations. But the Office is not Breaking Bad. True Evil does not appear on it until very late, and before then we only encounter the Devil via a young Ryan Howard and a horny Karen Filipeli. Even if both exhibit narcissistic tendencies, the former does so only without his significant other balancing him out, and the latter does so only when her own significant other lets her get away with it. Aside from being a bitch to Andy, who is not yet fully sympathetic, Karen is largely a harmless sociopath. But we should not go too easy on either her or Ryan. It would be only symptomatic of our own narcissism or our own tendency to accommodate it. If Erin made any mistake, aside from her aversion to the only devout Christian in the Office, it was that she did not know what she wanted, what she deserved, and how to get it without sacrificing her own sense of dignity. Thankfully: that dignity remains intact. So only a bitch would condemn her for the outcomes.

Gabe is not me. And I am not Gabe. I say this in such a way as to remind you that I could only BE Gabe if he were a category that I belonged to, and Gabe could only be ME if *I* were a category that HE belonged to. Otherwise, the turn of phrase would be redundant. But I know it to be that Gabriel represents a stereotype. We are all Gabe to some extent. The cause is Corporate Culture Itself. Kelly Kapoor attains an unprecedented sense of self-importance when she uses Brown Privilege to attain status in the company. Kelly never lives up to her own feelings of greatness and importance, so she supplements by turning her initially quirky, human-hearted gossip into a slew of toxicity. Under false auspices, insisting that the matter does not concern Gabe in any way, and doing so under the cover of polite convention, she proceeds to inform Jo that Gabe is “stalking” Erin, his coworker.

Gabe is not “stalking” Erin. The two of them work together. They have history. He believes that she wronged him. We never learn what the letter that he wrote to her said. If his PRESENCE at her place of employment is the problem, he should leave. But that is UP TO HIM.

Jo does not seem to think so. She blatantly dismisses Gabe as though his feelings do not matter, requiring him to leave Scranton for some time. At this point, the stick insect that was the butt of everyone’s joke in the Office is turned into a monstrous beetle as in Kafka’s Metamorphosis.

This happens to everyone. The entire function of Michael Scott was to alleviate it. Gabe is just the scapegoat because he is most obvious and sincere in his pious devotion to the social order. Others are simply jaded as they try to work the system in their individual favour. Gabriel does not represent self-interest, but Justice. He is ravaged by the Corporate Lifestyle and the Corporate Consciousness, and this is in part because of the rampant self-interest that permeates his surroundings. He loves Erin, and he deserves her. But he is rendered cold by his occupation, and that makes him unattractive to her. In his own words, within the same scene that we learn that he is dating her, he likens his occupation to Siberia. His life is Godless, Lifeless, and Loveless. He can do nothing to change himself, because one can only model one’s self ACCORDING TO ONE’S OWN THINKING. And we cannot change thinking. The subject must CONSENT to the change, unless the programming is subconscious. And once the consenting ego is involved, it “distorts” all good advice in its own favour. Gabe is not alone in doing this. WE ALL do it. And to the extent that it is Universal it is not a Stereotype, but an Archetype.

Gabe bears the burden for the Office. But even though his selfish coworkers are less attentive than he is, they are no less jaded. They cheer when things go well for them and bewail their good fortune when things go poorly. Gabe does this as well, of course. He MIRRORS it as it occurs in everybody else.

In the same way: Holly mirrors Erin. Erin develops skepticism of Holly because Holly is made out to be gorgeous. This cactus begins to bud into distaste when Erin realizes that Holly broke Michael’s heart. She even stands up for Michael at some point, telling Holly’s boyfriend that he has to leave when he attempts to visit Holly at work. The Office sides with Erin when it comes to light that Holly broke up with Michael under the auspices of physical long distance, yet Holly held her new lover, who is all so a long-distance lover now, to a different standard. Erin is not wrong to find fault with Holly. She simply overlooks the fact that Holly mirrors Erin herself. In the same way, Gabe is not wrong to give Andrew Bernard such an awful performance review to Jo. Jo is the villain. I know what you’re thinking: (and I sound like Gabriel now, surely) way to blame the C.E.O, dad. But in fact, it is Jo’s manipulative disregard for the feelings of all of her employees, using and apparently seeing them and their emotions as mere strings to be pulled, that produces this tragedy and corroborates my running theory that the Office satirizes Corporate Culture, which bosses like Michael Scott redeem with their idiosyncratic and well-meaning methods. From a Corporate Perspective, and through the eyes of a jaded desk jockey, Michael is selfish. But when he proposes to Holly and moves to Colorado it becomes apparent that he is the Last Great Romantic that saves everyone. It’s not his fault that Erin reacted as she did to the news that Andy dated Angela. The news was inconsequential to begin with; she simply imbued it with shock when she had to realize that her beau was not as perfect as was she herself. And it’s not her fault, either. Who IS at fault is Jo for doing nothing to remedy the matter in a humane manner.

Besides: Michael did not even WANT to go out to Lunch with Erin in the first place. Andy talked him INTO it. It was not Andy’s fault. It was the right thing to do. It simply had unexpected consequences. Andy bears that burden that Jim, in his self-absorbed pragmatism, does not have to. Jim gets away with everything. I guess he earned some part of that for watching Pam and Roy from just near by for two entire seasons.

It’s a great thing that Michael went to Lunch with Erin. Erin needed a Father Figure, and Michael needed to feel like a Dad. Did he need a daughter? Not as much as did Jim. I think I sound a bit like Jim when I say that Michael does not know how to give young women good advice. If I may be so bold. And I would not put it past Jim to code the tough love by saying “I don’t think Michael needs a daughter”.

Yet who does NOT need ERIN?!?



Dm.A.A.

1,300 Words.


You have even here blatantly confessed to a failure to perform your singular function as a friend: the preservation of my interests. My interests ought to have been your primary and solitary concern. You admit, shamelessly, that I was DIASADVANTAGED by MULTIPLE PEOPLE, not one of whom has made even a tiny effort to set an example by which I might be atoned. I have NEVER tolerated Injustice, and my ardour in preserving what is Right was only ever sabotaged by doubts that were planted by you, doubts I know now to have been planted DELIBERATELY. Had I ever come close to you in depravity then I would have known better than to trust you. That I demonstrated my loyalty by trusting you absolves me of any blame in the betrayal of my trust BY you. And I was never wrong to suspect that you would equally betray all others who had trusted you, save for those who can afford to spare all you demand of them. You can’t pretend that you did not demand it of me, and to the extent it was exceptional it was unjust. You can’t pretend either that my suspicions and the course of action they produced were in fact the cause and not the attempt to prevent. I bore WITNESS, DIRECTLY, TO the TRUE cause: You. You will make no pariah of me. I’ll make one of you. For any one still conscious will remember all the times that I defended THEM against injustice, in a spirit of total tolerance, though not without wisdom and discernment. I even defended YOU, and I will not be penalized for placing trust in you that you then squandered. It was not my decision that this should be made public. But you chose to publicize my own innermost hurts. I thought you must have lied severely to persuade people as upstanding as Mike or Andrew that I was in any way at fault. But now I understand that they were as degenerate as you; hence they pretended towards equality with you. There was NOTHING you could have said to justify what you did to me. I had not set out to make you a pariah; I set out to ESCAPE you and to deliver any one from you whom I still CARED for, even though my caring took precedence over my discretion, and you squandered more and more of my remaining trust, not just in you, but in Humanity Itself. I may have failed to turn them all against you once you had exhausted Alanna’s Life. But you will do that for yourself. It’s all ready begun, and I have regained enough of my former strength by which I might become confident in the facts as well as in my own perception of them. There was a time when there was no difference between the two. But you divided objectivity from subjectivity by blaming me for my perceptions. You have no right to them. They are mine, and they are absolutely objective. Of all of the injustices I’ve contended with, this was the most difficult, not only because of how severely it affected me, but because of how severely I knew that it would affect others. As false friend upon false friend was revealed to be a farce, the burden that I was never meant to bear became heavier and less bearable, and I saw just how overdue this break was. But I forgive myself now for Alanna’s Suicide. It never was my fault. She simply failed to recognize my own blamelessness. Blinded by her own self-interest she projected that upon me. But the facts attest, as well as they would for any one, to my utter clarity and loyalty throughout this Satanic, drugged-up ordeal. No one had the courage to part with the group and to stand against you. Only I did. And I’ve earned Respect that only those equally worthy of it would feel towards me. The rest of you remain in Hell and in Decay. Such was my burden: at the moment that my clarity was most intense I was most alone. Do you think I will apologize for that? Is this the first time that I’ve been alone? Don’t try to make me laugh; we are beyond that point. I lost two friends last year. One overdosed on heroin, and someone set out to find the degenerate who sold it to him. But my friend whom I confided in assured me that if ever I did L.S.D. I would benefit from it. I am not afraid of Reality. And I am CERTAINLY not afraid to stand up for myself. Any injustice should be remedied, and if I allow injustice to be done to me, what example do I set for others? That others would hold me to that pathetic standard is not very convincing as an argument. The Strong will all ways see through it; only the Weak will follow you. And you know that. That is why you live in Fear of Power.

Thankfully, you do not need to feel pity for me. I assure you: I have made many new friends. And they are not sequestered from Life. And my new friends are powerful. So good luck crossing me again, Ketchup.



Dm.A.A.



P.S.: I understand now. Shortly prior to your betrayal I dreamt that I visited a candy store. An enormous gumball machine was dropped upon me. I was ensnared. But I was not dead. I know now what that machine was: it was a PAWN. A simple PAWN attacked me as I approached all of them aligned in the starting position. My mind had combined memories of playing Chess with my Scorpio grandfather when I was four or so with memories of childhood delight. It was a cheap delight. And it was a weak piece that took me. And though I was ENSNARED WITHIN it, made to RESEMBLE a Pawn, I had only to escape this claustrophobic condition in order to win in a game I had never expected to play.



I remain blameless. I stood up for you for a long time, even after the betrayal trying to help you to redeem yourself. It was not until after Alanna died that I made an attempt to DESTROY you. And it was justified, for you had tried to destroy me, and I had EARNED the right to defend myself against you. What passes for convention in your rung of Samsara is crime in mine. And you destroyed Alanna. She shall be avenged, even if by a force greater than mine. Or lesser? I don’t doubt it. It does not matter now whether or not you make me the pariah in a group of freaks and addicts. It does not matter when it was I tried to do the same to you. My sorrow, as is the treachery that produced it, still stands as a testament to my Loyalty, without which treachery would not have been possible nor matched in conflict. My recovery entitles me to any limit that is to be set. Alanna owes her trust to me, and you owe me your life for having exploited the weaknesses of so strong a Person. Your disloyalty to her remains the mortal sin for which you shall perish. And no degree of power play within a petty community will deliver you from Justice. I had my reasons to make you the pariah. God had his reasons for sparing me that burden. You will make yourself the pariah. And just as petty as were your complaints next to the preservation of Alanna’s Life shall be your isolation next to the total extent of Cosmic Justice against you. I should know; I’ve been there. Isolation is nothing compared to the Wrath of Divine Retribution.



Dm.A.A.

Monday, January 8, 2018

A Conclusive Letter. Better Late than Never.


A Conclusive Letter.



This comes late by human standards, though on time by any other set of principles. It will appear redundant at first in the wake of so many failed attempts. But may the record show that these attempts were made only to try to tame inhuman forces. So when it was first attempted it would have been, had it been so lucid and so brilliant as it is now, on time, by the human standards that it was aimed to protect and nurture. Let my humanity not mitigate the relevance of what God has bestowed upon me, for I have had to suffer to get to this point, and my failures were only ever noble efforts that find consummation here, even in its lateness.



I do not have an “Agenda”. I do not plan my life out, like I know what I am doing. I do not manipulate circumstances to serve my favour. When I feel that inkling to do so it is invariably emanating from those around me whom I have placed false trust in. It is YOU who does that. You are not a victim. You are not a martyr. You are not an informant. I am all of these things, and hence I saw them all in you. But you are just a narcissistic parasite whose only source of shock and awe comes from the thought that any one could restrict his Will. On one front, you crusade against the Government in all its forms (both Liberal and Conservative) so as to preserve your autonomy and vindicate your egoism. Meanwhile you conform to every necessary social dictate, never risking yourself for a Greater Cause, (even your own) just enough to maintain appearances and to save energy you waste on fruitless ventures that end up hurting and even killing people. The fact that you have a response to every attack upon your “character”, the moment you are brought to public light or any other confrontation for which you would be accountable, is evidence to the fact that you have all ready planned out every move you need to in order to protect yourself: a weak Game. You crusade against the system whilst hoping to infiltrate it from Within, but far from this being a noble war of attrition it is one that can only have one motive: the dream of consolidating all power and subverting the entire world to yourself.

And what about me? I only try, as all people do, to live the best life possible, morally and naturally. I strive to act out what my conscience tells me. You have none. And you’ve had plenty of opportunities to prove it.

Where I differ from the Public that you so often berate when you are not acting as its advocate and savior is that I too disagree with Social Norm. I do not believe that I need to be part of someone ELSE’S agenda in order to live a fruitful and virtuous Life. I remain blameless of THAT. And my blamelessness is not limited to what any faction deems vice or virtue. Though to you, there is no Pure Innocence. There are only factions, and you belong to none of them. But you are a rebel on the underside of the Law, not above it. You have in common with me only that you are an Individualist. But people who think that they know you always see you as a representative of the Group. What Group have you ever truly belonged to, though? When you are outvoted, you behave more shamefully than any one whom YOU’VE outvoted. The moment that the same minority you screwed over and marginalized becomes part of the majority, you leave the group. And yet it is not long before you leech off of an other. And the only reason that we notice this so late is because you are aware of it. So you put it on us long before we would notice it in you. You berate US for what we have not done so that when you have done it we will be blamed for it. The post-modern situation lets you slip away from blame so easily that way. And that is YOUR Agenda. Not mine. Though you might all ready have convinced them all that it is mine. And they have thereby ignored not only my WARNINGS about you (for I was always one of the few who could see it [cl]early) but even the multitude of times that I was proven Right. They even gave up their own misgivings, hoping to escape blame by you in service of receiving paltry flattery and favours with strings attached.

Have I done this? Only if following your example. For we were only ever akin in sheer Semblance. I was fooled into believing that I had a friend in you. You have no friends. And the People that you CALL friends serve only YOUR agenda.

Our records, side by side, will always evidence that. This weblog that you persuaded me to start evidences that. It is brutal. But it is honest.

TO you there are only factions and abstractions. People are not people whose Individuality needs to respected and whose Loyalty deserves to be reciprocated. They are only enemies to be subverted to your narcissistic Will. Any thing I do out of my own conscience and indignation, even in trying to SAVE THE LIFE of the girl whom I LOVE, is only an abstract agenda aimed at subverting your almighty ego. You have no conscience as I have. The world is only a series of Chess pieces to be manipulated. And Alanna was just an other sacrifice. Have I not done all I could do to save her? You fucked her, but you would not even start a band with her, even if offered to do so by someone who had been your “friend” for five long years, and who was offering you forgiveness for betraying him. You only denied betraying me, as though accusing me of having harboured self-interest even at the moment that I made it clear that my interests were hers. I proved you wrong when you implied by mistreating her that I did not want her to be happy, claiming to be treating her this way out of pity and remorse towards me. Where was that guilt and shame when I proved that I wanted what she wanted? When I set aside my own pain to save an other? Had it run its course? Or was it never there, though we wanted to believe? And she must have believed it, for she swiftly tried to shed her own shame. And I knew you never felt it as she did. That you lied to a suicidal woman, coupling her suicidal tendencies with drug abuse, sexual abuse, (for it was muddled up in lies and drugs) and spiritual abuse (neglect being a symptom of narcissistic abuse), I can never forgive. Society will not either. Narcissistic abuse syndrome coupled with suicidal depression and an inflated ego you so carefully manipulated against the Truth that I had always to supply: this was an act of cold blooded murder. And to you we are all just egos striving towards our own ends. To you we are responsible for our choices, but not for yours. Have you not asked us to accommodate your lying and your debauchery? Are you not responsible for the world that you co-create with us? Will you not hold yourself accountable for this Hell that we have had to occupy in your wake?

If I ever followed your example, it is because that is what friends do. If you actually believe on any level what you say, and you maintain that I had some Agenda, then know this, you pitiful, paranoiac freak: you have FAILED to follow my example. My “Agenda” was the example that I set by Living, which I expected all my friends to follow by extension of their Loyalty to me. And that proves that it is YOU that was never a friend to any one, though you demanded that loyalty of us all, and never delivered it. We are not hypocrites. Though a hypocrite must, by the nature of hypocrisy, accuse others of this. He must fake emotions, claiming feelings as though they were thrones towards which he alone is entitled. I had REASON to be Angry, but to you I had no reason and that justifies your OWN “anger” in self-defense. You turn every victim into a victory. And you claim spite as a throne by pretending that the hypocrite is in fact the Man of Reason. But that you treat the man who HAS Reason to be angry with you (for he has Reason Itself on his side, having SERVED It Loyally and SUFFERED FOR it through no fault of either his or Reason’s, but by fault of YOUR Madness) in this way only proves that to you the only inalienable human right is never to be accused of anything. It is YOU that takes absolutely no responsibility for itself. Your microcosm is too petty for us to subvert the Universe to it. And now that I am free of living in it, I am free likewise of my own mind’s limitations. Never again will any one like you confine me on false suspicion that was only ever your own Agenda to begin with. So thanks for that. Though it will not excuse the rape and murder of the Woman that I Love. And God will in time demonstrate Justice in my stead. My extremity is His opportunity.



And I believe you KNOW that, Kresten Xavier Taylor.



Dm.A.A.

Monday, January 1, 2018

SPOILER WARNING: The Last Jedi. A Work of Unsettling Postmodernity. Written by the Last Jedi.

Bill Moyers, in what I remember as an interview with George Lucas on the Mythology of Star Wars, pointed out that part of what made George Lucas' modern myth great was that it "resolved our moral ambiguities". The good guys were the good guys, and the bad guys were the bad guys.

One cannot help but to wonder, therefore: is The Last Jedi demoralizing? To be honest: I found J.J. Abrams' The Force Awakens to be sort of laughable and inauthentic, and I was all ready disappointed by the death of the hitherto immortal Han Solo. (Though apparently this was the way that Harrison Ford had wanted his character to go in Return of the Jedi.) But then my sister told me about how the recent films were modeled after the sort of story arc that "worked" for the original trilogy. And though she had not seen the originals, I could not help but to believe her. I remembered Mother watching Episode IV for the first time last year, and how for long thereafter she would recount her boredom at watching C3PO and R2-D2 walking through miles of desert for hours. So I must have wondered if perhaps I would have had the same experience watching Star Wars for the first time had I been around in the nineteen-eighties, save for my tendency to compare the recent movies to the originals.

This generous sentiment lingers to mitigate my feelings of existential angst and social anomie as I sit down (effectively, BREAKING down) to vent my aches and pains about The Last Jedi. At least it is endearing to be able to tell my sister about The Empire Strikes Back and how it, too, was what Dante from Clerks called a "downer ending", reflecting on my own feelings upon first seeing it and wondering what moviegoers would have felt upon discovery of Darth Vader being Luke's Dark Father.

What disappointed me this time around, and what I found demoralizing, was that the film seemed intent upon dissolving and deconstructing the Heroic Individual. This is a pardonable offense if it is interpreted to mirror the existential angst that Luke Skywalker felt in discovering that his Father was one of the most ruthless dictators in the entire Galaxy. However, taken by itself it feels tragic. The process begins with an older Luke who has turned away from the ways of the Jedi, predictably, after having realized that his own good intent could produce disastrous consequences. The heroine of the series consoles him, insisting that the failure was not Luke's own but rather that of his pupil, Kylo Ren. By asserting the Power of Intent, Rey asserts likewise the fact that we cannot control the CONSEQUENCES of our actions, and as such is the case we are not responsible for them. But by then it is too late: she has all ready been tricked by Kylo Ren's master, the diabolical Sith Lord Snoke. When she finally catches up to Kylo, intent on converting him to the Good Side of the Force, and in so doing bringing to life what appears to be the dying legacy of Luke, the jaded cynic who has turned on the ideal of heroism and honour, (as have an alarming number of contemporary viewers) she is relieved to find that Kylo is willing to betray his own Dark Master. But Kylo's fundamental ethos has not changed since when Rey communicated with him telepathically under Snoke's secret supervision. Kylo remains an aggressor to Rey, who refuses to join him as Empress of the Galaxy. The tragedy of Anakin and Padme is repeated, but in place of a classic tragedy is a post-modern deconstruction of the Internal Battle of Good and Evil. The first two Star Wars trilogies dealt primarily with this INTERNAL, RELIGIOUS conflict betwixt what is described in Judeo-Christian religion as the Yetzer Hatov and the Yetzer Hara: The Godly Impulse and the Wayward Impulse. The audience cheers for Kylo Ren when he seems to have turned against Snoke's predictions, using his Master's trust against him. But this seemingly beneficent treachery, an homage to Vader's betrayal of Palpatine in Return of the Jedi, only portends a new boss more grievous than the old boss. Kylo proceeds to betray the trust of the one person that he cares about: Rey. Rey stakes everything that she believes in in one last Hope outside of herself: that Kylo Ren can win an Internal Victory that will then serve the purposes of her Political Party. But when Kylo reveals that he was simply trying to attain a state of Absolute Independence and Power, this Hope is crushed, and Rey is left up to her own devices again.

The real tragedy for me was Po's power struggle with Leia Organa. Po opens the film with a feat of daring that defies even the authority of his own allies. As Albus Dumbledore said: it takes bravery to stand up to one's enemies, but the mark of true courage is to stand up to one's friends. Po is Chaotic Good, a reminder that what the Resistance is RESISTING is not just some out-group but rather the very Hegemony that they must be careful not to become (a carefulness in principle that can only be attained by carelessness at times in action). Po is the Individual who is living proof that the Resistance is superior to the First Order, not because it says so, but because its Cultural Superiority is established through the provisions it makes for the INDIVIDUAL, who is, after all, the Hero of the Hero's Quest. George Lucas' mentor Joseph Campbell could not stress enough that the Adventure of the Hero was an INDIVIDUAL QUEST, and in dialogue with Bill Moyers Joseph insisted that the ideal was to strike a Balance between Self and Other. This is mirrored in Lucas' notion of restoring Balance to the Force. This is all so why scholars who identify with Luke Skywalker in the original trilogy (one of whom I shall cite here anonymously, though I will point out that she is a woman, and that his character is not exclusively appealing to men as a role model) celebrate the fact that he finds his OWN WAY, independent of the warnings of Master Yoda nor of the temptations of Lord Vader.

Po's victory is a spiritual one. Star Wars was all ways intended to celebrate the Individual Conscience and to affirm the Superiority of the Human Heart to an impersonal system that governs a narrow-minded and mechanical intellect. Every private victory is mirrored in a public success, so the war is only a metaphor for one's own inner struggle for Peace and Balance. So why is it that viewers, my sister included, view Po's decision to disobey orders as a mistake? The consequences do not matter; he did what he HAD TO DO, in his unique position, from his informed point of view, deontologically and logically. His courage was a success in terms of Heart, but not in terms of statistics and probabilities*; its consequence, amidst various casualties that Po regards as not only necessary but noble, is that the First Order is able to track the Resistance Ship through Light Speed, a technological development that encroaches on Po's common sense because it is unprecedented and theoretically impossible. If Leia Organa had retained her heroic instincts, she would have rewarded Po for doing as her brother would have, as Luke had turned off his targeting computer in the first Star Wars film and won the hearts of generations by eye-balling the shot that was the fatal blow to the Death Star.

*"Never tell me the odds!!" quoth famously Han Solo. Thankfully Po still retains some of that spunk in dealing with C3-Po towards the end of the film, suggesting Hope for even (someone like) ME.

Po is not rewarded. He is demoted, and in the wake of a tragic surprise attack by the First Order he is put under the charge of a diplomat, who all so happens to be a woman. This is reflected in her military strategy; unlike Rey, who is a true Individualist in her uncompromising(ly) tomboyish nature, Leia's appointed official reflects every thing that Leia retains: tact at the expense of action and civility instead of courage in the face of Evil. She is the very embodiment of the Libran virtues as opposed to the Arian virtues that both Po and Rey exhibited in the first film of the New Trilogy and for which they are punished in this most recent installment. There is a certain vanity to her dismissal of Po, and whilst it seems endearing, charming, and relatable, it evidences this tragic fact: that Leia Organa, the archetypal fighting heroine, has become a bureaucrat. Even when the woman that she has appointed sacrifices her own life, it feels more like an act of narcissistic martyrdom than an act of relatable and egalitarian heroism*. Po's Bane is a sort of deus ex machina by virtue of which Leia is able to survive (even as her actress, the legendary Carrie Fisher, dies) and yet all that she represents now may be enthroned in vainglorious self-destruction.

*Even my beloved sister, who is all so a Libra, regarded this character whose name escapes me as unimportant. So I guess it's good the character's dead now. And I shall never apologize, on my Authority as the Viewer, for forgetting her name. We forget characters because they suck. Apologizing for that is like reprimanding your fellow diners for not tipping at a restaurant, even when all present are themselves employees who work in food service. It is like saying that servers must stick together instead of celebrating their time off as customers, FOR WHOM the Service exists in the first place.

Po redeems himself when he dispossesses his superiors of their treasonous authority. But when Leia comes to save him, it is ostensibly from himself. He is told that there was a Plan at work here of which he had had no knowledge, as though his heroism in the past has not earned him the Right to Know. He is then expected, for the good of his own cause, to sit still and let his superiors work out what needs to be worked out. But then the Plan is faced with imminent failure as the result of a covert operation that Po had set into play without formal permission. Again, the force of Chaotic Good fails from a consequentialist perspective despite all its nobility from a deontological and spiritual perspective. Fin and his new Asian girlfriend fail to locate a code-breaker that could do what Star Wars was all ways meant to do: to sabotage the Enemy from the INSIDE*. Instead, they are broken out of prison by an amoral con artist portrayed by Benicio del Toro, whose amorality is NOT consummated in an act of heroism (as would have been the case with Han Solo) but rather by an act of BETRAYAL more chilling than what Lando did in Episode V.

*It is only in this way that the Metaphor is complete, and prior to seeing the film I would rave over the fact that every preceding Star Wars film used the metaphor of INFILTRATION: Bringing down Power from Within the System. It is in this way too that I have been able to justify my involvement in the evils of Society, including the Internet, with the intent of redeeming it from those same evils. This principle was all so what Campbell's friend Alan Watts, the Zen Scholar, called his philosophy of Judo.

Po is made to look like the TRUE traitor when he is told that the internal condition of "feeling like a hero" is somehow DIFFERENT from doing one's social duty of "protecting the light". And at this point the film ceases to be simple and heartfelt. It becomes complicated and intellectual for all except for those audiences for whom conformity to a social order has become second nature. The Hero is stripped of his Title, and it is not long before we see again (in fact, in the very next scene) the First Order's most laughable bureaucrat, whom Po had mocked directly and had nicknamed "Hugs" at the tstart of the film. At first a classic counterpoint to the Forces of Goodness, Hugs is now a reflection of what they have become. Po has become Hugs, told that his Innermost Feelings do not really matter and that he is only of value insofar as he complies with authority. He is not strangled by Leia, but forced to endure a worse humiliation: demoralization. And so does the conscientious objector in the audience for whom the film ceases to be a metaphorical war representative of the Inner Quest and becomes instead a neo-liberal representation of War in its Actuality. The film becomes propaganda. Its message becomes collective rather than Individual. Instead of saying, as Rey does, that intent is all that matters and the Heart is the only authority in an otherwise SEEMINGLY impersonal Universe that is ACTUALLY Personal and Alive, the film seems to be saying: the Group matters. Militarism matters. We might wonder: if heroes like Po are forced into humiliation all because their plans go awry, what makes us, as the Resistance, better than the First Order? Why even bother to RESIST them in the FIRST place? Our "Order" is no better. What little Po's friends manage to achieve in liberating animals they lose by hurting people. Even Benicio del Toro's amoral character has a point when he says: do not choose a side. He is at least an ABSURD hero, even if he proves a despicable one.

In the absence of a Conscientious Reason to Fight, all that remains is the pressure to be "one of us". And that renders not only the war but the artistic representation of the war Absurd. The audience is told to accept War as a Good to the EXTENT THAT it is neither risky (except when that risk is calculated by the Powers that Be) nor needlessly painful (such as when Po's friend, who nearly succeeds in an act of spontaneous martyrdom that would have made Po's superior's suicide look like a joke, is "saved" by his Asian Lover). It is neo-liberalism. It is a fable by which complacent people can accept the facts of living in a Military State. And it is toxic to the Individual. War is stripped of all Individual Valour that might calm the conscience, but it continues to be rationalized by bureaucratic agendas and internal power struggles that will tear the Good Guys apart from the inside only if Star Wars stays true to the original format that it seems to be aiming to honour.

Po and Rey remain the only heroes who are not traitors in some fashion, and they are made to bear the burden of the REAL traitors. Was Po not betrayed when Leia kept her plans secret from him? Was Rey not betrayed by Kylo Ren? Even FIN was about to desert and by so doing to betray the Asian girl, who ends up betraying the ENTIRE RESISTANCE by saving Fin. AND SHE GETS AWAY WITH IT. She might even live to have died a martyr, for she would have died fighting not to destroy what she hates but to save whom she loves. She does not want to pay the price of one for the other, yet she gets the credit in Leia's eyes. Even Luke Skywalker dies nobly FROM A DISTANCE, tricking Kylo Ren into thinking that Luke is pulling an old Obi-Wan Kenobi trick, when Luke really does not have the guts to do so.

All Conscientious Virtue is made to look like vainglory, as though Pride even in Death were the End in and Of Itself and not simply the Reward, by virtue of which one knows that a Just World has been established. In the past, we knew that we would be rewarded by Princess Leia for our valour. She did more as a Love Object and a Damsel in Distress than she could ever do as a Commander. In Power, Leia Organa is corrupted, though subtly enough to stay in power by people who falsely believe themselves to be free. In Love, she is deified. Even as a Warrior Priestess she remains Romantic, fighting alongside Han Solo, the force of Chaotic Good. But now this hard-nosed divorcee rides out the wave of praise that her brother is too DAMNED humble to accept. And he betrays us too, for he turns his own humility into vanity by turning on the Force Itself. He KNOWS that there is more to the Force than either the Jedi or the Sith, and he ADMITS that it is vanity to think otherwise. But he STILL TURNS AWAY FROM THE FORCE, until Rey convinces him to turn back.

The effect is a downer ending: dissonance demanding reconciliation. Snoke is dead, and with him dies the promise of resolution internally. We have only to look to Rey and Po now to save us. But even if the Resistance wins, so what? The only reason that we must not stop here is because we would become savages. Luke and Han were not TRYING to become Heroes. They simply DID, and they were rewarded. Even the conscious pursuit of that reward is worth fighting for. At least one remains loyal, unlike Benicio del Toro et al. My generation of Star Wars geeks learned from Star Wars that good things would come for EVERYONE if we followed our hearts, and that would include ourselves. Han survives to marry Leia. Luke becomes a Jedi. Everyone celebrates and there's a big feast. Balance is restored both Outwardly AND Inwardly. One does not have to TRULY sacrifice one's Self; one lives forever in the Force. And what greater incentive could exist then for a man to risk his illusory Life?

Lucas' vision was a Buddhistic one. But Disney has turned us against our Buddha Nature with this most recent trilogy. It started when we found that Leia and Han had split over their son's treachery. It gets bad when that son KILLS Han Solo, bastardizing the noble fight that Luke had to wage against his OWN Father, whom Kylo reveres but only to serve his own egocentric aims. And now we are totally divorced from the Dharma and thrown into Absurdity where our only Hope is in assimilation with the very Evil that we were trying to eliminate.

The viewer who leaves this film without scruple will not plan ways to save his people. He will simply remain complacent and await the next imperative from whoever motivates him sufficiently. His pride will be in allegiance to a party engaged in a senseless conflict. He will never rise to the grandeur that Luke Skywalker found only in Solitude. Even Luke's Heroic Solitude, which had produced his ability to heal and to redeem his Dark Father, is made into a form of self-righteous hermitage. And worst of all is this: that the complacent viewer will have one more millennial reason to condemn people who seek JUSTICE as scapegoats for his own vainglory. Justice, if it is Total, is also Just to those who administer it. Han knows that; hence his character is not shy at all about accepting and even seeking rewards. But if Justice and Heroism could somehow be watered down and made to look like egoism, and if in place of the Human Heart one had to institute a Social Order, then how swiftly would we FORGET that the Hero fights not JUST for his OWN Justice, but for what is JUST for ALL, and so he fights for US as WELL. And WE DESERVE IT.

Why is this so important? To put it simply, War becomes Hell when it loses Meaning. If there is no Individual Life to save, which is in turn to save all other Individual Lives, then one fights only to participate in fighting. There are no sides, and Benicio del Toro's character is the only one who gets it. It is all determined by the highest bidder. And no one can attain a height greater than a bid. Even if you manage to crawl out and to find in Solitary Meditation that the War is POINTLESS, your voice in attempting to deliver this Truth to the Masses will be lost, over-shouted by the ongoing bidding.

But there is a way out still. And this I hope to see redeemed in the third part.

We must remember that INTENT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
What sets Darth Vader's betrayal apart from Kylo Ren's betrayal? He did it OUT OF LOVE FOR HIS SON.
Leia lost that Love for Solo that can only be found in looking outwards at a Common Cause*. Perhaps that was why she and Solo had to split in the first place: A Mutually Broken Heart. A loss of Hope in all that they had meant to invest in their wayward son.
Now she only retains that superficial, erotic attraction to the very rogue that she condemns to humiliation. What is lost is the underlying RESPECT for the inalienable, indispensable, and inextricable ROLE that he must play.

*A Cause for which one has to be willing to take RISKS, that one might self-transcend. The contemporary Leia only PRETENDS to honour that Cause. The Fire has gone out, and she does not try to deny it towards the end of the film when she is ready to part with Hope Itself.

When Maria asked me if I liked it, I said that I did, but that I could not say that I had loved it. But before I specified that, I replied, with hesitation, that I had ENJOYED the film, and that I was still thinking about it. To be honest with you in a way I cannot all ways afford to be honest with my sister: I enjoyed the film, BUT I am still thinking about it. And the emphasis falls on "but" in place of "and", rather than "am" in place of "was". Though with equal irony I might point out that even at 4:20 A.M. I am STILL thinking about it, though we saw it starting at 7:30 P.M. of Last Year. Happy New Year's. And May the Force be With You. May the Force be With Us All, that we might not surrender our Individuality and Hearts to the Mass that is (and has all ways been) the Dark Side.

Dm.A.A.