America the Deprived: Demonstrably.

Fun fact: despite the sensational statistic that only three per cent of the adult population of this country is virginal, (lagging behind Japan, where over twenty per cent of the population remain virginal well into their thirties, and I doubt that a fifth of Japanese people in the second quarter of life accounts for only three per cent of their population) an article published by The Richest magazine suggests that the United States is third ONLY to Nigeria and Japan in terms of sexual repression.

What does it say that two of the leading industrial nations in the World have the highest rates of sexual frustration? The problem is certainly linked to this: since Japanese businessmen adopted Americanized business practices, depression among NON-businesspeople in Japan has risen, as have depression and suicide rates in Americans for more than a century.

Marxist critique aside, this much appears unequivocal: that having collective power does not endow the individual constituents with greater capacities for love. All of a sudden, Nietzsche’s claims seem a lot more relevant, as do those of Freud and Jung. True: perhaps Nietzsche doesn’t seem to stand the test of time with such ejaculations as: “if a woman has scholarly inclinations, there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.” But perhaps it is because so many Americans are obsessed with their careers that they don’t find the kind of time that Mexicans, Greeks, and Brazilians do. And just because you see it in the movies doesn’t mean it’s as common as people pretend that it is. In the movies, sexuality is associated with wealth and position. But as we all know from the recent wave of allegations against celebrities, (for some reason or another exclusively men, which could mean a number of things) the work ethic that you are sold is truly its OWN reward, rather than a path to greater, deeper, and more inclusive love.

Happy Labour Day. 

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

A Gross Miscarriage: a Farce.

A GROSS MISCARRIAGE:

The DEFENDANTS:

Mr. JUICE.

Mr. DAD.

The DEFENSE:

Mr. COCKROACH.

Mr. DEFENDER.

The PROSECUTOR. 

ANNOUNCER.

JUDGE.

The PLAINTIFFS:

Mr. VICTIM.

Ms. FEMINIST.

The JURY:

HECKLER ONE.

HECKLER TWO.

Et al.

JUICE: It looks like there’s no way out, counselor. They have us dead to rights.

ROACH: It’s never over until it’s over.

JUICE: What could you possibly do to clear my name NOW?

ROACH: Oh, you’ll see… [Rubs hands together menacingly.]

JUDGE: So far we have overwhelming empirical evidence to point to the fact that your client did in fact murder his wife and her friend in cold blood. How do you plead?

ROACH: It would APPEAR that the prosecution has won, however I am going to play… the Race Card!!

[Sudden, totalizing shock.]

PROSECUTOR: You can’t do that!! It’s not even relevant!!

ROACH: Oh, but it IS.

[Stridently:]

ROACH: My dear jurors and honourable judge: over a hundred years ago, well before any of us were born, a group of pale-skinned immigrants to this continent bought a group of dark-skinned slaves from a distant tribe in the other hemisphere.

JUDGE: By “other”, do you mean “South” or “Eastern”?

ROACH: Both!!

[A collective gasp of shock.]

ROACH: Yes!! And for about a hundred years the descendants of these slaves toiled ceaselessly in exactly the sort of conditions that they would have done back in the Old World, only in this case their employers looked different from them!!

HECKLER ONE: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!

ROACH: It gets better. Eventually, the pale-skinned people freed the slaves on a whim, but not before six hundred thousand pale-skinned citizens of this very country died towards this end!!

HECKLER TWO: But surely there was more to it than THAT!!

[Judge gavels emphatically.]

JUDGE: ORDER IN THE COURT.

ROACH: My dear jurors: for reasons unknown, the descendants of those slaves struggled to become integrated into the mainstream society established by their pale-skinned captors and liberators. Even to this day, pale-skinned people live in fear of the descendants of these slaves!!

PROSECUTOR: Objection: is it not true that many of these pale-skinned people never even had ancestors who inhabited this hemisphere?

ROACH: On the contrary, the pale-skins ALL CAME FROM the Northern Hemisphere!!

JUDGE: Sustained. Continue your moving tale.

ROACH: The fact remains that anyone who looks like the original captors of these dark-skinned slaves is in perpetual debt to their descendants, for such is the only manner of fighting prejudice and injustice!!

JUDGE: Verily so.

[The crowd stirs in agreement.]

ROACH: Furthermore, were you to interview the thirteen per cent of this country’s population that is dark-skinned, you will swiftly find them unified in agreement that all, or at least most, if we are to be generous, pale-skinned people are prejudiced!!

HECKLER ONE: They all agree!! It’s SCIENCE!!

[Judge nods quietly, with approval.]

ROACH: Above all, we should take great care to remember the most recent global atrocity, one propagated by an Adolf Hitler. It is because we know that Hitler was wrong to such an extent that we could never be, so long as we are dark-skinned people, it is the obligation of this Court to suspend all of the conventions of due process in order to turn this into a partisan platform for dark-skinned people.

PROSECUTOR: Objection!!

JUDGE: Overruled.

ROACH: Because we wouldn’t want another RIOT, now would we? [Grins and winks at the camera.]

PROSECUTOR: Objection!!

JUDGE: OVERRULED.

PROSECUTOR: But Your Honour…

ROACH: The prosecution wants you to believe that this is a matter regarding personal accountability, universal appeals to justice in the wake of tragedy, and individual rights before the Law. But as we ALL know, the Individual has no rights; only GROUPS have rights.

PROSECUTOR: But the Constitution!!

JUDGE: OVERRULED!! [with the gavel.]

ROACH: I am certain that all of you agree that Adolf Hitler is the TRUE enemy here, notwithstanding the fact that he has been dead for fifty years.

HECKLER TWO: AND BLOODY WELL GOOD RIDDANCE TO JERRY, AYE!!

ROACH: As a partisan representative of a racial group that systematically blames and scapegoats a ruling class based on colour and collective opinion alone, and above ALL as a man with no consideration for the immediate facts of this case nor for individual rights, I am your best candidate in stopping Hitler.

PROSECUTOR: [With timid disbelief and mounting irony:] Objection…?

A JURY of ONE’S PEERS: [The entire auditorium, except for the speaker, though he mouths along ironically as he rolls his eyes:] OVERRULED!!!

ROACH: It is for THESE reasons that my client is innocent of all charges in the murder of a woman and a Jew.

HECKLER ONE: I must be in Heaven.

PROSECUTOR: Objection!! Murdering a woman and a Jew is exactly what Hitler would have done!!

JUDGE: Was the woman Jewish?

ROACH: She was GERMAN.

HECKLER TWO: THEY WANTS JERRY TO WALK!!

JUDGE: The jury may confer at this time. Meanwhile, does the family of the deceased have anything they wish to add??

VICTIM: Only that the defense attorney is an animal.

JUDGE: But this is simply scientific fact!!

ROACH: And it proves everything I said about pale-skinned people to be true!!

[Heckler Two delivers to Judge a paper.]

JUDGE: The jury has decided on a verdict of not guilty.

HECKLER ONE: Praise Jesus!!

JUDGE: Sustained. The Court will now welcome the next case.

ANNOUNCER:

[In a voice fit for television, radiating pomp and enthusiasm as though advertising a prize or a contestant on a game show:]

Our NEXT defendant is an African-American male, aged eighty years, who has spent the last fifty years educating the dark-skinned population of this country through his stand-up comedy, over twenty television programs and over a dozen movies, many of which he himself created and produced, fifteen musical albums, and…

JUDGE: We get the picture. Now, where were those charges again?

PROSECUTOR: I apologize; they were misplaced over ten years ago.

JUDGE: DAMN it. AGAIN?

PROSECUTOR: Your Honour, won’t this present a problem in securing evidence, given the statute of limitations?

JUDGE: Don’t worry about that, now. Oh, here we go: the charges!! Yes, I see. THAT many women, huh?

DEFENDER: Your Honour, out of the fifty-plus women who have made these accusations virally, not even ONE of them has been able to produce concrete evidence with which to convict my client, even before the Court of Public Opinion.

JUDGE: I see. And how does the Prosecution plead?

PROSECUTOR: Your Honour: ten years ago, when the defendant was already going blind and probably senile, he told a deposition lawyer that he touched a girl’s ass, that he could read social cues, and that he was carrying a POPULAR RECREATIONAL DRUG.

JUDGE: In the BLACK COMMUNITY?!?!

ROACH: UNHEARD of!!

PROSECUTOR: Why are you still here?

JUDGE: I see. And there still is not a SINGLE shred of evidence outside of that which has been produced in the forty years since this fateful tragedy befell?

PROSECUTOR: Nope. Only a lot of women – that’s right: WOMEN!! – who use a hashtag on social networking.

DEFENDER: And there is absolutely no chance that these women conspired to receive a payoff from a controversial and eccentric billionaire?

PROSECUTOR: Would you even RISK accusing an innocent victim of this??

JUDGE: Verily, it is easier to hang one man than fifty women.

DEFENDER: And there is absolutely no chance that at least SOME of these women were following the same sort of social mimicry that we see in chain suicides and copycat terrorism?

ROACH: What is this?? Nazi GERMANY??

[Whole room laughs.]

JUDGE: This Court has heard enough. It is apparent that if enough people believe something, it must be true, though it IS mildly disconcerting that not even ONE of these believers was able to produce evidence in forty years even before the Court of Public Opinion. But what do I know? I’m not one to Judge.

DAD: You are LITERALLY a—

JUDGE: OVERRULED.

DEFENDER: Your Honour. We have a witness who claims that the Plaintiff actually made a confession of her own that she was doing this whole thing for the money.

JUDGE: Was it a deposition?

DEFENDER: [Awkward pause.] No?

JUDGE: OVERRULED. [Judge gavels. Crowd cheers.]

DEFENDER: But your Honour…

JUDGE: Counselor. You are advised to remember that we do not live in a meritocracy where a man’s lifetime of achievement can outweigh something he did in the nineteen-seventies, so therefore this one interview where he admits to touching the Plaintiff’s ass is CLEARLY due cause to forget ALL of those achievements.

DAD: I was just being honest.

JUDGE: ORDER IN THE COURT.

DEFENDER: And if this is the state of affairs in our society, does it not suggest the POSSIBILITY that people might get money just by suing, or sue just for money?

ROACH: Does that upset you, as a lawyer?

DEFENDER: [Pause.] I see your point.

JUDGE: Then it is settled. America’s Dad will spend the remainder of his waning life segregated – yes, SEGREGATED – from all of his associates, family and friends, watching his legacy disintegrate before his legally blind eyes…

DAD: I’m not the only one who’s blind legally around here…

JUDGE: … in a high-security prison that is still open to the occasional vigilante’s drone strike. Case dismissed.

FEMINIST: HURRAY FOR VAGINAS EVERYWHERE!!

DAD: Hey, now wait a minute. My lawyer’s a joke. I want the guy who just got that murderer off the hook just for being black.

ROACH: You should have said THAT instead of telling kids not to steal pound cake.

DAD: AWW, come ON. Help me out, Ni…

[With an emphatic, final gavel:]

JUDGE: OVERRULED.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

It's a Greek Thing: Cosby, Dionysus, and the Jews.

If there’s one thing that we know about the Devil, it is that he is a deeply serious man. Ancient depictions of him disagree, though we have long since enthroned those depictions as standards to be pursued. There was a time when Casanova and Don Juan were synonymous with Satan. It is not so now.

The earlier Christian depictions of the Devil were in fact most probably based upon Dionysus, the Greek demigod, familiarly half-man and half-goat, who ruled over sex, drugs, and orgies. Long before rock-n-roll, the ancient Greeks held orgies in the service of their demigod, a practice which Romans adopted in service to their own version of Dionysus: Bacchus. Intellectuals for the past two hundred years have tried to break us out of our priggishness by analogy to the ancient Greeks. Aldous Huxley spoke of the Bacchic orgies with great admiration, despite his satirical predictions about the fashion in which they would return in Brave New World. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote his first book on the Dionysiac virtues, hoping to stir the German people towards a reaffirmation of their common identity through the ancient and sacred art of drug-taking and copulating. Nietzsche would have been sorely disappointed; instead of heeding his wisdom, (though they certainly misappropriated half of it, rendering his entire project futile by preserving the same one-sidedness against which the scholar had protested) the German people decided to take out their repressed aggression, their sentimentalism, and their sexual frustration, to say nothing of their need for fantasy, (with which drugs would have helped) on the Jews, the homosexuals, the Communists, the infirm, and pretty much anyone else who would stand in their way for the next few decades. Nietzsche was right, of course; the Germans needed some sort of irrational release by which to get back in touch with their animal nature and by so doing to restore community. Yet the Germans were far too proud and hopelessly repressed to simply take drugs and screw. So they murdered an estimated six million people instead. We learned an important lesson from this, and that is that the God of Orgies only BECOMES the Devil when he is repressed, and in the same manner that the Christians adopted the practices of the same pagans whom they condemned, Dionysus, leader of the druggies, seducer of women, becomes the scapegoat.

This entire analysis would be irrelevant and archaic today, were it not that people still exhibit the same Dionysian inclinations. Pop musicians, comedians, and filmmakers have ensured for generations that this would be a rite of passage: recognizing the fact, if not participating in it, that adults not only have sex but take drugs together. Robin Williams, Doug Stanhope, and Joe Rogan are only three examples of men who spoke openly about this lifestyle to riotous applause and ongoing praise. The sheer existence of the entertainment industry is a constant reminder that the half-goat is alive in our hearts and minds. So why is it that we still scapegoat his avatars?

I have written about how peculiar the Bill Cosby conviction was in terms of how unoriginal his “damning deposition” was. The aging comedian made no attempt to conceal his lifestyle. Did he purchase illegal narcotics? Yes; they were the popular thing at the time. Did he intend to use them on women that he intended to sleep with? Of course. To be clear: yes, he intended to give them to people that he liked, as any generous gentleman would do. And yes, he probably intended to give them something else as well.

The Greeks would have deified him for it.

And the Ancient Greeks would not have been alone today!! Whether it’s Tove Lo or Snoop Dogg, artists constantly get away with promoting a life of ecstasy that blurs the boundaries between consent and dissent, as Bill Cosby had depicted. Why do we pretend that America’s Dad had invented it?? It’s a Greek thing!! Whether you like it or not.

The truth lies in that Nietzsche was right; we need it, and if we cannot get it one way, we’ll get off on it another. Deprived of compassion, people get high by joining special interest groups, finding solidarity in instances of mob rule that are so absurd that no TRULY rational, dour intellectual would have dreamt it up.

What’s worse is this: supposing you devote yourself to the SOBER life, seeking relationships by the prescribed avenues of legal consent and discourse. How quickly you will be proven a fool for it!! Time and time again the very fact of your frumpy nature will inspire contempt in people who imagine themselves, as Cosby did, to be sexual lions. If you want to know why TRULY so many women had it in for him, it’s this: the man was old, and we forget there was a time when someone would have WANTED to sleep with him. Was this not the sentiment that Seth MacFarlane adopted towards Weinstein? Is this not the sum of all our finger-pointing? Let’s face it: were YOU without sin in this respect, you too would know the finger, pointed in your face, not because you are either vicious or irrational, but because you are repressed, and if we judge you to deserve this fate, you are a creep. The judgement needs no warrant, just as your honesty alone can be turned against you, in place of physical evidence.

It’s not as though the people pointing the finger are not repressed; verily, they are not without THAT sin, either, but that makes them all the more likely to project that sin upon the celibate. People who tend to join movements such as #MeToo are typical of proto-Fascists; they have done enough Dionysiac things to be ashamed of it, and they have done few enough to displace that shame. On one hand, they take it out on the celibates, who simply are too “unattractive” to testify in a Kangaroo Court (of Public Opinion) that amounts to sheer popularity and attractiveness. On the other hand, they take it out on the “date rapists”, such as Cosby, whose old-fashioned proclivities are presumed to be vestiges of a barbaric time that is in FACT not far behind us, where in actuality it is the fact that he is old and blind, two things attractive people do not EVER wish to become, that leads us to otherize him and to equate him with rapists.

If there’s one thing that we know about the Devil, it is that he is not a comedian. If there’s one thing we know about Hitler, it is that he desperately needed to get laid and to smoke something potent.

Dm.A.A.

#NotI

I am tired of people who are so childish as to believe that he said/she said can be made more objective by becoming he said/they said. If SHE cannot provide evidence for US, the matter is nebulous, but if THEY cannot provide that evidence either, then the matter is objectively so: that THEY ARE WRONG. The fallacy ad populum is more than merely an arbitrary fantasy, a longing for community; it is in FACT the direct OPPOSITE of sound reasoning. If one person cannot provide evidence, so be it; we should not presume that all truthful claims have evidence available. If TWO people attest to the same unsubstantiated claim, the jury is out still, but at least now the prosecution has an opportunity: namely, if it can prove that the two did not conspire, that they had no knowledge of one another, and that they were not operating under a common influence outside of the stated proceedings, then, and ONLY then, can one begin to build a case for them. But suppose that FIFTY people come forth. All that their multitude proves is their magnitude; their claims would be that much more damning, WERE THEY TRUE, and that has yet to be proven. If they were truly operating independently, then we might guess that they are probably right. Yet if we know for a fact that their modus operandi is memetic, that their victory in court is literally the propagation of an agenda, that their movement is literally named after the hashtag which brought them together in the first place, that literally the entire basis for their populist sentiments is that absolutely ANY one, however intrinsically depraved, can be rendered entitled to the pursuit of her own benefit at the expense of a man whose guilt has not yet been proven empirically, then we start to wonder. One does not WANT to believe that so many people would do something so evil in a group, but observation evidences that it is only WITHIN a group, operating according to this same populist attitude, that ANY gross miscarriage of justice has ever been propagated. To the same extent, therefore, that they know each other, they ought to be held accountable for themselves, and so it is that to the same extent that any one of US can make these claims EACH one of us is bound by due process to make these claims within legal limitations and with sufficient evidence, so as not to insult the intelligence of our fellow human beings (to say nothing of the innocence that we wish to see in others and within ourselves, for without it what is to STOP us from making false allegations?!?). So it is that to the same extent that claims are damning in their implications they must be considered carefully, only with the utmost caution, for to act upon such a fear without due process would be so barbaric and inhuman that even to raise the accusation should be suspect.

So let us consider the burden of proof now. Clearly, while the burden of proof was small in the case of the solitary voice, that precious vestige of our decency, in all times and places, it was greater in the case of two men who made identical claims, seemingly in independence of one another, but without either having found evidence to prove them to us. Yet if FIFTY people all believe the same thing, and not only do we KNOW that they all know each other, for in fact they PRIDE themselves in their solidarity, but not even ONE of them can PROVE A SINGLE CLAIM, even in that same Court of Public Opinion which they represent, often at the expense of the Legal System, then they. Are. Simply. WRONG.

A million people believing something does not make it right; what makes it right is one person PROVING it, and if a million people cannot PROVE it, then a million people are wrong. Due process makes sure that the Individual is protected from this process. Mob rule seeks the annihilation of the Individual and of his gifts for Rational Discourse.

Six million Jews died because of a mad ideology which was propagated memetically, in the same manner as people in this very present day commit suicide and murder because they read a tweet about it. And six million Jews were in the minority. Far greater was the number of people who believed, purely by suggestion, that the Jews were guilty. And the greatest injustice lies in this: that one cannot EVER try that many people. One can send a single innocent man to the gallows, but it is far harder to execute ten guilty men. If a MILLION guilty men decided to make a single man their scapegoat, then how could justice possibly be attained? It is always easier for the instruments of law to execute the one rather than the many. But why should we allow this incidental limitation to govern our entire notions of right and wrong, of law and order, of truth and falsehood, and, finally, of good and evil??

Simply put: we do not have the right to agree. Freedom of assembly is a privilege beside personal integrity. The more that people believe in something blindly, the less likely it is to be true, and therefore the greater our obligation to doubt it. It’s nearly impossible for a group to be right, for each group has an outgroup that believes the exact opposite of what the former group believes, and even if a synthesis were possible or an underlying unity were discovered, the sheer one-sidedness of each group would preclude it from seeing this compromise, and so we would be forced to amend our understanding of each group’s position to include its uncompromising absolutism and, by extension of having discovered an underlying relativism and potential compromise, its falsehood. Those who blindly follow populism must by extension admit that, according to the same epistemological framework, the common man in every century has all ways been right, without fail, though what he said in the Middle Ages stood in stark contrast to what he professed in the nineteenth century, but irreconcilable at their very core with his claims during the twentieth century, and the whole lot of them discarded by the turn of the next millennium. Clearly, though, history has NOT been singularly a story of infallible public opinion whose contradictions are purely incidental. It is rather a history of people getting things WRONG, over and over again, starting a new line of thought on the bones of the old. And wherever the old line of thought was ready to die, there were millions who kept it alive out of spite. In the case of Bill Cosby, a man that should legally be considered innocent, less than one hundred people came forth. And while their burden of proof is not so great as that with which we charged the Nazis, some of whom are still trying to prove their ideology, it is still large enough to be considered an empirical failure, while as a counterargument to the naivete of the populists it remains small enough to pale before the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, all three of which our populist must uphold if he or she is to defend his or her precious populism. But he or she is unlikely to accept this burden of proof, not only because the burden is too heavy, but because it is too easy, in absolutely every time and place, for human beings to presume upon their present state of enlightenment. “Yes,” says the populist. “All of human history was wrong up until this point. But I know for a fact that we are right in how we treat Bill Cosby.”

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

Why I am Pushing for Cosby's Appeal, Continued:

The simple fact that Cosby’s conviction aroused so much joy in his plaintiff and prosecutors is bad enough; one never saw that sort of elation in survivors of the Holocaust during the Nuremberg Trials, but then what can I say? I wasn’t there, so maybe I have no right to judge. And neither does the American population have that right to reduce the legacy of Bill Cosby to a slang term for date rape.

Andrea Constand’s triumph was certainly a victory for her ideology, but it remains to be seen to what extent she, like the constituent of ANY special interest group that preys upon public sentiment and violates due process, was motivated by money. Reading the history of capitalism has robbed me off my scruples in accusing others of profiteering. If people used to employ six-year-olds in cotton factories, I should feel OBLIGATED to point the accusatory finger at absolutely anyone who would demand monetary reparations of any kind. Nothing is beneath the human being, or so it seems. And evil people love a good scapegoat, especially when that same scapegoat is a lion.

The Court was not without the provision of a fig leaf. In the absence of physical evidence to substantiate the allegations, many of them barred by the statute of limitations, lawyers had to dig deep. What they found was nothing more than a friendly conversation between a convicted Cosby and a deposition lawyer in 2005. Cosby essentially “confessed” to three misdeeds that were conventions (especially in the African American community that he would go on to criticize in later life) at the time that he allegedly performed them:

-         Being in possession of a popular recreational drug, with which he was not too miserly to share with his female cohorts.

-         Touching Andrea’s butt, especially after she had objectified herself and expressed a desire to be objectified. (Were this not the case, her description of her ideal butt would be without meaning, since calling her butt “tight”, as she aspired for it to be, would be considered objectification.)

-         Presuming upon his own ability to read nonverbals, desire and intentionality.

The latter of these is the most damning, but not of Cosby, but rather his entire generation of accusers. The entire concept that silence cannot be consent ought to be a cause for moral outrage, if only because the ability to transcend the need for spoken communication, which Deleuze* had derided as being “seductive” and “impure” by contrast with writing, is a birthright of the human mind, without the pursuit of which we are subject to the authoritarian rule of language. The ability to communicate things nonverbally is not the solitary province of holy men such as Sri Ramana Maharshi, though perhaps Enlightenment and the Total Comprehension of Existence is not something that we ought to dismiss as mere superstition. In fact, daily life constantly requires us to be able to read the emotions of others. Inability to do so would render us grievously disabled; the D.S.M. literally defines it as the most severe autism, but apparently that is how the legal system perceives us. Nonverbal communication, especially as empathy, is also arguably how we learn language to begin with, and this is evidenced by the fact that people who do not speak a given language can still understand the behaviours of people who DO speak that language by simply observing gestures and facial expressions. Social life requires us to be able to read social cues while legal life precludes our potentiality to do so, even stooping to so depraving a hypocrisy as to turn Cosby into a scapegoat for claiming that he is CAPABLE of performing up to so noble and imperative a standard. Had America’s Dad wanted simply to cover his own tracks, he might have denied the allegations outright; it was all ready too late in the game for any probable scientific forensic evidence to be summoned against him. Why then was he so blunt in his deposition? Simply put: a man, in the classical sense of the actualized male, must be. How else could he BE America’s Dad? The only reason that his bluntness is demonized, as though it were arrogant boasting of a devil, lies in this fact: feminists hate men. They are content to rule over men who parrot the dogmas of feminist ideologies, but the moment that a man claims to understand WOMEN, they use this as evidence for his inability to understand them, presuming that anyone who TRULY understands them must confess that they pass understanding entirely. The feminist stance is thus twofold predation: one by extraverts against an introverted minority (since Jung demonstrated that introverts tend towards nonverbal “non-directed” or symbolic thinking whilst extraverts tend towards verbal or “directed” thought, even illustrating how this works in rhetoric in a cartoon from his book on Psychological Types), and secondly by women upon men. The legal status quo verily overlooks the most critical wisdom that tradition has bestowed upon us about heterosexuality: that it is a MEETING OF OPPOSITES. Too often a generation corrupted by the misappropriation of Deconstructionist thought denies that “gender” has an intrinsic psychosexual weight, but common sense and custom show it to be universally so: men, if they seek to be lovers, without which they can’t be men, must take initiative and be forthcoming; women, by contrast, are not only socially encouraged but temperamentally inclined to be covert, RATHER THAN overt, and they value men as sexual partners ONLY TO THE EXTENT that those men CAN READ THE COVERT SIGNALS and ACT UPON THEM.

*Deleuze also incidentally professed the pursuit of the Body without Organs, a state which by necessity must transcend conscious “knowledge”.

This is not mere theory divorced from common life. If the “Court of Public Opinion” amounts to anything more than the mob that gave us the slave trade and the Holocaust, one can see it working its magic at any downtown nightclub, where young girls often will dance with you only if you start dry humping them and turn you away if you ask permission. And this is ESPECIALLY the case in African American sectors, where recreational drug use and fondling are so common that it might be considered ethnocentric to even turn one’s nose up at them. (Though I must confess to a sort of proto-Fascist outrage on my own part when, having been corrupted by several years of feminist suggestion, I discovered this to be the TRUE state of affairs in the youth.)

Why should Cosby have to apologize for having been a part of this nearly HALF A CENTURY AGO? Must we presume that what he did back then MUST have been worse than what passes for convention right NOW?? What about the Hindu notion that things get worse over TIME? At any rate, if the nineteen-seventies truly were so hellish, – and we DO have reason to believe that they were at least more segregated, so acts of sexual misconduct, as defined by white Americans, would have been expressions of black identity, (and it would be TERRIBLY presumptuous to think that our contemporary view of misconduct is so absolute that this observation might be considered derogatory) – then the laws of the time would not have held Cosby in contempt, and he would remain an innocent, law-abiding citizen, save for the fact that he possessed a few narcotics. And let’s face it: we sort of expect black performers to possess a few narcotics. It’s been the case since Satchmo, and Cosby represents his people when he admits it. Social justice warriors ESPECIALLY hold this prejudice, especially when they accuse lawmakers of racism because certain forms of cocaine which are known to be popular in urban ghettos are regulated more severely than the kind that affluent white people enjoy.

I should add that Cosby is a Cancer, and by that of course I mean the birth-sign, not the disease. Many women practice Western astrology, even for profit, and fairly universally they agree that water-signs are adept at reading people. Cosby’s wife would probably agree, being a Pisces herself. Even if Cosby was in some ways inhibited by lust, he certainly would have considered empathy a chivalrous ideal to strive towards, and if his intent was to be a true romantic, then he would have embraced his Cancer identity. Camille Cosby, who herself is a dead ringer for the fictionalized version that Bill created for her, insisted that her husband was the man that he had depicted on television, a fitting medium for a sign that is associated directly, and almost exclusively, with the Public. Cosby’s legacy rivals Robin Williams, (who ALSO talked a lot about doing recreational drugs that made him love people) and his legal issues are Kafkaesque in scope. (Both Williams and Kafka share the Sun sign, which is also said to rule the archetypal family.) Why then would people prey upon the well-meaning, trusting empath? That remains a question for the ages. Or just Whoopi Goldberg.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

The B!LL COSBY Effect: in Search of a Finer Merit.

The Bill Cosby Effect:

“You have been told that, even like a chain, you are as weak as your weakest link. This is but half the truth. You are also as strong as your strongest link. To measure you by your smallest deed is to reckon the power of the ocean by the frailty of its foam. To judge you by your failures is to cast blame upon the seasons for their inconstancy.”

Khalil Gibran.

The Prophet.

There is invariably something disturbing about a senior citizen who is legally blind being harassed by a drone strike whilst serving a sentence in a prison yard. Even more distressing is to consider that this man had created Little Bill and The Cosby Show. But perhaps what trumps all of those details is this: that he is NOT referred to, in an article by USA Today, as a “comedian”, a “producer”, a “philanthropist” (unless we mispronounce this term in the manner of Charlie Day), a “family man”, or a “spokesperson”. Perhaps the reason that his entire legacy has been overwritten, at least by this one reporter in this seemingly isolated incident, is what one might call the Bojack Horseman effect: the presupposition, propagated by that latter cartoon show, that if one’s contributions to society are insufficient cause to clear one’s name of a reputed vice, then the latter vice must for some reason entirely subsume all contributions made to society.

One question in particular swims up to the surface, then: if Bill Cosby’s contributions to society were insufficient to entitle him to the company of women, so much so that he might be suspected of having sought that company by illicit means, then WHERE DOES CONSENT COME FROM?? OUT OF THIN AIR? Who “manufactures” consent in this country, if in fact this is not a land of free enterprise and meritocracy but rather one where the testimony of a relatively unproductive citizen could spark the flame that burns a giant to the ground.

It is troubling to think that senior citizens are not to be regarded as sages whose life lessons dictate policy, whose daring will to pursue their own notions of love and freedom, irrespective of the absurdities of bureaucracy and prejudice, in the manner that the Romantics lauded and that the Jungians espoused, are acclaimed, but that they can honestly become the victims of that same bureaucracy under the watchful eye of the same generations which they educated. But this appears to be the TRUE question: if my contributions to society might so easily be forgotten, without due process, without evidence, even without consideration for the fact that I am NOT what I produce, and hence my personal and interpersonal struggles reflect NOTHING of the quality of my work, since that work must by necessity be divorced from my own self-interest in order that it might be authentic, (verily it is so, if I cannot even expect to be included in consensual sex!! Truly a thankless task indeed.), then how am I to live as a moral agent, whose only function is to serve his fellow human beings? If this is how the new generation expresses its gratitude for a man’s achievements, with unwarranted bias, then perhaps consent comes from the same places as these allegations: utter meaninglessness. If they cannot even separate an author from his lifestyle, as though they sought to consume the man through his novel, then what kind of altruism motivates the global public? CERTAINLY one does not watch television shows strictly and exclusively in search of a role model, as though possessed of an infantile father complex, and even when one finds a role model, certainly one loves him not for the thought of following in his footsteps but because of the IDEALS WHICH HE REPRESENTS IN FICTION. Am I now to consider the most disturbing of possibilities: that the new generation will not look to prior generations for moral guidance and intrigue, but rather, presuming on their own righteousness a priori, they will seek them out to find paths towards personal gain??

People still play songs by O.D.B. at downtown bars. We really need to reconsider who our heroes are, if we have any heroism remaining.

Dm.A.A.

HOMOSEX: CONCLUD.

Conclusions Regarding Homosexuality, Homophobia, and the Elitism of Heteronormativity:

There is of course nothing intrinsically symptomatic of a “phobia” in the practice of criticizing the sexual habits of others; verily, I can say that the thought of being homophobic never even crossed my mind until AFTER I had found reason to criticize homosexual practices. Perhaps, had I been more fearful a priori, some tragedy in my own life might have been prevented, though given that my critical view was the product not of irrational prejudice but rather rational reflection upon trauma it was not homosexuality per se to which I responded, but rather the entire cult of liberal individualism, as well as the transparent proto-Fascism that this romantic movement produced. The entire notion that a person’s sexuality ought to be “that person’s own business” is of course DEEPLY authoritarian, simply because it is not in practice an INDIVIDUAL right. The practice of sexuality must, outside of autoeroticism, by necessity include at least two people, and even two people conspiring for mutual satisfaction, often at the expense of a third party, might propagate a situation which is majoritarian and absurd. The matter of personal preference is negligible, only because we have at present no means by which to identify it, so no witch hunt could possibly be led against potentialities that have not yet been put into actual social practice. Appeals to the inherent entitlement that individuals should have towards their own sexual advances is inane when one considers the probable futility of any such gesture; even more inane is the suggestion that people “ought to be free” to pursue alternative lifestyles simply BECAUSE of the existence of a mainstream lifestyle, since that mainstream lifestyle (in this case, heterosexuality) is so demonstrably disappointing and absurd that exposing social deviants to the same “freedoms” would be to predispose them to the same disappointments, competitions, and alienation. Most importantly, one must recount that the entire notion that social criticism could simply be reduced to phobias or weaknesses is in fact a very recent line of thinking, one which is so totalizing and Fascistic that one would hope that the twenty-first century would bring an end to it, especially in the wake of an entire century of human rights abuses which were propagated under the assumption that morality was an expression of impotence. Scapegoating was of course a symptom of this time as well, however if we are to agree with Mr. Foucault that homosexuality is not predisposition but an action, this line of criticism can hardly be equated with genocide, since it is simply an attempt to uphold a social order that, while it never had the grandeur that Fascists everywhere ascribe to their own lineages, still offers a social order in which to operate and to actually have some chance of ATTRACTING mates, a task which is practically impossible in a society without a constantly evolving social order which is perpetually revised by questions of moral teleology and responsibility. Homosexuality may not be the problem, but its modus operandi verily is.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]