Posts Tagged ‘lynching’

20 years & still waiting for the accusation: Stages of accountability

April 17, 2010

Nazi troops rampaged through Europe in World War II and learned accountability the hard way.

The KKK dresses in hoods to hide racist acts.

On the other hand, when the KKK shows up thus, one can get a count and a place. That’s number and location accountability.

Aesopian language allows the KKK to attack and hide the count, the location and even the exact insult.

After 20 years, I’m still waiting for the accusation from my lyncher #1.



Prisoner dilemma

June 29, 2009

I’m not a fan of game theory. The classic prisoner’s dilemma is a metaphor ultimately based in a religiously rooted conception of the isolation of individuals that Anglo-Saxon individualists extend to all of society. The prisoner’s dilemma is about whether two prisoners should rat each other out or proclaim their mutual innocence to go free.

The Christian concept of hypocrisy is as much responsible as anything else for the false separation of the individual from society in analysis. Overused, the concept of hypocrisy criticizes any individual who wants a social existence that she does not already live as a lifestyle.

If we put a Catholic priest in a jail cell, but his freedom means that 1000 other Catholic priests go into jail, we see right away what the problem is with the prisoner’s dilemma. The essence of the individual is broken down to a simple question of material freedom. Yet the Catholic priest’s life goal is to save souls and he may have his goal set back if a thousand priests go to jail when he goes free.

Trading a lynching for a career as I have been asked leaves out the thousands of females who will receive the message, “maybe if I lynch my boyfriend, some day there’ll be other scandals and he’ll end up in a powerful position.”

Blinded by anti-social individualism, those of criminal mentality see only an exchange between two people. However, the truth is that lynching is the past. Attempting to frame lynching as a prisoner’s dilemma question cuts off its social connections.

If prisoner’s dilemma theory is true, then individualism will never end lynching. There will be an incentive to cooperate with even the boldest liars. That’s what we see in practice and it is what we see in history that Liberalism tolerates lynching.

Lynching can only end through solidarity and the action of people in similar conditions.

Currently the Democrats can create change without encouraging lynching and careerism. If they believe they have an alternative they are mistaken; although it won’t be the first time by any means.

On a different note, but a special and particular recommendation for this moment — Bill Ayers moderated by natural means and became a dues-paying Democrat if he wasn’t his whole life. What is going on with me is an attack on my integrity, a form of psy-war that reduces my political output contrary to the First Amendment. If the government could mature and place Bill Ayers, Bob Avakian, Oglesby, Davidson etc. in high posts, the incentive to lynch would be cut back. This would be especially the case with Bill Ayers because the public already knows who he is. It would not be so much a reward for lynching that elected Obama as the public’s acceptance of something it already sort of knows.

Already I have been told by indirect means that action has been taken to redress specific parts of my life that amounted to lynching. I have heard of scholarships and jobs for Asian-Amerikans. Amerikans already have pragmatic (unprincipled) flexibility to redress individual circumstances. My recommendation about Bill Ayers cuts to the whole incentive structure in a principled way and would reduce lynching. The restorative actions people have taken to make things up to Asian-Amerikans cannot reduce the example and incentive to lynch. For that, pro-active measures have to be taken such as putting Bill Ayers in the government.

One of the reasons for third party infiltration gambits aiming at guys like me is that people figure that in 20 years people moderate too much compared with their youth and so infiltrators have to start with a super-radical to end up with anything different 20 years later. What it means is that for 20 years secret services and white supremacist organizations muck with a persyn’s life before the real reason becomes clear. If Obama just appointed Ayers, Avakian, Klonsky, Davidson etc. to high posts, the world would get the message that the old tactics are not necessary for the Democratic Party.

Freudians on rape, a practical difference

January 26, 2009

I’ve seen “Gran Torino” and “Changeling” by Clint Eastwood. These movies remind me of Freudianism and its opponents.

“Changeling” reminds me of why  I  used to push Phyllis Chesler’s book Women and Madness and related works. While doing so once, I encountered what Freudians call “resistance.” Merely stating that prisoners were predominantly men and psychiatric clients predominantly female brings a blame the messenger moment for some. I pointed out that there were different ways of social control, because the goal for males was to control the body, while for females it was to control the mind to gain access to the body. Some found that difficult to accept or deal with and asked “how do you know?” The idea that figures are kept on the gender of prisoners and clients did not go over well with people who did not realize that others were already on the job while we were still in diapers. It’s much better to think that no one has yet collected figures on prisoner or psychiatric client biology.

If even that much is impossible to digest, then one can try adding in some controversy from Freudians. In a minority of localities, Freudians dominate the rape discourse.

Readers will recall that childhood trauma plays a big role in Freudianism. The police factoid says females never lie about rape, but the Freudian factoid says one-quarter or one-third of all people suffered incest. There is a huge controversy over whether incest victims make up their memories or have them planted by psychiatric professionals of a certain view.

From experience, I know that people find it easier to pigeon-hole this topic than to deal with it substantively. I’ve even met PhDs who uphold both Freudian and non-Freudian pseudo-feminist shibboleths  at the same time. Social and political activism always suffers in this sort of circumstance essentially because of the laziness of people who do not demand coherence.

Practically, the significance is this: if a Freudian professional can convince a female that she suffered incest, there is then an explanation for female dualism and sexual ambiguity. My intense critics who have usually done no more than throw a sentence at me did not attend a Freudian rape speakout with me to learn how these subjects play out. People who can deal with reality are often the ones who end up doing the most activist work.

Where Freudian social work and psychiatric professionals dominate, the rape speakout plays the role of dealing with childhood trauma. Rather than criticizing adult sex the way a Catharine MacKinnon might, the Freudian rape speakout actually has the task of getting people to adjust to adult sex.

At the rape speakout in some localities, the majority of speakers will be conscious incest survivors. An example of how this plays out is that a womyn gets up to describe a difficulty she is having with a boyfriend during sex. She complains that she can’t concentrate during sex and she is not enjoying it. At that point, MacKinnon might ask whether she is suffering rape. Yet, conscious incest survivors will say something different.

“I can’t concentrate on my boyfriend, because I keep thinking of my father. I cry out. It’s not my boyfriend’s fault. I’m sure I have the right boyfriend. I’m being crazy. My boyfriend is 100% the boyfriend that I want.” In essence, the womyn is saying that her adult sexual experience is still being destroyed by an experience of incest. Yet, if one were the boyfriend, the experience would be of a womyn saying one thing and yet, physically not connecting well.

People who read MIM know we do not buy the Freudian approach. At the same time, newspapers have reported on the change in rape speakouts over the years as professionals took them over and made them bureaucratic turfs. At root the question is about reality.

Conservatives would like people to believe reality is cut-and-dry and well understood by people already. Freudians are saying the majority of people are in contradictory unconscious states. Likewise, MIM would say underlying reality is cut-and-dried, but people hold impossibly contradictory ideas, especially in a decadent culture like the U.$. culture.

Democrats for lynching flagship: the New York Times

January 9, 2009

One thing we have to learn on the proletarian side is how to read allegorical language. The racist power structure uses allegorical language so that it can carry out racist oppression unaccountably.

Today the New York Times freely admits to this practice.

“They’re like friends you’ve known for so long and so well that you figure there can’t be any surprises, but there are. They’re never quite the same twice.”

Poor Democrats, can’t take opposition from communists, so they’re forced to reveal their true colors.

You would have thought that seeing the second ranked website in all socialist categories in the united $tates as ranked by Alexa go down, the New York Times might have spoken up against racism and fascism, but no. As long as Democrats are in charge, they do not care.