Skip to content


April 13, 2013




1) Homosexuality (a) [DICHOTOMY] Hetero world (b)

2) Crypto Political (a) [DICHOTOMY] Public world (b)

Because of 1) in his personal life-and all his life as an individual-Shaw is very skilled at 2) in what is interrelating through one’s existence two different planes; in culture, the crypto-surface dichotomy is so that we may live in/at the surface-but Shaw is only comfortable in b) if he lives-truly-in a).

In regards to culture, a) is only tolerable as a peripheral, shadow force from the standpoint of one’s life and perception from b).

In culture, b) must constantly work to define itself by keeping a) at bay-at a distance and also suppressed; culture is designed as a tolerable space for human collective vitality, in opposition to its silent partner, a); but b) exists as a way of immobilizing a).

What we are in our individual psyches cannot exist anthropologically as a collective projection without partial restraint and internalized repression in ourselves through childhood experiences in an historical and geographically determined culture.

And the mechanism of cultural sanction is, in this light, so important: b) must ruthlessly maintain its position of subjugation over a) both by legitimizing what is ‘appropriate’ or ‘correct’, and through judicial sanction, as well.

And human culture historically as had little regard for the individual as individual in this context.

And people are “processed” by the law-by cultural itself-in the need to preserve b) through the ‘sacrifice’ of individuals at the alter of the ‘rule of law’ and its doppelganger as silent partner, anomie.

And yes: the simian in man as ultimately cannibal –both in regards to food and his/her sexuality-must be held in check.

But the Chrrrrrrist Mechanism of culture becomes a ghastly carnival of death when the forces of establishment culture are not rational in their understanding of exactly what is to be protected-and exactly what is to be immobilized or ‘put down’ in individuals.


Does the awareness on the part of the individual change one’s way of relating to a) from b)-or even from a) to b)?

Of course!

To the point that the dichotomy itself looses tension to a certain point-but not completely.

And the individual immediately feels a greater sense of control out of the power of “knowing how things work”-what makes all this and people themselves tick.

But you will never lose your aversion to certain intimate necessities-like defecating in front of others, for example.

And you will probably feel –for the most part-the need to wear clothes in public because of a sense of embarrassment-and also because of your own sexual arousal at seeing the bare flesh of others in certain situations.

I mean people’s bottom cheeks, particularly, and their hips.

And of course this makes going about the daily business of getting on with life-procuring your necessities in the form of money-in one way or another-within in a context of collective, social interaction easier.

And it was said about Bob Marley that he strictly prohibited all females who worked with him from wearing blue jeans or pants.

And clearly he wouldn’t have cut too many albums if the women around him wore no clothes at all.

But you can’t call the Lion from Zion a ‘male-chauvinist pig’, or a fascist.

Or can you?

And the same can be said about b), about anthropological establishment culture in that the sacrificing of the forces of human nature-and individuals themselves-can be understood in its logic if it is really JUST the preservation of collective order and stability that is sought.

But when it is clear that establishment culture looses its rationality, it becomes itself a form of a); and collective groups-just like the simian as individual-seek to affirm themselves through structural mechanism as imposition over society itself.

And this is the greatest form of violence known to man.

And when the violence of the individual is met by the irrational violence of say, Texas or the state of Israel, and the power drive of the simian as state itself, the individual has effectively become a terrorists-and as a terrorist he also will relate to society, harbor no doubts about that.

It is actually a positive thing, for the human spirit is the spirit of the Resistance, and it is better to kill-from a psychological standpoint-than to live on your knees-even if it ultimately means dying.

And oh how you have enjoyed yourselves in your violence of culture as atrocity-counter atrocity, and the seriousness of life you indulged in!

And I speak also of some of the penal systems of the western world and the callous indifference to the suffering of those individuals who are cultural and judicially annihilated themselves as human forces of a) as perpetrators of crimes.

For still you live in the establishment culture of violence as ‘atrocity-counter atrocity’.

And judiciaries act themselves as culturally sanctioned ‘crypto terrorists’ under the flag of the lambs of God as victims who are substituted by the judicial sacrifice of the lambs of culture, the ‘perps’, ‘criminals’ and sundry ‘misfits’.

Because you want blood-and you need death and the annihilation of others!

In this is a form of security for your horrid little heart of fear and hatred!

And this is the Mickey Mouse appeal to the horrid little heart of your electorate, which you have historically not hesitated to exploit to keep yourself in power.

But I haven’t forgotten what you really are:

And the application of rationality takes us to the conclusion that violence is indeed patrimony of the psychological nature of human beings as individuals-and it should be controlled and restrained in individuals-but not completely removed or extirpated.

For this is part of the nature of man.

And it certainly is part of your nature-especially if you are not circumspect enough to see this in yourself!

But the violence of society-its sanctioned use of necessary coercion and force-should never be allowed to become confused with the simian violence of the individual.

The violence of society is to serve the collective well-being, not the existential drives as imposition of those societies-in their particular ideology or irrational fervor of any kind-religious, economic or even political.

And the violence of establishment culture needs to be permanently overseen and administered through rationality.

And yes: this implies that it should not be vulnerable to the ignorant and impulsive whims of the dumbass and the fear that is in his/her horrid little heart of frivolity.

The dumbass as electorate that you so mercilessly exploit through the carnival of death and imposition that is the governance of American democracy-now like it has never existed before.

And don’t forget about JFK either; I mean the individual, not the Oliver Stone film.

Because I haven’t forgotten.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s