Criticism of RW sexuality

Second, having read the article under this title, with a great deal of relish and appreciation, I might add, the following points of criticism are needed at each of the 7 strata of discourse it intersects. It predicates across the gamut of sign uses, mostly for objects in the Upper Triad (words for fantasy; stories), thus is a performance of the corresponding order:


7 -as theological perfomance

- The following is a double self-refutation:

[quote]-There is no more reason, essentially, for a man’s choosing a woman as his mate rather than a man, than there was for the Hebrews to name God Yah rather than El. The man may of course want children, and having a woman for a mate would obviously facilitate that desire, but that is as it happens. Sexual difference is no more an essential part of the relations between man and woman, and of a man’s sexual being as a man (A), than the vowel “ah” is an essential part of the name of God(B).

If this is not pure gibberish, it appears to be a confused expression of a 60's-originating idea of sexual language as a psychological constrict. (B). The sounds of the flame letter Hebrew alphabet were part of the "name of God", which didn't communicate to its original users what "name of" communicates today (was a way of summoning, etc.). (A) is apparently supposed to be refuted by whatever flumbunster point (B) was supposed to make, which is entirely unclear, since the Hebrews didn't "choose" either the names "Yah" or "EL", so it remains sounding absurd.

-The remarks on what might be loosely taken as philosophy of language. Language is variously predicated on as: a metaphor, communal, a habit, a concept, ripped off by the Left for its own agenda without exploring its depths, like he does... never as a epistemic condition, which requires sentences, truth and falsehood, subjects and predicates (if its truths are to have application anywhere outside language), implication and rules of inference. That is, the language of science. Systematic elaboration of the conditions of such a language that would be (a) consistent; (b) adequate (for reconstructing mathematics and the formal part of theories; (c) thorough-going (as in Kant's Third Analogy of Experience: applicaple to whateve can be part of experience). The elaboration of the formal requirements of this are grounded in the history of philosophy in the pre-Socratic concept of Being, as a term for universal totality.

6 -as philosophical performance
Esolen's maunderings about whether what he calls "language" is "arbitrary" or not, where intelligible at all (uncited "Leftist" doctrine he is refuting here) seems to confuse the syntax and semantics of a constructed language (the language of science) with that of ordinary --natural spoken -- language. Wherever actual tokens are referred to, Ex. "The Bible", "Yah", etc., natural, not artificial language is intended. The language of science has no proper names (though it has individual reference designators, e.g., 'GMT'), and no pronouns except "it" (the variable 'x'). Transcribing the cognitive content of a given segment of discourse ("language" in his sense, particularized) into a true or false logical format is a learned skill of a high intellectual order. (Makes it "left" already in some schemes.) One wouldn't want to bother Esolen, who knows what he means if not quite how to mean it.

5 -as existential performance

It shows what a sensitized male Right Wing 60's hater can put together, after stealing what the Left created. See 3 below.

4 -as a moral performance

A challenge to Kant's thesis that a good will is the highest moral value. This is good will twisted into Right Wing negation of the positive. I accept the argument that male friendship is disfigured when "Are they queer?" is the automatic pre-programmed response to every show of male affection. I hate that. And I blame "movement" homosexuals for foisting such mentality off on us. I love youse guys asses on this fuckin' board (some of them). Who TF wants to have to say such shit? So I blame whatever pushed that in my/our face to have to say. But this goes back to roght wing gaynxiety, I hold, not to the "sexual revolution". Given twisted sign uses, acts motivated by good will can lead the actors and fruends straight to hell.

3 -as judgment about material reality (the shared world of 3 dimensions)

The titled content doesn't seem directly related to material, or economic reality but there is a connection through the politics of its use.

There is a litmus paper test available for correctness on this today. Does this entity (the author, and the effect reading him has on the flow of subjective process) associate or disassociate itself from GW Bush and the Zionists politics of Death? What with their pre-emptive strikes, and "us against them" ultimatums vs. "Islamofascists", no neutral or common ground of friendship can exist here. Therefore, by existential performance as anti-Left (5), when GW Bush is Right,
as a material performance this is pro-Death.


2 -as phenomenal performance (piece of literature)

Not bad. At times, cogent. (Not: with the syllogisms already)

1. -as neoro-psychical transfer.

Got it off his chest.

These don't need adding up now. What he says that is positive doesn't need this Right - Left frame, though the way it has worked out historically I can see where he gets it. I am actually more sympathetic with what he is saying than with orgone box hippies, but somebody has to got to hold out for the de facto historical diagonal between Ideal Language philosophy and Actual Psychohistory.

The Oedipal 60's

Replying to Ahknaton's reply on "How the sexual revolution makes all male bonding and Friendship seem gay."

First, I wanted to respond positively to the thread title. But without allowisng it to be pinned on the 60's sexual revolution. This was a good thing, I think we are saying. New attitudes toward what it was all about merged with drugs, rock 'n roll and anti-war protest. All combined to form a milieu in which homosexuality, per se, was a distinctly secondary and minor issue. It was libido itself slipping out of Big Daddy's control that provoked Right Wing reaction in America, and I suppose everywhere. (Cohn Benditt in France.)

In addition to getting rocked and socked by the gone-wacky milieu, there was The Pill, loss of nuclear superiority, and demotion of Father to family adjunct. The
old social/cultural boundaries of masculinity itself were under assault. They have been trying to get them back ever since (still fighting off the Feminazis, girliemen, Democrats, Islamo-fascists jihadists and Arabs, the Sheikier the better). Remember Tucker Carlson's bow tie? The Reagan Republican faux malehood wave was a Triumphal Return for vengeance, on the wicked 60's. At the deep group Oedipal level, it has all been a reaction of the Older Psychoclass (heirs of the Patriarchy) against the advanced (hence, Liberal) Younger Psychoclass. There is a perpetual tension between them in all generations (psychologically defined through the 20-25 year war-as-cleansing-rebirth" cycles), but the "generation gap" between WWII Fathers (later immortalized) and their "baby boomer" brat children who grew up wanting to follow Charlie Manson, plus all the other assaults on traditional male perogatives mentioned, "warped out" this natural tension and transformed built-in sibling rivalry into a perpetual replay of Males Who Will Kick Ass for Daddy vs. other males, who are assumed by the former to be Males Who Luv Mommy, and whose ass they damn well intend to kick (draft, put in harms way, otherwise expose to intimidation and abuse, all to make 'em a better man, like naming a boy Sue). Unless you don't let them. When "them" has morphed into Bush Sharkstein.

I hold that this is all one continuous psychohistorical line, traceable through real-time sign-use -- "the Record", pared to its group-fantasy (unconscious imagination of what 'our' group is doing) pegs. (Reagan's reversal of the tone of 'liberalism', for instance -- agreeing with/insisting on your point about changing the reality by changing the words and pictures used for communicating about it.)
THE ENTIRE THING IS ABOUT MALE SEXUALITY AS BOUND UP WITH FATHER-SON RELATIONS ON DIFFERENT LEVELS distributed and ramified through all social relations. (I don't expect anyone to accept this, or care. At bottom, I doubt if there is much we disagree over, and am definitely not looking for it.) (Remember Freud said history is basically the story of brothers getting together to kill the father then sharing the blood guilt.)

I want to use this psychohistorical perspective to approach the question(s) of words and meanings. I have agreed with your major point, as I got it, that queer studies can queer relationships, just by existing. I always enjoyed being around men, from sweaty football locker rooms to hunting jackrabbits with 22's from car windows -- to teachers, as blessed with best was I -- homosexuality really never came up, and that was through the 50's, after which it came to mean the something, else, which changed over time, even after the 80's same thing. There was no natural speaking about sex in the classrooms (it took that snotty french looking philo prof to even get the requisite words out at Wisconsin mid-50's); and little of religion or politics actually happening. Part of the resentment I picked up, after going through the "who in hell cares anyway?" period, after the HIV advent brought by Reagan, was against the flouting. I admit to being deeply revolted by men kissing. I don't go nuts seeing it on occassion, but on a regular basis and shown as if hip to kids, nope. (I don't think I'm addressing anything you might hold Ahk.)

They started preying on the sexuality of kids in the South, taking advantage of their native idealism, will to please to bring, and community fun together singin' "old time religion". (Daddy sang bass, Momma sang tenor, ..) This was the male baby boomer generation trying to square themselves with their inner sense of sinning against the Father (going against the Father is provable the hardest psychological task there is, for males who complete the cycle of individualtion; but sometimes the old fucker is wrong, and will use your* desire to please the one in your head to gain benefits for himself. Which is why The Father has to be separated from The Male, archetypically -- neither Freid nor Jung completed their psychology of the father-son complex, as they got involved with each other over it as siblings competing for a NEW "HIMHOOD". That. also, is on-going.

It took Protestant aligned with Jew to cut that particular bond in the 60's (Between WWII Fathers and Baby Boomer sons). These combined essence-forces were later called "secularism" by the right-wing reaction. I called it New Americanism, post liberal-conservative. Still do. It demolished social and cultural constructions based on repressed sexuality. It is the ever-resuming challenge of those still capable of normal male sexual function to arrive at the advanced New Himhood without going over to Bush warriors. That is the cut off line between this, the OD forum and a few others and the Freepers, as I see it. (Then when '04 came around -- many held their ground, but right wing anti-Sheehan Contra women started posting up.)

I a very aware of many thing you brought up not touched on by this reply. I mainly wanted to clarify why I cannot go along with any return to an unreconstruted pre-60's position on male sexuality. So, allowing for these exceptions and clarifications, I continue to insist it was the right-wing anti-sexual bent, represented by the Older Psychoclass determined to pay Righteous Respect to the Father -- first in their heads, feeling sinful for their rebellious thoughts of the 60's, then for Everyone In the World to live up to, as 9/11/01 become a repeat* of 12/7/41. (The Jews switched sides and went with the R-W Catholics: "mugged by reality" that neocon Kristol punk
said. "Neo-liberals"? - no, didn't kow. Totally fits the pattern, doesn't it.)

Everything I am about traces just to this Oedipal matrix of the '60's, through wimpy Bush I, when Limbaugh rose to fight off the feminazis; to O.J., Black Knight, slitting the throat of Blonde whore ruler, somehow putting things right. ...

FAKE HATE CRIMES

FAKE HATE CRIMES

I.
.
HATE CRIME HOAX AT OLE MISS 12. 2002

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin121802.asp

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | A terrible racial incident took place at Trent Lott's alma mater last month. But you won't hear about it from Dan Rather or Time magazine or the Washington Post or the NAACP.


That's because what happened at the University of Mississippi in the early morning hours of Nov. 6 has all the markings of a fake hate crime: An apparent racial hoax committed by black students against black students, but blamed on whites--until the suspects were nabbed last week.


Three black freshmen were accused by the college of scrawling racist graffiti on the doors of two other black students in the Kincannon residence hall on the Oxford campus. Among the hateful epithets: "F-----g N----r" and "F------ Hoe N---r." Also left on walls and doors spanning three floors of the dorm: A tree with a noose and hanging stick figure and vulgar references to genitalia drawn in blue window chalk.


The financial damage was estimated at roughly $600. But the cultural and psychological damage caused by such crude and twisted acts of Tawana Brawleyism is inestimable. The element of racial animus cloaks the hate crime hoax with a false sense of legitimacy. It's a manipulative attempt to exploit old tensions and deflect suspicion from the actual perpetrators.


At the time the racist vandalism appeared, Ole Miss was commemorating the 40th anniversary of desegregation of its classrooms. Local and national observers immediately assumed the vandals were white.


Black students organized a "Say No to Racism" march and demanded more protection against white-on-black harassment. They blasted the school's president for not apologizing quickly enough for the racial slurs. The school's "Minority Affairs" director demanded that the university establish "programs and procedures" to ensure racial sensitivity and prevent hate crimes. The "Institute for Racial Reconciliation" and the "Committee On Sensitivity and Respect" convened meetings. Activists called for criminally prosecuting the perpetrators under state felony laws or federal hate crime statutes.


But now that the race of the suspects has been revealed, some are seeking to minimize the crime as a "prank." The college will not be bringing criminal charges against the trio. Instead, each suspect faces charges involving five violations of the student code of conduct--not only for the racially explosive vandalism, but also for allegedly making false and misleading statements to investigators.


That's right. It wasn't enough for these accused sickos to adopt racial terror tactics, destroy property, cast false suspicion on others, and cast doubt on all bona fide victims of such perfidy. They apparently tried to lie their way out of it, too.


The Daily Mississippian student newspaper noted that an "irritated Chancellor Robert Khayat said the entire situation was 'regrettable,' but it taught the university community that no members 'should engage in abusive behavior' and 'before we jump to conclusions and start condemning groups of people, we should know what happened.'"


All well and good, but why allow a double standard of justice to prevail? If the attackers had been white, they faced possible federal prison time. Because the suspects are black, the most serious consequence they face is expulsion. Welcome to equal treatment under the law, 2002-style.


Where is the uproar over the hoaxers' callous use of lynching imagery and flagrant exploitation of the N-word--at Ole Miss of all places? And where is the national press on this matter? Fake hate crimes are an abhorrently common phenomenon on modern college campuses, where race-consciousness reigns in such a poisonous way that it would make integrationists weep. "Students of color" are herded into separate dorms, separate departments, and separate graduation ceremonies.


Segregation is back all right. But while the media elite's crack reporters are busy rummaging through the dustbins of old history in an effort to paint all conservatives as racially insensitive relics, they continue to ignore one of the outrageous race scandals of the 21st century: how the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all.


II. The Fake Hate at GWU comes from the Left

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/05/gwu-student-journalist-admits-hate-crime-hoax/


GWU student journalist admits hate crime hoax

By Michelle Malkin • November 5, 2007 10:18 PM

Looks like GWU student reporter Sarah Marshak, would fit right in at ABC News, The New Republic, CBS, the NYTimes, etc., etc., etc. She was caught on tape faking anti-Semitic hate against herself:


After evaluating evidence from a hidden camera positioned in response to the swastika postings in Mitchell Hall, University Police have linked the student who filed the complaints to several of the incidents.


Following a final interview with investigators today, the student admitted responsibility for those incidents.


The individual will now face student judicial action and a determination will be made as to whether District of Columbia and/or federal laws were violated. No other suspects in the Mitchell Hall incidents were identified at any point through use of the hidden camera, interviews, or increased patrols of the residence hall.

Hat tip: WashTimes Fishwrap

Marshak tried to mount a “fake, but justified” defense. Via the GW Hatchet:


In an interview with The Hatchet Monday evening, Marshak, said she only drew the final three of six swastikas on her door in an attempt to highlight what she characterized as GW’s inaction. Only hours earlier, Marshak categorically denied the charges.


“I wasn’t looking to create this, sort of, insanity,” Marshak said in a phone interview. “I wasn’t looking to become a media darling. I was just looking for acknowledgment from University that someone drew a swastika on the door.”


Marshak said Tara W. Pereira, director of SJS, informed her she would likely be expelled. Marshak said she did not want to leave GW but probably will.


Tracy Schario, a University spokesperson, said GW stands by its statement that they have a signed confession from Marshak. Schario would not comment on how many swastikas Marshak was responsible for, only saying it was “several of the incidents.”

Bryan Preston presses GWU on where things stand with the manufactured hate crime hoax smearing conservative students from the Young America’s Foundation.

What I want to know: When is the Columbia noose investigation going to wrap up?

***

WJLA adds info of another student implicated in the incidents:

Sunday, another GW student was arrested in connection with the writing of racial epithets, and


III.


ANOTHER HATE CRIME HOAX

By Michelle Malkin • May 9, 2005 06:01 A

Did you hear about the lesbian Tamalpais High School student who was pelted with eggs, had her locker and car vandalized, and has been flooded with handmade hate messages? The words “Die Fag” were spray painted on he schools wall.

The incidents sparked outrage among the school’s students, teachers, and administrators, who came together for an anti-hate vigil. .

Well, the perpetrator has been suspended–the lesbian “victim,” who admitted to police that she faked the incident to garner attention.

A 17-year-old top female wrestler at a local high school faked a series of gay-bashing incidents that prompted a police investigation, authorities said.


The rash of gay-bashing incidents at Tamalpais High School, dating to November, was the work of a student who claimed she was the victim of hate crimes, said police Capt. James Wickham.


The teen, who was not identified by police, admitted that she was the perpetrator of the incidents, which included defacing her own car, authorities said.


The student has been suspended.


She was not arrested, but police said the case would be referred to the district attorney for review.


The Los Angeles Times headline does not mention the sexual orientation of the hoaxer, but does describe the sexual orientation of the targeted student. Sound familiar?


It is not clear from the article if the hoaxer was also responsible for anonymous threats made to gay Tam High teachers.


The school’s principal, Chris Holleran, said students will have the opportunity to receive counseling about the matter.

The victimhood cult marches on.

Update: La Shawn Barber, who has been tracking these bogus crimes, has just bought the domain name

IV.

http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/10/columbia_president_passes_buck_1.html

Columbia President Passes Buck on Noose Incident

The president of Columbia University Lee C. Bollinger is trying to distance Columbia from its graduate Teacher’s College where the recent noose hanging outside a Black professor’s office took place. In a letter to campus, he wrote:


“As most of you now know, a terrible incident of bias occurred at Teachers College yesterday, directed at a member of the faculty. Teachers College is a cherished affiliate of Columbia University with its own president, Susan Fuhrman, to whom I have offered our support and assistance. We may be two independent institutions, but we are one community; and we stand together in our commitment to oppose the frightening sentiments that lay behind this act.”


Here, Bollinger hesitates to totally embrace the Teacher’s College because he calls it an “affiliate.” But the Teacher’s College is a graduate program of Columbia, as much as the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism I attend.


Further, his letter is a careful condemnation that reads so cautiously, it doesn’t come close to calling event what it is: an atrocious act of pedestrian racism. So why is Bollinger calling this a “bias incident? No where in the letter does he marry the words “hate” and “crime.” Does he know his referencing the threat of a lynching as “sentiments” is a naive understatement?


My guess is after Iran’s president controversial visit to Columbia two weeks ago, Bollinger is struggling to keep his hands clear of the left. With right wingers boasting cutting funds to Columbia, Bollinger is so obviously reluctant to fight using any progressive rhetoric.


But in this, Bollinger is messing up left and right. With the noose hanging, he’s holding back too much and missing an opportunity to join a booming civil rights movement. And with Iran he said too much. During the meeting with Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bollinger’s so-called free-speech forum was undermined by his American exceptionalism and lack of critical self-reflection. Bollinger was right to call out the Holocaust denier on his egregious gender and policy record. But to save words like “cruel and petty dictator,” just for Iran rings of a sad inattention to American politics that, though different from Iran’s, have in common: rogue patriarchal order, dubious laws against gays and lesbians, and overall, unfortunate attempts to deny others self-determination.


Posted at 11:25


Response

While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment of your post, it's worth noting that Bollinger is correct on one count: Teachers College a separate institution from Columbia University. Like Barnard, UTS, and JTS, TC has its own president, board of trustees, and endowment—none of which fall under the control of President Bollinger. The on-again-off-again appending of "Columbia University" to its name (i.e. - "Teachers College, Columbia University") signifies that it is an affiliate of the University (like BC, UTS, and JTS), falling under the degree-awarding umbrella of Columbia University but not under its direct institutional authority. (There is a discussion of this bizarre and tenuous relationship on TC's wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Teachers_College%2C_Columbia_University.) So while Bollinger may have a moral imperative to denounce the incident forcefully, he has no control over disciplinary proceedings or the specific institutional reforms that TC may pursue as a result of this incident. The same does not apply to the Journalism School, which is a core school of Columbia University and whose dean answers directly to President Bollinger. Certainly the argument can be made that Bollinger's statement was weak in the knees, but let's be clear about what he can and can't do as president of Columbia

*****

IV. INTERLUDE FOR COMMENT

1. "Weak in the knees" is a signal aligning agreement with the first author's bashing of Bollinger, if any sense can be made of it, for not threshing Ahmadinejad properly. Such alignment seems to be a must-signalise thing. Frank rich gives him a "thug" in Sunday's Times. The rest of humanity, however, I think -- those not warped by the frenzied berzerker maleficience of New York City politics and academia -- saw an ordinary, but gifted and remarkably unflappable human being, being subject to one of the most bullying, heinous, hate filled rant ever uttered in any public forum.

2. Bollinger's behavior was contemptible, assanine, unprofessional and racist. It is not civilized, nor is it warranted in this case, since all America had a keen interest in what this man had to say and a right to judge for themselves of his character, to invite a guest to speak at one's institution, and then subject them to extended personal insult and harangue. It is not done. It was a shameless affront to what Universities are about.

3. Bollinger's weak kneed, candy assed condemnation of the noose reflects: A. (probably) uncertainty it was not a fake hate incident of some sort, as in the slew of cases cited. It has now become automatic to suspect those who benefit from the attention, which in this case (as others have pointed out) is sure to goodness not white racists "trying to make a statement." It is, rather, someone who benefits from the statement being made, which may or may not be Professor Madonna. B. His comromised position in condemning any show of racism what so ever. He had no right to stage that smear job on the Iranian president for his America to see..