Tani says:
   
   March 17, 1998 Yes you can show MIM.
   
   This is on materialism and emperio-criticism and OTHER things that tie
   into it because of WHAT GOT MIM to suggest this book. I know Mim won't
   like this post, but so what.
   
   Today, I got mailed a copy of Lenin's BOOK, and it's a big book, tiny
   print, Materialism and Emperio-Criticism which I will xerox and mail
   back to the G.S. who was nice enough to mail it to me. I will REMEMBER
   WHO mailed this to me: one of my OWN. It's a second edition.
   
   I will also mail MIM the Bogdanov/Cultural Revolution, Lysenkoism 2
   sciences stuff, the portion that speaks of it which is WAY heavy.
   Guess what it was that caused a kind of crisis: THE DISCOVERY OF
   ENTROPY! Like, ha ha, wow, there it is. SOMEONE discovered a way to
   measure the DARK FORCE IN NATURE and it caused a ruffle in the neat
   little world of everyone else. Now, I read this in a book on LYSENKO
   and STALIN and what this PROLE SCIENCE (the TWO sciences) was all
   really about and WHERE IT STARTED: BOGDANOV and I know Lenin tried to
   criticise Bogdanov but never even read HIS book first: EMPERIO-MONISM.
   Lecourt says that in order to GRASP the roots of Cultural Revolution
   and the Lysenko thing, you MUST know what Bogdanov said: and she does
   us the favor of SHOWING US in the appendix, the whole thing. This BLEW
   MY FUCKING MIND when I read it over one year ago now. BLEW MY MIND.
   So! The Lysenkoites were LITEREALLY like the COS gang on alt.satanism
   early on when L was with us and his enemies were LITERALLY like the
   Setians - FOR REAL LITERALLY like it. AMAZING, and the argument
   centered on the SAME THING: ENTROPY! WOW!
   
   What few realize is that APART, almost TRANSCENDENT (!!!) of the
   natural cosmic dialectic (parsimony/diversity, it even exists in stars
   and how they burn down and BECOME something else sometimes which
   results in NEW LIFE) ...almost transcendent of the natural cosmic
   dialectic IS this dark force: it is ONE and it does not need the
   universe to EXIST. It IS that "thing in itself" and Lenin might try to
   argue this but he is NO quantum physicist or any kind of physicist.
   This ONE THING is not matter and not energy. And matter and energy are
   the SAME THING but they sure LOOK LIKE different things, don't they?
   Does a cup standing still on a table LOOK LIKE it has energy? Well, if
   you know that energy is NOT MOMENTUM then that's good. Imagine telling
   Lenin that the cup has energy when the cup is not DOing anything or
   serving any function - just sitting there. IMAGINE trying to get him
   to grasp this. HA! Dream on. Do you know that a cup, up on a table,
   has MORE potential energy than it does if you put it on the FLOOR OR
   GROUND? DO YOU KNOW THAT? I don't mean YOU put it there, ergo YOU
   (work in putting it up) give it energy. No, I mean that the cup on the
   table has more potential energy than cup on floor, and cup on floor
   has more potential energy than cup on ground. GET IT? I doubt it.
   Diane and L knew: physics. You can even FEEL it if you pick up a cup:
   the "rubber band" like feeling (you would call it weight) when the cup
   has to be LIFTED (stretched away from the floor) by your arm (which
   you feel as weight). That feeling you feel as you feel the pull of the
   "rubber band" to bring the cup down to the floor is "work you are
   doing" to PUT potential energy INTO that cup. But do you see the
   energy going in there? But what is pulling the cup down? The greater
   MASS of the earth is doing it - did Lenin know that mass was NOT the
   same as matter? I doubt it. But the GANG in general knows it
   especially since the Setian wars where hard-line physics experts got
   in on the act on our side and we had to use the LANGUAGE OF philosophy
   for the most part to even TALK to the Setian morons.
   
   FACT IS you can NEVER KNOW what the "thing in itself" is, no matter if
   it's an atom or a cup on a table or a chair you sit in. You can surely
   know the UTILITARIAN USES of such things, or KNOW if the few have
   these items and the many lack these items and have to sit on the cold
   floor and drink out of their bare hands. One has nothing to do with
   the other! By turning a light on to see the cup or chair (human eyes)
   you bombard it with photons: you CHANGE it. By standing near it
   (gravitational field) you CHANGE it! Even by USING the chair or cup,
   you CHANGE the THING ITSELF which you can NEVER know. The senses only
   tell you the SUBJECTIVE but senses, no matter HOW keen can not see
   ENERGY inside that cup. Nor can they see "where the photons went"
   after you turn off the light! Uh well, they went into the walls and
   things in the room, absorbed as HEAT but do these things FEEL hotter
   to the sense of touch? NO. Am I actually belaboring this OLD STUFF
   again? guess so. This is getting tired. I should have known better
   than to expect people who CLAIM to be cooperative and such to ..
   forget it.
   
   During the time of Stalin, some people tried to reject modern physics
   because it didn't fit into dialectical materialism. Wrong move. Stalin
   and notably Beria took charge and they developed The Bomb. Have to
   change dialectical materialism to fit into a much broader and much
   SMALLER framework, a framework (the small subatomic one) that does NOT
   QUITE FIT into how BIG objects interact with each other! So there is a
   "thing in itself" but no one can OBSERVE it. Fact. The MINUTE you get
   into the subatomic or quantum reality, you have entered into the
   domain of verbatum TANTRA! MANY physicists notice this. Yes, WE who
   know thru the flesh alone KNEW these things but far different from how
   physicists know it. Tho they must ALSO have those intuitions to come
   up with these IDEAS - and then the brains or foolhardyness to go and
   make MANIFEST (outer) what they KNOW (inner).
   
   Parsimony (tendency to conserve, toward order)/diversity (tendency
   toward DISorder, NOT to conserve but to proliferate) is THE MAIN
   UNIVERSAL COSMIC contradiction - one that doesn't NEED human societies
   to exist or observe it. GOD this is OLD STUFF now. But ENTROPY is THE
   HIDDEN FORCE that makes these things contradict AND ALSO holds them
   together in their almost eternal dialectical movement and interaction
   as they both "NEED" each other TO each exist! This is OLD STUFF here.
   This IS over Mim's head. It was MILES over Lenin's head. They deal
   only with the human STRIFE, with analysis of the ToD we live in. So
   did Marx for that matter.
   
   But oh ho ho, how did Lenin deal with it, or Stalin? Well, they
   gathered around themselves, in a political police kind of force, a
   bunch of people that, to the best of their ability to know, were NOT
   klippoths and then they set out and KILLED a lot lot lot of klippoths!
   But they didn't kill them ALL. And some klippoths managed to find
   their way into the ranks. That is the G.S. analysis of the thing.
   Morgan (former Mason 1800's here usa) was also a klippoth who managed
   to seep into the ranks of us here in the usa. Just that one man and
   the doings revolving around him managed to PUT the xtoids into power
   here where they STILL ARE. ONE MAN and HIS KLIPPOTHIC DOINGS.
   
   An odd imbaL exists. ONE PERFECT THING is never able to perfect
   everything else around it, tho it can try if it's a living thing. But
   ONE ROTTEN THING manages to rot everything else around it. I notice
   that and it's a strange imbaL. Put ONE poison mushroom in a batch of
   OK mushrooms. The OK ones don't manage to ever neutralize the poison,
   but the poisonous one manages to make all the others poisonous. WHY?
   It's strange! And by this I mean they are poisonous to HUMANS!
   Strange!
   
   Vad - Max Schmelling - that's the name of the German guy that boxed
   with Joe Louis, in the famous boxing match during the Nazi times!
   That's what I referred to long ago when I think I asked if that was
   his real name or if he was related to the OTHER Max Schmelling.
   
   The library is unable to find Proletariat the CLP theory journal. But
   I thought of calling CPUSA and they do have a library. I should have
   thought to call them for the Lenin book - tho I think I did try long
   ago and got no answer. Lenin's book must be OUT OF PRINT since the
   library was unable to locate it (they have computers that list IN
   PRINT items). Odd, since they DID find all - ALL - of Lysenko's
   writings! VERY odd. Of course, MIM would never think of copying THAT
   article in Proletariat for us tho it can't be that long; no, they'd
   rather withhold references or give LOUSY references with no author
   name or volume or page.
   
   Later on: I see one thing already in Lenin's MEC: the working man
   eating sausage and paid money; he knows he eats sausage and it tastes
   good and that he is robbed by the employer. Well, no he does NOT know
   he is robbed if he is paid enough so that he has LEFT OVER MONEY after
   he buys everything he WANTS to buy! This whole thing, however, is NOT
   an argument against the gang talking about subjective experience and
   "things in themselves" at all, the gang who has familiarity with
   QUANTUM PHYSICS in the 1990's. Lenin is dead fucking WRONG not only in
   that the worker MIGHT NOT know he's robbed if he is paid ENOUGH to
   have left over money, but he is not even NEAR to addressing or
   GRASPING the concept as we WOULD tend to read this stuff TODAY, with
   quantum physics knowledge at OUR MODERN disposal. "To Know" the things
   in themselves and "imagine the body does deceive you," he insists one
   can know and that body does not deceive. Is Lenin ignorant of the
   mundane reality of crazy people? He is DEFINITELY ignorant of modern
   physics. It is NOT POSSIBLE to know anything as a THING in itself -it
   is NOT POSSIBLE! N O T P O S S I B L E !!!!!! You ONLY can know it
   SUBjectively and/or analyze it SEMI objectively as a "thing related to
   other things in an environment of subatomic THINGS and of other big
   things that NETWORK WITH the thing you look at." The thing itself is
   CHANGED the moment you turn on a light to see it and bombard it with
   PHOTONS. This is WAY beyond Lenin or anyone of that time, but anyone
   reading this kind of "thing in itself" stuff today would HAVE modern
   physics at their disposal and if not, he'd end up sounding STUPID to
   anyone who does.
   
   When K and the grotto got into this: which is WHEN Mim brought up
   Lenin's MEC (Materialism and Emperio-Criticism) K was talking NOT
   about paychecks or food. He was talking about DESIRE and "what is
   pleasure." What tastes good. Lenin forgot that SOME FOLKS HATE
   sausage? So it would NOT taste good to his senses at all. I find
   sausage to be "sweet." Jeff thinks the SAME sausage is too spicy to
   eat. Wayne used to find the SAME sausage BITTER to his mouth. THIS is
   what the gang was talking about: PURELY subjective experience and the
   individual self KNOWING whether or not it LIKES something or not. This
   has NOTHING to do with Lenin's analysis!
   
   We don't know what Kant et al and others meant when THEY said "thing
   in itself" back then. But the tantriks who speak this jargon MEAN
   EXACTLY what physicists of the most modern type mean and I can VOUCH
   for this personally. It was a PROFESSOR OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS that
   questioned me at old job and realized I WAS TALKING PHYSICS and he
   found that out by PROBING for what I meant in minute detail. I meant
   it as Plato meant it: shadows. That's the samsara we speak of. Yet we
   may speak of this we VERY MUCH LIVE IN the world - and FULLY. We do
   NOT bury our sensations but are raised to be KEENLY AWARE of them and
   these are what WE ARE CALLING "our feelings" - we do NOT mean some
   western SICK TWISTED thing which, in OUR opinion, has NO meaning. We
   are keenly aware of normal INSTINCTS and what happens to them in THIS
   society. MIM seems to not have a CLUE what instinct even is or what
   NORMALCY is.
   
   And again no no no, they (the ones Lenin criticises) go on about the
   perception of seeing the colors red and green and, AT LEAST FROM THE
   MODERN PHYSICS UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE NOW, Lenin is not NEAR to
   grasping what is being said here. Not NEAR, not even CLOSE. Do the
   senses deceive us? YES, THEY FUCKING DO but that does NOT mean one
   should follow the truth of this with the bullshit that we shouldn't
   base something like the choice of colors for a car on this truth! We
   SEE red and green, ergo things are red and green TO US. WOLVES do not
   see as we see, nor do dogs. Nor do color blind people. But IS the
   thing itself red or green? IN FACT NO. FUCKING NO. Green I believe if
   I remember right, is really ORANGE but the reflected light appears
   GREEN TO OUR EYES due to how our rods/cones pick up the wave length of
   the light. EVEN STILL, you are STILL understanding the "thing" AS IT
   IS BOMBARDED BY PHOTONS (light) and NOT "in itself!" DUH! The THING
   ITSELF does NOT refer to how you perceive it or experience it
   sensually. It means the THING ITSELF. I have an inkling that these
   people WERE understanding something about science or else I am just
   NOT ABLE TO READ IT without my OWN understanding OF modern science. I
   read their words and immediately INTERTEXT scientific truths into it.
   And I do have a KNACK for physics so said a professor of nuclear
   physics. I UNDERSTAND it.
   
   Parmenedes defined a quantum object - but WHO KNEW WHAT THIS WAS -
   BEFORE - the knowledge of quantum physics? NO ONE and philosophers and
   theologians were NOT EQUIPPED to come close to understanding it.
   
   Here comes criticism. Check out K then by his own words. He is by no
   means a person grown in a NORMAL surrounding nor is he NORMAL in the
   animal instinct sense when it comes to sex or ANY human relationship
   for that matter. Yet Mim would LOVE what he has to say, on gender
   things? Mim likes K's line as closest to Catherine MacKinnons. But who
   is K to tell the animal me, or the "dumb nigger at work" about sex or
   fucking? He is NO ONE. Who is HE to speak on gender relations when he
   speaks from the HELL WORLD of THOSE HELLISH relations and I do not
   come from there? He is NO ONE to speak for ME or for the "dumb nigger
   at work" who has NO PROBLEM with this, just as he and I have NO
   PROBLEM BREATHING: it is as EASY as breathing for us. And now we are
   NOT speaking about the advent of the KIDS that result in this society:
   we mean FUCKING. SEX. DOING THE ACT. NO BIG DEAL for us. Like
   BREATHING. I don't even associate closely with anyone who finds this
   kind of a thing a TOPIC TO DISCUSS like Breathing is not a topic to
   talk about. But if you have ASTHMA then you THINK ABOUT IT all the
   time. Well, we don't have asthma.
   
   I don't know what MACH, KANT, et al MEANT THEMSELVES, or what they
   personally KNEW themselves, when they wrote this stuff Lenin
   criticized. But I can ONLY read it now with quantum physics knowledge
   that I DO HAVE a knack for.
   
   Here: electrons are in your body, in walls, electrons plus positrons
   and photons are what "light TRAVELLING" IS. Not what MAKES light
   travel. No. What "LIGHT TRAVELLING IS." But, thus far, you can not
   KNOW what an electron is! You can ONLY see it either attached to an
   atom in matter and not isolated, attached by the POSITIVE pull of the
   photons INSIDE that atom which you can't see either unless you SMASH
   the atoms open, or you can see it AS YOU SMASH IT.
   
   IS an electron a wave? Yes when YOU look at it one way. Is it a
   particle? YES, if YOU look at it another way! Ah, but it CAN NOT BE
   BOTH!!! It was EINSTEIN that said that there IS a thing in itself:
   "ELECTRON," and we do not know what it is. It was Heisenberg that
   admitted that we have to remain content to know "ONLY THE SHADOW" he
   used that Platonic phrase. So that doesn't stop anyone from MAKING
   ELECTRICITY by harnessing electrons or making anything using them,
   even building a wall that is held together by the electro-magnetic
   force (for the morons out there: the EM force is what holds MATTER
   ITSELF together, now I don't mean the nails or the glue). We know how
   to MAKE these things and we DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW what the electron IS
   -REALLY is.
   
   I knew it. You are NOT EVEN CLOSE in understanding the kinds of
   RELATIONS the gang was getting into if you think this Lenin book has a
   THING to say about it. Oh, FAR from it. You are not understanding US,
   we who DO KNOW modern physics for the most part. I have no idea HOW
   you are reading it. But an example: where to call something an
   'eternal truth' and use Napaleon's date of death as the example. There
   is NOTHING eternal truth about this stupid HUMAN DATING system shit
   but yes, the being known as Napoleon ceased to exist as a living
   organism in a specific time/space location. It's a truth yes. NOTHING
   is eternal.
   
   Bogdanov is RIGHT (Lenin is mocking him but not even coming CLOSE to
   grasping what Bodanov said, in fact, Lenin didn't even READ IT!). And
   yet I admit, when I read what Bogdanov said (you can tell by my notes
   maybe) I can't read it without my immediate quantum physics knowledge
   coming into play - as if Bogdanov IS TALKING QUANTUM PHYSICS, or
   specifically about ENTROPY! And HE WAS talking about that! 2nd law of
   thermodynamics! NOT as defined piffily, but as elaborated on by REAL
   PHYSICISTS during the time of the Setian wars where it was proven
   beyond a doubt that these bozos don't have a CLUE what entropy even
   is. ENOUGH.
   
   I am reading The Great Lenin woefully MISUNDERSTANDING what someone is
   saying and then criticizing it. I am reading Lenin OUT OF HIS FIELD,
   COMPLETELY out of it dealing with stuff WAY over his own head. But
   then I have no way to know if those he criticized KNEW what we know
   today or not, regarding physics. They TALK as if they DID. What else
   could they have meant? They are NOT saying that green is subjectively
   viewed (solopcism) by each individual PERSON viewer. They are talking
   about the fact THAT we see it AS green: and that this IS an illusion!
   THEY ARE RIGHT! And if you don't know it, you are scientifically
   illiterate and back in the past BEFORE quantum physics.
   
   When the gang, even K with that S&M argument, talks about subjective
   KNOWING what pain is and NOT liking it, that is more like "who likes
   the sausage or not." YOU, Mim, can no better understand what it IS TO
   _BE_ black than I can understand the MONUMENTAL IMPORTANCE, plethora
   of words, confusion/obsession or whatever else K is feeling because:
   he found a girl! I can analytically kinda understand it but that's NOT
   understanding anything at all. What he is MONUMENTALLY OBSESSING OVER
   is one big nothing to me. Now if I won the lottery - that would be ONE
   BIG SOMETHING to me, but I PROBABLY WOULD NOT go on a diarhheac
   plethora over it to ANYONE. I have known MANY people, including
   myself, that experienced something for the first time and loved it a
   lot but I NEVER knew them or myself to go on a plethora of obsession
   or get so SOOOOO exstatic over it and then, almost as if to wallow in
   FEAR, analyse it all to death and worry it to death. It is
   UNFATHOMABLE to me. And THIS is Mim's expert on gender affairs? HA HA
   HA HA HA! No offense intended K, but you have NO IDEA what this all
   sounds like to me when you worry this NORMALCY to death or imagine you
   are hyponotizing someone or forcing women (yeah, you wish maybe?) to
   sleep with you when ALL you are doing is talking TEENY BOPPER romance
   talk to them. And then you feel "guilty" and WALLOW in it
   (exstatically?) because you imagine you forced a girl to sleep with
   you? She slept with others. And as for your virgin one? She's a LIAR.
   She used to be a BLOW JOB remember? Then said she hated it, remember?
   Get OFF it. It you can't "grow up" fast then PLEASE don't embarrass
   yourself to regret it later. Telling me or B is one thing, but you
   tell the whole gang and JESUS CHRIST man, I don't know FUNDIES as
   immature or lacking of this kind of experience. You don't know where
   this will end up, who'll read it. K, the gender expert. Who says so?
   Mim. And if you and Ginger ever have a fight, after all the HONESTY
   WITH HEART PERSONAL STUFF you told her, oh holy hell will we get to
   hear it then. and yeah, right, ROMANTIC SHIT fucked up the Panthers
   and other leftist groups and MIM got all over my face for MOCKING IT
   OUT as if it was one HUGE nothing. TO ME IT IS. NOTHING like that ever
   happened with the promiscuous Bolsheviks, Stalin et al, and the
   easy-going free-fucking NKVD men AND women. Right, our kind never
   lived in gender hell. Sex was not a CHORE OR A PROBLEM for us. There
   is a BIG difference. I don't even think TROTSKY was that twisted up.
   WHO CARES who is sleeping with who? WHO CARES? I will NEVER understand
   this. NEVER. Who acts different toward each other AFTER they have sex?
   WHO? Yes, K and MacKinnon (?) can be the experts in gender hell, but
   don't BALK when me OR BLANCHE BARTON tell you where to go to hell for
   trying to speak for US. We can walk, run, jump, skip, hop and all
   that: we DO NOT NEED wheelchair cripples to tell us HOW we SHOULD do
   it. Again, no offence intented here but I am aiming this at MIM, not
   at K who is only being sincere and speaking for HIMSELF.
   
   Lenin's extreme objectivity, eg, against Bogdanov is nothing but an
   EXTREME FORM of idealism and that's a PROVEN FACT now. You can't even
   know the thing-itselfness of SPACE OR TIME without being IN it in
   terms of VELOCITY! You can't know ANYTHING without acting upon it,
   without changing it, without NETWORKING with it and it with you! It's
   NOT POSSIBLE! It's SO BAD that if you create an experiment in which
   you attempt to see a particle, you'll SEE ONE - yet if you create an
   experiement in which you attempt to see a wave (with the SAME FUCKNG
   THING) you'll see a wave! Yet the thing can not be BOTH! Lenin might
   have been objective for his time, yet what I see of it (with modern
   knowledge) is that he didn't have a CLUE what this was about and he
   kept bringing it into the realm of the most ordinary shit - and even
   THERE he is wrong in a sense (as with the WELL PAID employee who has
   all he wants PLUS money to save who DOES NOT know he is exploited at
   all!) But the very idea that you can possibly know a "thing in itself"
   is the most EXTREME idealism yet, if you consider this is the 1990s
   and we know a LOT MORE on the subatomic level. It is NOT POSSIBLE to
   know a "thing in itself" without networking with it, hence CHANGING
   it.
   
   YET: when the gang was bringing up "pain, pain in itself" or "the
   thing itself" we meant it NOT as quantum physics, but as a "thing"
   (say, a car) devoid of the ego-emotional baggage and sublimated sex
   shit attached to the car-itself. Or pain. ANYTHING ALIVE knows what
   pain is UNLESS IT IS NUMB. It is known that schizophrenics (severe)
   have a very high pain tolerance, meaning, if you hurt them they tend
   to not feel it. They are disassociated from their bodies.
   
   Man, you Mim's go so far FAR overboard when it comes to even LENIN'S
   normal day normality - do you think HE would tolerate S&M or even
   HOMOSEXUALITY? FUCK NO, he'd see it as an ABNORMAL condition,
   something not natural at all. Do you IMAGINE in your wildest dreams
   that Lenin OR Stalin wanted to put their penises in a woman's MOUTH?
   Are you INSANE? My father didn't even believe ANY MAN WOULD let
   another person DO such a thing since the very thought of it made him
   CRINGE as if he could feel pain - one EATS with one's mouth, one
   DEVOURS FOOD if you eat the way we eat without polite dainty table
   manners. OH, Mim don't want to talk about that. Oh dear. I can't HELP
   but notice, a FAGGOT Roehm put Hitler into power, effete men of the
   boorjwa helped Hitler to power. One Ball Hitler never fucked a woman
   in his life and was a PURITAN. But the Bolsheviks were what K would
   call HIGHLY PROMISCIOUS (what I would call NORMAL and HEALTHY primate
   behavior), the Bolsheviks were FUCKERS and as open as us about it and
   with NO BIG DEAL attached to it at all. A 19 year old girl, Ginger,
   having fucked ONLY 27 men in her life is FAR FROM promiscuous in my
   own mother's viewpoint. She waited till she was THAT OLD? 19 is OLD to
   wait to have sex. HORNY starts around 13 or younger. Larina was TEN
   YEARS OLD, she gave Stalin a LOVE LETTER to give to Bukharin and
   Stalin thought NOTHING of it when he gave it to Bukharin. Even ANTI
   Stalin writers have to pause in their slander to MAKE SURE they don't
   convey the idea that they are calling Stalin a weirdo when they bring
   up his 14 year old wife Nadya, even his ENEMIES have to pause to
   explain that this was NORMAL there. AND DO YOU IMAGINE that they had
   jealousies and all that STUPID SHIT going on? NO THEY DID NOT!
   
   Back to MEC (not what caused it to be brought up: K's grotto etc):
   Lenin just should NOT have gotten into the realms of philosophy where
   they start to tilt into this kind of modern day physics. Heisenberg
   and Bohr were right: you HAVE to be content to know ONLY the shadow of
   what "electron" is because you CAN NOT know the thing itself; not with
   our technology. That NEVER meant that they advocated not USING the
   technology even with partial knowledge or NO knowledge.
   
   I WAS RIGHT! YOU, Mim, NEVER understood what the gang was saying and I
   can guarantee, there is NOTHING in this Lenin book that will do a
   THING for the conversation. You are NOT grasping what WE ARE SAYING,
   not even a CLUE if you think Lenin has the answer. LENIN didn't
   understand it and that's all TOO CLEAR. Ole, Phil especially, K,
   especially the physicist L, we UNDERSTAND quantum physics and NO, it's
   not metaphysical at all! It's just not easy for MORONS to grasp like
   entropy, how the Setians COULD NOT grasp it. Even when Diane
   (electrical engineer) spelled it out. COULD NOT grasp it. I used a 9th
   grade method and they NEVER grasped it and Diane checked with a
   physicist - I did a good 9th grade explanation. They were just TOO
   STUPID to grasp it. No harm done. But DONT TRY to criticise it or
   CLAIM you grasp it when you blatantly, obviously, DO NOT.
   
   I can't BELIEVE you'd suggest such a book when (this is a JOKE?) K is
   railing AGAINST S&M and some freak into it in his grotto is insisting
   that he TRY it. WHAT? Lenin would look at YOU for suggesting it as if
   you are NUTS. K is defending himself on WHY he KNOWS he wouldn't like
   it even if he tried it (simple: PAIN HURTS and he doesn't like HURT).
   The other is insisting that K has to try it. It's easy to try: come on
   over and let me PUNCH you or whip you ONE TIME and see if you like it.
   OUCH? Then you don't like it. Shit, IMAGINE the Checkists getting in
   on this conversation with a NEW COMPLICATION to think about: "what if
   the spy IS NOT telling the truth after we beat the holy crap out of
   him? What if he LIKES to be beaten? What if we CANT find the truth? OH
   OH! How can we make such a person talk? REFUSE to beat him?" Sure,
   they can threaten his family (they used to do that a lot) and what if
   the spy doesn't CARE about his family? Do you think threatening to
   murder or torture or imprison B's brother and sister would make HIM
   TALK? HA HA HA! He'd be GRATEFUL to the Checkist that did him this
   FAVOR! You see, LOGIC can be gleaned from this: even the SPIES in the
   USSR were people who DID LOVE their families! If the Checkists
   threatened to harm THEIR families, they DID TALK! Logic: the Checkists
   also ASSUMED that people in the USSR had LOVING family
   relationships!!!!!! LOGIC. Why would they assume this? Ego projection
   of course. THE CHECKA agent would break IF someone did such a thing TO
   HIM, ergo, he uses it to make the prisoner break. But it WOULD NOT
   work on B to make HIM talk at all. That would PERPLEX the Checkist or
   Stalin. They would not be able to grasp this NEW THING: "he doesn't
   care if we hurt his sister? or father??" The smarter Checkist might
   wonder if advanced brainwashing techniques were used on B so that he
   feels nothing for his sister and brother. Well, yes, the advanced
   brainwashing techiques are outlined in CONVALESCENCE FROM XIANITY by
   us! Only the CIA didn't do it and no one calculatedly figured out how
   to do it. Klippoths just DO IT as a matter of their OWN twisted
   NATURES. This would be over Dzerzhinsky's head.
   
   There are some NEW CONCEPTS in the west for people like me to grasp:
   PEOPLE HATE THEIR SIBLINGS! THEY HATE THEIR PARENTS! AND THEY HATE
   ACROSS GENDER LINES! These are NEW concepts hard for a person LIKE ME
   (or my father or mother) TO GRASP! Yet.....K said he can't find anyone
   who doesn't HATE his own father. How strange. What planet is K from?
   EARTH? And yet the mother-hating sons often are mama's boys! HOW
   STRANGE! Stalin would NEVER be able to relate to this, nor would
   Dzerzhinsky. NOR CAN I.
   
   Here is another NEW concept: it generates from the above: the
   workplace's employer or boss becomes the SURROGATE unconscious parent!
   VERY strange, but I see it! S/he puts in for a weekend shift and then
   consistently never shows up. WHY? Oh, this would make BERIA think I'm
   insane if I told him: why? Because all hir life, little promises like
   going to the park for a Saturday with mom, or going to the show with
   dad, little promises like this were PERPETUALLY BROKEN by the parents.
   And this is WHY this person does this now, 20 fucking years later, on
   a JOB. Yezhov wouldn't want to hear my reasons why this OBSTRUCTOR
   does this (which causes a real hardship on everyone since NO ONE IN
   PERSONNEL IS THERE to try to get a replacement on the weekend!) and
   he'd GIVE UP torturing the bastard for sabotaging the workplace. He'd
   just SHOOT hir and tell me to shut up with the psychobabble I LIKE
   Yezhov.... Me? I know why because I'm CURIOUS.
   
   And NO B, I don't ASSUME or guess like you do all the time: STOP DOING
   THAT. I walk up to the person and bluntly asked hir "did your parents
   used to promise you stuff (I gave little examples, quite a few of
   them) and then not do it?" S/he was shocked, sure. Yes, s/he
   elaborated and wondered how the fuck I KNEW this. HOW? I got eyes is
   how. Got a degree in psychology too PLUS knowledge of the PAVLOVIAN
   stuff from other sources. I DON'T just assume with the examples of the
   two blacks and their street punky attitudes in other post. I also went
   up to them and STATED what I thought and ASKED THEM if this was true.
   YES IT WAS, sure, they wondered how I knew it. First question was "WHO
   TOLD YOU THAT?" No one told me, but they probably REMAINED suspicious
   and thought someone DID tell me. And you know what? If I wanted to
   turn one against another, I could claim someone DID tell me and they'd
   BELIEVE IT - and think their friend talked about them behind their
   backs. SUCH is the kind of POWER (low magic, Vad, this IS low magic
   now as WE define it and we are the GS's around, you know....) ..such
   is the kind of power one has OVER people who are OBSCURED.
   
   And while we are at it....K....someone a guy or girl, could just TELL
   YOU A LIE and say that Ginger did this or that with someone else just
   KNOWING you'd claim to not be jealous but KNOWING you WOULD be. After
   all, she's been around with other guys, right? And if you asked Ginger
   (since you claim you are both open) she'd deny it because it was a LIE
   someone decided to tell you. And so you MIGHT think she deceived you
   this time. You'd never know. This is how SEEDS are planted where there
   is FERTILE GROUND for them to BE planted. Let someone tell me PHIL did
   this and I'd grin and ask the details. I DO NOT care one way or the
   other and that's for real. It means NOTHING to me. When Ramona was
   pent up and couldn't find one guy that could fuck I told her to go and
   ask Phil. Do you also care about who Ginger EATS DINNER with? Or TALKS
   to? Or shares a pencil with? You tell me that "in this society sex is
   the biggest blah blah blah." Yeah, and you ARE OF this society then?
   I'm not. Nor is Phil. Yet we grew up in Newark NJ. But understand the
   POWER (low magic this is) any enemy you make has over you BECAUSE: YOU
   CARE!!! Yet you are UNABLE to "NOT care" in the way we do it because
   for you, this translates to "no love." Not for us!
   
   You believe in soul mates. I do not. I have no soul mate. There is no
   such thing as a soul mate. I walk the wheel ALONE and am GLAD I do!
   Anything else for me would be HELL. I might lose my arm or leg - but
   my arm and leg ARE part of MY OWN BODY - not somebody else's. I can
   lose a Friend or a Lover. I don't just have ONE Friend and I never had
   just ONE lover when I was horney for that - and not all my lovers HAD
   BODIES OR HEADS OR MOUTHS OR MINDS: One of my lovers was RUBBER! Yes,
   you are right, you are into things most people 14 years old get into.
   Well, I had my first baby when I was 14 so I guess I can't RELATE to
   that EITHER (touchy feely).
   
   I was never love started and it doesn't feel like anything to BE
   loved. But then, I was never picked on like you were and treated like
   the omega wolf either. As a result of this, I never paid much
   attention to WHO liked me or not - hardly anyone ever messed with me
   that KNEW me (like in school, etc.). So I can't relate to that either.
   I can apply learned psychology and Pavlovian truth to it. But I can't
   personally relate to it at all: I never experienced it.
   
   Come to think of it, as I used to tell Mim, I never EXPERIENCED the
   employer EXPLOITING me either because I ALWAYS made more money than I
   knew what to do with: even so it was very LITTLE money when I take a
   closer look. The boss was OK, I got paid fine. For the first time IN
   MY WHOLE LIFE (yea Vad, NEW experience, FIRST TIME) I know what it
   feels like to EMERGENCY NEED FAST MONEY and have to COMPETE with
   others on a job. Well, I did NOT resort to crime as some others did,
   but I was VERY predatory and I discovered that I learn SUPER FAST
   about stuff and jobs I never did or had ANY KIND of experience doing
   before. I didn't KNOW that about myself BEFORE this experience. If Vad
   has asked me, I'd have figured I'm SLOW to learn new things because I
   simply DO NOT LIKE TO HAVE TO DO THIS, not even with my VCR! I told
   the truth: I DO NOT KNOW what I'm capable of DOing when I have never
   done it before. I seldom ASSUME anything, even about myself. What I
   know, I KNOW - it's solid. But from the past job experience of
   NON-exploitation with enough cash to even save up a lot of, I was
   able, THEREFORE, as a RESULT of NOT feeling exploited (a subjective
   FEELING) to see that the bosses ELSEWHERE are NOT fine and, then,
   without considering MY OWN exploitation at all, figure out that I am
   NOT being exploited BECAUSE my good wages and good luck are being
   taken FROM others that live elsewhere. Strange way for me to figure
   out there is a labor aristocracy here, but that's how I figured it: BY
   NOT FEELING EXPLOITED!!! I never called it a labor aristocracy because
   that's talking-head abstract talk. I called it FEEL talk: we are
   BOUGHT OFF so we DO NOT give a SHIT about the workers of the 3rd
   world! We are busy PARTYING. CONCRETE TALK. I don't feel exploited now
   by the JOB - but the WATER COMPANY has to go. Our electrical company
   here IS a cooperative not connected to the Florida Power company.
   
   Phil is familiar with Lenin's objectivity, the idea that sciences were
   objective and "matter" was a thing in itself! Lenin did not like the
   "idea" that matter was NOT a thing in itself, but was RELATIVE to the
   observer: Machism! Lenin also hated Bogdanov's idea that SCIENCE
   ITSELF is NOT objective and that there is PROLE science and BOORJWAH
   science! Lenin trashed the idea! HA!! HE TRASHED IT! Bogdanov,
   however, was not a Machist. Lenin may not have LIKED this idea, but
   sorry, it happens to be TRUE - ABSOLUTELY true! And for ANYONE in
   modern day to agree with Lenin now that so much more IS known, is to
   make them into the ULTIMATE idealists! You want to sequester reality
   because Lenin didn't LIKE things about this reality and our INABILITY
   to perceive it EXCEPT AS WE INTERACT WITH IT!!!? Sorry, you can not
   sequester reality and sorry, you CAN NOT know what your damned kitchen
   table is as a "thing in itself" unless you FIRST bombard it with
   PHOTONS (which subatomically CHANGES that table!) Sure, you can EAT on
   it: DUH! Lenin was in over his head. If you want to talk about what
   good this kind of TALK is (about reality) when it comes to REVOLUTION:
   oh, then that's ANOTHER thing. The checkist that bashes the table over
   the spy's head, will break the spy's head, whether he does it with the
   light on (photon bombardment) or not! HA! In that sense, matter is a
   thing in itself where, when one CHUNK of it is bigger than thy head,
   it can BREAK thy head. Or, not bigger: actually it has more MASS.
   HA!!! In which case, it doesn't have to be bigger. It can be the size
   of a golf ball so long as it has more MASS. HA!!!! TOO MUCH. TRY
   explaining to Lenin that one teaspoon of STUFF from a dead star weighs
   more than the planet earth. TRY. Sure, this is counter INTUITIVE. Alls
   you need to do is pick up three balls the same SIZE and SHAPE - one
   made of aluminum, one made of lead and one made of uranium and feel
   the weight in your hands. To figure out why, to KNOW why the weights
   are different, you have to know about ATOMIC weight. That's the baby
   stuff. But why are NEUTRONS from a dead sun, one teaspoon full,
   heavier than the whole planet earth? And what kind of star is this?
   It's like one BIG atom, a neutron star. You couldn't even
   theoretically get close enough to scoop up the teaspoon because the
   GRAVITY would CRUSH you This is NOT like the 5 elements of idiot
   knowledge, it's NOT like dirt or fire or whatever you can THINK UP to
   put into a teaspoon. It's a NEUTRON star. And ONE TEASPOON of this
   stuff is heavier than the earth. So the Checkist could NOT bust you
   over the head with it: he couldn't get even CLOSE to it without being
   CRUSHED by the gravity. Lenin understood this? HA HA HA. Matter is not
   a thing in itself, NOR IS STRANGE MATTER or strange particles which
   absolutely DO exist.
   
   Lenin claimed there was an objective world out there, and OK: SHOW ME
   the objective OBSERVER that can observe it? YOU CAN'T. Yes, you only
   have YOUR OWN IDEAS and can KNOW those alone, and how YOU interacted
   with many THINGS out there. Hence my statement "you can NOT KNOW what
   it IS to BE black." But to take this TRUTH and try to incorporate it
   into plans for a revolution or against a revolution is STUPID. The two
   have NOTHING to do with each other. There is NO SUCH THING as matter
   that you can know as a thing in itself - but this has NOTHING TO
   FUCKING DO with a fucking worker's weekly wage or what he has to eat
   or if he is underpaid and overworked (that's exploited where you FEEL
   exploited!) or if a person is starving or sick and can't get medical
   aid. SHIT!
   
   You want the gang to read something they are BEYOND, and then to read
   Lenin's criticism of it when the thing he is criticising has NOTHING
   TO DO with the truth about matter or knowing things in themselves. You
   want the gang to see how Lenin was in over his head? They'd read the
   thing WITH modern quantum knowledge in their heads like I did.
   
   Bogdanov wanted to CORRECT the vulgar materialism of the Monists by
   making Emperio-Monism! Lenin didn't even READ it! He'd have been in
   over his head, I guarantee it. Yet it was BOGDANOV's idea, especially
   the one of the way people SUBJECTIVELY CONCEIVE OF any scientific
   truths, what they DO WITH them, which ones they CHOOSE TO WORK ON,
   that BECAME Stalin's and Lysenko's and Prezent's CULTURAL REVOLUTION
   where Proletarian Science was made LAW. NOT LENIN. BOGDANOV. Yes, 2
   plus 2 is four. But what are you going to DO with this truth? YES,
   there is a knowledge of how to BUILD a house, people have this
   knowledge. But what are they going to DO with it and WHO is going to
   be the KEEPER OF this knowledge? WHO is going to get the houses? The
   few? Or all the people? WHY NOT teach everyone how to build a house?
   It's not hard! One doesn't have to know about wattage to follow direct
   instructions carefully given and dumbed down, they could simply MAKE
   the wiring and electrify the house with this. That is where Bogdanov
   was TAKING vulgar Monism and putting it into dialectical perspective,
   yet Lenin, WITHOUT READING IT, criticized it. No matter. It prevailed.
   It's what became the cultural revolution.
   
   What some of Mao's doing were more like were ProlitCult stuff: putting
   totally unqualified people or even little kids, in charge of places
   where professors with a LOT OF KNOWLEDGE, practial too, used to be.
   That was STUPID and what we are calling infantile. You INSIST on
   seeing only the "good things" Mao (AND HIS SECRET POLICE BY FORCE) did
   "for" the Chinese. Someone needs to remind you of the NOT-good shit he
   did or the STUPID shit he did. Someone needs to smash into your
   stubborn heads the fact that, for some reason you WILL NOT LOOK AT,
   the Soviet people NEVER NEEDED gender relations to be fixed or
   changed. It is the SAME reason why I do not care one way or the other
   who sleeps with who, while K will refer to Ginger as the town slut or
   sleep around, which I find ABUSIVE and SLANDEROUS. She has a free will
   and a free cunt. By WHOSE standards is HE judging her to be
   promiscuous or fit to be called negative names? WHOSE STANDARDS? HIS
   OWN? MAYBE! And that's WHY the Soviets (Turanian RACE) never needed to
   have their gender relations fixed. K is not far behind the CHINESE
   attitude on women. I would EXTERMINATE men that are like that, by the
   way. They can't be changed. I don't mean this personally either, I
   mean it OBJECTIVELY (as in cold, clinical, NKVD). Otherwise IDGAF. I
   have no idea what GINGER feels or thinks of K's assessment of her as a
   slut. I find the attitude itself characteristic of the Male Disease
   and a spoiled NON-innocent nature. I would not imagine that Ginger
   would LIKE being thought of in that way. I don't know. I can be nasty
   too: maybe Ginger, a psych student, is analyzing K as a patient for a
   term paper? Here is another one: maybe she did NOT fuck 27 guys, maybe
   she made it up? You know how GUYS love to brag about how many girls
   they slept with? My experience is that girls do this TOO. It's a way
   for people with inferiority complexes to BRAG about how popular they
   are (uh huh) like the hispanic new girl at work was talking about her
   C bra cup when I was standing there and Carol, a supervisor bust out
   laughing when I said "gee, I only wear an A" (the joke is, I've got
   BIG tits like rockets, this girl is a C cup in her DREAMS: she's
   nearly flat, probably an A). Hmmmm. NKVD: if she'd lie about something
   so blatantly visible and obvious, would she lie on surveys or try to
   cheat on the job too? I suspect she WOULD. That's another thing I
   could never grasp, the hang up on tit size (yeah, but as flatties say,
   look who's wondering....). They do suffer from the WORST inferiority
   complexes. I suspect this kind of shit affects job performance. Why
   lie about something so visible? Like the OTHER Hispanic that was
   telling another girl how she knows it's strange that she has blonde
   hair when most of her people do not. I asked her "Oh, do you dye your
   roots black?" See, the roots were SHOWING, BIG time too. I find it
   amazing how other people DO NOT say anything. Do they know what liars
   they come off as when they do this with the VISIBLE TRUTH hanging out?
   I tried it once. I lied when the VISIBLE truth was hanging out and I
   wanted to see if the person I talked to would "CALL ME" on it. She
   didn't - and so I laughed and she figured I was making a JOKE all
   along. "No I'm not eating a sandwich (as I take the next bite)...I'm
   paving the concrete." "How are YOU today" asks a supervisor that I had
   it out with. Answer as I'm eating: "hungry." Did he want to know how I
   was? FUCK no. He was dancing around small talk to TRY to homey up like
   the newly improved NICE supervisor, no longer an asshole. Uh huh.
   Ants. They are ants. I have feet.
   
   By the way, on a more serious note. Let us say, K, that YOU looked
   like Yezhov (pant pant pant). OK, but Yezhov was YOU, your life, your
   experience. And I meet you and you talk "HOT TALK" to me. I'd jump in
   bed and let you ride me like a horse, hot to trot; I'd kiss you so
   hard I'd suck the breath out of you and MERGE/kiss with you. But if
   you then wrote me a POEM like the one you wrote Ginger? OH, I might
   understand it because Yezhov is you and he'd have told me the same
   stuff you told Ginger about your past and I ALSO know psychology. But
   if you wrote ME those words? I'd NEVER BE ABLE TO TRUST YOU! NEVER! I
   might be your FRIEND, but I'd never get CLOSE to you again like for
   sex or anything else close. You write as if you HATE, but also love?
   Strange. TOO strange. If you called me a slut, I'd call YOU one and
   never have sex with you again if you have a LOUSY attitude like that.
   But then I'm not Ginger, I don't have parents that it the roof over 19
   year old grown women living in the home having sex or have a mom that
   would tolerate an abusive husband or any of that other SHIT. Ask her.
   I wonder IF she could be open about how she feels about it. You say
   insulting words to a person you claim to love? You call her second
   rate but do YOU THINK she is second rate? Or is that the judgement of
   others? And who are YOU to judge 'ratings' on sex partners? YOU ain't
   Yezhov! Why judge it at all? Why not RETAIN innocence, being to being?
   do you know WHAT KIND OF MEN call women sluts or whores when the women
   fuck freely? CHRISTIAN men, men who can't fuck freely themselves, men
   who have a DIRTY attitude toward something natural.
   
   ONE GOOD thing about those old 1960's CRAZY Maoist type groups in the
   USA: to join them you had to PROVE you weren't a fucked up
   attitude-ish boorjwah or a racist and you had to do that by having sex
   with EVERYONE IN the group! It doesn't prove anything really,
   especially about racism, but it tells me they KNEW what this attitude
   was about and at least TRIED to override it or test to make sure no
   one had it. It would pose a problem for gay members that did NOT want
   to get fucked or fuck, or to straight members who didn't feel like
   having someone's crotch in their face if the person was same sex, or
   up their ass either. Of course, Mim doesn't do that -they are against
   it and they say so. Still, I found it FUNNY to read: never fear, big
   bad bolshevik is NOT out to jump your bones.....
   
   After I xerox the WHOLE Lenin book, if anyone wants a copy, send me 15
   bucks for copying/postage (hope that covers it) and I'll mail you a
   copy. It will come to 200 xerox pages with two pages to a sheet (it's
   about a 400 page book).
   
   CONTINUED sorry for the ramble but K's conversation started this Lenin
   MEC thing.