Tani says:
   
   
   
   HISTORY OR EPISTEMOLOGY?
   
   Why I think MIM threw Lenin's book, I'd say, primarily at Karl and
   then at the BLACK PEOPLE I was quoting and speaking FOR on the "black
   experience" which is a BLACK LINGO TERM, hence Mim threw the stupid
   book at ME since I posted it and talked in the first person mostly:
   
   In times of historical difference, there are "truths" or as Tyagi said
   "facts" that everyone accepts as given. Tyagi would be the EXTEME
   relativist since from what I could make out, each living thing has its
   own facts and yes, as the g. Lenin said, this leads to solopcism. And
   Tyagi was that par excellance from what I gather. HOWEVER... later on
   that.
   
   The notion, and Lenin said the notion was OK so "we can talk about
   it...." that there is HISTORICAL truth and this is relative to the
   time in history, is what I call (and what IS called): POST
   STRUCTURALISM. Post structuralism would be what you do when and if you
   read something WRITTEN with vastly different historical truths as
   givens, and you bring it up into YOUR historical period. OR, you live
   now and ARE ABLE to analyze a book USING THE OTHER historical period
   and "its truths and as givens" as the basis for analysis. This is not
   easy to do for MOST FOLKS because they can't "let go" of their
   NOW-ego. They can't IDENTIFY with "the other" who wrote the book and
   who HAD certain as givens normal in his time period. An example is the
   time of Jesus and "he vanished in a glow of light." This was NORMAL to
   say such things about LOTS OF PEOPLE: BACK THEN. What did it mean to
   those who said it? Don't know. Code talking, best guess. Like "you got
   SOUL." That's code talk meaning: "you can dance" to those tho have NO
   CLUE to what those who "HAVE SOUL" MEAN when they say this. .... Post
   structuralism also extends into the epistemelogical: and that claims
   that EACH READER rewrites the book s/he is reading by the act of
   reading it because s/he brings into the reading s/he does, an
   automatic INTERTEXTING of hir own experience. Of course there are
   "alternately literate" renditions of many books these days... Ergo,
   there is no OBJECTIVE WAY to read a book. One CAN ask the author and
   ask hir the INTENT, but deconstruction would state that the author's
   intent is still irrelevant as YOU, the intertexting reader, can not
   possibly know AS the author (hir SPECIFIC life-experiences or traumas)
   knows or REALLY fathom the intention behind writing the book.
   Solopcistic? Yes, but TRUE! Here: "you got soul." I know what it means
   because I HAVE IT, I'm VERY rhythmic and I FEEL it inside my body as
   kundalini flowing. What can the arhythmic, can't move, motor retard
   make of the statement? S/he can WATCH us dancing and wonder what makes
   us tick and THINK "oh, they got soul." It's got nothing to do with a
   LEARNED techique: one just IS MOVED BY the music and blacks DO INDEED
   know what I am talking about and can STATE when else they feel this
   thing, eg, when there is NO dancing going on. There is NO USE talking
   about "IT" with a person who lacks it. It's like talking about color
   to a born blind person. LITERALLY the same. Before you smear your
   CEREBRUM on this, hold on and LET ME FINISH.
   
   What Lenin (and I presume MIM) is balking at is EPISTEMELOGICAL
   RELATIVISM which we must admit permeated the Karl/Grotto conversion
   and was inherent in my posts on the BLACK EXPERIENCE TODAY. The
   concept of "the black experience," or that "Mim can not know what it
   is to be black," contradicts the fact that we all live in THIS time
   period and have A TRUTH based on historicity and also that this truth
   is a COMMON truth for ALL and can be dialectically analysed in a
   materialist way. It changes over into the idea that blacks, BY BEING
   blacks, have a "different truth." But it is not I who claimed this:
   BLACKS claimed it and I wrote it down and posted it. This DOES lead to
   solopcism "you don't know MY PERSONAL truth and I can not know yours."
   
   HOWEVER...When we get into the area of SPECIES or GENERA then I have
   to argue with Lenin: these other animals and even plants DO INDEED
   experience "historical truth" differently from how we experience it
   and FOR THEM our truths mean nothing and vice versa. There is room for
   argument on this point. Objectively, this or that species is going
   extinct due to man's actions: history: the animals know it, we know
   it: historical time of extinction. That's a stretch. This gets into
   the realm of "knowing" and HOW one knows and thru which senses one
   knows. We are not plants or invertebrates or bacteria.
   
   However, I find it comical that in Red groups that especially favor
   blacks, they don't want to HEAR what blacks are SAYing (emphasis the
   blacks'). Blacks INSIST you ain't HEARing what they are (what they BE)
   SAYing. One could do deconstruction on this sentence: "YOU ain't
   HEARin what I BE SAYin." Is their emphasis on the concept of Being, as
   in "I BE?" I'm not making a joke or mocking out language here. I hear
   it that way and blacks say I DO HEAR THEM and what they BE.... BE
   SAYing. So accuse the blacks of epistemelogical relativism; they are
   the ones who EMPHATICALLY INSIST on this point. They INSIST that YOU,
   white comrade, CAN NOT KNOW what they feel or experience! That you
   argue with this emphatic insistence they make only proves to them that
   YOU are a "dead white thing." Proves you CAN'T even grasp what they
   are meaning or saying. You DO NOT hear it. In which case, it is a moot
   point TO argue about it at all. There is an unbridgeable gulf here.
   
   Stalin went along with Lenin on the issue which would mean there is no
   black truth versus white truth, there is only historical truth and
   dialectical materialism is the method used to analyse it, and well,
   per PARTINOST Stalin cut off the black communists and even put the
   leader living in the USSR in a gulag. So I guess that means that Lenin
   won the day? Hardly. I know that Stalin stopped listening to the
   incessant WHINING. And now I'll make a racist epistemelogically
   relative joke: WHY is Stevie Wonder always smiling? Answer to joke:
   Because he never saw himself in a mirror. The joke is that in THIS
   historical period, he doesn't know he's black, even tho everyone else
   who SEES him categorizes him, based on his looks, as "black." HA HA
   HA. The joke makes a point for my "lookism." I never judged lookism as
   right or wrong, good or bad, BY THE WAY: just in case SOMEONE heard me
   saying this, labeling it, and IMAGINED I was judging something. It is
   what it is.
   
   The idea of compassion or empathy, the notion of WALKING IN THE SHOES
   OF THE OTHER PERSON is absent in Lenin's concept when he argues this:
   a sighted man can never know what it IS TO BE born blind. Let's argue
   about it. I won't.
   
   Now the authors of the notorious "Bell Curve" make a strong point with
   their intellectual elite category and the fact that this elite has NO
   CONCEPT of what's going on in the working class world or on the
   streets. "Nixon could not possibly have won the election because
   NOBODY I KNOW voted for him." Famous intellectually elitist statement.
   
   The fact that there IS A historical truth around is fine. But the fact
   that CATEGORIES of people have their own group truths is so FACTUALLY
   TRUE ALSO (epistemelogical or not) that the surveys we do GO OUT OF
   THEIR WAY to see what categories people fit into (and SO DO
   epidemiological studies) and the categories are based on 1. race; 2.
   socio- economic status, and 3. least of all sex. Don't BOTHER
   belaboring the error here or how these groups are NOT applying diamat
   in order to know THE BIG historical truth because I ALREADY FUCKING
   KNOW IT. I maintain that I can pick out the kidney and analyze it
   WITHOUT seeing it inside of your body and I'll STILL KNOW THINGS about
   this kidney. SURE it's different when it's INSIDE your body. And if
   MIM is MORON enough to imagine that "Tani no longer knows what a
   kidney is inside the living body" then so be it. Dualism on their
   part. The kidney can easily be BOTH but what you CAN KNOW about it
   outside and body VERSUS in a body are two very different sets of data:
   BOTH ARE data, however! And there is the "reality" of a person who HAS
   NO kidneys and has to live on CAPD and there is the reality of the
   person with normal healthy kidneys. The two LIVE IN different PERSONAL
   realities, sure enough and the third who gets a kidney TRANSPLANT has
   an even different personal reality. This does NOT negate the greater
   reality of present day circumstances in history. DUH.
   
   You can talk about historically relative truth as Lenin did and as
   Lenin approved of (as something to talk about?) but the fact ALSO
   remains that all the historical periods and their relative truths
   didn't mean a PALE OF BEANS to populations ISOLATED from ALL OF IT:
   FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS! The whole reason Lenin OR Stalin even got
   involved in this shit is because of the POLITICAL MATERIAL AFFECTS of
   such rampant "me-ism" or "my group-ism" mentality and the harm it
   could cause the whole movement and its goals. Otherwise do you imagine
   Stalin did NOT have thoughts, feelings and experiences of HIS OWN? Did
   you imagine that Stalin, who liked to drink and could hold it, did NOT
   understand that his wife Nadya couldn't drink for shit and got sick
   from it?
   
   The ToD was designed to show the earliest historical truth in terms of
   a set up of groups/categories/classes (where such did NOT exist
   prior), an NEW organization of people; and the only other historical
   truths about this is that the new organizations, the NEW labor
   technologies and the NEW relations got MORE COMPLEX -but the basic
   PATTERN is still the ToD. The ToD is like the DOUGH for cookies. The
   changes it went thru are like the shape of the dough once baked, icing
   on the cookies, etc., shape of the cookie sheet which molds the dough
   into various shapes. But the DOUGH is still there. Alongside this were
   areas where there was NO DOUGH. I keep in mind that the dough itself
   in my pseudo-analogy MAKES the shape of the cookie sheet and thus,
   baked, it comes out a predictable shape. Hence do our own
   technologies, as I said in other post, sort of RESTRICT what we might
   become, they STEER us into a more LIMITED choice of what we CAN
   become.
   
   The 10,000 year old historical truth or as we'd say this, the one
   historical truth of the KALI YUGA (yuga means age) as a LUMP PERIOD of
   truth is that this was a long drawn out age of WANT and of CONQUEST
   and also of various kinds of PAIN (tooth, stomach, etc., pregnancy,
   etc.) when before agriculture these things did NOT exist. It was and
   IS a long drawn out age of people having terrible kinds of power over
   people, groups of people having terrible kinds of power over groups of
   people: and in this sense, the ToD is SOLID on solid ground. The "long
   drawn out" concept that short-lived humans perceive is IRRELEVANT in
   terms of geological epochs: this is all in the blink of an eye FAST in
   terms of earth's history. The ToD PATTERN holds true for ANY
   historical 10,000 year old human period one might wish to look at
   provided one only looks at what was INSIDE OF the Tree, not some
   isolated outsiders.
   
   With neurology on the rise and the "mind" being seen for the material
   thing it is, there is MORE evidence that epistemelogical relativism is
   TRUE ALSO. BOTH are true. In a time period where record numbers of
   AUTISTIC CHILDREN are around, one MIGHT even say this could be the age
   of solopcism where such children EXIST IN a solopcistic state, where
   different races have THEIR OWN truths which they claim other races
   can't understand. What does historical truth mean for the 3rd
   generation black welfare person? What does this person KNOW? Well,
   s/he doesn't know SHIT about history but s/he knows hir own inner city
   welfare life experience and sees it all around hir.
   
   I do believe what MIM was ranting about was the conversation we had
   which SOUNDED LIKE epistemelogical relativism and solopcism (Karl
   knows what pain is, ergo he knows he doesn't like S&M). As I pointed
   out, pure toothache, stomach ache, sore throat or punch or hurt pain
   has nothing to do with S&M. S&M is an extreme perversion where the
   sexual centers IN BRAIN, DUE TO DEVELOPMENTAL DAMAGE, are confused,
   miswired, with pain/rage/aggression centers. These people are
   DEMENTED. What MIM doesn't know is that for us to GET INTO such a
   STUPID conversation, we are pretty much making mockery of THINGS using
   quantum reality as a real basis. Such as when I say "my rubber ball is
   missing a side, it's broken." Or when I say "how do YOU KNOW the chair
   doesn't do this or that when you turn out the lights? And maybe the
   chair 'behaves itself and acts like a chair' the moment you turn on
   the light and bombard it with photons." The joke is that the chair is
   trapsing around the house, making time with OTHER chairs or doing
   things one would see in kiddie cartoons of old where furniture comes
   to life when the people go to sleep. But how do you KNOW this doesn't
   HAPPEN? Fact is (FACT IS!) you CAN NOT know! You DO NOT know if a
   chair has a conciousness. BACTERIA DO! PLANTS DO! This has been
   PROVEN. Their manner of consciousness is unknown, and to be true to
   epistemelogical relativism or solopsicm, there is no way a human CAN
   POSSIBLY KNOW what manner of consciousness a bacterium or plant has.
   NO WAY! We can only ASSUME that a dog has a better sense of smell but
   by the words/concept "sense of smell" we refer to our OWN ability "TO
   SMELL." When a dog sniffs, it might not SMELL anything at all but it
   might get CONCEPTS in its brain almost like word-constructions. We
   don't know. We CAN NOT know. This is where MOST satanists are coming
   from: our similarity AND DIFFERENCES to other animals.
   
   The other thing is that any given "historical truth" is going to be
   perceived BY historians (and modern analyzers) of one specific area on
   earth. And the whole fucking ballyhoo boo hoo is over WHICH analyst
   analyzes the historical data: the mechanistic materialist? the
   boorjwah hobbesian? the dialectial materialist? And so they ARGUE
   about it insisting that each has THE TRUTH and call each other insane
   or stupid. And I call xtoids insane and extend that to ALL humans with
   any tendency to BE RELIGIOUS in any way shape or form and I KNOW I'm a
   supreme minority saying this. I even declare that I "KNOW" they are
   insane. Oh! ? DO I? What if they are right? What if there IS a god as
   they talk of gods? Here also is where CULTURAL RELATIVISM comes into
   play -and that leads DIRECTLY TO epistemelogical relativism and/or
   solopcism. I notice WHO (which biological variety of human) analyzes
   it one way and who analyzes it another way -I watch the show. I notice
   WHO (which variety of human) insists that there are SEPARATE truths
   based on carnal/sensual life experiences based on WHAT THEY ARE, and
   who argues with this. I watch the show.
   
   Now I've said enough of this OBVIOUS shit. We have already been thru
   this, inside out, upside down, taken it to pieces ages ago. Karl was
   JOKING. I was quoting BLACKS and even some Amerinds down here on THEIR
   Experience which THEY maintain is NOT the White Experience. I boil the
   whole fucking vomit bowl to a simple reduction: white folks HATE YOU
   and don't like how you LOOK. PERIOD. The rest is justification shit,
   squirming excuse shit, lies. I have to agree with them about THEIR
   truth versus honky truth. Why? Because I SEE IT. What do I see and
   hear the whites saying? "Oh, that was a LONG TIME (history) ago." So
   per usual, the whites agree with Mim: it's history. Well it's NOT
   history to the Amerinds OR to the blacks. But I also see their
   experience VERSUS the white experience VERSUS the black experience in
   AN HISTORICAL CONTEXT duh.
   
   Sorry but the fact of THE historical context still fits smack on that
   ToD chart. THAT is why I drew it. That is why Brendan clearly saw that
   MIM can not, is not able to, read my stuff IN CONTEXT. And you best
   believe most of the gang SURELY DOES.
   
   It is this very issue, the issue of historical relativism versus
   epistemelogical relativism that has DIVIDED the blacks from the rest
   of the RED left wingers and this was true with Stalin and them also.
   Blacks interacting with Red Comrades only REINFORCED their "black
   world view" as they EXPERIENCED IT as racist. Was it? I SAY NO! I was
   THERE for some of it. Stalin not being able to CONCEIVE OF racism or
   even races with some kind of 'separate consciousness' got him accused
   of being "insensitive." There is SOLOPCISM for ya. How can Stalin KNOW
   what this black person feels? He couldn't even conceive of it save to
   say: "but then, you are with the lower classes, why don't you JOIN the
   Communist Party?" Nope: they had to create the BLACK Communist party.
   
   Does Mim think that we do not know what this STUPID SHIT is? In a time
   and in a place, the USA, where HUNDREDS of groups exist with their own
   self-proclaimed "TRUTHS" this issue is VERY important, far MORE
   important than it EVER was in the past or in the USSR. Is this time
   and place the HISTORICAL AGE OF ANGELS? Do you have any idea HOW MANY
   PEOPLE insist that they KNOW angels exist and have had experiences of
   some kind with them? DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY? THE MAJORITY!!!!!!!!! So
   then, who is to objectively judge when we can not possibly PROVE the
   non-existence of angels? Are there strange things or creatures of some
   type visiting people and not visiting us or is there rampant INSANITY
   on the loose?
   
   Stalin et al maintained a strict stance on BIOLOGY and that you CAN
   NOT analyse any kind of organism without knowledge of its UNDERLYING
   biological REALITY. You can't project human motives into a DOG OR CAT.
   But people do this all the time. Let us bring this into the realm of
   human variations then: "white people CAN NOT understand our black
   experience." This is like the same KIND of statement. You have a
   better chance of understanding it than you do of understanding a cat
   or dog! Mim, you go against this kind of real-thing when you support
   every "sexual lifestyle" kinky garbage out there DESPITE THE FACT that
   the human species is sexually DIMORPHIC. I do not believe MAO did this
   at all. HELL NO. I also go the Lysenko route and maintain that you CAN
   NOT analyze the variations within the human species (races or whatever
   you want to brand them) by looking at them OUTSIDE of thousands of
   years of EVOLUTION in vastly different ENVIRONMENTS.
   
   Africans for the most part evolved for THOUSANDS, maybe even HUNDREDS
   OF THOUSANDS of years in an environment of PLENTY with sparce
   populations stabalized. My people evolved at least for 15 thousand
   years in the ICE COLD and predominantly DARK, lightless places of the
   earth. Others were in the temperate zones. The STRATEGIES we each used
   were vastly different and the foods we ate (metabolism) was vastly
   different. DIFFERENT ENOUGH to change the cross-sectioned shape of the
   hairs on our heads; different enough to cause the BONES in our heads
   and the bones on our faces to be SO DIFFERENT that a CHILD untrained
   in anthropology could easily SEPARATE the skulls of each on sight!
   Different enough to make the shape of our eyes become feline or
   wolverine and NOT ROUND like every OTHER PRIMATE ON EARTH, including
   other human primate, has. Different enough to FIX the activation of
   melanin in another variation so that it is HERITABLE no matter WHERE
   this variation has a baby or lives for 10 generations, no matter what
   this variation eats or does: it is HERITABLE STILL ergo it is FIXED in
   the genes. This can NOT be ignored, nor can the ENVIRONMENTS that gave
   birth to what these variations BECAME thru time and selective breeding
   IN ISOLATION for a long long LONG time. It can not be ignored.
   
   And in a world where these various variations are THROWN together
   there are PROBLEMS. And you presume to KNOW that this or that
   variation doesn't FEEL or EXPERIENCE differently from yourself? That
   is the ULTIMATE hubris! It is like the ULTIMATE solopcism that states
   that "I know, ergo I know what YOU know because I am a knowing being
   and we all know in the same way." I can't HELP but notice that the
   Europoid variation is the SUPREME KNOWER insisting that he knows;
   whereas the other variations insist that the Europoid DOES NOT know
   and DOES NOT LISTEN and CAN NOT HEAR. And what does the Europoid SAY
   when the Amerind or African disagrees and argues? He just COOLY
   maintains the "error" of the non Europoid and maintains his own
   correctness. It's COMICAL! Stalin at least had the honesty to admit
   that he didn't have a CLUE what it was about, he could not FATHOM it.
   He saw class, low class, but he ALSO saw some NOT-LOW CLASS and VERY
   BOORJWAH blacks, those who'd aspire to BE boorjwah. But he objectively
   saw that this "nationalism" was DIVISIVE to the movement and on that
   account, he didn't give a flying fuck about understanding it or being
   'sensitive' to their feelings. I agree with Stalin on this move.
   ENTIRELY.
   
   This is a period of historical classism. THAT some of the ones who
   USED TO BE low class (some are no longer) are identifiable on sight
   only EXACERBATES THE ISSUE, but it does not MAKE the issue. Whites
   manage to SEE blacks on welfare. Yet MORE WHITES are on welfare than
   blacks. Why are they selectively seeing reality in a skewed manner?
   Because they WANT TO, because they DO NOT mind helping a poor slob
   fellow white but they DO MIND helping something that looks so
   different. There it is: ROCK BOTTOM. NO excuses. I daily SEE and HEAR
   whites feeling more sympathy and being more willing to adopt stray
   cats and dogs and yet they choose to remain BLIND to the millions of
   black babies or handicapped babies or retarded babies up for adoption.
   What does that tell me? A LOT. A WHOLE LOT. I see and hear more
   sympathy for the plight of SEALS than for some starving Ethiopian or
   Haitian. I sit next to people who genuinly SOB at the sight of
   slaughtered dolphins and YAWN or get bored and FEEL NOTHING at the
   sight of some 3rd world kids starving in a garbage dump they live in.
   I SEE IT. You'd have to MAKE YOURSELF BLIND not to know this, be aware
   of this. You are NOT going to figure out this thing by looking at
   economics. Economic disparity and the whole rest exists WITHIN any
   ethnic group but the economic disparity that existED and still exists
   for the most part in the USA between blacks and whites is a whole
   other thing involving what the whites LIKE and DON'T LIKE. And it DOES
   NOT matter to the poor low class white that his equal IS a poor low
   class black. They feel NOTHING for each other, NO empathy despite lots
   of bullshit babble about it when the spotlight is on them. In PRIVATE
   people say VERY different things.
   
   By the way, Lenin's critique of emperio-criticism can be seen IN THE
   LIGHT OF old hat 19th century thoughts brought into chaos by the
   discovery of 2nd law of thermodynamics (old satan its own self...) and
   bandied about by the philosophers who spoke about the inability of any
   observer (human or not) to be able to KNOW a "thing in itself."
   Quantum 20th century up to date physics knows this is just NOT
   possible, there is NO SUCH observer but that doesn't mean that one
   slips into the extremes of agnosticism and imagines that s/he can't
   know ANYTHING, not even how to eat, drink, or walk thru a room. Gee
   uh, I THOUGHT I observed a cup of coffee on the kitchen table but I
   can't be sure it's a cup or if it's on a table because I had to turn
   the light on to see it and that changed the stuff. I want a cup of
   coffee but I can't seem to FIND one because everytime I go to MAKE one
   I have to observe it and therefore, I change it and so it can't be a
   cup of coffee anymore. DUH ER UH... Got a cup of coffee? But it does
   mean that satanists make lots of JOKES about it! and I believe Kevin
   Filan was the jokster on such issues par excellance, even claiming HE
   couldn't be sued since HE didn't say the slanderous words about
   Mikey's Mom: HORUS channeled thru his body and said it!!! For TOS to
   sue him would be hard since they channel spooks as part of their daily
   lives! IMAGINE sueing Kevin! This is where it got into the extremes of
   absurdity where we joked about how one might PROVE Kevin lied, or
   PROVE Horus didn't speak thru his mouth. It was FUNNY!!! His skits on
   Mikey's Mom had me doubled over laughing - it was HILARIOUS. I like
   funny. Mim is NOT funny except where Number Three wrote this STUPID
   SHIT imagining I thought this or that and then typed a one word
   sentence: "Why?" He typed "Why?" It was HILARIOUS to see it. I think
   Mim doesn't know where a person LIKE myself is coming from. To make it
   clear, since the gang SURELY KNOWS it: I come from DOing. Talk is just
   talk, theories, factoids, more or less entertainment or for purposes
   of "knowledge" which is STILL something to entertain if it doesn't get
   you food, shelter, means to get it (money) and so forth: what good is
   knowledge if it's just "to know"? Well, it gets you clarity, but one
   BIG sowhat! GET ME MATERIAL THINGS I NEED: that's REAL. DOing is
   another matter. I don't see much DOing going on and so it's all one
   HUGE whatever. DOing is real. I'm a FUCKING TATAR -GET A CLUE! We
   never TALKED much. We always were a very "sinister" group or "insular"
   or whatever you want to call it? MOODY? SULLEN? Playful too, however.
   We just SMASHED like a tornado rampaging thru a place. There is
   nothing TO talk about. Recognize, seek out and DESTROY. Simple as
   that. MATERIAL THINGS I NEED, simple as that. The rest is
   ENTERTAINMENT and if you don't know it then you make NOISE. Or you
   would if written words could make sounds. THIS is noise. I'm MAKING
   noise right now.
   
   Mach could be seen as some kind of early precursor to quantum theory,
   but when Lenin takes this stuff into the realm of common everyday
   reality, and/or rails at the nuts that DID take it there, he goes and
   writes a huge critique and the problem is that SOME of it involves
   REALLY old hat bullshit ideas long since shown to be utterly false by
   20th century science which we COSsers got all into and out of with the
   Setians who were ALSO back in the 19th century and who didn't know
   physics OR high-school chemistry (remember that?). Mim wasn't around
   for that. Lenin wrote the book BECAUSE (his intent) of the way this
   shit creeped into the pop culture and tended to infect revolutionary
   groups who didn't know what they were talking about (like the Tos
   doesn't know physics or chemistry but just makes up some hokey
   bullshit version of it). This all breaks down and starts to sound LIKE
   something Mach or Lenin wrote when we HAVE TO resort to philosophical
   words to convey an idea. It doesn't break down when the hard-cores put
   the actual FORMULAE on the internet for the Setians to see, but then
   no one understood it except Phil! Still, it was HILARIOUS to see all
   that formulae on alt.satanism and IMAGINE the poor fanatical fundie
   xian tuning in and SEEING it, screens of it, tons of bandwidth filled
   with formulae. THAT was funny, too. I LIKE FUNNY.
   
   I don't know what Lenin would make of the "black experience" blacks
   talk about. Stalin dismissed it and put a piece of it in a gulag.
   
   Mim brings up this RUBBISH due to some PURELY pop culture silliness
   Karl got into, even worse, a grotto he made IN ORDER TO MAKE
   _PERSONAL_ friends! Karl also has that INSANE kind of humor we all
   catch from back in alt.satanism days. Then I chime along with the
   "black experience" only I don't bother to write in the 3rd person and
   fill up the posts TOTALLY with anecdotes, I write it in the first
   person. Whatever. One BIG COSMIC whatever. I decided to chime in with
   the WHITE experience too which PISSED MIM OFF. BOO HOO. One fucking
   HUGE BOO HOO. The archie show as a COMEDY. I asked around about it.
   Yes.... a comedy.
   
   Karl stated what he DID NOT WANT in HIS grotto (emphasis on HIS,
   emphasis on NOT WANT). He didn't want people into S&M. That's his
   choice. So what happens? The kinky freaks' ears perk up and they go to
   battle with Karl for this? And if I didn't want to let one of these
   people in MY HOUSE, would they scream discrimination? I would shoot
   them. Karl said clearly WHY he didn't want these people around him,
   tho I insisted HE did NOT OWE THEM a single fucking expanation, but
   they went and PROVED his reasons for not wanting them near him were
   VALID. They always want to INFLICT their sexual perversions on someone
   not into it. It's not the same as straight chauvanism because NO ONE
   CAN TELL if you like to fuck or get whipped by looking at you. You'd
   have to TELL someone. Well, it so happens that kinky people ALWAYS
   manage to tell everyone their business, especially those NOT
   INTERESTED IN HEARING IT -but straights (real ones: fuck and get
   fucked) NEVER do this. This WAS THE DISCUSSION that prompted Mim to
   bring up Lenin's book? How odd.
   
   I said it would do no good, but Mim was unable to GRASP why. We are
   not really talking here, about solopcistic experience of pain and how
   one KNOWS one does not like it. Far from it. Karl was playing
   mind-games with high-school kids for one thing, trying either to
   impress someone or mock them out. It is easy to tell if something
   "sexually turns you on" especially if you are male: LOOK between your
   legs! Is it up? Is it semi up? Then something turned you on! It's got
   NOTHING to do with whether or not a stomach ache hurts or not, or
   whether or not getting beaten up HURTS or not. It's also got to do
   with the fact that sexually TWISTED people KNOW they are broken
   freaks, wrecked beings, they KNOW and yet their inner conflict about
   this causes them to want to sequester reality and INSIST they are "the
   norm." And HOW DO THEY DO THIS? They do this by SPECIFICALLY
   _CLINGING_ to the straightest of straight people out there and TRYING
   to get THEM to ACCEPT them. If they are accepted regarding politics
   and civil rights, this is NOT ENOUGH. It is never enough because the
   pervert is UNABLE to accept that his abnormality is normal. He wants
   the straight to TRY IT and he won't be satisfied until the straight
   claimed HE LIKED IT. Nothing short of that will do. If the straight
   does NOT like it, then the pervert advances to the new tactic saying
   that the straight didn't do it right, or with the right partner. This
   is a pattern too. It is recognizable. It is caused by the pervert's
   KNOWLEDGE that he is utterly isolated from his own instinct. I won't
   argue this. Lenin WOULD NOT BOTHER to argue it - Dzerzhinsky would
   simply SHOOT such people in the head and be done with them and their
   sickness. I manage to immediately ENSURE that people into this
   insanity stayed away from me in the past: "Yeah, I LOVE to hurt
   people, I even like to KILL people, it's a GREAT turn on, don't you
   agree?" That worked to make them STAY AWAY from me for sure. Nowadays
   the Durga pops up and DESTROYS them (ala Diane).
   
   And when push comes to shove, I have to say, per biology, that we DO
   NOT eat sandwiches by shoving them up our assess or into our cunts.
   And many ABNORMALLY NON-biological things become "the norm" in a
   pretaloka society where LIFE is turned upside down on its head. I
   agree with Stalin, thank you. Chock that up to my OLD AGE or
   something.
   
   chow