Tani says: Post this to Mim and gang.
   
   I think B knows this from the OLD dialogues with Setians. I know Pete
   and Peg know it from ages ago and they ALSO know my TACTICS for
   arguing with my OWN statements and views, STRONGLY arguing. I know
   even OLE knows it.
   
   Take for the start "ALL THINGS" a very ancient post by me up on Vad's
   webpage. Therein, I said it all, or so for me or my own kind I said it
   all. If you KNOW something carnally, you DON'T TEND to belabor it in
   everyday mundane conversation about things. I don't think Mim has an
   awareness of how "BIG" that post is, how ALL PERVASIVE in terms of MY
   OWN BEING that post is. I don't think Mim has an awareness of how ALL
   ENCOMPASSING it is as far as "the dialectic" goes. The post and its
   dialectic is comparable to my arthritis: there is ALWAYS "the pain"
   sometimes lesser and sometimes greater, but ALWAYS existent. There is
   no MOMENT that "the arm" is not relevant and all pervasive in
   EVERYTHING I do, say, think. Repeating diatribe or words about "the
   arm" would be redundant to me. It's THERE. Like contradictions, there
   is always LESSER or GREATER "arm." The arm, not just counting the pain
   which is always lesser/greater, is ALWAYS on my body! SAYING "I have
   an arm" would be redundant. How the arm RELATES to my body and
   well-being is different from how it related and/or was connected to my
   life/being PRIOR to the less/more pain being everpresent. HUMANS have
   arms in the same way that ALL THINGS have the dialectic, even if one
   doesn't quite discover it or know exactly how to apply it. At first,
   Soviet Marxists were against Einstein but it was THEY who were TOO
   STUPID to note the dialectic at first and therefore, PRIMITIVE M.E.L.
   had to be MODIFIED or updated. Stalin himself had no part in going
   against modern physics, he wisely kept his silence and WATCHED. And he
   made the right move.
   
   For Mim, the dialectic is a thing to talk about and insert into a
   cerebral analysis. For me the dialectic is ever- present in EVERYTHING
   no matter if you talk about it or not and we'd tend NOT to talk about
   it for just that reason: I don't mention the space/time that societies
   exist inside of when I talk either. That would be LIKE having to
   mention the dialectic. Let's define HOW space is curved around this or
   that human, how the curvature changes based on interactions and how
   close you get to the other human, how TIMING of where the human
   happened to be at some specific place or time, etc. It's TOO MUCH to
   have to THINK THINK THINK about something that is so as-given, so
   FELT. So INSTINCTIVE and for us, intuitive. BUT NOT CEREBRAL.
   
   When I get sick and get over it, it is AUTOMATICALLY incorported
   (almost like synthetic knowledge) that I am now IMMUNE to this germ
   that got me sick and ALSO automatic, faster than thinking, is the
   awarness that the GERMS THAT SURVIVED are now made stronger and that
   they can COMMUNICATE TO OTHER germs how to defeat what I used to
   defeat them the first time when I got sick and MUTATE, or evolve. This
   is so automatic that I don't THINK OF saying it or having to "spend
   thoughts" to sub- vocalize/think about it. I KNOW it - my whole BODY
   knows it. It's FASTER than thinking thoughts. I KNOW that both me and
   the bacteria went to war, that BOTH of us are now changed due to this
   war and that a new dialectical relationship within my cells will exist
   due to this, new organizations will take place due to it on the
   cellular level: likewise for those bacteria. I KNOW this -it's
   IMMEDIATE, beyond thinking KNOWLEDGE. Having to belabor the obvious in
   PURELY HUMAN relations is a CHORE for me, it's TEDIOUS.
   
   There is nothing alive that exists without the living dialectic
   constantly being in motion - and it is in MOTION as I see it, moving,
   interacting all the time LIKE the yin/yang symbol, FLOWING and
   interacting, constantly contradicting and yet fluxing, each into the
   other. Phil, who has his degree in philosophy agrees with me entirely
   on Mao because he knows BOTH: MAOISM IS TAOISM! Let a river flow over
   a rock and there is dialectic interaction. The one will change the
   other and vice versa and the change will henceforce be interdependent
   on BOTH river and rock, but far more, there is a lot more going on
   than JUST river flowing over rock. There are no human relations that
   exist without this dialectic being IN MOTION, FLOWING and NO human
   relations interacting without also the "EVERYTHING ELSE" interacting
   and constantly networking with the humans, and with this in my culture
   as an AS GIVEN (like we take it for granted that the people
   interacting also BREATHE) we discuss things, such as social relations.
   That is one PRIMARY reason that when I read Adam Smith my BRAIN short
   circuites and I experience COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, I am therefore UNABLE
   to dissect it properly (according to MIM method). UNABLE to. I can
   only "hear" that A.Smith is OUT OF TUNE, he is so fucking WRONG that
   he's not even correctly wrong! But I notice big time that when I sing
   a whole CHORD, Mim is tone deaf to the individual notes: hence they
   IMAGINE I lack dialectic. That's why B says "yeah sure" and idgafs.
   EVEN BREATHING is a cooperation for humans as we don't just breathe
   in, we also exhale what PLANTS need, the plants that give us what WE
   NEED. You want to know a BIG contradiction? PLANT KINDGOM/ANIMAL
   KINGDOM. One can't live without the other, yet one manages to always
   seem to threaten to DESTROY the other - and oh yes, it works BOTH WAYS
   if you got the brains/BODY MARKERS to feel it/see it. There is
   therefore a very VERY delicate baL - and MAN is one fucking moron
   animal that doesn't have a CLUE how to do it.
   
   I'd normally say about someone, "he is not where he is" and that's
   understood CLEARLY. Of course, such a person is out of sync with - THE
   dialectic of life - and his thinking will SHOW IT as will his
   behavior. We have other ways of analyzing this with alphas
   (principles, chakras). Having to spell out that they breathe, or
   detail the dialectic that manifests as they interact, in a way that
   some Marxist would understand it (REAMS of words), is almost
   IMPOSSIBLE for us, tho I managed to do it in "ALL THINGS" it was a
   mental effort to have to DISSECT the minutia of LIFE like that. We
   have our own ways of SAYING things and they are very VERY short- cut
   ways. And it is most definitely a PENTA lectic for real! I TAKE the
   "hidden lectic" for granted, but I see that Mim doesn't even SEE the
   hidden lectic and many others that fail to FEEL/see it make DUALISM
   out of it. FUCKING GOD DAMNED TO HELL MORONS. I'm TIRED of talking to
   such people.
   
   This is the reason WHY western people have SO MUCH trouble
   understanding what I'm saying or what any of us say unless we go off
   and write 1000 page redundancies about something we'd normally say in
   a very simple manner to each other. It is why I see Marx's volumes as
   identical to the ToD chart but Mim doesn't have a clue because
   something isn't spelled out about..... breathing. That dialectical
   flowing exists from the MICROCOSMIC to the MACROCOSMIC and that's the
   as-given "BEING" I exist AS and perceive as. I FEEL IT moreso than I
   THINK it. Thinking requires too much effort for me, as if I have to
   cut off the feel/know of it and BECOME cerebral or abstract to convey
   something obvious to another KIND of human being whose brain doesn't
   quite work as the ones I'm used to. That's not the kind of animal I
   AM.
   
   I must remind someone maybe that MY KIND made those dark doctrines and
   MY KIND also realized communism -i.e., DID IT -not necessarily TALK
   ABOUT IT so much. We were this as primitives and we just remained the
   same as technologists that NOW can read and write and push buttons and
   such. Coming from the KIND of environment we came from is NOT QUITE
   like having fruit to pick off trees in a carefree way. Hardly. Other
   primates DO NOT LIVE where I evolved from at all. We either COOPERATED
   in OUR OWN WAY or we perished and we evolved in this environment WHILE
   those big civilizations rose and fell - APART from them for the most
   part! And they did indeed FEAR us. Demonified us. NO ONE can DENY the
   truth of this: WE EVOLVED FOR 1000's of years APART.
   
   Mim thinks something I said lacks dialectic? "Yeah right," B comments
   because he knows HOW to read it.
   
   There are basic AS GIVENS in what I write and say and that's how my
   brain structures things. I then write contradictory things in argument
   with my own stuff often inspired by what someone else said that I
   initially agreed with, the opposing point of view comes from the
   feelings of those that WOULD AND DO oppose it. ONLY a dualist thinks
   I've change my mind! ONLY them! MORONS! I write comparisons that Mim
   hates (Germanic tribes forming a nation after being PUSHED INTO THIS
   by the former Roman Nation, being the same as what Mim WOULD ALLOW
   Amerinds to do under a World Communism). I write the double dilemma
   blacks are in where they end up in danger no matter WHAT they do (and
   blacks have NO PROBLEM agreeing with me entirely, 100%, on this but
   Mim fails to grasp it, thinks I'm anti black for writing it). I
   deconstruct things, I also post-structure things all the time. I don't
   presume to KNOW "what would happen if" when the conditions in which
   these things happen are CHANGED. This is as given in how we dialogue
   in an oral cultural TRADITION too, the only thing I knew as I was
   RAISED IN this. I notice these as givens ABSENT in what Setians say,
   hence I see their thinking as warped. When I try to spell it out to
   them, they FAIL to grasp it still. When I try to "inact" a contrary
   line, they forget everything I said BEFORE and invent slanders to say
   about me. SO DOES MIM! One does not have to INSERT a dialectical thing
   into anything in the cosmos because it's already there. Mim acts as if
   one has to spell it out, like scripture or something, or like some
   ritual. "ALL THINGS" spelled it out. Everything else I say, no matter
   what it is, hinges on "ALL THINGS" and yeah, most of the gang KNEW
   this and I SAID it enough times. I also know about human nature in
   it's unspoiled AND SPOILED state and based on that I KNOW EXACTLY
   WHAT, EG, Islamic imperialism WOULD DO if it got power OVER the first
   world! I have NO illusions about it! I also KNOW, and it's not just
   talk, that ALL THINGS take the PATH OF LEAST RESISTENCE!!!! Either
   they do this or they are like a ball struggling to roll UPHILL!
   
   I present PIECES of things to be seen isolated. One can as easily look
   at PIECES of things as one can look at a KIDNEY after it's out of a
   person's body. Sure, it's function will be DIFFERENT outside the body
   from what it is when it's networking INSIDE of a living person. So? It
   can still be LOOKED AT and things known about it here or there. What
   does the kidney DO when transplanted in another person's body? As such
   did I look AT the "NEP." There are all KINDS of things one can say
   about "the kidney." Pro OR con. In OR out of your body or in a
   stranger's body as a transplanted kidney. Pro OR con. And BOTH
   statements can be TRUE. In the USSR the dialectician fanatics warred
   with the materialist fanatics in certain sciences and it is clear that
   BOTH WERE RIGHT, even so it seems like they both CANT be right. BOTH
   WERE. The subject about which both were right was MATTER. I'm NOT
   going to belabor the OLD TIRED argument. BOTH were right as quantum
   FACT shows. Yes, matter is matter a thing sort of in itself and the
   person's mind looking at the matter is ALSO matter - but yes, you
   can't possibly KNOW Matter since YOU ARE matter looking at it. You are
   NOT a FUCKING PHOTON interacting with matter or a NEUTRINO (strange
   matter!). Ergo ordinary matter interacting with ordinary matter will
   ONLY KNOW what it CAN know about this matter. But also yes, matter is
   matter. SIMPLE? Matter is not even just matter - remember?
   matter/ENERGY? Yes, but YOU gotta DO something TO the matter to make
   it become into energy and this TIREDNESS was already hashed out in
   1990 with Nemo of the COS or some other such person. And yes yes yes,
   the gang KNOWS ALL of this tired, OLD science. Like we once said to
   Professor Mosig, GET THE FUCK OUT of the 19th century.
   
   Here is one and I'll pick on a real BLISTER to tweeze. RACISM. Is it
   wrong? Who says so? What is it? NAKEDLY DEFINED, and long before
   someone decides to cerebrally label it "racism," it is the tendency,
   REALIZED OR NOT!, of Group A people who act AND LOOK similar to NOT
   WANT Group B people, who look or act different, around. It starts
   there. It might not even be anything Group A is aware of feeling IF
   Group B is far away an NOT around Group A and certainly Group A would
   never MANIFEST the behavior which is labelled "racism." Feelings on it
   would be NOT EXISTENT-YET. Not "come into being" YET. There is only
   POTENTIAL. And now this IS MOST DEFENITELY LIKE "potential energy"
   because "feelings" are bioelectical - i.e., ENERGY. And also
   biochemical: MATTER. LIKE potential energy, something has to HAPPEN to
   realize its potential so that it is ENERGY: NO LONGER JUST potential.
   Is this over someone's head? I HOPE NOT! If Group B comes around, the
   situations change. The racism can become something different DUE TO
   the presence of the unwanted group. Group A in fact becomes aware that
   it does not WANT Group B around, ONLY WHEN Group B IS around! I'm
   speaking now about DENMARK. Danes don't seem to mind pale Baltics in
   their midst, nor intermarriage of their kids with them. But this is
   NOT the case with other darker people in their midst. Do they say this
   openly? No, they present it as "economic." Is it? Well, it BECAME that
   during the oil shortage, sort of, or let me say it was PLAYED UP AND
   MADE BIGGER than it was during that time. But it was directed at
   darker foreigners, not other pale foreigners. So is this wrong? I am
   NOT going to belabor the intracacies of kundalini to EXPLAIN HOW this
   simple "don't like" became "economic bullshit excuse." It has to do
   with PENT UP ENERGY (energy!) and how it DISPLACES and gets shot as a
   blast that hits the target ROUND ABOUT or even hits the WRONG target.
   Said in common sense lingo it comes out like this: "What's YOUR
   problem? DON'T take out YOUR bad fucking mood on me!" GOD DAMN this is
   KINDEGARTEN SHIT.
   
   Is this "racism" wrong? I say it is NEITHER right nor wrong. IT IS!
   
   And IT IS, _WHAT_ IT IS. BEHAVIOR. HUMAN behavior. It doesn't matter
   if it's direct and blunt (Nazi style) or round about (polite
   lies/excuses). I know what it is NAKED: it's HATE of the "different"
   group. It does not have to HAVE a reason. It's THERE. IT _IS_. And the
   river does not have to HATE the rocks to erode them. The river ERODES
   rocks because IT DOES.
   
   In the USA Blacks have no problem understanding the concept of
   "LOOKism." But no one is racist in the negative sense (hate) against
   blacks if there are no blacks in their midst or if they never had them
   in their midst. With the Danes who INVITED Group B into their land
   because Group B worked well and wanted to come, all was well except no
   one wanted to intermarry with them. So there was a crisis in the
   second generation about "who to identify with." Then the oil shortage
   came and the Group B types were the ones the companies let go of: they
   ended up on social welfare. Now, many OTHERS are also on social
   welfare, too, like USA. But the story goes now that Danes don't want
   to be PAYING for the welfare of these Group B people. Notably, they
   are identifiable on sight. Lookism. Racism! Is it wrong? No. Is it
   right? No. It's neither. It's the way humans BEHAVE. It is WHAT it is.
   I observe it. I don't JUDGE it.
   
   Bring this into another order of socialization now: ADD A NEW factor.
   Make a law that claims racism is BAD and define this behavior AS
   "racism." In other words, put a cerebral LABEL on it. ISOLATE it. Now
   ban it, forbid it, preach against it. Now the concept of GUILT is
   planted in fertile ground: into people who FEEL something they'd have
   never questioned before, but now feel GUILTY about feeling it. Now
   they are QUESTIONING what they feel spontaneously. Now you'll end up
   with a society of akathartic kippothic people: POTENTIAL klippoths
   repressed due to repressing spontaneous feelings that well up in them
   and then JUDGING them with their brains, as if to SPLIT OFF the
   thinking from the feeling AND ALSO CONTROL the feeling WITH the
   thinking! OR: someone will come forth and RIP OFF the guilt and set
   the FEELINGS (potential energy) free. One or the other. But what
   you'll get if the feelings become free is a DIALECTICALLY EVOLVED kind
   of nationalism/racism IN a society where no one had it, or manifested
   it, BEFORE. It won't be the same as the innocent, unthinking FEELING
   that existed before which any animal in the wild WOULD ALSO have (by
   the way!). Now it will involve all newly arisen things like a
   different SELF-awareness. I spelled this all out with the Amerinds: 1.
   Amerinds who never saw whites before and lived in nations. 2. The
   Amerinds in struggle and conquered by the whites. 3. the children of
   the conquered ones in a white society, a white nation. The 3 are very
   different. They can NEVER go back to what they were before because new
   concepts and FEELINGS have arisen, new relations, new organization of
   people - things that would shape any given society they'd TRY to make
   in the future. The ORGANIZATION within their societies, relationships,
   will BE different due to this.
   
   If you write or talk like "FEEL/speak" all the time, and if you CAN
   NOT do it any other way, then you FEEL the dialectic in your own BEING
   all the time - the words reflect this and usually CAN BE understood AS
   INTENDED BY ME (the speaker or writer) by another person who feels
   likewise. This is the unbridgeable gulf we all refer to, by the way.
   But there are only a limited number of words IN English.
   
   TAKE the root of the ToD. Agriculture. Right then and there, the
   behavior of the humans practicing this new LABOR AND TECHNOLOGY was
   changed BY the technology; a new kind of ORGANIZATION in terms of
   evolutionary biology/sociology started to occur right there; their
   biology AND their ideas and concepts of social relations were changed
   BY this new organization: the need TO BE stationary IN ORDER TO DO
   agriculture, a new kind of LABOR. At the same time, the newly changed
   plants (no longer even ABLE to grow on their own like their wild
   ancestors) needed the humans to TEND TO THEM (the plants) or they
   would rot and fail to do their LABOR!: feed the people. This right
   here is a kind of thing where two OPPOSED THINGS (the wild plants and
   the wild people who used to NOT interact since the wild humans DID NOT
   EAT such things nor were the plants interfered with BY humans who had
   to CHANGE THEM to eat them) are dependent on each other and that
   dependence changed BOTH the plants AND the people (and NOT for the
   better) - but more technologies arose, such as new war strategies -and
   with these new strategies, NEW IDEAS of social relations. New kinds of
   social ORGANIZATION arose due to new labor. And yes, NEW BIOLOGY.
   Can't have one without affecting the other.
   
   This is all INHERENT in those little baby captions I put on that ToD.
   I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO explain it TO ANYONE! That is why I asked Vad
   "WHY don't you know why the formerly equal distribution of goods
   became UNEQUAL when the warriors became a distinct KIND of people
   called 'warriors'?" This was one of the questions he asked me:
   obviousy, he didn't know why! BUT HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW can he NOT know
   this? He's not carnal!
   
   He doesn't know it from the ToD chart and he also doesn't know it from
   the ALPHA explanation, yet he read all that before in the doctrines
   about this. IMBAL in the nature of the individuals causes IMBAL in the
   society these individuals all make as a GROUP - or nation. (all things
   have a TENDENCY TOWARD organization or ORDER, only to be interacted
   with CHAOS/entropy, which in turn causes there to arise MORE HIGHLY
   ordered things, and so forth. Order has in it seeds of disorder which
   in turn causes more order to arise, as if there is an URGE AT WORK
   HERE (YEAH, REFER TO DARK FORCE IN NATURE ARTICLE)....the organization
   that this society of imbaLd people makes will TEND TO ORDER in an
   imbaLd way.
   
   Another way to say it is that all the capitalism we see nowadays, is
   IMPERFECT or "NOT YET COME INTO BEING" communism! One might call it a
   phasic development in humans or something (if humans ever get PAST the
   phase.....which is where I have my doubts). I said one might call it
   that. One might ALSO call it "the story of how humans went extinct" if
   someone is around to write it as history someday. And this is the
   conclusion I have come to: going extinct. I have data that my mildewed
   eyed HOPEful comrades do not have. Hard sci UNDERLYING data.
   
   The IMBAL of inner nature causes the akathartic state, as does the
   FOOD these people are now eating and suffering with. This leads to the
   ophionic. One SURE way to get the pent-up belly chakra block is EAT
   LOTS OF BEANS. Vad's other question was "what made the people get
   religion? or what made the priests come around?" I thought he knew
   what makes people WANT religion. And we know if they WANT it, they GET
   IT. Akatharsis causes the desire FOR it. Religiousness-obtained IS the
   ophionic. "I found Jesus" words of the ophionic. No, IT found them.
   IT? INSANITY.
   
   Also, notably, the original dialogue about those computer simulations
   was shown to Vad by us (Phil especially) but Vad didn't KNOW this from
   within himself when he INTUITIVELY thought (HIS intuitions, not ours)
   that the hobbesian "fuck over the other guy" (prisoner's dilemma) was
   the most viable and rational. Well, in HOW LONG A TERM? It turns out
   that the cooperative strategies are FAR better and beat out the
   hobbesian ones every time - but these are in computer simulations
   where HUNDREDS of generations (representing humans) are quickly lived
   out! In the short term the HOBBESIAN one works! Considering the path
   of least resistence and the SHORT LIFE SPAN of humans: DO YOU WONDER
   why the HUMAN world IS hobbesian? A human being would not be able to
   see something like this in ONE lifetime, but he might could see it on
   HINDSIGHT by looking at other societies and the way they went (down
   the tubes or up the vortex). That's Marxist analysis which is WHY that
   economic analysis IS scientific. Yet to some of us this cooperative
   thing is INTUITIVELY right, even to those of us (as I pointed out to
   Vad) who ARE faster and smarter than others we are working with. To
   some people this is NOT intuitively obvious at all and they don't FEEL
   IT at all. They might have MORALS about it: that's akathartic! As
   such, look: If you come from a society where you are envied if you do
   good and mocked if you screw up....well? If that society THEN tells
   you that IF you do good, you shouldn't show off about it, obviously,
   that society has people IN IT that would TEND TO show off, SEEK TO
   _BE_ ENVIED: hence the rule against doing it. This leads, as Vad said,
   to GUILT over being smarter or faster, akatharsis. In I came with my
   test to see IF HE IS smarter than, say, my own kids in 2nd grade or me
   in 2nd grade or B's little sister. Well, he's NOT. So why would he
   feel guilty about being smarter? He didn't say he was smarter: he said
   he IDENTIFIED WITH something called "THE smart." That's an ideal!
   That's where the verbiage started and where he got obscured and
   retreated. So much for that. Mim doesn't seem to recognize IDEAL-ISM
   in front of their faces.
   
   I don't come from a place where anything at all is said or FELT if you
   do good or do poorly or if you are slower or faster. Something IS said
   if you GOOF OFF while others are working - but no one was talking
   about that, at the time. I never knew kids, eg, that wanted to play
   kickball when they were utterly inept at running OR kicking a ball or
   catching one. THOSE kids tended to NOT LIKE the game at all, obviously
   their desires AGREED with their bodily abilities! But I hear about
   many other kinds of kids that WANNABE great at the game, DESPITE their
   body obviously NOT WANTING TO PLAY the game at all. People in my
   experience tend to FLOW INTO what they ARE good at and LIKE IT - hence
   they tend to LIKE what they ARE good at doing. But this is NOT the
   case with klippothic kids! There it is. KLIPPOTHIC KIDS. Also, no one
   I grew up with would think of "making fun of" the kid unable to play,
   and NOT WANTING TO PLAY, kickball. It was all as SIMPLE and EASY as
   that. With these wannabe kids, they are 100% of the time not INTO the
   game for the fun of playing it, because such a hardship is NOT FUN AT
   ALL. They are "trying to please" someone, usually the parent, they are
   ALREADY feeling the "comparison" with another person when there is in
   fact NO comparison in reality. They are ALREADY trying to DO something
   FOR attention, the attention of someone else. That's pure ego. The kid
   into the ball and the running, mindless of thought and PURELY in the
   fun of it is without ego. These two kids also PLAY differently at any
   game, no matter what it is, no matter if it's later on in life. They
   are HELL to play with and they often SAY OPENLY that "you guys play
   REALLY different," about us.
   
   There is the example at work. There is the chubby girl there and yes,
   by now every single person there KNOWS that "she has a BOYfriend" not
   that anyone has time to talk about it on the short breaks we get, she
   manages to get it into every single conversation. And she also tends
   to ask others how many surveys THEY got done (in order to compare what
   SHE got done) and yet NO ONE IS PAID DIFFERNTLY if they get 10 done or
   none done. It's really the luck of the dial - a night of busy signals
   and answering machines or a night of one survey after the other with
   people who DO NOT hang up before you can even tell them what you are
   calling for. It's PURE luck as many of us see it. But why is she the
   way she is? I know. I like her, I think she's cute to look at; but I
   doubt others think this since most folks NEVER agree with my taste in
   humans. She's young, only 19 and the other girls her own age are all
   "hot pants" types. She chats with me between dials and yet I'm older
   than her mom. She LIKES me. She finally one day brought up her
   "weight" to me and so I told her about NeanderThin. She checked it out
   on website. But I've not sat next to her in awhile now and I'm only
   there 3 days a week. (The seating is random based on WHICH survey and
   never by choice). She lost her voice from working every night and when
   she saw me had to call me over to show me her cough medicine and tell
   me what happened to her voice. Why? I am easy going and don't judge
   (i.e., she doesn't FEEL ego from me at all) and so I listen like the
   void-mind. She's cute to look at. If I found her ugly to look at this
   commentary would be taking another tone. I like her pheromones, too. I
   like HER. So I'm NICE to her. She even followed me into the break room
   those days even so I was eating and she was not, and then followed me
   outside where I smoke and she does not smoke. Interesting. But I can't
   help but people watch. There is no judgement attached to the words I
   said here, but people with an ego will NOT BE ABLE TO read this
   without projecting JUDGEMENT into it. That unbridgeable gulf. I could
   easily work well with this girl, and she with me (tho it's not the
   kind of job where one regular employee depends on the other's work AT
   ALL). I like being NEXT TO her, she likes me too. Pheromones. BIOLOGY.
   But then if you are in the COS you read that ages ago "Man is Animal"
   article in the Package or very early TBF issue. But I KNOW if I hated
   the sight of this girl, (BAD interaction of pheromones), I'd be
   railing and frothing about blatantly klippothic inferiority complex
   behavior on the one hand, and someone following me around like a
   puppie!
   
   And DOES ANYONE THINK they can possibly analyze social relations in
   any given society without KNOWING about pheromones? HA! Those of us
   who know about this and have analyzed it in our own way can PREDICT
   just what to DO to either cause peace in a given place or cause war to
   erupt in a given place. And it will happen: it is DETERMINED TO
   happen. And here is where you can analyze social relations or economic
   conditions to death and come up with half the solution and then try to
   FIND a reason that sounds good to show why the same thing did NOT
   happen when identical economic conditions existed elsewhere. Or you
   can do even worse and LABEL the fucking behavior as if it's a fucking
   SIN or "morally wrong." That's a waste of time! The biological happens
   to be one HUGE determinant of social relations - STRONGER THAN ANY
   economic or outer situation that is treated by most Marxists as if it
   doesn't exist. Well, denying reality doesn't make it vanish.
   
   Lookism has EVERYTHING to do with sexual SELECTION (Darwin's
   FOUNDATIONAL essay, the one that UNDERLIES Natural Selection) and what
   we tend to "like the looks of" always are people we either have GOOD
   pheromones with or neutral ones. EVERY TIME. And the bad thing about
   it is that it doesn't necessarily work BOTH WAYS between people! And
   to try to analyse ANYTHING ALIVE without considering its underlying
   BIOLOGY is abiologism - a no no under Stalin but so what. It's STUPID
   to try it: it's RELIGIONS to try to do this!
   
   Most marxists come up with solutions to WHY WHY WHY the situation of
   "racism" (that label again WEIGHTED DOWN by all the moral ethical
   bullshit) exists here, and then of course the PREDICTABLE economic
   realities come into play and all that. But I OBSERVE what I see
   happening BEFORE the economic conditions arise which exacerbate things
   only more. I have conclusions too. I observe animals behaving in a
   specific way: I conclude things about the variations within this
   animal species and I am RIGHT. And sure there is a dialectic working
   here, one that changes even what the various groups of these animals
   THINK and DO but it's not quite the dialectic Mim would see happening
   with HALF the data. Denying that the data are real (when it can be
   measured, especially in other animals) is like denying that the earth
   is round.
   
   So then: THINK AGAIN if you imagine you know where I'm coming from.
   I'm not anti Nazi or pro Nazi, anti racist or pro racist - I OBSERVE
   BEHAVIORS - all of these behaviors fit various groups of people. Some
   feel racism toward Group C, others do not, they LIKE Group C. As for
   anti xian or pro xian, I tend to see anti/pro xians as THE SAME THING.
   Fucked up. I see the "devout types" of any religion out there,
   including the religion of "kinkyness," as overly obsessed pro or con
   with their CROTCH and hence, the crotches of others. I KNOW that
   religion of any type is a desire to believe in what is not real, which
   is in reality the desire to escape what IS real: and the first REAL
   THING they have the REAL INNER desire to escape from is THEMSELVES. I
   KNOW this. And why is this? Because their own BODIES are out of sync,
   imbaLd, out of harmony with WHAT IS and that "WHAT IS" is a constant,
   ever flowing dialectic... PENTAlectic actually! PENT-ALPHIC interwoven
   interaction.
   
   I suspect that anyone who is OVERLY OBSESSED with FINDING the VERBAL
   method to insert the dialectic into any given thing one might say,
   even casually or jokingly, has NO dialectical flow within his own
   BODY. I especially suspect this when he is unable to SEE CLEAR
   dialectic in something SUPER BABY SIMPLE I write that is
   PHYSICAL/CARNAL/CONCRETE. That is why he makes RELIGION out of it,
   despite his insistence that "it's science." He doth protest TOO MUCH
   about this. Like the former xian, the "STILL A XIAN," they get OVERLY
   OBSESSED with quoting SATANIC things as if this is scripture. Yes yes,
   COS is atheist, say it 101 times. A real atheist doesn't have to
   REMIND HIMSELF (and BORE OTHERS) with the fact that gods don't exist.
   I make it simple: DISCO IS GOD!
   
   I may say that Communism may as well be religion these days. And
   someone imagines I speak about "religious Communism?" Hmm. What's
   that? I meant it rhetorically. I have said the same thing about Nazis:
   there is a Nazi RELIGION out there these days: Hitler is the Jesus or
   Pope of this religion and Himmler Goebbles et al are the coven or
   apostles or whatever. Of course, National Socialism is NOT a religion.
   But it may as well BE one. It seems like one to me, now. National
   Socialism was a complexified mental construct, complete with dogma and
   rules, for something REALLY SIMPLE: DISLIKE of other variations of
   humans; INTENSE.
   
   And in Denmark: "I'm a Social Democrat and my father was one too and
   so was his father." Is that like most Catholics?
   
   Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, MAYBE Mao too, maybe: and who's next? If
   this is NOT a religion now, then WHO IS NEXT? Surely, there WILL BE a
   next! There has to be. The computer technology itself has caused a
   whole new type of ORGANIZATION to arise these days, so has the
   mechanization or robotization we will soon see more of. If these
   Comrades (Communists) don't KEEP UP with REAL biology and REAL physics
   and dump the old hat philosophy that is laughable these days, then
   they ARE A RELIGION!, WITH SCRIPTURE that is NOT changing: JUST AS
   there may be LOTS of xian commentaries and such, updates and
   modernizations and compromises with science, but The Holy Book is
   STILL the BOOK as far as that goes. Yeah, there is Aquinas and
   Augustine, but they ain't quite Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.....and
   maybe Paul too, maybe. And maybe Mormon. And, of course, there is NO
   OTHER Jesus, only that ONE guy.
   
   I see there is Bogdanov, the much ignored and buried, whose main
   thesis of the Two Sciences BECAME the Cultural Revolution. I see the
   MONUMENTAL EFFECT of Lysenko/Prezent which is STILL GOING STRONG RIGHT
   NOW - BIG TIME and that this thing is NOT JUST agronomy at all - it
   has evolved into a LOT LOT MORE and it is THIS that poses the dividing
   line right now against the genetics camp here today (STILL here, STILL
   doing nothing good for anyone but defining cancer genes and increasing
   insurance premiums for such identified people). That's Lysenkoism
   right there in those generated computer games Vad found out about from
   Phil. PURE Lysenkoism! I see Marx, the much ignored and ridiculed,
   going STRONGER THAN EVER in the analysis of economic experts who never
   read Marx and don't even know they are TALKING MARXISM right now. But
   I also see a lot of other things that can not only be analyzed, but
   PREDICTED, _WITHOUT_ having to fall back on economic factors or
   imperialism helping this or that group at all: LIKE the Arab/Israeli
   shit and other such STRIFE between two or more different groups. And
   I'm sure people within imperialism's top advisors can ALSO see this
   since it's there to be seen, and they USE IT to their own advantage.
   This kind of knowledge is real power if you plan to fight a new kind
   of war with no bombs and armies.
   
   Order of the Red Star sounds good. Do I ever get to SEE the pretty
   design? Are we gonna get pretty membership cards???
   
   Red Ray is from an ESOTERIC Hiram Rite, wouldn't want to go and get
   someone PISSED OFF using it.
   
   And WHO is going to ask Blanche? I have no idea if Magistri are
   authorized to make "decisions" but if we are, then go for it. Ask
   Gilmore about the technicalities. So long as it doesn't go against
   those 9 statements, as far as I know, it's OK. BUT ASK GILMORE. And B,
   WRITE THAT ARTICLE!!! YOU CAN DO IT (I can't).
   
   And L is just too much, one of these days he is going to learn that
   with SOME OF US, using guilt backfires big time and playing NYAH
   NYAAAH makes some of us walk away for good and withholding things as
   if to extort makes an ETERNAL ENEMY of some of us: we are NOT,
   correction - SOME OF US are NOT people you have ever dealt with before
   or the types that would normally TALK to you about anything; and
   making a FOOL of yourself putting me into one more white man's
   paradigm is NOT going to get you ANYTHING when you do this stupid shit
   with people who DO KNOW me and my methods. YOU do not realize that
   knowing us has resulted in a HIGHER state of consciousness for MANY of
   these people, a LOT MORE KNOWLEDGE AND objective self awareness that
   they'd NEVER have gotten anywhere else and a lot of other things you
   know nothing about. Ole Wolf doesn't have a clue what to call
   something, but knows what NOT to call it and there goes Number Three
   jumping on Wolf for being part of the Imperialist compiracy or some
   what such bullshit. This doesn't WORK and if it don't work, STOP
   TRYING IT. Call me a racist and I'll start to talk bad about other
   races. Call me a homophobe and I'll start to rank on faggots. It
   doesn't WORK. I'll YES you to death, I'll AGREE with you. My tactics
   are YIN - something you know NOTHING about. It's your NATURE versus
   mine. Wolf's nature is to turn it off like a light switch. Stop
   playing cat/mouse. That's just a recognizable form of S&M to some of
   us. We ain't playing. And oh yeah, we DO have natures and OH YEAH,
   they were evolved in DIFFERENT PLACES. And in comes Wolf's cold Danish
   nature with the "chop it up" statement that just cause one might draw
   a cross does not mean that the artist knows what could be made of it
   or something like that.
   
   Catherine MacKinnon meets Blanche Barton. THIS I gotta see. NO NO. I'm
   out of this save that I personally have no PERSONAL use for feminists:
   tho I agree with their ECONOMIC politics entirely no matter WHO they
   are, aristocracy or not. Or more to the point: a penis does NOT tell
   me what to do or when to do it on my free time. Men are INFERIOR to
   women biologically: I'd NOT want to make them equals!
   
   You can put my "Facts About Unknown Land" up there with the China One
   post I put on the latest version of it. OR you can also include that
   agricultural stuff I had on the first version of it. Pentalectical
   Materialism IS satanic and anyone knowing about the alpha system
   (quite a number of COS people DO INDEED know this and have our stuff
   from WAY back) would understand it. They'd see it as a THEOCRATIC
   thing, as anti-religious and it is surely anti the right wing xtoids
   out there these days that Blanche Barton railed against in a recent
   CH. We can't forget that it's a Satanic thing, right? And everyone out
   there KNOWS that the economy sucks. By all means, put "ALL THINGS" up
   there.
   
   One OTHER thing: withholding something you HAVE (not necessarily
   material, but something else, something you could TELL a person, or
   SHOW a person when it would be NO trouble to do it) - only in order to
   extort something that is of YOUR OWN WILL on the person leads to
   either of two things, ESPECIALLLY when the extorted stuff you have IS
   material, like food, clothing.
   
   In the case of it being material necessity, clothing, food, etc, it
   DOES lead to compradors kissing your ass for the desired substance and
   then treating their own kind as YOU treated him: he will have learned
   how to do this odious thing FROM YOU. The comprador HATES his own kind
   for becoming the slavish ass kissers they are, wretched people, he
   hates the sight of them in their misery, the misery HE perpetuates on
   them because his RAGE is projected ONTO them; it's MISdirected rage.
   The rage he feels is that he DOES YOUR WILL in order to get what he
   needs. It is not exactly the same as asking a person to PAY for
   something, or trade a thing you need for a thing he has. He also hates
   YOU but may not be aware of it, he represses that feeling. A lesser
   SICK behavior is refusing to tell someone where the SALE is on shoes
   he needs but can't otherwise afford, because he would NOT watch your
   baseball game with you. That's you exerting power in a sense.
   WITHHOLDING information about a sale when the person needs shoes and
   can't afford them. This is typical herd behavior. "You didn't watch
   the game I LIKE with me, therefore I'm NOT going to show you what I
   KNOW you want to see when I do have it to show you." This is war,
   inner war. When it comes to material needs situations, it is outright
   IMPERIALISM even if you are not an imperial nation, big and strong AND
   ALSO inner war. It does not just make compradors and slaves of the
   extorted, it changes their character for the worse.
   
   In the case of it being something like a stamp he wants to see because
   he LOVES stamps, or a song you could easily record because you have it
   and there is nowhere else to get it or something LIKE that, it leads
   to one of two behaviors: 1. the person does something to you and might
   TAKE what you have or just destroy it so YOU can't have it EITHER, and
   if he does this then HE HIMSELF has been turned against the thing he
   used to like: now he HATES it enough to destroy it so that NO ONE can
   have it or see it, or even KNOW about it. 2. The person GIVES UP
   liking the stamp or song which is to say, he cuts out something he
   loves from his own heart. It is so much safer to NOT LIKE ANYTHING,
   that way you don't end up WANTING something that you like and might
   not be able to see, hear, or get or worse, having someone play
   "WITHHOLD IT" games with the object. You end up ONLY wanting what you
   need and live like a stoic. And more, you end up being the type of
   person that wouldn't bother to TELL an acquaintence that "his car keys
   are in the drawer" when he is desperate to find them because he has to
   take his sick child to the emergency room. You merely WITHHOLD the
   data and inwardly LAUGH at it and the misery it causes. Multiply that:
   HOW MANY NURSES AND DOCTORS did NOT tell Dawn that something was VERY
   WRONG with her blood tests: information that would definitely have
   SAVED her kidneys from utter destruction. I saved her life, KNEW she
   had poisons in her body (but not from where) by her SMELL and I saved
   her life. I didn't GET anything for doing this.
   
   In the case of having someone STOP loving a thing, this is especially
   bad when the person was and IS the inspiratorial muse, the
   inspirational CAUSE of a professor studying to write an essay speaking
   out the truth on the subject. I do not expect you to consider your
   actions: I believe you are incapable of it because you DO NOT HAVE the
   black flame or even have a clue to what it is. You have eros for
   nothing. But you are good at destroying it. You don't even KNOW you do
   this. YOU. Not Clinton or imperialism. YOU. It takes ONE PERSON.
   
   By the way, Lecourt (whose pages you will get mailed bookrate), is a
   Krushchevite and, as such, she does not LIKE Lysenko or the two
   sciences and regards Stalin's thing on this as his "deviation."
   HOWEVER --- Nonetheless, her analysis of what caused it and what it
   was, and why Lysenko HAD the power he had is correct to the letter.
   Her analysis of the two sciences is correct to the letter and she digs
   up someone Lenin thought he buried without having ever read what the
   man said. I note that Bogdanov also quit the scene after this and
   retreated into himself and his prior work. Yet his ideas LIVED to
   become the Cultural Revolution under Stalin.
   
   Now let me talk like a satanist: what caused this odios ball to come
   into being where you try to do this to me? K, getting all EGOish to
   try to impress some waste products in a grotto by talking NONSENSE to
   them. K, wanting to do this in order to try to make friends, as if
   this is any way TO make a friend at all (in what world, I might ask?)
   and make friends with WHAT, I ask also. Waste products?
   
   I personally don't care what exactly Bodganov had to say since it
   would be obsolete and probaly filled with incorrectness, I assume, at
   least filled with old hat, obsolete, NAIVE physics. The point is that
   a strong NON-Machist important point he said BECAME something that
   STILL is going VERY VERY STRONG right now, today and in the USA more
   than anywhere else!
   
   What you need to write volumes on based on interelated dialectical
   movement between two things (or more) such as means of production and
   people, new relations coming into being due to this, new ways of
   thinking about things due to it, resulting in new kinds of
   organizational reality coming into being in a given society, is said
   by us with one simple word: BECOMING. It BECOMES. No one I know needs
   to have it explained to them: WHAT DETAILS of this and that make this
   BECOME this - but NOT that. No one I know. They already can think/feel
   it by knowing the ROOT of it.
   
   An example is where simple hunters (in a H/G prior society) become
   warriors. They are no longer JUST hunters or JUST defenders. There is
   a new organizational relationship at work (read LABOR) now between the
   warriors that exist AS warriors now, and new relationships between the
   warriors and the REST OF the society. In turn, the society has a new
   outlook, new ways of thinking and behaving toward these warriors and
   also, new organizational relationships between themselves: classes.
   This also ties into the new kinds of LABOR they are all doing in this
   "IT BECAME" society. What these people would be DOing, the labor
   itself, would be different, the difference would change their
   thinking, how they think of each other, etc etc and ETC. And it would
   tend to RESTRICT the choices for whatever future BECOMING occurred.
   The industrial revolution was started due to inventions that were made
   by VERY POOR people, at first the cloth industry; 7 or 8 inventions by
   very poor people that were treated VERY poorly by the high class, by
   Anglo companies that stole their inventions and so forth, people who
   died paupers. And the Luddites, who were the laborers whose jobs were
   threatened, would burn down the place before Hargreaves could sell his
   spinning Jenny's. He named them after his inspiration for making them:
   HIS WIFE. The textile industry would even steal away Hargreaves
   trained people. Now we had a KIND of real capitalism, the modern kind
   and all the rest. I don't need to belabor this.
   
   Can a good comrade be taken off the WORLD LOKA of this ToD? It would
   take TIME for the most part and much change. But it is not hard to
   make a person AWARE of it and aware of HIMSELF at the same time.
   
   Are warriors NOW the tools of capitalists NOW? Yes, they are. But they
   don't HAVE to be if they turn against them (and that has happened).
   And most technologies were DEVELOPED to aid and abet WAR and or
   conquest. Technologies, agricultural or warrior, are what "advances"
   man and changes the organizational structure within any given society,
   whether that be a stone tool, an axe, a bow and arrow or spining
   weavng machine or a computer. It changes even the language we speak
   and how we conceptualize anything since any given word is a "thought
   CONCEPT" having a material basis in the labors we do as "everyday
   norms." It is television that was developed as a pleasure item by a
   pleasure liking Russian Jew. But it is also television that has
   created brainwash capitalism and a new thing called "the consumer" who
   does NOT buy things he merely needs to sustain himself, but who is
   filled with empty desires for things he does NOT need. Now who has to
   have this explained? Well, MORONS do.
   
   Keep in mind that when this (said above) happened with the technology
   of agriculture, the society went from MATRIARCHAL to PATRIARCHAL. What
   could cause this? For one, interaction with NON-agrarian nomadic
   people who are VERY GOOD WARRIORS, or another agrarian empire that IS
   patriarchal already, would cause it right away when/if the nomads or
   other empire conquered these sedentary matrirchal populations. Some
   historians see that the males TOOK OVER THE LABOR of the females and
   that's how it happened. But in the prior case, the emphasis on warrior
   ability and technique would be OVERMUCH made all too clear and it
   would DEVELOP (and it still continues to develop!). These new
   conquerers would BE the new overlords and, in turn, the agrarian
   society (including ITS OWN warriors) would get protection from them.
   Either that, or suffer ruination of their crops and total enslavemment
   or annihilation. Such is what opened up the EARLY trade routes since
   nomads were in the position to KNOW who had what and who needed what.
   I thought this was already known? Guess it has to be BELABORED. Simple
   captions won't do. Eventually nomads get incorporated/assimilated into
   the stationary society (this happened a lot) and eventually those
   stationary societies get more technologies and are able to beat off
   the nomads, or CONQUER THEM for their lands. That happened too. But it
   only happened due to INTERACTION between the two, due to conflicts
   which caused developments and NEWER forms of organization in terms of
   war strategies. This IS the reason why the EuroAsian temperate zone is
   "where the action/civilization" tends to be and NOT in sub- Saharan
   Africa or in the Arctic Siberian cold lands. This continued on and on
   as empires rose and inwardly deteriorated and then fell to the
   onslaught of BARBARIANS and it kept going on until the industrial age
   of mass production where ECONOMIC wars were waged along with military
   wars. The war technology got so dangerous that it looks to me like
   military strategy is going to have to fall by the wayside and be taken
   over with PURELY economic war. And above all now we see INFORMATION
   war. But what are we to do with the present organizational structure
   of a military society such as the USA? Find new LABOR for them, I
   suppose. Oh, and is there some BEYOND MORON out there that does NOT
   see the USA as a primarily MILITARY society? Even the toys, even the
   sports that are best liked. WAR WAR WAR.
   
   What Mim doesn't seem to grasp and probably can not grasp (tho Marx
   would grasp it because he lived for his Jenny and I doubt he'd have
   written a word if SHE was not there, just near to him) is that the
   deterioration and stagnation sets in PRIMARILY WHEN the males turn
   away from the females on the inner level and then on the outer level.
   When it's on the outer level everyone can SEE it. And oh yeah, the
   societies get kind of religious when this happens. DEVOUT MEN (sick,
   twisted perverts) can be seen guiding the way people think and
   teaching people. And does this have something to do with nutrition? I
   think it does.
   
   In fact, in terms of evolutionary biology there is even a BIG THING to
   be looked at as far as MAN's development and how man strayed from the
   rest of all other primates: man cooperated with a whole other
   species/genus/family of animal out there: THE WOLF. Man not only was
   forced into developing the agrarian technology due to weather, he was
   forced to do it because his cooperation with the wolves made his
   former food supply go extinct while, at the same time, the "plenty of
   food" made his numbers INCREASE (that's imbaL right there). And so
   wolves got bred into dogs, pale shadows of their former selves. Man
   had to alter wild plants and make sick things out of them that can't
   even grow on their own and that RUIN the land they need to grow on, in
   order to be ABLE to eat them: does anyone imagine this didn't also
   change MAN? Sure it did. The rest you can see on the Tod and figure
   out for yourself INSERTING the obvious as-given dialectic where it
   obviously IS. Things don't just BECOME as Aquino would have it (as Mim
   also reads it). They become THIS OR THAT due to what interactions they
   have with the many THINGS out there and choices they make which ....
   affect organization, work (labor), thinking, how society gets molded
   and also seems to affect WHICH kinds of organization these societies
   WILL "become into" in the future. How does it do this? Well, it does
   it because what man has been doing AFFECTS the environment around him
   -which in turn..... etc.
   
   Here, DUE TO the reality, torn up, broken, half dead, post war, Lenin
   was forced to do an NEP even so he was obviously ANTI capitalist, or
   at least he claimed to be so I figure, DESPITE HIS ACTIONS!, I might
   just believe he was an anti-capitalist (DESPITE his actions which goes
   against my normal mode of thinking about ANYTHING). But this NEP in
   turn lead to a GROUP that did NOT want to go away when Stalin and the
   peasants just GANG BUSTED the set up and collectivised FAST. They
   waited. And so there came ANOTHER torn up, broken, half dead post war
   period and so? They who bided their time took over and INSURED they'd
   stay in power by gathering support of those same types of WARRIORS
   (the army) and destroying the Stalin Economic Cop Set up: NKVD. The
   embryonic state capitalism was not just there DUE TO the Czar - far
   from it. It was there due to what the ARYAN NATIONS inflicted on them
   in terms of wreckage of war. It grew from inside SPOILING people from
   conditions that arose during that wartime. For some UNKNOWN reason
   Lenin was AGAINST any kind of Cultural Revolution -tho his reasons
   don't make sense and he FAILS to address this correctly - he AVOIDS
   it, he tried to BURY it. I could say it this way: Lenin came from the
   boorjwazi or the aristocratic element, a polite and genteel element.
   Stalin did not, he was a street kid like us. Lysenko WAS a primitive
   peasant. Figure it out. Stalin and Lysenko MADE the cultural
   revolution. Dzerzhinsky was all the way on Stalin's side thruout this.
   But he was NOT ANY KIND of revolutionary THINKER or even any kind of
   THINKER in the cerebral sense (where I mean it NEGATIVELY). He based
   everything he did on what he FELT - on an IDEA of something he FELT
   and this is in his own diary! Without Dzerzhinsky and the people HE
   GOT to join him, nothing would have happened at all! The ranks had to
   be cleansed of the twisted types and he recognized them MORE LIKE I
   recognize them! His LANGUAGE about it is like my language, he calls
   them twisted perverts, greedy, corrupted and even calls them EMPTY and
   LOVELESS! The early NKVD at the time was in tight with the local
   Soviets but the early Checka, this group Dzerzhinsky said this about,
   was NOT and they were not much liked. Lenin did NOTHING to change
   this. STALIN DID and he did it more than once, pulling in the reigns,
   subordinating it, incorporating it under NKVD and then with Yezhov he
   thought he got it ALL cleaned out. Well, he missed a few. The war
   shit, even the taking of half of Poland, lead the way for capitalism
   and extortion and exploitation. There was a trend in the USSR after
   contact with the west to purify that out, but that died down fast.
   That was Zhdanov the consumer accumulator par excelL, corrupt himself.
   But later on to think that the information war from outside did NOT
   affect the USSR is wrong: the info Krushchev got to plant corn, that
   alone, WRECKED their lands and they had to start to IMPORT grain.
   Lysenko's methods were NO LONGER USED. And we know that once you NEED
   what someone else HAS, if the person is an enemy he'll EXTORT things
   from you before he gives it to you.
   
   and I repeat: that Lenin book you try to EXTORT me into reading has
   told me NOTHING I didn't already know, NOTHING I was dealing with and
   NOTHING to aid Phil's paper - tho he said he WILL reread this book
   simply due to his own love of science; the book is a critique
   PRIMARILY against Mach who was a scientist: I see it will DETRACT from
   what he needs to read to start on his paper. The book doesn't even
   tell me anything I would have needed to know (back then) about LYSENKO
   and THAT cultural revolution, tho I surely don't need to know it
   anymore: I have found out MUCH since then about Lysenko. The ONLY
   THING I'm trying to find out now is irrelevant to the paper, but would
   make it INTERESTING: that's personal information, WHEN was he married,
   WHEN were his kids born, some info about his kids (more than I already
   have), what were they or what ARE they like. His grandson is VERY
   FRIENDLY, at least one of them is. And so forth: PERSONAL TOUCH stuff.
   This brought me into interest in the NKVD itself and I'd like to know
   the same kinds of information about them, not JUST Dzerzhinsky.
   Beria's son wrote a book, but it's not in English. Now this has
   NOTHING to do with Phil's paper or Lysenko. There is a book "Two
   Soviet Commissars" about Yagoda and Yezhov, but not in English. This
   has nothing to do with Lysenko.
   
   chow.
   
   OH, I'll add another note that I take note of. The INCESSANT reliance
   on the part of many Maoists on SOME PARTS of the 3rd world to "go red"
   reminds me of TROTSKY and his reliance on another nation of
   barbarians: Germany. Some folks are just IN A STAGE of nationalism and
   stuck there and they have to evolve out of it. Nationalism, for MOST
   of these people stuck in that stage, is nothing but RACISM with heavy
   religious overtones. It's Big Leaderism with Big Military.
   
   And in case you want AMMO against the perpetual whiners who STILL
   bemoan the fact that the Reds in Germany did not unite with the OTHER
   socialists, there is a fact uncovered: the NAZIS were friendly toward
   all the OTHER socialists and BOTH the Nazis and these socialists
   AGREED on their dislike of Jews, but the Nazis HATED the ones
   permeated with Jews -that includes the Communists whose many prominent
   members WERE Jews. There was NO WAY they COULD have united. Many of
   these people went over TO the Nazis and they wrote letters (uncovered)
   as to WHY: they didn't want to be in a party run by Jews (as they
   perceived it). So there was NO CHANCE for unity there. It's a MOOT
   point. You find it hard to believe that FEELINGS motivate people's
   actions (which makes me think you are DAFT) but the social democratic
   kind of Nordic or Scandinavian-like system would appeal to the more
   peaceful types of Germans but the Jews seemed like ALIENS to them, not
   just the religion which was secular a lot, but their WHOLE WAY OF
   BEING seemed that way. They saw mainly Jews in the BOLSHEVIK group,
   mainly Jews as arbitrating in the Versailles Treaty and mainly Jews
   doing the Bolshevik Revolution with Lenin as the ONLY exception -
   however they knew Lenin's wife was a Jew. This is what they saw AND
   BELIEVED from the bottom of their hearts and there is NO WAY to argue
   them out of this since those people WERE INDEED: Jewish! Later on,
   with Stalin at the healm, this was NO LONGER the case (after WWII).
   And you MUST know that many of the Moslem nations, along with the
   black Moslems here, believe this Jewish thing TOO - it's not just talk
   - they BELIEVE it.
   
   chow
   
   Additional information: in Stalinist Science, by Krementsov, Chapter 7
   there is a LOT of information contained in condensed form about the
   KINDS of people that joined the Communist Party (Stalin's) during
   WWII's chaos, how relations and organizations were upset by the war.
   Instead of it being party-run, it became necessary to let all KINDS of
   people run the show. This shift toward slavish western asskissers is
   what primarily got the 1948 Lysenko meeting going and why other
   sciences had to newly show their loyalty to the Soviet Science (not
   western sci), but it also explains how many of them got around it.
   Also is mentioned that the Nazis demolished all of European USSR where
   all that science and industry was built. The kinds of people joining
   the party en masse were NOT indoctrinated or taught, they knew nothing
   but they joined up en masse. This, plus the old GUGB in the NKGB and
   the war itself is what caused the topsy turvy relations to change and
   aided the capitalists in getting in. Now I need to get that Russian
   newspaper translated, the one N. Star gave me. It probably has all the
   stuff that I KNEW Vavilov did and maybe MORE, some new stuff. That the
   geneticists with Huxley at the helm deliberately PLOTTED to harm
   Lysenko is no longer a theory: it's a FACT, PROVEN FACT and Zhebrak
   was one of the main ones who came to San Francisco and sought the aid
   of these Anglo-Amerians. More fact is that the western Geneticists
   with their USE OF the gene theory aided and abetted racism: no one CAN
   deny that now - it still goes on. But more facts that Phil will bring
   to light show that these people did NOT ONE THING to make something
   new or say something real. The mystery to me is WHY they'd bother
   Lysenko's people when they didn't JUST have a theory, but were MAKING
   PRACTICAL RESULTS. Phil says it's like religion: they were like
   fanatics with a religion and to hell with practical real results that
   Lysenkoists got - they didn't take note of it or tried to downplay it.
   That's as crazy as a person who INSISTS he speaks to Jesus when you
   are sitting in the room with him and NO ONE ELSE is there. It's
   craziness. It's as INSANE as denying V.D. and LETTING it spread.
   
   Also there is archival stuff in there that proves even stronger than
   anything we mentioned thus far, that Stalin not only APPROVED
   Lysenko's speech, but that due to what one of the geneticists pulled
   during the meeting, Stalin PERSONALLY called Lysenko in to see him and
   then dictated the very last portion of that speech to him DIRECTLY:
   where Lysenko states that the Central Committee APPROVES of his
   program. Stalin considered it THAT important in the middle of his
   meetings with the allies, to take care of this matter personally.
   Krementsov explains why. ALSO, he even says "Note well, reader" that
   the GENETICISTS had BOTH TIMES asked the Cent Committee to BUTT INTO
   the affair, both in the 1930's "Under the Banner of Marxism" meeting
   and at this new 1948 meeting. THEY asked to have it arbitrated from
   "on high": NOT LYSENKO!! There are the proofs: documents, letters,
   from archives. This portion about who asked the higher ups and who
   asked the POLITICAL PEOPLE to butt into science is in an earlier
   chapter, I think the one called Lyenko and Stalin.
   
   chow again