Now Politics: the Political Opinions of Thomas Sarebbononnato

A Friend of the People Opposing Elites; Social and Political Commentary of Thomas Sarebbononnato; Publishing and Contributing Editor, Jay V. Ruvolo [Copyright (c) Jay Ruvolo 2018]


leave a comment »


Written by jvr

July 6, 2019 at 2:16 pm


leave a comment »

We are evolving beyond the need for liberty, it seems, or so I have noted with increasing rapidity the number of times reasonably educated.liberal minded people betray a willingness to abandon a traditional commitment to freedom, to democracy. We must be convinced because we say things like the Second Ammendment has no relevance today, that it is an antiquated remnant of an age that holds little validity for us as a model for faith in the cause of eternal Liberty, or as example of how to react to a long usurpation of our freedom, and any person’s pursuit of happiness. We do seem unwilling–more so, unprepared–to defend democracy. We have arrived at a place where we are under-educated just enough to misunderstand what democracy is, in turn misunderstanding our responsibilities to democracy. In fact, with the systematic way we are under-educated, you could say we suffer an enforced did-understanding because we are disallowed to defend for ourselves our liberty.

Fear is one of humanity’s greatest teachers, and we do learn conduct through fear. Do we imagine that the monied elite and/or power elite in America will ever act ethically or justly in a society where they can choose to do what they do with impunity, without any fear of potential reprisals? And I speak of the power and influence of potentiality and not the horror of actuality. Potential violence is and has always been an instructor of public morality, not for those who believe in ethics and morality and goodness and kindness, but for those for whom these are not virtues but impediments to their greed, their social gluttonies.

We do think the age of Jefferson and Madison has ceased being valid for our time. Our brand of alphabetics in the name of literacy leaves us unable to manage the basic American texts on liberty and democracy. We do, though, imagine ourselves more enlightened than our founders were. Ours is both the best of times and the worst of times, either one the other in equation of how out of touch any of us could be about where our commitment to democracy should be, and I do insist on the subjunctive here. I have said this before and will say it again, in these and other words amounting to the same beckon call: Democracy needs love and care and defense and nurture; but these cannot happen without advanced literacy being a norm for most of us to achieve. We will not, though, have the opportunity to show this love unless we are willing to protect her from the power and monied elite. Johnny get your gun . . .

Our ability to understand their age is degraded. We are no longer able to respond to their voice, disallowing ourselves to comprehend their diction, their rhetoric, their passion for liberty. I had a classmate in a seminar in 17th century literature, an English major, questioning why John Donne should have to write in the manner he had in his Meditations. I began to suspect that we might be lost as a society, for those of us bestowed with the responsibility to protect and defend literacy could no longer do so. I did hold prejudices then that this was an American phenonmena, and that it wasn’t British, or French or Italian . . . but it is quickly becoming evident that this is not so and that degraded literacy is a crisis not just in America. Why is it so difficult to imagine that Jefferson was NOT a stupid man and that he understood exactly what he was doing in the arrangement of the amendments. Their order is not an accident. We have to be able to read some of them as contingent, mutual and reciprocal. We have to understand the integrity of whole while we respect the importance of its parts.

We only imagine that our lives are more enlightened because we have suffered an academically instilled ignorance that allows us to assume without words attached to the presumption that history is progressive. Ours must be the superlative age because we are farther along in the course of human experience; but then this would infer that human knowledge was some how cumulative, that there was a chronological addition that made every period in the succession of human events a sum larger and thus better than the previous one. History is not progressive and can easily become regressive if we allow it to be so.

It’s not that so many in Jefferson’s day could read, but those who could defended the skill, supported it, understood it better as a cornerstone of civilization and their liberty. Those who couldn’t, at least envied it; they wished they could, or at least enough of them did that justified the pursuit. Today we believe that this is somehow elititst, and unnecessarily so. Less-than-enough in matters of literacy has been good-enough long enough that semi-literate is now the only should we can understand.

Written by jvr

July 5, 2019 at 11:26 am

An Enemy of the People [a variegation of an earlier presentation]

leave a comment »

An Enemy of the People

If this were short fictional diatribe against the Power and Monied Elites represented first and fore mostly and certainly lastly by one President after another and another and another until the last syllable of recorded democracy . . . while all our yesteryear liberties have gathered dust among the ruins of our freedom . . . yet instead, an essay . . . no,bullet points

A population that can read is not a population that is easily controlled. States only ever want control. A population that reads and reads well, other than the organs of state propaganda, as in most of our media too much of the time, cannot be easily transformed into a state guided and supported public. States are not interested in people, really; never have been. States form truth in a special tautology: the state is the state of the state for the state by the state to which the state stands will only ever withstand in itself the state.

Most states are the mortal enemy of all that is good in the individual human soul (and yes, I have not allowed the non-locatableness of soul to cause me to disbelieve in it). No government management of the state is friendly to people. The people as an amalgamation of individuals is never in the state’s interest; the state sees best the management of the people in a manner best understood by cattle farmers. Yes, cattle farmers do not abuse their cattle, even when they are leading them to slaughter.

A public before the people is always in the interests of the state. The state is not your friend or family, even then, it might not be the best for you. Cain was Abel’s brother, Absalom, David’s son, and so on, you understand what I mean. You are a numerical variable because you have always been one in the marketing of politics–not even politics itself. The marketplace of political need and demand are one thing; what we have is the marketing of candidates, the marketing of issues, the creation of issues by marketing. The marketplace is one thing, marketing another. Marketing is an artificial creation of market. Each of us becomes an enemy of the People the moment we abdicate our responsibility to We the People for what we might imagine is a more lucrative role as a State serving Public, at least in a situation where crumbs from the table of State are served to we the dogs of State,

The management of numbers and how agents of the state imagine the numerals that are tossed about in discussions of state, managing the state . . . these may vary from age to age, from government body to government body, but numerical value you and I have always had, in fact, this is the only value you or I have ever had for any state.

The public, again, is the people in service of the state, a people who disinvest their weight as the people for the more state-buoyant public. The People are the only institution that could counter balance the weight of the state–that has that potential, but only if . . . When that People becomes only a state serving public, their weight is added to the State against the People in counter leverage

This is the given; it is not going to disappear, nor are states or governments or politicians ever going to relent, not without pressure from the People, We the People of the United States . . . a More Perfect Union . . . But with master demagogues like Obama selling the idea that we should sacrifice, when bankers do not, that we should look to serve when those presumably elected to public service only serve the monied and power elites of our society and other societies before drawing on some semblance of responsibility to the people, we will lose whatever remains of Jefferson’s We the People, yes capital ‘P.’; or another kind of Master demagogue like Baron Von Trumpeter of his own horning in on the spoils of the Monied Elite whom he was never really a part of or a player among . . .

States have served the public good, this is true, but never really the good of the People. From the time of Kennedy, the Oval Office has been quite adamant in sustaining the idea that we should not ask what our country can do for us because it no longer intends to maintain its responsibilities to the people. We should only ask what we can do for our country because a state serving people as a public goes much further in servicing the needs of the few, the needs of the elite while appearing to serve the public good, although less and less.

Of course, we can only imagine a controlled population in other societies–part of the media manipulation of democracy is the Hollywood like expertise the fiction of democracy is presented to the people who are by now full-fledged members of the public. Centurions and Priests of the Temple participating in crucifying Freedom and Democracy. Hyperbole herein calculated.

Written by jvr

July 4, 2019 at 1:23 pm

INTENTIONS ATTENDED [a post about a literary review I had published on line, and with revisionary notes included that point to the relevance of the conclusions herein to the publishing of a Review concerned with political commentary and critique, and perhaps how the literary can function toward this end]

leave a comment »

Note Well: When I say “literary,” I am talking about a style, even a method, of presentation, of writing about a subject, whether that can be restricted to categories such as politics, culture, literature, the personal trials of ideas on the page by a singular yet dialectical consciousness . . . all with the idea of the literary ever present, ever effective.

I have published a number of literary reviews over the last twelve (12) years; a few have had a sustained existence for many years, and I choose here not to get into the logistics of what I have claimed. One of them, now called FICTION ONE, had been published since 2007, in monthly or quarterly reviews, all of which have been reduced to one collection in singular, all the various pieces that had been published are now collected apart from their former mostly or quarterly signs. Another is The Falling Leaf Review at This currently functions as the blog for The Falling Leaf Review at ISSUU.COM which I had published as monthly, quarterly and currently as a Summer Annual. 


The writing is the thing that makes this review what it is––yes, as the play’s the thing, so then is the review the thing.

Writing is an endeavor I take very seriously; it sounds ridiculous to say, but it is true and must be reiterated. This conclusion of necessity comes because I have had the notion that our literacy has been degraded, allowed to become debased and ineffective, which I have then determined is part, if not also a big part, of how we have come to where we are at politically, electorally, particularly with respect for how we relate to political campaigns and accept the managed care with which our print and broadcast media continue to serve a propaganda function for both the State and for Capitalists, who we might call the Power and Monied Elites, which is not to say that the State controls these elements of society, or that there are social, economic and media institutions that are bound up in the apparatus of State.

Literacy and the literary are primary concerns in anything I publish because I understand literacy to be one of the cornerstones of an advanced civilization, particularly one that must become advanced in its ethics, in its moral consciousness, in its politics of by and for freedom . . . working toward creating the best possible social environment for all of its people, never the loop-holed “most of the people”.

Ours is not an oral culture, no matter how many delusions we may suffer about how orality effects us, molds us, informs us; many of these mis-taken notions have been spawned by an ever growing general semi-literacy, a pervasive semi-literacy at the heart of our educational, cultural, political and socio-economic lives; these enhanced by an ever narrowing sense of our place in history, a swelling ignorance of the effects of historical events, a devaluation of the place of historical consciousness and awareness in our thinking; all coupled with an overarching and endemic ignorance inside a number of perimeter communities that have been allowed to grow artificially apart, mostly through media manipulation of images convincing us that we live worlds apart inside one society. We have allowed US to be convinced of too many erroneous ideas about our political existence, as if being semi-literate, violent, poor and very ignorant were the prime values of any culture and represented what it meant to be authentically any people–No, this is false.

Will there be anything about literary figures? Certainly, there will be. About poetry, fiction, non-fiction? Yes, yes and yes. About drama, theater, film and other media arts? Yes, yes, yes and so on yes. How could there not be within the confines of a literary review–any literary review, but especially one edited and published by me. Could these be used in other forms of writing? Of course. Could the method of literary presentation be used in critique? political or social or cultural critique? Of course they could and will.

I know that this is more self-serving than it serves the needs of information, or what could (perhaps should) be informative in a blurb such as this . . . I take this tradition of the Small Press review seriously, as I do the demands of what a literary review should be, and yes, I assent to there being a set of shoulds in the mater and manner of composing a Literary Review. Blurbs about writers and books will be found in the blog section, short entries, again, as mentioned in other places in the About Us page, 250 words or less, but maybe 300 or a little more from time to time. In writing for and publishing a review aimed at political commentary, political analysis, political critique, dialectic . . . the literary can help, will help; the use of fictional essays and dialectic in forms of fiction could be freeing, liberating the discussion in ways that non-fiction critique and dialectic would not.

Will there be passages of biography included? The biographies of writers, yes; a biography of me, perhaps not explicitly, rather covertly? There is always something of biography in all writing, no? This pertains to the earlier presentation of this piece, and pertains directly to conventional literary figures, which means figures associated with conventional ideas about literature. I do, though, have to insist that a discussion of the form and style of someone like Darwin’s writing comes up, we have to entertain a literary discussion, and the literary merit of Darwin, of Marx, of Freud, of Jung, of Eliade, of Karenyi, of Cassirer, of Herodotus, Of Gibbons, of Weber––and let us trail off here––is ever as valid as doing so for Dickens, Sterne, Woolf . . . need I go on and on. The lists of the two former groups could have been extended for a considerable time each, just with those I have had an affinity for.

The literary essay also includes the personal essay, so how could we avoid biographical content when I am not only the publisher and the editor but the principal author of the texts? How could I not expose myself  in the writing when what is written is in itself expository. The nature of the form of writing draws out of the writer more explicit references to the Self.

Everything any writer writes is also part of his biography–no? Will the review be a mapping, a sketching, a tracing, a mirroring of the mind–mymind, the chief author’s mind? I am the only author, so the “we” used above was a convention, as most traditional editorial writing adopted the convention of what we used to call the editorial we. I imagine that projecting something of my thinking would be impossible to avoid. The thoughts  the writer, me, thinks will always be exposed–all expository rose exposing its topic as well as the writer, a mutual and reciprocal exposeperformed every time the writer me writes an essay.  Again, that is what the form demands, at least in part–the essay essaying thus testing an df trying out ideas arguments positions propositions, whatever else we have in  our rhetoric to name what it is we do when we write an essay. I am the essays within; the essays within are me. I am the editorials; I am all the commentary; I am everything in this review, web journal, literary web journal, what else have we in the way we name our webzines, magazine, all press what? What I can say about the writing within? It is true that I do not know what I think until I write. What I write mirrors what I think is something I say a lot. I used to believe that there was nothing that better mirrored thinking than writing; in turn, bad writing is bad thinking. Cluttered on the page is cluttered in the mind. I am sorry for those of you who have suffered many delusions about your writing, fostered by a pedagogy that enfeebles while it pretends to support and uplift. Everyone is special while all the time every one is mediocre, everyone is the same banal, effete, insipid, semi-literate, undereducated worker bee in this bee hive of the American State. How is it you imagine the power and monied elites do not look at us as if you and I were ants is beyond my comprehension.

How could I not write, write and write some more about whatever there may be to write about, even not having anything to say about something that could have been written about but was not? How could I write about anything and not have it tell you something of me, about me? There is also an essay on the failed exposition, something that used to be a recurring topic in my journals–this too could say something about me. But we would need to be better readers, active readers, participating readers, readers taught and expected in schools to read more deeply, on a variety of levels or for a variety of purposes, often times by the better readers, simultaneously. All good reading, though, still, is re-reading.

This review could not avoid but tell you something of me. We are mutual. I mean, what do we have to judge people apart from actions without words except what they say, or write, which is just another way to say. So, every writer’s question of being would be to say or not to say; that is, of course, to write or not to write. This is every writers to be or not. Everywhere is an Elsinore, especially the mind. How is Hamlet’s castle not my skull and brain and mind? Hamlet’s interiority is my interiority. Hamlet is the birth of the Modern.

Most of us fear writing because it is so revealing; we write badly in an attempt not to show ourselves on the page. Thoughts are naked, so we try to dress, and this always turns out badly; it’s like putting a tuxedo on a lion. We misunderstand writing or dis-understand it. We fear understanding because we imagine that if we understand something, we must agree with it. To understand is not to agree, but we think it is, so whenever we disagree with something, we avoid understanding it, and sometimes we force a dis-understanding when we suspect we might understand. The problem here is that this practiced dis-understanding, or enculturated misunderstanding for thongs we do n to agree with, does not foster a desire to understand what we do agree with. We often do not know why we agree with anything, when we do. Garbled writing reflects garbled thinking. Try writing about something you agree with, why, maybe how.  We are left at the mercy of our passions, worse, our emotions, feeling our way through life like the blind or the deaf or both. We then wonder why we get the candidates we get at election time, the campaigns we suffer, the kind of media we endure, as if all were a mystery only God can know. And as stupidly religious as we are in America–and religion does not have to make you stupid–it is not wonder we leave so much of our lives to Heaven.

I do not write manifestos, at least not intentionally. What exactly are my intentions? Some of you might want these expressed and listed, but I refuse on the grounds that they are not necessary for your discernments within. They mostly only ever serve to distract a reader, lists of intentions. I have to let the writing speak for itself and stand on its own. Anything I say either way with whatever purpose is another workout in futility. The Review is the Thing, as I have said before for The October Revue, sometimes cached as The Revue, still yet found on line in caches as FICTION ONE, all of them at

I know that Hamlet announced rather boldly that the play was the thing to capture the conscience of a king; what then do I hope to capture, to hold, to obtain from you the reader––every reader is king of his interpretation and understanding, which is not to place reader-response theory of criticism in ascendancy.

What other word do we have that I could use to express just what I intend with this review. What I do instead of intend is attend, a kind of special waiting; the etymology of the English attend is the French attender which translates, to wait. What then do I intend by this waiting, this special attendance, an attending to the details, paying attention to the necessities of publishing the review.

To be at attention is the demand I accept as editor, one I must engage as the chief author of the texts, Publishing and Contributing Editor.

The product is the response.

Two-thousand one hundred and fifty-four words later, where are you in your understanding of my intentions?

Written by jvr

July 3, 2019 at 12:15 pm

Feminology 101

leave a comment »


Prefatory Remarks

I’m with Virginia Woolf, she said. I have sometimes wished I could have met her, could;d have talked with her, could have read her manuscripts, as manuscripts, which I often find as exciting or sometimes even more exciting to read . . . to hold . . . to handle take from someone else’s hand, presumably the writer’s, the author’s . . . what then must I say about how I am with her? She asked. She does not begin a discussion of what an author is or what instead is a writer, as if anyone could fully articulate how distinct the two are–were . . . what then must she say, she says more: I am, though, when Virginia said that the history of woman’s literature is the history of “Anonymous,” the eponym for women everywhere, every-when–what was I, I should say, she said. What did she say exactly I am not going to find in order to quote, she said . . . flipping through a critical biography she bought how long ago now she will not consider . . . she then suggests that you or I should . . . Read again whenever you read anything ascribed to Anonymous. Yes, she said this. yes, she believed this. Yes, she worked from this assumption in her critical approach to literature . . .


PART ONE: Anonymity, She Said


Anonymity, she said, He says (something he wishes he understood better than he can, better than he suspects he cannot, would ever want to, perhaps sometimes).

He says, I wish I understood you better. 

She says, No you don’t. You say you do, but you don’t, not really, not ever, only words you know I might want to hear.

He says, Why do you say that? 

And yet another lame account comes out of his mouth? Off his lips? Under his breath? What is that was said amounting to nothing in–how do we measure what it is we say, the value of what has been said, the weight of the words used, meaning made? Words do not mean what they say at, say what they mean at? And you or I will say the same tomorrow as we will every day after day in the petty paces we continue to step on our way, just as it was true yesterday and the day before yesterday that all of them, the words we used, have used, will use, till we arrive back at our beginning, around and around we go, what Franco used mean when he said gira, gira? How does anything begin, let alone this story.

To tell or not to tell, from whose mouth, off whose lips, what are the questions any writer asks, should ask when the telling needs to be told . . . Garcia Marquez spent 20 years writing A Hundred Years of Solitude, and I am not going to go into why, or how, or what was it that he was doing all that time? Who is the Narrator of that story . . . Omniscient, yes?


“You make my skin crawl when you speak as you do about me, about wanting to understand me,” she said . . . “about what you think I want to hear, syllable after syllable, and I wish I were deaf,” she says, “snuffing everything out in me as if I were a candle.”

We pause.

“Thinking about something, about its meaning, what it means, what does it intend to convey, to indicate, or to refer to (a particular thing or notion); to signify,” she says. “What then is it to be mean or not to be mean, all meaning therefore in the meaning, its intention, although intentionality should no more restrict meaning than etymology should, which does not mean we should ignore what the parameters of intention were in what a word means, or what a word’s etymology is that could then help us to understand its meaning.” She said, “What an author intends should not preclude interpretation; author intention is still a proscription of sorts.”

We paused.

“To define is to set limits; here the limits of understanding meet the limits of knowing? To know her or not to know her, that might be question to ask, I could ask, would ask if–I am genuinely asking if semantics is governed by epistemology in an absolute way? More questions,” she says.

She examines what she knows, what she thinks–in fact she has said that she does not know what she thinks unless she writes, puts it on paper–she has said enough times in the past that the way she was taught writing was a way in which thinking gets taught–yes, she would insist, “there is a way to think, a how to think. I know that there are too many people who believe otherwise, but then listen to them talk. Yes, listen to them thinking–read what some people write,” she says, has said, will say again as she did just the other day, where was it, were we?

“It is frightening,” she would say in other words. But this notion of anonymity, what it is , how it can be understood, what its significance “has been for women historically,” as she would say, “is important to flesh out,” give it something it has been denied . . . is that what she is doing here, has done here, in these pages of word after word after . . . all of this is and so on and so on.

What is it that she has done here can only be answered by reading what she has written here and elsewhere, put in words for you to understand . . . but mostly for her to know what she thinks and how she thinks because it is impossible for her to know exactly what she thinks she believes without having written, a dialectic of selfhood . . . the dialectical Self? She would say something of the sort, and she has written she has said almost similarly, just the other day, in fact–I do not record her, although I am a very, very close friend and confidant, whatever that means, who is she? I do not need to ask, or maybe I should.

What she says she says the way she says, and she and her words remain completely inimitable.

As for a woman’s anonymity–that is, what it is, how it is, when and where it is or has been . . . what? It seems as if it will be . . . more and so much less at the same time, the same way is said, has been said, needs to be said all over again, the repetition of nothing new under the sun is a lot subtler than imagined, but not nearly as difficult to see as some others imagine.

I want to tell my story.


The questions she raises she does so without equivocation. She is not apologizing for her opinions which are more than mere opinions–the mereness of any opinion is not in the opining but in the opinion of those prejudiced against opinions in themselves. I am not apologizing for her opinions by pointing out she is not apologizing.

“How many methods of discovery do we employ in our self examinations?” She used to ask often. “To discover is the opposite of cover, but is it to uncover what is as is? How much woman is she when she is, woman?” She used to ask; the used to does not mean she no longer does so because she does and will do so, I know. I remember her asking quite clearly: “What methods of discovery do I use in my methods of self examination?” These words, other words, we cannot go to the audio or the video tape.

“Virginia said so,” she said, “that a woman is anonymous, or that the history of anonymous in literature was the history of woman’s literature or that the history of woman’s literature was the history of anonymous, but then there has always been a kind of anonymity for women of women in all societies, some more than in others for longer.”

Can you say without offending anyone “that black Americans have suffered only what women have suffered here or there longer or shorter, greater or lesser,” no? “Woman has ben the prime nigger of the world, and continues to be in many, many places still,” she said.

“If everyone is money’s nigger, what then are African Americans? And if it is true that everyone is Money’s nigger, then what is a woman in this world if the above is also true. And if all of these are true, what then is an African American woman?” She asked.

“I repeat myself, I know, when I say that a woman is and in this is everything is. Yes, she is; this woman or that woman, firstly and lastly, is. What she is is another endeavor; who, when, where, why and how are all of them together subtraction,” she said, and so far how can you disagree? I do not. You should not if you wish to keep your mind opened–and yes, if you disagree with her ad hoc then you are close minded–if you disagree with her on principles that are apart from her saying what she is saying being what she is who she is then this too might be closed minded, I mean what is there to disagree with in her words herein phrased as they have been?

“I am, I say,” she said and would say and has said often, in one or another context, but mostly in her talks about being and existence and the differences there between the two. “I am not this or that when my being is concerned,” she said. “I am; I exist, although I know that to exist and to be are not exactly the same thing.”

To be without the complement not to be. Whether named or unnamed, this woman is, she is. Hamlet’s soliloquy herein referenced is also every woman’s soliloquy. She is not further removed from Hamlet’s Cartesian inquiry than I am because she is a woman.

“How is Hamlet not relevant to me?”

[You should pause here briefly. Take a breath.]



“Now, the history of anonymous is the history of woman; or is it that the history of woman is the history of anonymity?” She asked. I have asked as well. You should have asked. She believes and has believed for a long time that this is an investigation worthy of pursuit. Nonetheless, as she has said, has asked, “Woman is anonymous? She is in anonymity? Anonymity is a place history has reserved for woman? The history herein is one and the same whether it is written or unwritten, irrespective of whether or not there is a historiography to support it in the way all historiography has a way of aping Moses descending from Sinai,” she wrote.

“How much is left unknown at the end of a relationship?” she has asked in this and in other contexts; it has appeared in many pieces written by her. “What is a relationship where the woman or the man or both are perpetually becoming other than each is. How much do the happiest spouses really know about one another, or the unhappiest (we do imagine misery is wiser which might explain the propensity for misery we all have). A lover dies, a spouse is put in her tomb and who was she?

No one was; the one who is is not who she will be when she becomes who she was. But traditionally woman has remained a modified man in the collective unconscious of men. In this, they are part not a whole, except of course in the homophonic, hole.

Women then are–to be or not . . . what? What is for things I have read before (Jay Ruvolo, before)? What are they? What is she? [Who is more important than what?] No, I demand as she has said I should demand that they are not what, but who. So then, Who are they? ‘They’ is too big to manage? Are they? As I am we, woman is they? Does this make any sense. I imagine it does, but then this I I am is macrososmic to the many that make up the subject complement we in I am we.

I know the arguments for I am we are rooted in understanding a selfhood that is plural, a many selves Self, I recall my father having said Milton had said. Every person should be able to say this with conviction, I am we. It is true for each of us, but then that is not exactly what I am saying when I say, A woman is they. This woman here, this woman now, the one in front of me with a world of inquiry and response between us, potentially, is what, is who, is when or where, these are the dimensions of this they she is when we know, like I am we, she is they . . .” to continue with what she has written (what she wrote) might be fruitful, but space here is a consideration and quotes handled correctly–or should I say appropriately–will suffice to reveal something more than just a bit of what she thinks.

“Place and time as much as the things we are or the persons we are, become the dimensions of our world projected outwardly toward the world, into the world; this world, we know, is a stage. Yes, each of us to its many parts. But the selves of the Self are microcosmic to the greater Self we are in its singular totality. These are thrust outward and take place around us in the effect of details, she wrote. “The I, I am is I am; the I am is macrocosmic to all details of our world or any world or all the worlds together in the one larger greater all encompassing world we mistakenly think is larger than us because the physical dimensions are so much greater than each of us is,” she has written.


“The [fore mentioned] ‘they’ inside her is encompassed by the she we use for her, this one and only woman who is herself and every woman as well, both, yet sometimes neither, sometimes someone else. All the time she is who she is whenever she is anyone she is, all the masks she wears inside or outside dependent on the ones worn inside . . .[,]”she wrote.  “[A]ll the parts she plays, the players she becomes–in the sense Shakespeare asserts–they are, she is; women and woman are. That’s it. She is. I am. They, them, those people, women. We know no one, not really–who do we know? I ask. Do we know the people whose minds we cannot know completely, whose lives have been lived independently of ours, whose eyes we do not see the world through, whose shoes we do not wear, whose ears we do not hear with, listen with?I ask; I am really asking. Examine this . . . [,]” she said.  “What?” She asked.  “Who do we know? How many of our selves in the Self remain hidden? How can we know anyone? So how could we know any woman?” She had written before she wrote again what you have herein.

“Who is she, again, the question gets asked and if asked . . . I contend that asking is not always to look for an answer, and not every response is an answer as we should know from their etymologies, although I do not want to enforce meaning through etymology. And oftentimes asked without the intention of waiting for an answer, a particularly annoying contemporary trait we have all acquired. But how many of us avoid asking any question like this at all?

I try to imagine what it is that woman feels, thinks, says to herself when she asks, “Who am I?” I sometimes catch myself pretending to think about this, other times only pretending to understand something that might come from this, other times when I actually feel as if I do understand something–but how much standing under a woman do I do, have I done, the latter when not lying down naked, the only under I do for woman, the only support is in how not to give myself a hernia when letting her get on top?

Responses are not answers; I’ve asserted this above and before in other essays. There are plenty of responses we give, we feign attachment to or connection with, but the answers we seek–do not answer a question with a question she used to say, a woman I once knew. No question is an answer, yet we offer questions as answers, responding as we do not with the rhetorical questions that answer, but the questions in responses that avoid answering. Everything to avoid answering. Irrespective of any answer to any question, She is. To respond is not to answer but to put again, to place once more. To put once more is a placement nonetheless, it is a choice of arrangement,” she has written.

“A woman is” should be the first line of discussion when any thought of her right to choose anything arises. In her is, there is no longer any subtracting devices such as who, what, when, where, how or even why. None of these questions are pertinent or relevant to her inalienable right to choose. There should be no equivocation for anyone sane enough to want to save a woman from the unnecessary horrors that existed before Roe versus Wade. I’ve said this in essays before, and I will reiterate it again and again in essays to come.

There were horrors before the law got behind a woman’s right to choose safe medical procedures rather than the rock or the hard place in back alleys, and yes, there were back alleys; curtain rods and all that sort of letting the air in. I’ll never forget the end of Goddard’s Masculin et Femminin, or Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants,” where the word abortion is never mentioned. What am I saying? How can I say anything for her? How can I not? How can I afford to disallow myself the ability to speak rationally for woman. Defending a woman’s rights is an obligation I take seriously, which sometimes sounds as if the one asserting the severity of the responsibility misses the point. I assure you I do not, but then who am I to you or for you? I do have an obligation to defend a woman’s rights as I do anyone’s rights because I exist as a moral being. Not to defend human rights in any way anywhere is to reduce one’s self in one’s moral stature. Even if it is at a dinner table in face of indifference or diffidence or ignorance or prejudice,” she has written, we are reading.

“There will always be dilemmas for her, even if aborting an embryo is legally sanctioned. This is not to say that legally sanctioning abortion is a fool’s errand. To each woman her own personhood, her own psychology rooted in her biology, her physiology and her experiences? She has reason; she is capable of reasoning, of being rational or irrational; capable of being passionate or dispassionate. She will have different levels of education, different jobs or careers; her income will vary, as will her home situation, her relationship status, her religion, and so on and so on. But the roller coaster she rides will be hers to ride when and where she chooses. To decide or not to decide should be her question and hers alone. I have shifted gears quickly, but we cannot see any effort to control abortion or the availability of safe nedical procedures for induced miscarriage as anything other than controlling a woman;s body, her right to reproduce or not, which when centered in the opinions of men might be nothing lese other than Uterus envy. It was through the womb of a woman that in Christian Theology, God becomes man; the Son of God, begotten not made before time and creation is gestated as the incarnation through the uterus of Mary,” she has written, has said in other words some of what has been put down here, words, words and more words she has formed reformed, shaped—what was it our friend Addie used to say about words? Shapes to fill a lack. 

“Now, if Roe versus Wade were a complete fabrication, if it were a docudrama, would that mean that the majority ruling was somehow made weaker, argumentatively? Would the truth of it, whether true or not in the most pedantic sense of trueness become other than true? Roe versus Wade is just as strong in support of pro-choice whether or not the trial was justified on its factual merits. A trial is just that, an essay on a thesis, and whether it was factually justified does not undermine the results of the debate. The text could have been fabricated entirely by a novelist and placed in a novel. Would that make the argument irrelevant, invalid, sociologically? The argument would maintian ethical, moral and socilogical veracity throuhg–even in spite of–its verisimilitude Fictional truths have as much valency as actual. I should say that veracity in fiction is deeper than verisimilitude; it carries metaphysical weight; it has epistemological density.

But this is not solely the point. Hypotheses are presented all the time in politics and law; the sacred law of our land delivered by Divine Providence, itself a holiness above every insipid conception made by illiterate minds twisted in their bleak deserted imaginings of a God whose baseness as a Lord can only muster an angry call to human intelligence to submit humanity and all humane being to a fearful jealousy, born of barbaric cruelty, fueling a misogyny greater than all traditional hatreds of woman, coupled everywhere it has spread like a virulent venereal disease of the mind, all vicious, all violent, all consumed by  hatred, severed forever from any connection to the One True Transcendental Holiness, a Wisdom of Love, Compassion, Redemption and Forgiveness, way beyond the lame and guttural recitations of a most contemptible and corrupted  re-connection with God . . . and all of the United States when subject to ratification was a hypothesis subject to the most critical examinations. It took a great deal of intellectual effort to get The Constitution ratified.

The majority ruling in the Roe versus Wade does not become invalid for us epistemologically or ethically, no; it remains valid in its thesis. Nonetheless, the prime thesis here in any discussion of a woman’s right to choose is a Woman is.

I remember Aquinas and his Deus Est. yes, to give tribute to Woman is to subtract from Her, capitalization needed.


There must be a first and last step in all reasoning about human beings (human being, being humane), and for human beings, that asserts loudly and clearly He is; she is; thus, I am which would be the primary and teleological determination for all ethical considerations of each and every one of us, and there has to be an us. Why does a woman deserve respect for her person, for her choices, for the integrity of her selfhood?” She asked, she wrote, has written in these exact words, although rearranged now and then for reasons other than just avoiding redundancy.Or . . . there are always ors? In others the same nevertheless . .. what? If you were her, one thing known or understood; if you were I, what then?

“Because she is, she exists should be First Feminology; her to be following is all of her metaphysics and physics,” she has said time in and time out, the same and not the same. I wish she were the kind of woman . . . what? What do I wish specifically? I could or I could not imagine her; I might or I might not speak her into being, an existence existing like a tree exists in its existence—but a tree is not as a woman is. She has being; the tree does not. If no one is present to hear a woman falling, does her having fallen make a sound?

We understand this is often too much for any one person to handle, all that he is, that he has been, is being, will be, will have been, might have been, could be, should be, would be if or when; what has happened to should have been? I should have been what, could have been . . . I will have been; I would have been–then what?

Who is she? You ask. Who is the narrator? You ask. Who am I? I would not ask; you might. Who are you? I should ask. I could, whether I am who I am at the moment writing this, or whatever I become thus am as I speak this to you; the you who hears it or reads and the you you are every day, I assume, but these assumptions are often in error. There is a real world you, and a you who reads the text not as a real you you but a you you become in the text.

You could spend some time sorting all of this out; but I do not us spect that you would want to, so leave what you have read as it is and do not consider this author me wearing a mask of authorship for you wearing a mask of readership. It’s all about the world and all of it a stage and all of us merely players, many players, a player playing many parts, parts together equalling what whole, an entirety rhyming with hole, the great abyss we all fall into?


PART TWO: Anonymously Speaking


Anonymously speaking, Ginny, Ginny, come out of your dark room, deny your doctors and refuse that glass of milk.

What if, Anonymous said, this were an untitled manuscript by an anonymous author found on the D Train in the New York City Subway one afternoon? What if I were that person who found this text, and what if I were the person who was presenting it here in its entirety without editing, and with only a very modest introduction, which this could function as for the piece I am actually presenting to you? But then who this “I” that is saying (?), writing (?) these words here for you to read–and that is the actual in-the-world reader that you are when you read, but then what is it that you become when you do,  someone other than you were before when you were not reading thus not the reader?

Herein, though, are the opinions of an anonymous writer (me) as they were found in typed pages on the New York City Subway . . . how then am I writing this if I am the one who lost them . . . but then you are confusing the narrator/expositor (for every narrator does not always and only narrate; sometimes he expositates, says in expository prose what he wishes to provide in exposition . . .) for the author. There is an author behind this, behind me, as you should know, should be able to understand by any one of the several if X then Ys that extend in the logic of the text. Yes, this text is left here for your perusal and conclusion, whatever that might be. What your opinions should be or should not be I will not venture here, nor will the author, who is there first and the last of this text, but is not the first and the last of interpretation. Author intent is quite useless in criticism.

So, let me say, Let us say that Anonymous begins here, and she says what she says as she says . . . there are generalities and specificities for her, of her, about her, what then does she say, she saying we say because we know that the sayer here is anonymous, and I want to exhibit what I have herein asserted for what we should think when we confront an anonymous text . . . but what of texts that are merely inscribed? We are here talking about those texts that have been specifically ascribed Anonymous, no?


Live Free or Die is the motto of New Hampshire, on every license plate you see, definitely unspoken in the character of a people far, far removed from the understanding of too many of the people I live among in my neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, too many people who have suffered one or another form of repression, for certain, oppression, it can be assumed, as it has been historically verified in some cases. I have lived among many people from various and varied places within the Soviet Union and The People’s Republic of China.

What I have seen first hand, experienced myself in company and in other forms of social interaction is clear: No one from any Totalitarian Communist society has escaped the formative effects of that totalitarian enculturation, assimilation, indoctrination. There was state manufactured and delivered dogma to be swallowed, either whole, or chewed and digested. There were those who delightfully chewed and digested their State dogma, feeding themselves and nourishing their minds with propaganda and ideology . . . not so unlike those living under Totalitarian Western Bourgeois Capitalism . . . and do not tell me that you imagine that Western Bourgeois Capitalism is not totalitarian in parallel with any totalitarian communist societies, or totalitarian fascist ones. In the ways these parallels can be drawn, the United Sates, France, the Soviet Union and Nazis Germany are all of a piece; in many, many other ways, they are each quite distinct, as the United Staes in many of its own ways is distinct from every other–any other society. The complexities we are talking of here, socially, economically, politically, governmentally, ideologically are . . . perhaps swallowing dogma whole only leaves one with a socio-political gastro-intestinal distress, as if there is an analogy for gastro-intestinal processes or disruptions in what we can call the political mind; but then we do speak of the body politic, don’t we? In my understanding, from what I see, what I hear, what I personally experience in my neighborhood and other neighborhoods around the city, there are far too many people from the former republics of the Soviet Union or from mainland China who were either members of the Communist Parties in their respective countries, or have assimilated the manners of operating within such a system. Yet, all forms of totalitarian control . . . western or eastern, bourgeois capitalist or bourgeois communist (and you do know what I am saying . . .) have their own set of appropriate and in appropriate manners and  behavior. Political Correctness in the forms familiar to us in the United States actually have their first imprinting in the factory made citizens of the Soviet Union. This is not to say that political correctness has not always been the marker of social or political advance if not just economic prosperity in all societies for all time. What is politically or socially or economically excommunicate and anathema has always been codified and enforced one way or another in every society. We are though talking about totalitarian societies. We are also talking about how much dissent is allowed, tolerated and to what extent this is used either in the cause of freedom and democracy, or as a method of controlling liberty and choice. We are thus talking of how full of shit a society purporting to be democratic actually is with respect for how much freedom is actually accessible . . . and access is the key because the rights of freedom are inherent to our humanity; it is not the law that gives us our rights. The law can impede access and the free exercise thereof our rights.

Adapting to a totalitarian social schema designed to keep everyone on his toes, walking on egg shells, and participating in small or slightly larger degrees in the repression that was wide spread became as natural–if we can speak of the nature of a society–as leaves growing on trees. The horror of all totalitarian oppression is that everyone participates in larger or lesser degrees, no one is exempt, and the repressive actions become collective. One such reflex that I have both noted myself and have been told by former citizens of such societies, and over the number of years living next to, across from and among people from the former republics of the Soviet Union and China, is the penchant for–or at least the motivation toward–character assassination. There is an ease and sometimes a visible, although albeit unconscious, glee that comes over the face when saying something defamatory about another. The legal distinction of defamation of character seems lost on those I have witnessed engaging in such displays of micro-Stalinist or micro-Maoist activity. Do we imagine that our say something if you see something is not also part of this, even if it is also linked with good sense? Defamation of character is a sport among too many from either country, it is fast becoming the norm from Americans  too; and the ease with which some people from either country can perform on the stage of informing is astounding to me, but then I am astounded the way most managers and administrators in the workplaces I have been in perform their tasks of order and control.

The character of the informer is a role too many have played for the purposes of social advancement through the decline of another’s reputation. I have known those who have experienced the same from Americans in the City University of New York, a place where you might expect better ethics, but then you would be mistaken. Primo Levi noted the actions and reflexes from”society’s betters” when put against in comparison with those of “society’s alleged underbelly.” It was astounding the human and humane responses from criminals, drunks, prostitutes the working poor when compared with the inhumane responses and reflexes from doctors, lawyers, teachers, financiers and university professors, and just how easily it came to the later group to betray one another to the Nazis. Societies such as Communist China or the Soviet Union were all too ready and willing to accept such information, either anonymously or not. Often, to settle petty scores, or at other times just to get a leg up on someone in either a real or an imagined pecking order, informing as a method of character assassination was the way. We become more like the former Soviet Union in our social manners and behavior.

This has been attested to by more than just a few people I have known over the years from either country, more specifically the Soviet Union, and not because it happened there more often but because I have found Russians more critical of the Soviet Union than I have found Chinese to be critical of Communist China, and I have found them less xenophobic and a lot less racist or anti-American than I have the Chinese I engage daily in Bath Beach, Dyker Heights and Bensonhurst Brooklyn, particularly when they do not know that I am an ESOL teacher that can help them advance socially. When they discover this, all changes, and from either Russian speakers from the former republics of the Soviet Union or Chinese from mainland China, I am received with a complete and visible transformation of character.

It is not exactly disturbing to me how personal conflicts, when some people were concerned, were managed by going to the authorities with something damaging about another person–it is just all too human. But it was also all too Russian and certainly all too Chinese. “I thought I heard someone listening to the radio last night. I think I heard English. It wasn’t Russian.” I am certain there is a variation of this for Chinese as all totalitarian re-structuring amounts to individual rewiring; just as we can say that mentality affects individual psychology, if we wanted to understand the former as a social phenomenon, and the latter what an individual has that is influenced by the former.

Now in societies set up to do nothing else but to manage their populations through manipulation, propaganda, fear, coercion, force and/or investigation, telling tales about someone is useful and even encouraged. It did not matter to the authorities, for the most part, if what was said were true–the authorities in China and the Soviet Union themselves often fabricated false reports to coerce and control. Any excuse to investigate was seized with delight. Gleeful were the Communist authorities who had patriotic citizens who were concerned enough to say something if they thought they saw something or heard something, or just were bold enough to fabricate something, perhaps for something as petty as a personal slight. Virtual paranoia was the norm. You can almost feel it, it is sometimes palpable when in proximity to some people from these societies. It is sometimes almost the same as when engaging socially with Arab Muslim women who have just arrived within the last year or two . . . and do I need to tell us that there is an endemic misogyny that accompanies any society that claims to be traditional enough to support the idea that it is okay to be medieval in its attitudes toward women–or should I say, behind the times, if you prefer cliches.

It is unfortunate when this kind of mentality–one I repeat that I see growing among Americans in their most fervent anti-American attitudes and reflexes–yes, this mentality affects the psychology of individuals operating here in the United States–and it does when people of this kind find themselves in positions of petty authority here in the City of New York, as I have on a number of occasions confronted one or another of these former communists from China or the Soviet Union because one thing a former member of any communist party does not do is sit home and sip his coffee leisurely over his morning paper.

I have experienced this myself first hand, from students and colleagues; the extent some people from either country are willing to lie, to distort, or to imagine without evidence that they have enough to testify to what they are saying is amazing to me. There is nothing in any of these instances I am alluding to that I understand to be American or democratic in any way, or anything fostered by a living, breathing understanding of the First Amendment or the Fifth. I have never wondered why fish cannot swim in the air. Americans are headlong bent on becoming ever increasingly like the Soviet Union, and in exactly the same Patriotic, Ever Suspicious, Ever Watching, Ever gleeful to abandon rights and rational decency for a few more crumbs off the tables of State like good Public Dogs we have become.

But then after the Patriot Act, these individuals are now at a premium. Former communists, or just simple separate former citizens of China or the Soviet Union who had been fully assimilated into being good citizens in either form of Totalitarianism, are a perfect match for the kind of state bred paranoia Real Power in America wants. And as I mentioned above, former communists in either country are not the kind of people who will just sit back and relax and enjoy themselves–they will seek positions, particularly of petty authority, where they will–and do–operate within the former mentality of their former assimilation. And I cannot tel you how many members of formerly oppressed or currently oppressed American groups when they find themselves also in petty authority imitate or assimilate the manner and matter of factness of the former communist formed by his prior experiences with Totalitarianism. I have a supervisor in my experience who fits this model perfectly. Good for him and his Dog-eat-dog success at the level of Petty Authority, justified as a means to support his family, as if having a wife and family exonerates his, yes, heinous behavior.

But then States and bureaucracies have more in common with each other universally internationally than they do with the people they allegedly serve, no? Former German Nazis operated very well in the United States and the Soviet Union. Gestapo helped build the East German State Police. Nazis science gave us the steroid monstrosities of the East German Women’s Olympic Swim Team in the 70s. Alien mentalities operating at the level of any petty authority, particularly when Totalitarian Communist, are the greatest threat to the security of the United States, or more specifically, the freedom of its People. Do we really want to become more like China or the Soviet Union in any way? Why then allow former communists to lie to us about how they were coerced into being members of the Communist Party. Having been a member of the Communist Party to get a better paying job has become the joke of refugees from China or the republics of the Soviet Union.

Putin’s Russia has its young Russian adherents, I guess as did Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Mussolini in Italy, et cetera et cetera. With China leading the world in sexual slavery, female suicide (an average of 500 women per day) and suicide in general, I guess repression is custom; it might have become for some, as Chinese as Tao or Confucianism. We must not forget the forced abortions in China when the fetus is female. Forced abortions are as oppressive to a woman and her right to choose as would be the unavailability to have an abortion here in the states–a repressive current from the lunatic wing of the Republican Party seeking to manifest itself in law. And we still tend to think that Muslim societies lead the way in the world in the matter of misogyny; but the time has not yet come to revise entirely our attitudes toward the treatment of women in some west African Muslim societies, nor should we turn a blind eye on systemic violence and atrocities perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalist groups against Christians because President Obama chooses to do so.

I am not joking when I say that you must beware of the totalitarian mind–it is as un-American as Satanism is anathema to a mono-theist. My friends–be very, very wary. But do understand that every individual has the potential to be either exception to, or example of, the rule. You really do not need to look very far from home when you want to see what Totalitarianism looks like–America, once again, I say, is a Totalitarian Bourgeois Capitalist State.


Now Live Free or Die, I understand–what I do understand better is that we must live Free the American way and any alien mentality in the mind of our democratic body politic, contrary to the best impulses of American freedom, should die, simply by us not fostering or nurturing this alien mind. This, of course, must come from a higher calling or election, if you will, in literacy. American democracy is able to manage the best impulses of the human humane, not as the totalitarian which manages the pettiest drives and impulses of the vengeful and vindictive mind. All personal violent impulses under totalitarianism are channeled into State oppression. It can also happen here if we allow it.

There is a crisis in civilization at hand, my friends, and we are not exactly prepared to defend democracy and freedom the way we need to, which is what allows the lunatic fringes of our politics to assert themselves more loudly and boldly, to the detriment of the freedom they purportedly are defending. Yet I find many of America’s liberals as scary and as stupid (not quite as semi-literate) as are America’s conservatives.

All enemies foreign and domestic, but now the foreign is domestic. The Constitution needs defending, but the literacy sponsored in our Public Schools mismanages that. We have to oppose totalitarian communist mentality as we need to oppose, for example, any imposition of Sharia Law. Sharia Law used to enforce misogyny cannot be permitted under the pretext of religious freedom. Misogyny is not a First Amendment right. Totalitarian Communist mentality is not an alternative for American democracy. The Constitution of the United States must remain above Sharia law; it is above, before and after Sharia law in all matters social and political. If someone wants to keep it in his living-room, okay; but as soon as he leaves his home, he must abide the laws of American democratic society, which extends to teaching his children not to chase and taunt western women for how they dress, which too many Pakistani parents do not do in the building complex I live in in Brooklyn. I see too many times, Pakistani Muslim children running after women as they walk taunting them for how they dress–I have to say something because this is not a Muslim theocracy, nor is it Pakistan where it seems virtually acceptable for a brother to kill his sister for eloping–these are all of piece. This is the United States of America, and neither Muslims nor Communists have very much, if anything at all, to teach us about freedom and democracy. We are the last best hope for human kind, and unless we understand what this means and the responsibilities inherent, we are going to fail at advancing Democratic Civilization.

The Soviet Union was not a half dozen of whatever donuts you like while America was six of the same. If we sponsored the kind of literacy that went into writing and creating the Constitution, we might actually read it and understand it and be better able to defend it, but we do not, unfortunately. And again, I see this particularly in how we do not confront some Muslims for what amounts to misogynist behavior and attitudes. Do I need say nothing when confronted with the Arab Muslims in my neighborhood voting for measures to turn back the clock on Roe versus Wade? Do we imagine we are able to negotiate texts in the matter and manner of defending a woman’s rights which have always been Human Rights and always associated and contingent with Civil Rights? Am I supposed to tolerate Muslim intolerance because some systematically under-educated, half-literate millennial insists I do in his half-thought through acceptance of current received ideas and third hand mis-readings and dis-understandings of someone else’s second-hand lesson-planned cliche-riddled diatribe against White people or Christian People or American People or Men, especially Straight Men dictates so–and anyone who imagines that I am a Trump supporter is a nit wit.

Let me just say again that neither the Soviet Union nor China has anything to teach us in the matters and manners of democracy and freedom–and this is not a recurrence of American Know-Nothing politics, which the hallmark of everything coming from The Donald. This is simply stated,without hyperbole. It is a truth I take to be self-evident; therefore it is not a matter for debate. I do not have to embrace the devil to prove Christian principles.


Live free or die–another to be or not? I know where I stand; I know how I have to stand opposed to any threat to the Constitution of the United States. What standing against this governments assault on our Constitution do I do, have I done . . . I work with those who do not read it when it becomes an issue, have not read it, have allowed their literacy training to dictate what they read, how they read, when they read; and this culture does confuse literacy and what could be called a baser alphabetics . . . oooh! Look at me. I spell my name correctly. Speling your name incorrectly used to get you exempted from Jury Duty, but no longer is that true. Maybe they are trying to stop people from doing so on purpose and getting out of service, but think of this another way: just how many semi-literates and nearly illiterates are we garnering as jurors in a system of justice that demands literacy at least from those who are administering he justice. We cannot allow ourselves to think that just because some defendants are illiterate that a jury of his peers must also be illiterate!!!!!!!!!!

We need not die to live free–why leave ourselves opened to the disease contracted under the epidemics of totalitarianism . . . what do I need to do to prove I am good–turn the other cheek to Satan.

Yes, defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, but with intelligence, advanced literacy, reason, rationality and sobriety . . . a tall order, of course, but the last best hope for civilization is a great demand, one we can answer, if prepared–what is any of this supposed to mean. It’s coming off a bit trite in places, no? The effects of too much media bombardment by facts facts and more facts themselves confused for the data, data, date we have been inundated by . . . statistics are in themselves not facts and facts in themselves are not knowledge and knowledge in itself is never wisdom and wisdom turned into the gray of theory is not wisdom lived in the green of life.

Anonymity, Virginia Woolf inferred (and I am not quoting), has been the foremost condition of woman throughout history.



Feminology is my preferred choice in diction, one made in contrast against Feminism, a choice in diction no longer mine.

I used to say what I thought about “ologies” and “isms,” and how I would think that an ology seemed more organic as a discipline or an ordering factor for historical analysis? for epistemological inquiry? Than isms. Except scientology, itself a great deceit in deception.

I am not going to go as far as to say that Impressionism should be Impressionology, but I could. I do not seem to have as much to say against Existentialism although I could develop an Existentialiology, but then we already have Phenonmenology as a precursor? as a collateral? as a contingent influence?

Perhaps I feel the need for a new word to create a new course in an epistemology of Woman (women) to influence the metaphysics of their freedom.

Where then do I begin in my first philosophy of Woman, in any metaphysical or ontological argument of Woman’s existence, of my phenomenological experience of Woman, not only as an object in the world, as I am also an experiential object in the world, but in so many other ways,physiocal and metaphysical: Woman is.

[I will discuss at a later date just what the differences are between To be and to exist.]

Written by jvr

July 2, 2019 at 2:27 pm


leave a comment »

I would like to live in the trees with the chimps–do not get me wrong, I do love living in cities. I am not foregoing civilization–yes, city order, city culture, Christians and Pagans. I am not so sure, though, that even the chimp-me could beat a baby baboon against a tree. The appropriate question is not whether or not a chimp were me, but if I were a chimp? Right?Yes, if I were a chimp, how would I act in a crowd, how would I interact with these others who piss me off, who annoy me, who berate me, who mock me, who disrespect me? Questions do beget more questions as they take me–take me where? Where am I going with this? You might ask. I do not.

Take the baby baboon by the feet and swing thus. . . meaning lies within–and it is interesting here how meaning lies. Nothing but what is meant to be? Intentionally–what is it about intentionality? We reduce individuality, thus we make irrelevant the idea of choosing to have done something and having done something without meaning to, without intention. They are the same thing to those who seek hegemony, for those ready and willing to berate you, mock you, belittle you, devalue you . . . I watch an old film of Jane with her monkeys. See Jay watch a film about Jane; see Jane play with her chimps. Hypocrite brother, my likeness, you other monkeys. I see my Self of many selves, another and another and another—old monkey me on parade, an image of me I make myself.

All things made, how made, I feel the fabric of her dress, a new fiction seeks its generation. The thread—don’t lose the thread. I am, I declare, An ape of God. I recall having read everything I had read about God, everything I had read about not God, everything I had about doubting God, about whose God was whose God, how God was what God was for however many conceived of God, what need it fulfills in the human heart, if we can still speak of heart or of soul, wherein then does the mind exist–foolish people thinking mind is more talent than soul, some languages have one word for what we insist is less confusing by having two.

I wish I had read more Montaigne. What we are, the eyes have it, Medieval English ballads I learned by heart, the texts I have since lost. I was in my early twenties. I used to be able to sing Barbara Alan, verse by verse. I unravel a ball of yarn in the labyrinth. How do I know if it is long enough. Theseus was sure I am sure, have been sure– did I ever ask this question? Stringing them along . . .

I discovered in university that the world was not post-colonial—a new suit could not change this monkey me into a new man, no matter how imperial was the design. All by the dreamers of empires again, colonial dreamers still dreaming dreams of master and slave; if everyone in the world would wake up tomorrow white, we would still have niggers—if everyone were black, the same would be true–what would be true? If everyone woke up black tomorrow, we would still have the bigotry of color–no one would be color blind . . . I’m dark chocolate, I’m milk . . . I’m caramel . . . but more essentially, what if everyone woke up tomorrow white? The dynamics that give us racism would still exist; the dynamics of Power and Money, class and caste, the politics of otherness . . .

How many do impose the rule that I have no right to talk about what we do talk about, sometimes without saying what it is we are talking about, as if everything unsaid is loud and clear by just maneuvering our discussion toward something never quite articulated, as we do so often on and in matters of race in this country, especially with the idea of niggers in our society under hypothetical conditions . . . the if I can talk of guineas, I can talk of niggers . . . what tBut I am not your white man . . . not here, not now, not ever, not past, present or future. If you cannot get your mind around the idea that I am a Non-White Caucasian, then I can’t help you, won’t help, might avoid you or ever speaking with you even in forums such as this one . . .

The futility of considering anything other than what we should do to others before they get to do anything to us has preoccupied our minds as of late–adversaries, adversaries, adversaries . . . yet, no old barking Nazis banging on your door, just the received ideas in our new historicism leaving us prey to one inundation after another by tides recurring after tides, after tides, waves in, wakes out.


I wish I had more to say at the moment, another effort at making this clearer? And yet, how is it that we miss the point of how human societies are, have been, continue to be, will keep on being and so on––Americans are horridly isolationist at the same time they are grotesquely exceptionalism. This is pan cultural, as weblike to say in America––however, many multiculturalists are full of shit––their authenticity is full of shit. A costume worn over Protestant Bourgeois Capitalist. But this isolationism and exceptionalism is at the root of many of failures at societal change or what we would like to believe is progress. African Americans being as American as everyone, never any less than anyone, suffer this as well. Thus, no one knows the troubles they have seen, suffered, known; no one anywhere anytime for all of time, past and future.

The real horror of racism is that the incidentals are just that, incidental; and in the dynamics of Power that create racism, color of skin is incidental, and yet one of the one most powerful conveniences of Power acting powerfully ever more powerful. No black man or woman has the option of closeting themselves, disguising themselves in methods that Jews or Catholics or Homosexuals could and have done.

Always under the Gaze, and thus never achieving the kind of privacy in public that others can enjoy . . . women can pass as men and men as women, at least in the matters of being subjected to the Gaze. I am not disputing successful passing in the past on the part of light skinned African-Americans. And I am not here going to dispute that there are non equatorial Africans who could be light skinned by nature; I am just saying here that most Africans brought in chains to these shores were equatorial and not light skinned; so, light skinned also usually meant a degree of whiteness [Northern-European Caucasian] that meant the person passing was not all black––although, one drop of black blood did make you black, except that if you did have fewer drops of black blood, you might have the opportunity to pass and elude the Gaze onto your otherness.

I cannot be other in China, let’s say, if we want to subject our critical minds to a remote analogy.  To stretch again another comparison: a Japanese convert to Christianity can live a closeted existence beyond the Gaze that subjects the person of the concerned identify to the effects and impositions of the Gaze.

Written by jvr

July 1, 2019 at 11:12 am

AOC is as white as white is

leave a comment »

OCASIO CORTEZ IS MORE WHITE THAN I AM, IF we use white in the way we do rhetorically in this socio-political contemporaneity, which in another age, another mentality, perhaps another political conception, we would say bourgeois, perhaps Protestant Bourgeois. Of course, in these here dis-United States, Bourgeois and Protestant are synonyms, in as much as everyone becomes metaphysically pseudo Protestant in as much as he or she becomes fully bourgeois, if only in mentality, allegiance. Apartfrom mentality or allegiance, most assuredly most Americans having adopted a metaphysically Protestant Bourgeois mind they help support a Totalitarian Capitalist State, which of course America is because Totalitarianism can coexist with Capitalism. This is a mistake we continue to make in America, equating democracy with Capitalism.

We use White instead of any of the other terms above because we need race as another red-herring to divert us from the more pressing issues of class, which by never addressing, we always miss the opportunity to address race.

America is multicultural only in so far as we remain over archingly bourgeois; multi-cultic accented in a kind of pseudo-authenticity used as costume for the real bourgeois character to be played and replayed on our socio-political, more pronouncedly socio-economic, stages . . .

Yes, Ocasio-Cortez did grow up more white than I had . . .

A do not support a border wall; but it is Isolationsist; not in itself racist, unless someone attaches to the border wall for racist reasons. And if she imagines that Post World War II Germany and Merkel’s living a perpetual political lie having healed, then she is delusional. She is so pathetically naive.  I do not need her neo-neo-liberal globalizing (essentially the same neo-liberal that Clinton would be if Clinton were AOC’s age . . .) shell game to inform me that Trump is a dangerous demagogue; but let us not think that she or Obama do not and have not also used

Written by jvr

June 30, 2019 at 2:47 pm

%d bloggers like this: