sorry it will be my last one ?coming few to few my conclusion ?/Re: [-empyre-] misogyny

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

And at last, if I can explain something more to finish my serial of emails.

All of us we know perfectly that in the general game of the real war
actually driving the earth there are any consequent women specially western
women, specially one US and one FR who are not bitches not more maids but
responsible women at the power, because they love the power and have made
the consequent studies and contracts at work in the good places; so they are
perfectly unforgivable even as women, because they are as the power which
they reached: sexually neutral as power.

? I do not think that I am misogynist when I notice it.

? It is incredible that men can think current Minister of American Defence
becoming the war chief because he would have been seduced by the chief of
the state department hope to realize the war as her proper project: double
neutral sex as power.

? I do not think that I am misanthropist when I notice it.

? But same time I do not think that I am more misogynist than misanthropist
when I notice the seduction of otherness is not any more a part of the
machine of power, whatever the war-drobe for self-seducing.

On 24/10/06 22:44, "Aliette" <aliette@criticalsecret.org> probably wrote:

> 
> Sorry, just adding precisely as materialist myself that of course the real
> question of the power cannot be the one between men and women... My proper
> remark on the question that I agree with Patrick when I suggest "false stake",
> something same than: what is obvious at the moment we reach the one moment
> when it is not necessary to have a natural mode of reproduction of human to be
> able in matter of reproduction as human, I said, the sexism impact far from
> disappearing is all the contrary increasing, it appears.
> 
> But it seems at the view of HG feelings of powerlessness fear by men, that the
> sexual violence may be would take place in the symbolic absence of power. May
> be through the disappearance of the social pact of the relationship of
> production while the society of the capitalist or socialist production
> disappear (I mean more: having disappear the work itself as resource and as
> common respective responsibility)? More this going with the event of the
> disappearance of the symbolic political power of the people in the
> post-democracies and post republics... Even the classes of the power would
> have lost their political common culture being the tribute of the former
> democracies or republics, don't you think so? At the moment they have got a
> global supra government and institutions, they do not take care more of the
> local traditions of the former nations as popular cultures but populism?
> 
> Primal and regressive defences and request of power without limit from any
> part to each other?  It is the war, the civil war globally and singularly?
> 
> May be yet the same question of American superpower to open its submitted
> territory since the Pacific ocean to the Mediterranean Sea in the south of
> China and Russia in a following continuous space without impeachment of
> otherness?
> 
> If yes: we have to fear the social fear falsely installed by the power under
> an ideological opportunist vision of the men as false tradition (but perverse)
> from porn to war porn as killers fearing to be killed. Because it is to show a
> possible global war from several ones.
> 
> And the conditioning comportments coming through the education more from the
> games as always it happened.
> 
> But the question is not of the contents, nor or the forms of the social life,
> nor of the games, it is of the society itself as wide of heritage and
> creations of relationships of common production: but the war?
> 
> On 24/10/06 10:46, "Aliette" <aliette@criticalsecret.org> probably wrote:
> 
>> ( I apologize for the cross poting of the previous email, I believed to have
>> badly written the address of the first one ).
>> 
>> If you mean that the very false stake socially and individually playing in
>> sexual relationship of violence, symbolic but really acting, can be of the
>> power; anyway I agree.
>> 
>> But that is not the former object of sexuality: reproduction and/or delight
>> and ?may be?? love ( which would need all a discussion to be definite: so
>> what is love? )
>> More sometimes domination through the following affects.
>> 
>> And what first represents the power in this society?
>> 
>> What can we learn from the games ? as they are exactly??
>> 
>> 
>> On 24/10/06 3:09, "patrick lichty" <voyd@voyd.com> probably wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Good point - 
>>> A couple playful probes...
>>> 
>>> gh replies:
>>> 
>>> What happens with television and sensationalism is that it plays to
>>> the limbic gland.
>>> 
>>> Hmmm.  Where is this 'Limbic Gland'... Maybe near my perineal
>>> oblongatum?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Being powerless over women is a major fear of men. This is probably
>>> amplified by those with larger ambitions, to whit the greater the
>>> ambition, the greater the fear of powerlessness.
>>> 
>>> Oh, hell, GH- cut to the chase...
>>> Men as a genre are afraid of losing power of any kind, PERIOD.  And the
>>> more power they have, the more afraid they are to lose any of it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>