Where I live, is the flashpoint of the breedbasket sex wars that take place all over America. If you want to look for conflation of social issues*, I urge you strongly to visit Mamasota, because Mamasota long ago relinquished her love for the United States Constitution, and supplanted that love with police men and women in peoples bedrooms, via the handy tool of eugenics.
In fact, Mamasota, USA, is and has always been a social experiment–one where land had to be federalized, and taxes needed to be derived, and all of that in the state where the last lynchings of Native Americans took place–where the ‘experimentees’ met the ‘non-experimentees,’ and won. Theoretically.
In Mamasota, the breadbasket and the breedbasket are so intertwined that the great and historic grain mills of the Midwest are stationed along Dight Avenue-and Charles Dight, as we know, is a local hero. He advocated that some people are ‘defective’ and should not breed. He also advocated that other people are betler genetic material for breeding.
And, he advocated that the ‘unfit’ breeders should be sterilized, cauterized, and marginalized. He also advocated for strong social controls so that contagious diseases like mental illness, mental retardation, and poverty should be monitored by police agencies across the state.
Dight was also an ardent ‘socialist,’ who quite ironically presaged the Third Reich, HItler, and others who seek to cleanse the earth of some peoples ability to breed.
As it turns out, Kate Millet, a University of Mamasota graduate, and a feminist–the author of “Sexual Politics,” was also a eugenecist.
” The book, a critique of patriarchy in Western society and literature, addressed the sexism and heterosexism of the modern novelists D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer and contrasted their perspectives with the dissenting viewpoint of the homosexual author Jean Genet. Millett questioned the origins of patriarchy, argued that sex-based oppression was both political and cultural, and posited that undoing the traditional family was the key to true sexual revolution.”
Or, put another way–women can just make up families as they go along-but in order to do that, they needed to replace the role of fathers with something BETTER! And something more stable over generations.
Enter the Police State, for protection, and gay men for friendship! BFF forever!!!!
Or in the words of another author, Donald Alexander, writing in “the New Politics of Pornography,”:
“What began with the feminist call for the construction of aesthetic communities of diversified practices seems to have been reduced to the construction of a sisterhood of surveillance.”
Here, here, Mr. Alexander. I second that state sponsored terrorism narrative.
And I might also add a personal anecdote.
Me, James, the turreris’s and free speech gone haywire, via FBI interactions with the informer, and a whole bunch of other shit, to be described–and witnessed to; vouchsafed for, later;-)
Back in the good old days of my personal torments-those good old days marked by unwarranted intrusion after unwarranted intrusion into my life and personal affairs, and various, nefarious atempts to sabotage my very life, I knew an FBI informant named James.
I liked James plenty–drank beer with James, read books with James, and also, discussed women and politics with James. Discussed his inverse-nippled Russian girlfriend, and so forth (inverse nipples on women are not a good sign of genera long term health)
And, some 13 years ago, James was selected as a special friend of the United States surveillance apparatus, while I was selected to endure various torments that I have written about elsewhere (and many other torments that I cannot legally write about in America-really, I could be arrested for writing about certain government activities and how the affected me, personally-like the youtube beheading videos thatDID NOTMAKE IT TO YOUTUBE, even once. War-porn: such is the nature of subverting free speech speakers all across America–and did I mention, the routine blackmail of secret societies upon speakers of free speech? It’s ugly, believe me. But I am still yapping on and on–ever wonder why? Clue: because YOU are in on it! And that, alone, is my exhibit A).
Here is a snapshot of certain stories I was writing back then-and James was integral both TO and IN–meaning, he was a character within the narrative itself.
Did I die, and wake up somewhere other than America? Fuck this place–the Chinese have my vote, from her forwards. Or anyone who can blow this shit up–and or/ compile a database of police and other law enfarcers–and give ot to anyone who will target them, as they stand down and do nothing about the law enfarcement that both Democrats AND Republicans willingly instigate.
Because if the police won’t protect us, who will? My vote is on any other police state out there–my opportunities for steady employment will only get better.
And some scans, from old notebooks. These are rough notes that were from the Mohammed Warsame case, and the case of attorney Lynne Stewart who is a civil rights lawyer who was railroaded by John Ashcroft. AND they had been torn out of the notebook, and pages crumpled, etc.
But back to our dear Kate Millet-Mamasota’s own much read, pedant recommended book, Sexual Politics, written by a “good girl” who thinks she is being “bad” by writing about men who in her era, were thought to be “subversive.”
And one last note: Kate MIllet, unlike Henry Miller, was NEVER banned reading in America. Unlike Henry MIler, who gave voice to the voiceless, Kate Millet is, and always WAS what one would expect of an American author: Victorian, without seeming to be; upholding the privilege of white women, high status women, and women in general; and especially, re-weaving the narrative of the “good girl” into the schema of American politics.
An update on an old trope to be sure, but a trope nonetheless, based on her own life.
First of all, I adore brilliant women almost as much as I adore brilliant scholarship. Kate Millet IS brilliant, and while biased, is dispassionate in regards to her crafty analysis of the politics of sex.
That said, Ms. Millet embodies the WORST of women’s scholarship, anywhere in the world BECAUSE of her bias.
I sense Kate, when she wrote the book, had a ‘target’ in mind-that she had designs upon her own personal stash of female ovum(those oh! so few eggs! that most female hens are BORN with, and must protect AT ALL COSTS from virginhood to nonvirginhood; that precious and at times precocious part of the life cycle of mammals, where all little females–little bear girls, and little puppy girls and little rats, and little whale all say to themselves, as per the universal codified code of the female monolith: ” you only have so many eggs! Be careful your eggs don’t fa out of the basket! The world is full of weasels!” and other mammalian cautionary tales.
–and that Ms. Millet valued herself(and ALL OTHER WOMEN) so highly that those ovum were necessarily protected ONLY by mind-blowing scholarship(for the sake of ALL OTHER WOMEN)–her wit and candor, personal armor against the rapacious wiles of ‘patriachy,’ and, particularly, whatever weaselly ‘patriarch,’ her eggs might well fall into the basket of….
Her scholarship, and armor against the rapacious appetites of spermatazoa that, she felt, could easily devour her own narrative (feminists of that era were at war with ‘biological destiny–hehehehe. How ironic then that she finally got *married* or, in the words of her respected peers ‘succumbed to patriarchy.’
Methinks you protestetheth too much about your OWN persona, selfish, egg hatching biological destiny, Ms. Millet…
And how ironic: women in her generation did many things! They got the vote, and, since then MORE PRE-EMPTIVE WAR HAS BEEN WAGED BY AMERICANS drowning in the fear that too much sperm could cause her to go blind, or something–and so, she, like most and all ‘feminists’, enlisted help from others so that their keen insights would not be blinded by marauding bands of sperm that sought her demise with clever devices like the death inducing ‘pearl necklaces,’ of lore or other heinous spermatazoan treacheries.
Well-anyways, getting ahead of myself.
So, James-one peculiar and prescient conversation I had with James just before/after? he became an FBI informant was one where we shared a mutual admiration for Henry Miller, the author.
AND, James noted that Henry, in this modern era, would likely be classified as a rapist or worse. What could be worse than a rapist, I wondered then? Yes–I know, and so do you. Interesting how propaganda, FBI informants, and conversations about literature invoke the highest levels of scrutiny….
And so, back to Millet, who, then, was being taught at the college where I knew James to be a ‘student.’
Millet has quite an answer for the query of James, aka FBI informant, –and then, I knew the gist, but had not the answer, or the logic behind the question fully in mind.
But the answer is this: Millet DESPISED Miller for getting OUT of AMERICA–for leaving America, and its hungry, hungry war minded women behind.
As she noted then, men who left America and its wars, and all of its hungry women behind, via the abandonment of the American breedbasket narratives that count mens sperm as a commodity that women like her are somehow equipped to personally ‘account for,’ Miller– a notorious Onanist and ‘narcissist’ was a “gang” unto himself! (p.389)
And, being such carefree, selfish ‘fuckers’, America-hating, and hence, American woman hating individuals, who just “”fuck”women and discard them.”
She goes on to extrapolate how selfish ‘fuckers’ are the bain to the existence of al social order; that socia order based upon a ‘mans’ wilingness to engage women in their persona narratives–and never ONCE mentions how international capitalism, or capitalists themselves have more tricks than any individual human could ever invent to fuck you up, fuck you over, or fuck you to death.
Nope-it’s Henry’s adoration, aduation, pursuit of, and enjoyment of vaginas that he doesn’t have to sacrifice years of his life for, which dooms him, in Millets eyes.
No–Millet is herself, the handmaiden of that structure–because international capitalism pays women like her to attack individuals–to use her voice to attack individual men who merely seek the pleasure of a womans company, briefly; men who seek from a woman the look on her face of enjoyment, or abandonment of the POlice state, para-military schemas of sheeps and sheeplesque obedience to the shepherds voice–that shepherd amorphous for the most part, and gendered ‘male’ only through convenience (think Hillaries designs on Syria today, in sync with, and in cahoots with Dick and King George from yeasteryear)–rather than direct her great intellect at the mass of persons who commit genocides, or who actually murder children.
So, for Millet, we see that Henry Miller–an avowed fucker, a selfish, vagina inhaling, vagina enjoying, impersonal fucking fucker–is for her, the arch enemy of women’s liberation.
So, we can extrapolate from MIllet, then, that liberated women DO NOT WANT TO MERELY FUCK OR BE FUCKED. Nope. No enjoyment in the abandonment of the body long enough to have an intersexed orgasm–NO WAAAAAY.
Fucking, for Millet, must carry a “price,” and that “price is far beyond any price Henry could pay to low cost prostitutes in France (fucking FRANCE!).
No-the price is this: Millet, and other intellectuals like her must be respected–hierarchically and geo-locally respected for their “work.”
And that work ISSSSSS?
Character assassination of relatively powerless men–men like Henry Miller, who, in her own words was a “downright failure.”
Or, Onan the Barbarian must DIE!!!!! And, who does dear Kate seek to impress nayways, serving up a pathetic Onanist to the courts and tribunals?
A “failure,” of “a man.”
Ahh, such is the treachery of petty, unimaginative, deadbeat women-competitive, intellectually brilliant, yet fearful women, who know that such treachery served up against pathetic individuals DOES and SHOULD and OUGHT to have repercussions against her own narrative–but when? And, where?
Now! and Later!
In her words, attempting to rationalize and justify Millers purported lack of care or concern for the ‘monolith of the universal woman,’she says of him
“Just “fucking,” the Miller hero is merely a huckster, and a con man.” p.390
And later, she attempts for the sake of her hidden benefactors to seal the death warrant of ol’ Henry, the fucker (her now proven allies of the Military Industrial complex, the Police State, International capitalists, and Henry Kissinger….) when she writes
“Miller was a downright “failure”until the age of forty. A writer unable to produce, living a seedy outcast existence, and dependent on handouts. Before Paris granted him reprieve. Miller felt himself the captive of circumstances in the phillistine millieu, where artistic or intellectual work was despised, and the only approved avenues of masculine achievement were confined to money, or sex.”
And in this, I give you the heart and soul of Mamasota’s entire intellectual collection. A grand treatise of some men’s daughters, waving flags of victory–beacons of ‘succes’ to the outside world, and declaring that their narative counts, that their narative is the one that leads to capital gain.
Mamasota is vehement that attempts to emasculate men who seek any an all avenues OUT of their forced labor schemas shal and will be hunted down, and that any and all joy, or alternative narration will be crushed; their narrowly defined matrices of sexuality, and bi-polar breedbasket narration; I give you my reason de tre’: as far as Millet can bring that ort of handmaidens tale, I sugest their is a better way–that KILLS fewer children.
Millet HATED Miller, because he got more “cunt” than she did. He was her iner voice, comparing hersef to other women, and not all of those women viewed their little egg baskets as quite so precious–as quite so worth kiling others for, pre-emptively.
And she hated that Miller saw through the American breedbasket ‘social’ narrative–that narrative that on one hand preaches American exceptionalism, ike pure-bred dogs, and on the other, feels itself righteous enough to bomb entire generations of other pepes children out of existence.
Or: Kate Millet, bred like a dog in Mamasota, rose above the other bitches, but somehow, the best she could do? Was to attack the narrative of liberated fathers of bastards, and those bastards, stolen, intellectually co-opted, and subsidized by the state.
But the caveat, of course, is that in the very least, the legacy of Miller was not to willingly leave children behind who would be exploited by the state, or exploited by the women who bore them; whereas Millet herself is nothing more than a handmaiden to the ‘others’ who so willingly have exploited her narrative, MIller was powerless to stop the breedbasket urges of women who feed kids to wars–an ardent abortion rights advocate, he likely realized that women themselves used abortion selectively; and used their vaginas selectively as well.
Kate Millet, one of the American ‘mothers’ of the ongoing global internationalist genocides that posit that her kind of thinking, in bed with the non-patriarch, is somehow ‘better’ genetic stock; better moral high ground than the fathers who sire the children of the Mamasota’s al across America. But time will tel that this narrative is more transient than MIlers dick: and that more people die because of her thinking than any child ever avoided by Milers canny ability to NOT get women pregnant.
And why did MIllet attempt to assassinate Millers character, beyond the fact that historica;y, her last name is similar to his own, and hr books would likey end up next to his on a bookshelf (note the historical positioning)?
Because Miller was essentially ‘un-American.’ He was the ugly American–he came for pussy, and took nothing more than that-while the rest of “US” and Millet herself, come with further intentions–and even seed the ground with depleted uranium, or and mines to ensure that their eggs will have a future nest.
Those damned Onanists!
Don’t ask me–ask Kate Millet, in her essay, chapter 6 of Sexual politics.
Am I surprised that Millet was divorced many years after she met her apparently great intellectual love? Am I surprised that since Millet, Mamasota has all but adopted her prudish arguments for social control via sexual politics?!
Not one iota; in fact,it is all clear to me now–Mamasota IS the dream of the war machine; the endless supply of soldiers who feed from the trough of victimization narratives–while they murder the children–and the mothers and fathers–of other nations.
*conflation is where one thing, only slightly related to another thing, is positioned in a dialectic AS that thing; as if an orange, and an orangish colored apple ARE both apples-nearly one and the same.
Or, that one thing-Millet, IS Miller, but better, and more socially conscious, and more digestible somehow.