This one of very few books that actually made me angry. Most of this subversive
stuff I look at from a scholarly perspective, but this, this seemed like the
debasement was that of a true believer, a useful idiot. When you read
Propaganda or similar works you can at least appreciate the evil genius behind
them, but this is more the result of years of being exposed to the cultural
degradation present in the modern university. The product being an intelligent
person that spews utter nonsense like "violence through words, words can KILL"!
I would not suggest reading this, not even this review let alone the whole
thing, unless you want to get a look into the mind of the snowflake precursor.
An old school, born in the 40s, feminist, lesbian, Jew. Cringe.
The author has been fully indoctrinated in Jewish victimhood. Holocaust!
Anti-Semites! The Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years! Maybe
because Jews are subversives? This is literally a book, by a self proclaimed
subversive Jew, that promotes the subversive change of culture. The Jews are
mentioned every few pages.
Both pro-feminist and anti-male points are belabored. While this is more
"common" today, this book was published in 2002 and the essays it contains were
written decades ago. Women are portrayed as powerful and compared to mother
earth's volcanoes that can tear apart man's work, but women, at the same time,
are also oppressed...
Given these positions, it is not surprising that Lyn is a lesbian. She claims
that even the word lesbian is wonderful because lesbian starts with L, like
lusty. But why not lame? Honestly I don't even know what else to say to this
"point". Men are magnificent (or malignant)? Heterosexuals are Happy (or
"victims are likely to be individually victimized as women, people of color,
children, animals; or collectively as Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, lesbians
and gays, old people, handicapped people, and so forth." And so forth seem to
allude to everyone but men is victimized. How is this not completely divisive?
I suppose it is, and also not a surprise when the whole book is about
Now she talks about "apparent victimhood". "The apparent antidote to victimhood
is paranoia: trust no one, use deadbolt locks in your home, practice safe sex
in your own bed, buckle up in your car, wear a hard hat and keep a cool head at
work, know your rights when dealing with smooth-talking salespeople, police,
and therapists." Calling paranoia what is simply reasonable action, perfectly
sensible if you are a subversive.
There is a whole chapter on how heterosexuals are lacking something and can't
love "the same" are "neurotic". It goes on to say that society programs us to
be heterosexual... what about the other animals? Sure there is homosexuality
here and there, but it is the odd state, not the default. Again, isn't this
exactly the same as the claimed oppression that gays are suffering under? If I
said gays were programmed by the media, I would likely be ridiculed as a
homophobe, but if a lesbian says the opposite it is acceptable.
The last chapter equates melancholy, which the author self identifies with, to
intelligence. She uses comparisons to Greek gods as evidence, something that is
done regularly throughout the book. Even her so-called intelligence is used to
usher in another level of victimhood; she has to contend with understand the
cruel world we live in. As if some ignorant fool can't suffer.
Lyn Cowan, I pity any of your clients. I wonder what would be worse: you psycho
analyzing someone or a lifetime of numbing drugs? Quite the tossup.
Table of Contents
01: Tracking the White Rabbit Notes on eccentricity (or, A quick tour with Alice through Wonderland)
02: Feeding the psyche: Junk words and corn-fed music
03: Women and the land Imagination and reality
04: “Taking The Dark With Open Eyes” Hidden dimensions of a psychology of abortion
05: False memories, true memory, and maybes
06: Styx and stones - Hatred and the art of cursing
07: The archetype of the victim
08: Homo/aesthetics, or, romancing the self
09: Sexual encounters of the third kind
10: Blue notes: Some reflections on melancholy
The author puts forward the argument that, although “psychology” and
“subversion” are not usually thought of as belonging together, they should be.
// Begins with a quote from Alice in Wonderland.
- I want nothing less than to change the
culture, to make it a psychological, soul-serving culture.
- it [Jungian psychology] is subversive in the
political sense as well, attempting to change the culture by altering
individual perceptions of and participation in it.
- psychotherapy lends unconscious support to our culture’s preoccupation with
upward growth, forward progress, and a morality based on law instead of Eros.3
- In clinical practice, a “successful” analysis is a corrosive process, eating
away like acid at the dearest values, the most obvious assumptions, the most
cherished images of who we are, corrupting our sense of the world as a place
where we might expect justice if we are innocent (for we are not innocent),
truth if we do not consciously lie (for we often lie unconsciously), honor if
we do not betray family traditions (but we must betray them if we are to grow
up), and acceptance if we conform to the bedrock values that have been
ingrained in us (but the price of acceptance is too high, we cannot conform or
we die of suffocation).
- [Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson / Lewis Carroll]
He was fastidious in habit and though he lived alone, he corresponded with a
broad circle of literary, religious, and political friends, including Lord Salisbury the Prime Minister, Alfred Tennyson,
and Christina Rossetti.
- though his moral character as a Christian clergyman was impeccable, and his
scholarship as a mathematician more than acceptable, he
seemed capable of high excitement only when in the company of young girls, whom
he photographed in the nude whenever possible.
- Fortunately he is remembered for his writing and not his photographs, which,
lovely and poignant as they are, in our day would probably land him jail, or at
least banned from the Web.
The experience of being in confusion, emotional disarray, nowheresville, out
of whack, off center, is much closer to our realities, much closer to how it
really is with us, and is the sure and certain sign that we are alive.
// A sign we are alive or a sign that the oligarchy is
working to keep us confused by telling us confusion equals alive?
- 2 The real Alice Liddell, Carroll’s heroine,
bears no resemblance to John Tenniel’s famous illustrations, but actually looks
like a dark-haired young femme fatale, beautiful and
older than her years. Looking at Dodgson’s lovely photographic portrait
of her, one can see the archetypal figure of that Victorian obsession, la belle
dame sans merci, even in such an obviously child’s face
and demeanor. Morton Cohen’s biography of Dodgson (Lewis Carroll: A Biography,
Knopf, 1995) documents that nearly every man who met the young Alice fell in
love with her, and that only the intervention of Queen Victoria herself
prevented one of the royal princes from pursuing marriage to her.
The whole language [in Orwell's 1984] consisted of
one-syllable words, a few prefixes and suffixes, words purged of all ambiguity,
complexity, and ambivalence.
// It did not contain only one-syllable words. The
chocolate ration has been increased... Newspeak itself is 2 syllables.
even though I’m a nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn. I believe in the devil
because I hear him everywhere – he’s a Newspeaking sweet-talker, just as he was
in the garden of Eden, and he lives in our language. He is not the clichéd,
ugly red devil of Christian tradition. The devil I’m talking about isn’t even
evil – he is merely hollow, like many of our words. He creates the illusion of
depth and significance in words that have neither. He puts nice words in our
mouths so that we don’t notice our hunger for, and absence of, not-nice,
high-protein words. He gives us mass-produced, one-dimensional simplistic
The devil is a hard-core right-wing literalist and is the enemy of metaphor,
imagination, romance, and real, plain, emotion. The
language of modern psychology has become, for many of us, the language
of our daily lives, and it is the devil’s native
// Huh? The devil is a "hard-core right-wing literalist"
and the psychologists speak his language?
But I can tell you, what the devil most fears is this: if women ever bring the fullness of our emotional and
spiritual power and authority to consciousness, continental plates will
split apart and reshape the face and core of the planet and the Great Mother
Earth will have so many splendid multiple orgasms that she will shift on her
If we are to find a vocabulary that begins to express the fullness of our
lives, we may have to stop looking to the Father who creates merely by speaking
the disembodied, desexualized Word, and start looking to the Matrix, which is
our sexual body, with its sensate imagination.
I am convinced we will not find the words we need in the vocabularies of
masculinized Western institutions.
- as we enter the male world as girl-children
Our attitude toward land was conditioned more by our Jewish history of
migrancy than by the fact of actual ownership in modern America. After
centuries of displacements, it is hard to settle down in just a generation or
// Does the subversive Jew ask herself why they were
"displaced"? I wonder if it has less to do with Jew and more with
Artemis brings to consciousness the necessity of choosing oneself, a choice
that confronts every adolescent entering adulthood. But it is a choice
especially difficult for girls, who are still taught from birth to choose
someone else – a husband, for example.
// Boys aren't taught to choose wives. "You complete me."
Seriously, this book is horrible, a subversive man-hating Jew spewing her rage
in flowery language. She is the kind of teacher that helped create the
clusterfuck we see in modern universities.
the unborn child’s “claim [to life] is equal [to the mother’s] – a life for a
life.” I think it is precisely this inability – or refusal – to differentiate between mature life and nascent life, between
conscious, responsible, independent life and unconscious, reflexive, dependent
life, that constellates Artemis and draws her to the scene.
// So anyone that is dependent is ok to kill? Seems the
complete opposite to me. We should protect the nascent dependent life with more
fervor than the mature independent life.
The first worst crime is to imagine that she
actually, not rhetorically, has power over her body – that she has the
power and authority to decide whether to bear or not to bear a child
conceived in her womb – even a divine one.
// For all the talk about how men dominate and control, it
seems odd to say that women have "power over [their] bodies." Second, women do
have the authority to decide whether to bear children. It is called not getting
pregnant (rape aside). You might WANT to have sex, but it is your
- On a less profound level, cultures of longer histories than ours accuse Americans of youth worship and of indulging in the
longest collective adolescence on the planet. While we elevate the
child’s longings for comfort, safety, and feeling good as our highest values,
the rest of the world regards us as irresponsible, undisciplined, and
self-absorbed. Consider the astounding proliferation of “help books” on the
theme of “the inner child” or “the child within.”
In the absence of provision for the child’s
food, housing, medicine, future education, the promise of meaningful work, and/or the absence of love, desire,
and responsible maturity in the procreators for their child, the maternal
concern for the well-being of the child may consider
abortion the best course.
She makes the decision in maternal consideration of the child’s viability –
the same consideration that moves Artemis to kill a wounded fawn rather than
force it to live crippled and defenseless.
// Can we kill all the cripples then? I mean, out of
maternal consideration of course.
The question which in recent times has generated so much heat is whether
memories of childhood abuse recalled years later in adulthood are accurate
recollections of literal events, or whether they are distortions: vague,
confused half-fantasies, or even downright false fabrications.
“false memory syndrome”
This alone should make us stop and wonder why we assume that sexual
experiences are so much more harmful to children than continual verbal
condemnations from parents, public racial slurs and humiliations from
schoolmates or teachers, or force-fed religious and ethnic bigotry from the
child’s community. All of these childhood experiences constitute “child abuse,”
and each of them is a violation, a violence
perpetrated upon children that leaves scars for life. Some may be even
deeper than those we expect from sexual trauma.
// Words = violence, this lady was ahead of her time. I
know I can't tell the difference between name calling, a broken eye socket, and
the most pressing question in the debate is not about the accuracy of memory
but about the interpretation of what has been experienced.
What does it matter that a woman or a man in pain
comes to therapy and remembers, thinks they remember, isn’t sure they remember,
wants to or doesn’t want to remember, that they were sexually approached,
coached, touched, seduced, molested, or raped twenty, thirty, forty years ago?
It matters greatly because they say it does. It matters because for
human beings the subjective reality of pain and emotion has primacy of value
and importance. It matters because their psychic
experience is real, and true, even though it may not be perfectly
Hatred is also stupid. It is an attitude based
on stupid ideas about racial or religious or sexual superiority. At the time of
writing, there are more than 2,000 websites on the
Internet that promote this sort of stupidity and ugliness. My personal
hostility towards these sites is not because they lack decency (which may also
be said of half the politicians now holding office), but because they pollute the intellectual environment with excremental
stupidity, and there is already enough shit in the world.
// Funny, I think this book is intellectually polluting
shit. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
- if we take time to hate well, and give hatred enough rightful time and
attention, we may begin to mitigate some of the actual
violence in our world – not all of which is physical
- Before words had lost much of their meaning and power
to move, hatred could be spoken, articulated, pronounced – in the form of a
curse – and the effect was as forceful as any physical weapon. Sticks and
stones may break my bones, but words can truly kill me.
- When I speak of “truth” and “truthfulness” here, I do not mean it in the
sense of a moral or legal or historical truth. I do not mean truth as a
collective moral value or as literal fact. Truth is not necessarily fact, just
as facts may, in some sense, “lie.” I mean “truth” in the sense of personal
integrity, an accurate presentation of your character.
Cosmic loving, as in “I-love-humanity,” is as useless and ridiculous as “I-hate-Jews(Catholics, Blacks, gays, telemarketers,
whatever your group preference).”
The apparent antidote to victimhood is paranoia:
trust no one, use deadbolt locks in your home, practice safe sex in your own
bed, buckle up in your car, wear a hard hat and keep a cool head at work, know
your rights when dealing with smooth-talking salespeople, police, and
// This is paranoia?
The victim embodies those qualities that conflict with, threaten, or
challenge that value system. The most obvious example of the previous century
is the Nazi (mis)perception of the Jews as an
“infectious” and powerful people who would poison the purity of Aryan society
and take over the world.
// Citation please. Oh, none of the "anti-semite" stuff is
cited? Maybe we can cite some Greek poetry instead...
victims are likely to be individually victimized as women, people of color,
children, animals; or collectively as Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, lesbians
and gays, old people, handicapped people, and so forth.
// What about victims of the oligarchy? The financial
pharaohs? Nope, that would get pretty much everyone on the same page, the
author must keep us divided and fighting among ourselves.
consciously and voluntarily giving up our fantasies of total independence and
self- sufficiency. We cannot save ourselves, and we are not sufficient unto
ourselves. Only someone with a pathological compulsion for autonomy and
do-it-yourselfism would argue this.
// Only a true commie would argue otherwise...
As a collective example, the Jews historically have
been forced to enact the victim role with such repetition that the very name of
the people has become practically synonymous with “victim.” Photographic
images of skeletal death camp inmates have given us an austere visual
definition of archetypal victimization, which is why Jews began referring to
the Nazi genocide as a holocaust, literally a “burnt offering.”
// "Forced to enact"? Maybe there is something to the
repetition? Maybe, as so clear in 2018, being a victim comes with TONS of
benefits? Jews can parasite via Wall Street usury, spread their hypersexuality
from the Hollywood hills, and genocide Palestinians... but if I say any of that
I must be a no-good Jew hater anti-semite! The Jews are the victims. And
"victim" is the perfect shield to deflect from any wrongdoings.
- Women and men learn to interpret the eroticized
aspect of animus or anima (unconscious masculine or feminine components
in the psyche), projected on to a literal opposite-sex person, as romantic
love. Not only do we so learn to interpret, we learn to experience this
projection in a culturally predetermined way: finding beauty in what is not
like ourselves because we have learned that that is where beauty resides,
finding our sexual desire flowing out toward a figure we recognize as Other
because we have learned that the “other” must be literally so
A heterosexual woman or man suffers a loss of soul by not knowing that figure
in the psyche that delights in a homoerotic aesthetic.
// A homosexual woman of man suffers from no
No one is one-sidedly sexually oriented, except those neurotic souls who are completely identified with one sexual
polarity or another.
// This is what aggravates me. You want to be gay, go for
it, but don't tell me anyone that isn't a little bit gay is neurotic. How would
she feel if I said all homosexuals are a little bit neurotic because they don't
understand what it is like to identify with their true soul (or some similar
- The psychic image of Narcissus, gazing into the pool with desire and lovesick
eyes, does not want an explanation of itself, it wants itself. That sweet,
beautiful youth of not-yet-fixed gender is
itself an image of wanting, and of wanting denied.
- Psychology – certainly depth psychology – should be
more subversively concerned with changing the culture than with changing
the patient, because what the patient needs – any patient, any of us – is not
to learn how to adapt to the status quo, but how to change the status quo so it
won’t make us sick.
- It is practically impossible to say anything about sex without saying
something about gender. In our culture they are so confused and
undifferentiated as to be synonymous. Considering the fact that they have been
confused for about 5,000 years, it is no small effort to try to separate them.
I believe that one of the major tasks of our species is
to begin to differentiate and separate ideas of gender from ideas of
- Our assumptions about gender and sexuality are rooted in ancient, unconscious
notions about women, men, reproduction, and
sexual pleasure, all of which long ago were cast in the form of theological ideas,
Heterosexuality is the locus of one of our culture’s root neuroses
Heterosexism and its correlate, homophobia
- Imagine what might happen if we began to think of
sexual promiscuity as merely boring. Imagine sensual interest in another
person that is not harassment; imagine delight in the sexual awakening of
children that is not incestuous, not guilt-ridden, not exploitive.
In the last century we have had two revolutions initiated by women: the first came in the 1920s when
women got the vote in America, left the Victorian invention called “the home,”
went to work, and threw off the restraints of corset and convention. Then,
after the catastrophic regression of the 1950s, the second revolution came in
the late 1960s- early ’70s. The first revolution had to do primarily with
political and economic freedom (and that revolution is far from over); the
second revolution had to do with intellectual and sexual freedom (and that
revolution is far from over). I think the next revolution – starting, I hope,
no later than next week – must be a radical exploration of the sexual
// Torches of Liberty...
- In the Renaissance, it was understood that too much thinking made one
melancholy. It was not just that much learning, study, and scholarship was
taxing on the brain, it was also that these heady pursuits changed you –
changed your attitude toward life, and led to thoughts that heavily burdened
the soul. In the Book of Ecclesiastes (1:18) the
preacher says, “For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases
knowledge increases sorrow,”
Scientism is the religion of our time, with psychology one of its sects.
// The first thing I agree with!