Anarch
24th November 2003, 15:46
Being a rather 'liberal' place (at least there's genuine socialists here), I thought I'd let you guys know about a fascist infiltrator into your movement.
That guy is known as 'Huzington'. Perhaps that may sound absurd that I'll put foward such an assertion without evidence, if any of you know him. If some of you go to ISF you'll be aware he's got some rather twisted views. I'm Anarch, a moderator at ISF. If any of you have kept up with events over there, I've dropped racism for personal reasons and I'm an Anarchist now. Nevertheless, my personal history probably shouldn't be an issue given what I've got to say. I have no personal hostility towards Che Lives, and I don't come here often. The following conversation is one I had with Huzington a few months ago, the first I had with him over AIM - and I haven't had one since, he disturbs me. After reading this I'm sure it'll disturb you too. Consider this a vaccination for your movement.
Session Start (AIM - anarchneofascist:Huzington): Wed Sep 24 01:38:08 2003
Huzington: Hello.
Ken: Hey Huzington
Ken: how are you?
Huzington: Good.
Ken: good to hear
Huzington: You are Anarch?
Ken: I am
Huzington: Okay. I thought so.
Huzington: I agree with you too much to openly support you.
Ken: That's interesting
Ken: I thought you did
Huzington: Yeah
Huzington: I do not want to get "purged".
Ken: You never said so, but I think you're a bit too smart to be a regular Marxist
Ken: no problem - you probably go to several Marxist websites who'd find out if you were agreeing with me on ISF
Huzington: I am a regular Marxist. A regular Marxist can agree with you.
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: BRB
Ken: okay then
Ken: no problem
Ken: tell me when you get back
Huzington: I am back
Ken: would you happen to be one of the traditional, eurocentric Marxists?
Huzington: I used to be, actually
Huzington: But no, I am not.
Ken: so how does a regular Marxist agree with me, and what topics?
Huzington: Refresh my memory
Ken: ok
Ken: national self determination for European peoples?
Huzington: Socialist nations?
Ken: if that's what they become
Huzington: I daresay it depends upon what exactly is meant by "self-determination". That is a bit vague.
Ken: I should've stated that better: nationalist and socialist revolutions at the same time within Europe and nations where European peoples are the majority, towards the expulsion of foreigners and annihilation of economic and political elites
Huzington: I think that would obstruct the process of revolutionary movements
Ken: I don't see how it would obstruct revolutionary movements
Huzington: However, if that can be avoided, I see little problem with it
Ken: ok
Ken: Quite obviously you are against international capitalism and cultural and military imperialism
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Quite so.
Ken: so we largely agree on that point
Ken: modern mass culture?
Ken: I take it you despise it as equally as I do?
Huzington: What precisely do you mean by it?
Ken: the mass media and entertainment. The reduction of all great creative works to a common denominator of violence and sex so they can appeal to the largest section of the population
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Of course
Ken: ok
Huzington: I am in complete agreement with you there
Ken: I thought you would be. Most people on ISF are.
Huzington: Yes
Ken: ok, now onto subjects many on ISF won't agree with
Huzington: Okay
Ken: the abolition of the nuclear family and restoration of the extended family?
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: What of it?
Huzington: What is your opinion on it?
Ken: I'm in favour of abolishing the nuclear family as the focus of society and restoring the extended family to its former significance
Huzington: The generality at ISF are in disagreement with you as regards that?
Ken: I believe so. Communism, as you know, wants the abolition of the family altogether
Huzington: Well, family in the proper sense of the term
Ken: what is the 'proper' sense of the term?
Huzington: By "extended family" do you mean a group of relatives consisting of more than one generation?
Huzington: the nuclear family
Ken: Yes - and also, the strengthening of ties between children and uncles, aunts, cousins. I view the nuclear family as the isolated two parent and children group
Huzington: Then I certainly see the extended family as an improvement. But I do not see at as entirely satisfactory.
Ken: Ok
Ken: The return of victorian ethics as opposed to crude moral chaos?
Huzington: I have supported that for quite a while, actually.
Ken: excellent. so does Mazdak
Huzington: But now I think, in many respects, Victorian ethics made men too soft.
Huzington: But only in some respects
Ken: Victorian ethics was centered around being respectful and benevolent to those in your own society. It needed to be balanced out with a certain degree of savageness. This never happened.
Huzington: Yes
Ken: How would you bring this degree of savageness into being alongside victorian ethics?
Huzington: However, I think a socialistic morality ought to be cultivated as well
Ken: I have no answer to that question
Ken: A socialistic morality?
Huzington: Why what do you mean by "savageness"?
Huzington: Yes
Ken: I mean - Victorian ethics was largely orientated around respect, love, benevolence. The fact is that love and hate are two sides of the same coin. The other side was not acknowledged. This is what made man 'soft', if I correctly understood what you were meaning.
Huzington: Well, I do not know the answer to that question
Huzington: I am sure something could be done.
Ken: I think so. Have you seen the movie 'Fight Club'?
Ken: If you haven't, I highly recommend it.
Huzington: No.
Huzington: Does it have to do with that about which we are talking?
Ken: It does.
Ken: The collapse of victorian ethics, the rise of hedonistic materialism, nihilism, and 'savageness'
Huzington: Sexual savageness.
Ken: also a terrorist campaign against the capitalist system in the United States
Ken: No, aggressive savageness. violence.
Huzington: But a disgusting softness concerning everything else
Ken: that is exactly what the Western world has arrived at.
Huzington: You think?
Ken: I'm certain.
Huzington: I am only aware of a lot of softness and sexual savageness.
Ken: The idea of tolerance to the point of capitulation is shoved down the throats of entire generations, and the instincts boil up, harvested by the corporations in the form of 'rap' music, violence in entertainment and disrespect towards women.
Ken: Modern man has no morality.
Huzington: I think he most certainly has a morality. The world appears to me quite different.
Ken: This development is unparalleled in human history. When the revolution hits the Western world it is going to be more violent than anything the West says occured in Russia after 1917.
Ken: of course, the violence outside of sex occurs amongst populations with naturally high testosterone levels - that's a short way of saying blacks. I think it is far to say that the European race has turned into a race of cowards.
Huzington: In my judgement, all this had come about by way of a complete lack of discipline
Ken: I agree
Huzington: That is partly what I mean by "softness".
Ken: I understand what you are saying
Huzington: Your name....are you a fascist?
Ken: I believe, though, that the cowardice is only superficial - the rage is boiling up inside. When capitalism collapses, the results will be extraordinary.
Ken: I was.
Huzington: There is undoubtedly truth to what you say.
Ken: Mazdak would certainly agree - he and I discuss thees things occasionally
Huzington: I thought he would
Ken: When capitalism collapses, the Government will collapse. In the chaos that follows, the people - of every race - are going to look for strong leaders. At that point I would expect a ressurection of authority, discipline,and probably a return to Victorian ethics, at least amonst the European peoples, to whom it seems native.
Huzington: What is your opinion on eugenics?
Ken: It could be a positive thing. In my opinion, the more intelligent people, the more advanced a society can get. It could be useful.
Ken: What is yours?
Huzington: It is good. Everyone should receieve the benefits of eugenics. This cannot be done in present day society.
Huzington: My opinions are in my "eugenics" thread.
Ken: I agree. It cannot be done with the modern soft morality
Ken: I'll read it.
Huzington: your question about eurocentric marxism.... Eurocentric, perhaps, but not Euro-only.
Ken: I think I understand
Huzington: Revolutionaries need numbers.
Ken: true
Huzington: Women, blacks, etc. Anyone who feels oppressed.
Ken: I don't think the revolution will head anywhere until the West collapses.
Ken: I believe the numbers will first come from amongst European peoples, once the collapse starts.
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: What is your opinion on Feminism?
Ken: what sort of feminism?
Huzington: feminism in general.
Huzington: the feminist movement
Huzington: etc
Ken: Modern feminism is tearing apart the families of the younger generation. It is chaotic, and it is producing chaos. It needs to be stopped. Women getting jobs - that I have no problem with. But it's going too far presently.
Huzington: Okay, I agree with you.
Huzington: I am glad we agree on this particular issue.
Ken: so am I
Huzington: It is very important to me
Ken: My mother has a job - but she focuses on looking after my education and my younger brother
Huzington: That is always good.
Ken: I know. It certainly helps. I know exactly what would happen if my family fell apart like many families now do.
Huzington: yes
Ken: that sort of thing needs to stop - and if that is going to happen to some children, I'm all for taking them away from their families and raising them in caring families or communes.
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I agree
Ken: life after the revolution should not be about 'happiness' - it should be about what is right.
Huzington: I agree
Huzington: Though everyone should be free to do as he chooses, so long as he does not interfere with progress.
Ken: Of course
Ken: Everyone should be free to become the best he can be within his natural capacities, but the pursuit of excellence should be the highest priority - at least, that's what I think
Huzington: Yes, complete agreement
Ken: This is very interesting, we're agreeing on a lot of things
Huzington: Yeah
Ken: About freedom of speech - true freedom of speech, intellectual free speech, should be limited to universities and education academies, where the pursuit of truth is the highest objective. Outside of higher education, I am of the opinion that subversive, degenerate ideals ought to be suppressed.
Huzington: That makes sense
Ken: For example, glorification of violence, sex, encouragement of divorce, promiscuity, and so on
Huzington: Within the intellectual sphere, when truth is certain, it can be made generally known.
Ken: Of course
Ken: and so it should be
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: The same with regard to the Party
Ken: Exactly
Huzington: which is itself part of the intellectual sphere.
Ken: That is how it should be
Huzington: All agreement
Ken: The party and education academies in which politics is the main focus should overlap to the extent that distinguishing between the two becomes undesirable
Ken: The Party should exist for the coordination of society towards the production of excellence
Huzington: Once again, I am all agreement.
Ken: This is very interesting
Ken: Organised religion, if it is to be permitted, ought to be also channelled towards this final aim
Huzington: How do you mean?
Ken: I should provide an example
Huzington: It should motivate the masses?
Ken: If God is to be considered all knowing, all powerful, and excellent, and as the saying goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery, then I do not see a problem in permitting this sort of organised religion
Ken: The Party, the education system, economics, science, eugenics - all should be subordinated to producing the most excellent men and women possible
Huzington: But all that enthusiasm and spirit is a waste if employed for the satisfaction of Deity. It should be transferred to the Society itself.
Ken: and as we both know, the masses cannot be driven by philosophy, but they can be driven by religion - this is how I think the relation between the Party and an organised, permitted religion should exist
Ken: Not for the satisfaction of Deity - but for becoming God, so to speak
Huzington: That is a good idea.
Ken: and as man would naturally look after his brothers, so should the most excellent man work to raise his brothers to his own level, and raise the society as a whole upwards
Ken: the slogan ''life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' should be replaced with 'life, power and the pursuit of excellence' after the revolution
Ken: Christianity has turned man's eyes upwards, and made him cringe - the Party and the ideals of the revolution ought to turn man's eyes upwards, stand up, and struggle higher for perfection, for himself and for all
Ken: that is my opinion
Huzington: I agree with your opininion. You speak of excellence. What, then, do you think of having the population divided, the requisite disciplines for efficient pursuit of excellence decided, and each person within each division trained from a young age to be excellent at only that which has been decided for him and those among him within his division, that discipline which is necessary for societal excellence?
*** Huzington signed on at Wed Sep 24 02:50:35 2003.
Ken: a sort of division of labour, according to natural abilities, for the pursuit of excellence?
Huzington: By which I mean, if doctors are needed, there will be a section of the population employed for the manufactoring of satisfactory doctors.
Huzington: No one will need to decide what he wants to do
Huzington: He will be trained from birth to be excellent at that discipline which is designated by the sector in whcih he was born
Ken: I believe by the age of 13, a child's future development is plain to see for all involved. If he has a sharp mind with numbers, train him for economics. If he has a sharp mind and skill with his hands, place him as a surgeon, doctor, or other similar occupation. A sharp mind and a strong will to power - Party leadership.
Huzington: But wait that long? The most important years of his life are wasted
Huzington: Mill was brilliant because he had a better education than most adults by the age of 13
Ken: Of course not - genetic examination shortly after his birth ought to give a general idea of where the child is destined to go with his life, what sort of occupation
Huzington: That is not possible with present day technology
Ken: hmmm.... perhaps so
Ken: In that case, I would agree with you
Ken: we certainly intend on breeding children for high intelligence, obviously
Huzington: Their natural abilities does not matter
Huzington: They can be taught to be good at whatever we need
Huzington: The ones who are not good can be sterilised
Huzington: And the natural abilities within each division will improve over time
Huzington: We would thus have a society of genuises
Huzington: Their natural abilities, i mean, does not matter at the beginning of my programme
Huzington: just a random division
Huzington: or not so much random, but arbitrary
Ken: I believe eugenics ought to breed intelligent children. These children would then be placed in divisions, and from there, those inefficient at their jobs would be sterilized, those who do excellently ought to be rewarded by being able to breed more children, those who do adequately should have limitations on the amount of children allowed
Ken: A sort of artificial selection program
Ken: with development of technology, industrial work could be handled by machines, eliminating the need for a less intelligent division orientated towards manual labour
Huzington: I am advocating a similar thing. For instance, in the sector in which everyone is trained from birth to be a doctor, those who are unfit doctors are liquidated, those who are good doctors are allowed to have as many children as they desire. The same with those raised to be Party leaders, etc.
Ken: I agree
Huzington: Why "allow" them to have as many children as they desire?
Huzington: That would be allowing them to interfere with progress.
Ken: that is a problem
Ken: they ought to be breeding children who are naturally suited towards the advancement of their division. If they aren't too happy with the physical sexual act, artificial insemination works just as well
Huzington: A desired number should be communicated him based upon his intelligence (higher intelligence, more children) and he should have that quantity of children.
Huzington: brb
Ken: I agree
Ken: ok
Huzington: back
Huzington: telephone
Ken: though what about children who would be born into a particular division (say, doctors), but, as they develop older, show extraordinary talent in another area (politics, for example), while mediocrity in their designated field?
Huzington: Perhaps they can be placed in the miscellaneous division.
Ken: sterilizing such individuals would seem to be an inefficient means of social organisation and progression
Huzington: I doubt that that would happen
Huzington: They would be ignorant of irrelevant disciplines.
Huzington: Why fill their minds with unnecessary knowledge, thereby making them less efficient doctors?
Ken: for example: my father works as a manager for a company, and my mother works for a large corporation in a data entry division. I, however, have no intentions of going into either of those fields, and would much prefer to focus on philosophy and political science
Ken: a youth program ought to be developed so that they do not wander into alternative occupational disciplines, so that they are satisfied with their own occupation
Ken: one youth program specific to each division, obviously
Huzington: That is wholly different inasmuch as you live in a chaotic society wherein it is necessary to have such freedoms, otherwise any sort of progress would be impossible. It is quite different from my society wherein everything must be planned for maximum production.
Ken: of course
Ken: and we must aim for the pursuit of physical as well as intellectual and technical excellence - the individual must derive a sense of joy out of accomplishing well in his division, so that his mind does not wander
Huzington: The only knowledge they need which has nothing to do with their discipline is the official Ideology, the purpose of which is to motivate them to produce efficiently
Huzington: I agree
Ken: especially during the formative years
Huzington: We need a society of soldiers.
Ken: I agree
Huzington: We must be prepared at all times for imperialist aggression
Ken: disciplined, intelligent, technically and physically excellent soldiers
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: A military of doctors, philosophers, labourers - everything
Ken: powerful, unified, with a strong sense of common identity
Huzington: Nothing can be unplanned in such a State. Everything would be ruined.
Ken: chaos is something which cannot be permitted if excellence is to be achieved. the results would be the inevitable decline into degeneracy
Ken: the development of technology, especially in the years immediately following the revolution, is an area which must be focused on. technical ability is power, and power is security
Huzington: How do you reconcile all these agreements with your anarchist ideology?
Huzington: I agree
Ken: My anarchist ideology, as you can tell, is somewhat fading
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I see that as a positive development in your mental history
Ken: my anarchist ideology was orientated towards the maximum achievement of each individual, free from intrusion. This can be planned within a unified and regimented state, obviously, through an efficient employment of the division of labour principle
Ken: Thanks, lol
Huzington: What is your opinion on Stalin?
Ken: He started in a country with the plough and left it with half of Europe it didn't have before and the nuclear bomb, industrialised and militarised and invulnerable from foreign aggression. There isn't much more to be said.
Ken: Stalin did miracles for Russia
Huzington: Okay, good. I cannot tolerate anti-Stalin bigotry and propaganda.
Ken: I don't throw around propaganda. Just ideas. And Stalin did do miracles for Russia
Huzington: There are a lot of anti-Stalin lies and slanders.
Ken: The West seems to throw around massive numbers of dead people, but look at his achievements.
Huzington: His achievements were great, but there is no evidence that Stalin killed anyone.
Ken: And I know enough about Trotsky already. He was a zionist and an opportunist and a traitor to the revolution
Huzington: Stalin was a Zionist.
Ken: how so?
Huzington: It was his idea to have a special spot for the Jews
Ken: Stalin also condemned zionism towards the end of his life, if I am not mistaken
Huzington: He was one of the first to recognise Israel.
Ken: that is true
Ken: Stalin did the world a favour by having an icepick put through Trotsky's head though. A shame many don't appreciate it.
Huzington: I agree that the death of Trotsky was a great event
Huzington: However, it was not Stalin who had him killed
Ken: then who did?
Huzington: The man who killed Trotsky was one of Trotsky's own friends who was disgusted by Trotsky's self-love and egotism.
Huzington: The man who killed Trotsky was Spanish
Ken: interesting
Ken: I have not heard of that before
Huzington: The man who killed Trotsky was awared AFTER Stalin's death
Huzington: in 1960.
Ken: but it would not suprise me
Huzington: He died in 1972 in Cuba
Ken: excellent. that man did the world a favour
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I agree
Huzington: He spent 20 years in a Mexican prison, however
Huzington: Very unfortunate
Ken: that is quite unfortunate
Huzington: awarded after Stalin's death***
Ken: He should have been liberated from prison
Huzington: Yes
Ken: what do you think of the Frankfurt School?
Huzington: Anti-Marxist?
Huzington: the young hegelians, etc
Huzington: are you talking about that?
Huzington: the left and right hegelians?
Ken: No. Pseudo-Marxist. A group of Jewish intellectuals that moved from Frankfurt in Germany to New York during the 1930's, and propagated works that encouraged free love, drug use, degeneracy and other social diseases
Ken: No, the Frankfurt School was later
Huzington: Evidently I have read very little of the Frankfurt school
Ken: Though I am very interested in Antonio Gramsci's work. I'm going to resume reading 'Selections from the Prison Notebooks' shortly
Huzington: He was a Fascist, wasn't he?
Ken: white nationalists like to ***** about the Frankfurt School frequently
Ken: on the contrary, he as an Italian Communist (and a smart one too - Neo-Marxist) thrown in prison and sentanced for 20 years by Benito Mussolini
Huzington: Yes...no I remember
Ken: he died in prison from lack of health care
Huzington: now*
Huzington: I read about him a long time ago. He was imprisoned by Mussolini...that is how I got the fascism-Gramsci association.
Ken: Yes
Ken: Gramsci's work is quite fascinating
Huzington: Yes, I remember really wanting to read his work... I just cannot remember what it was that I found interesting about him...
Ken: His 'Selections from the Prison Notebooks' contains State and Civil Society, The New Prince, Americanism and Fordism, Notes on Italian History, and On the Intellectuals
Huzington: Did not he speak well of Machiavelli?
Ken: I'm not quite sure. I'm currently reading his section, Notes on Italian History
Ken: but I believe he developed Machievelli's ideas more thoroughly in light of Marx's and Lenin's analyses of the State
Huzington: (Link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/ed...rince/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/editions/spn/modern_prince/index.htm)http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/editions/spn/modern_prince/index.htm)
Ken: I have the book on my shelf behind me
Huzington: Do you still go to the Phora?
Ken: I do
Ken: My name there has been changed to 'Aloysha;
Ken: Is there any good work on or by Croce which you would recommend? His ideas were mentioned in the introduction to Gramsci's Prison Notebooks, and I wish to learn more
Ken: Huzington
Huzington: assaHmm.... He does say some negative things about Marxism. He repeats many lies about Marxism, and insinuates the lie that Marxism is a "religion", etc. Depending upon how unaquainted with Marxism you are, I would suggest "historical materialsm of Karl marx". The chief problem with Croce is that he is an idealist and he rejects physical monism. Read some of his books on aesthetics of you do not believe me. "The science of expression" is a good one.
Huzington: Yes?
Ken: ok
Huzington: I was originally attracted by Croce because he said plenty of good about Marxism.
Ken: Ok, thanks for that
Huzington: Then he throws all that out the window and speaks meanly of determinism, which is essential to Marxist thought
Ken: It is
Huzington: Yes
Ken: I became attracted to Croce for his division of man's primary areas as economics, aesthetics, ethics and logic. At the time I was very much interested in the technical aspects of philosophy, so to speak
Huzington: He puts too much stress upon aesthetics and ethics.
Ken: ok
Huzington: Oh yes, and he makes many errors as regards Hegelian philosophy
Ken: Did he write a specific work which covered his general thought?
Huzington: For example, he says that the principal error of Hegelian philosophy is the transition from the Idea to Nature
Huzington: This is completely wrong and he could tell you how but I would have to do a lot of explaining
Ken: interesting. Supposing I wanted to understant the Hegelian philosophy in relation to politics and history, which book would you recommend?
Huzington: "Philosophy of Hegel" will give you some general understanding of Hegelian thought. It is his entire philosophy in about 500 pages. Then, for a fuller udnerstanding, read his Phenomenology of Mind, then the Logic -- especially the Logic
Ken: Ok
Huzington: Understanding the Logic is also essential if you want to fully understand Dialectical Materialism
Ken: Thanks. I'll go and get a pen and a sheet of paper to write this down
Huzington: I do not think there is a specific work
Ken: that's ok
Huzington: "Philosophy of Hegel" by Stroce
Ken: thanks
Huzington: It is true that to understand Croce you must understand the Logic
Ken: are his ideas difficult?
Huzington: Aesthetics as Science of Expression and General Linguistic
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Quite difficult
Ken: I will try, nevertheless :)
Huzington: Are you talking about Hegel or Croce?
Ken: Hegel
Huzington: Yes, most certainly. His philosophy is the most difficult of ALL philosophies
Huzington: Qualified persons have called the Logic the most difficult book ever written
Ken: I will try regardless
Huzington: People have translated Hegel's works without understanding a single word!
Ken: ok, that is disturbing
Huzington: Bertrand Russell, a good philosopher, and even Croce, did not understand Hegel
Huzington: McTaggart, another Hegelian, did not understand Hegel
Huzington: It requires a lot of labourious study
Ken: Hegel must be either a genius, or incomprehensible. I'd rather think he is a genius
Huzington: He is a genius
Ken: In that case I will try to buy the books you have recommended, and read them over the Christmas holidays - I have over a month off school then
Huzington: He is understandable, but his Thought is so difficult that it is impossible to express it without appearing incomprehensible
Ken: ok then
Huzington: I am still having some difficulties with Hegelian thought
Huzington: Though I think I have grasped what is necessary
Huzington: i.e. the dialectics
Ken: ok
Huzington: the "rational kernel".
Ken: I'm going to have a lot of reading to do over Christmas, it seems
Huzington: There is a lot of "mystification" in Hegelian Thought, just to warn you.
Ken: is that difficult to move past?
Huzington: It must be done if you want to fully understand Marx, Croce, etc
Huzington: Yes
Ken: I think my mind will be able to do it, though probably with great difficulty
Huzington: Probably
Huzington: I made an error
Huzington: Philosophy of Hegel by STACE
Ken: Ok
Ken: thanks for that
Huzington: published in 1924 ... it is old, but the best
Huzington: He writes in the most simplistic, lucid language imaginable
Huzington: Very helpful if you want to comprehend Hegelian thought
Ken: alright. You and I seem to have similar views to those Plato puts foward in his 'republic'
Ken: I'll definetly try and find it then
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I agree with Plato in many ways
Ken: it seems we both do
Huzington: Plato says that we must teach children how to play.
Ken: that is strange.
Huzington: Plato is brilliant in this respect. How can people not see the value in teaching children how to play?
Ken: if they are taught how to play, they should be more adept at playing best
Huzington: To create good citizens...this is fundamental.
Ken: Of course
Huzington: Many diseases of the mind begin in children's play.
Huzington: Sexual sadism, for example
Ken: this is similar to the conditioning we proposed for each occupation division, starting from birth
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: That is the key word, though you used it in a differetn sense -- conditioning
Ken: yes
Huzington: When children associate pleasurable things (play) with things that are bad for society, a problem is being created
Huzington: This is bad conditioning
Ken: good citizens must be formed, not left to their own devices
Huzington: Children must be conditioned to find pleasurable those things which are good for society, for production
Huzington: Children's play must be a simplified version of the real world
Huzington: It must reflect REALITY
Ken: yes - for the achievement of their excellence, and they must be rewarded for using these skills to the benefit of socity
Huzington: Not pointless excercises in "imagination", as it is in present day society. That is what children are taught to do.
Huzington: Imagine for the sake of imagining. Nothing else.
Ken: yes - that is what they are being conditioned to do
Ken: to sit around and dream. dreaming does not make society, nor excellence
Huzington: Look at all these dull children's activties everywhere.
Huzington: They create idiots
Huzington: They treat children as idiots
Ken: Children are smarter than that
Huzington: yes
Huzington: Imagination is good.. but when it has utility.
Ken: of course
Huzington: Dreaming is good when it has utility
Ken: imagination as a tool for creating useful things is excellent
Huzington: Yes, so what we are proposing is different in every respect from present day children's play
Ken: Of course
Huzington: This I find upsetting.
Ken: the aim is to condition children as soon as possible towards the pursuit of excellence
Huzington: The way children play nowadays.
Huzington: That is is.
Ken: That is true
Ken: television, for example - and movies, and music - it is all aimed towards the mass delusion of young, active minds
Huzington: Exactly
Ken: this is dangerous
Ken: it deprives society of excellence in the making, it engineers children into becoming pathetic, delusional adults
Huzington: Not for the purpose of deluding them, however -- this "mass delusion" is merely a side-effect.
Ken: Obviously. This mass delusion is done in the name of 'fun' and 'play', as if it is actually good for the children
Huzington: Yes, it is done in the name of fun and play . . . to sell the product. But the ultimate purpose thereof is the acquirement of money -- it is a side-effect of greed.
Huzington: All these things you hate are side-effects of greed.
Ken: obviously
Ken: hedonism
Huzington: Mhm
Huzington: I think that this is what Plato would say as regards children's play if confronted with modern society
Ken: I would have to agree
Huzington: Play says what is done cannot be undone
Huzington: plato***
Huzington: Plato says that
Ken: this needs to be changed. the coming social chaos will provide fertile ground for the revolution of values
Huzington: What is done cannot be undone. Do you know what the implications of this truth are with regard to retribution?
Huzington: It means that punishment for the sake of punishment is evil
Ken: Yes
Ken: Punishment must be carried out for the purpose of conditioning
Huzington: Punishing people because something is "wrong" is moronic and primitive
Ken: setting an example, motivating the people in the correct direction
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: But our society is against this
Huzington: Punishment ought to be a deterrent.
Huzington: Speaking of deterrents...
Ken: Hmmm?
Huzington: Do not you think that AIDs and HIV are god things?
Huzington: It deters people from commiting vices.
Huzington: good things**
Huzington: Society needs AIDs. She needs HIV. She needs sexually transmitted diseases.
Huzington: How else can you stop the masses from commiting vices?
Huzington: They are good deterrents.
Ken: I do not think they are nessecarily good things. Strict heterosexuals are also capable of aquring this disease
Ken: it must be contained and isolated
Huzington: Then they should not be having so much sex.
Ken: My mother told me recently that a daughter of one of her coworkers caught AIDS off a guy when she lost her virginity at 19.
Huzington: Most people who acquire the disease acquire the disease by way of engaging in premarital sexual contact.
Ken: promiscuity does not nessecarily coincide with AIDS
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: that is true
Ken: HIV is also hereditry
Huzington: Not genetically
Ken: true, through the bloodstream
Ken: the effect is the same though
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Still, why have sex if you are not going to have children?
Ken: it must be cut off and isolated, and those who engage in premarital sexual contact should be made an example as a lack of self discipline
Huzington: you have no Marxist beliefs?
Ken: I have no idea what to call myself now
Ken: I suspect I am more a traditionalist and a Platonist than a Marxist
Huzington: You do not believe in abolition of the bourgeois state and supercession with a proletarian dictatorship?
Ken: The abolition of the bourgeois state I am in whole agreement with
Ken: a proletarian dictatorship, however, I am not sure
Huzington: worker's state
Huzington: ?
Huzington: Okay
Huzington: It is slavery when men do not own the product of their labour
Ken: that is debatable. Men who naturally have more capability ought to be given the resources to achieve their own excellence
Ken: I must go now
Huzington: Goodbye.
Ken: Goodbye
Ken: Nice talking to you
Huzington: Likewise me.
Session Close (Huzington): Wed Sep 24 04:26:03 2003
If you've been keeping up with events at ISF (my conflicts with Huzington in particular) you'll figure out I was lying during the above conversation to see how far he'd go. Peace to you all.
That guy is known as 'Huzington'. Perhaps that may sound absurd that I'll put foward such an assertion without evidence, if any of you know him. If some of you go to ISF you'll be aware he's got some rather twisted views. I'm Anarch, a moderator at ISF. If any of you have kept up with events over there, I've dropped racism for personal reasons and I'm an Anarchist now. Nevertheless, my personal history probably shouldn't be an issue given what I've got to say. I have no personal hostility towards Che Lives, and I don't come here often. The following conversation is one I had with Huzington a few months ago, the first I had with him over AIM - and I haven't had one since, he disturbs me. After reading this I'm sure it'll disturb you too. Consider this a vaccination for your movement.
Session Start (AIM - anarchneofascist:Huzington): Wed Sep 24 01:38:08 2003
Huzington: Hello.
Ken: Hey Huzington
Ken: how are you?
Huzington: Good.
Ken: good to hear
Huzington: You are Anarch?
Ken: I am
Huzington: Okay. I thought so.
Huzington: I agree with you too much to openly support you.
Ken: That's interesting
Ken: I thought you did
Huzington: Yeah
Huzington: I do not want to get "purged".
Ken: You never said so, but I think you're a bit too smart to be a regular Marxist
Ken: no problem - you probably go to several Marxist websites who'd find out if you were agreeing with me on ISF
Huzington: I am a regular Marxist. A regular Marxist can agree with you.
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: BRB
Ken: okay then
Ken: no problem
Ken: tell me when you get back
Huzington: I am back
Ken: would you happen to be one of the traditional, eurocentric Marxists?
Huzington: I used to be, actually
Huzington: But no, I am not.
Ken: so how does a regular Marxist agree with me, and what topics?
Huzington: Refresh my memory
Ken: ok
Ken: national self determination for European peoples?
Huzington: Socialist nations?
Ken: if that's what they become
Huzington: I daresay it depends upon what exactly is meant by "self-determination". That is a bit vague.
Ken: I should've stated that better: nationalist and socialist revolutions at the same time within Europe and nations where European peoples are the majority, towards the expulsion of foreigners and annihilation of economic and political elites
Huzington: I think that would obstruct the process of revolutionary movements
Ken: I don't see how it would obstruct revolutionary movements
Huzington: However, if that can be avoided, I see little problem with it
Ken: ok
Ken: Quite obviously you are against international capitalism and cultural and military imperialism
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Quite so.
Ken: so we largely agree on that point
Ken: modern mass culture?
Ken: I take it you despise it as equally as I do?
Huzington: What precisely do you mean by it?
Ken: the mass media and entertainment. The reduction of all great creative works to a common denominator of violence and sex so they can appeal to the largest section of the population
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Of course
Ken: ok
Huzington: I am in complete agreement with you there
Ken: I thought you would be. Most people on ISF are.
Huzington: Yes
Ken: ok, now onto subjects many on ISF won't agree with
Huzington: Okay
Ken: the abolition of the nuclear family and restoration of the extended family?
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: What of it?
Huzington: What is your opinion on it?
Ken: I'm in favour of abolishing the nuclear family as the focus of society and restoring the extended family to its former significance
Huzington: The generality at ISF are in disagreement with you as regards that?
Ken: I believe so. Communism, as you know, wants the abolition of the family altogether
Huzington: Well, family in the proper sense of the term
Ken: what is the 'proper' sense of the term?
Huzington: By "extended family" do you mean a group of relatives consisting of more than one generation?
Huzington: the nuclear family
Ken: Yes - and also, the strengthening of ties between children and uncles, aunts, cousins. I view the nuclear family as the isolated two parent and children group
Huzington: Then I certainly see the extended family as an improvement. But I do not see at as entirely satisfactory.
Ken: Ok
Ken: The return of victorian ethics as opposed to crude moral chaos?
Huzington: I have supported that for quite a while, actually.
Ken: excellent. so does Mazdak
Huzington: But now I think, in many respects, Victorian ethics made men too soft.
Huzington: But only in some respects
Ken: Victorian ethics was centered around being respectful and benevolent to those in your own society. It needed to be balanced out with a certain degree of savageness. This never happened.
Huzington: Yes
Ken: How would you bring this degree of savageness into being alongside victorian ethics?
Huzington: However, I think a socialistic morality ought to be cultivated as well
Ken: I have no answer to that question
Ken: A socialistic morality?
Huzington: Why what do you mean by "savageness"?
Huzington: Yes
Ken: I mean - Victorian ethics was largely orientated around respect, love, benevolence. The fact is that love and hate are two sides of the same coin. The other side was not acknowledged. This is what made man 'soft', if I correctly understood what you were meaning.
Huzington: Well, I do not know the answer to that question
Huzington: I am sure something could be done.
Ken: I think so. Have you seen the movie 'Fight Club'?
Ken: If you haven't, I highly recommend it.
Huzington: No.
Huzington: Does it have to do with that about which we are talking?
Ken: It does.
Ken: The collapse of victorian ethics, the rise of hedonistic materialism, nihilism, and 'savageness'
Huzington: Sexual savageness.
Ken: also a terrorist campaign against the capitalist system in the United States
Ken: No, aggressive savageness. violence.
Huzington: But a disgusting softness concerning everything else
Ken: that is exactly what the Western world has arrived at.
Huzington: You think?
Ken: I'm certain.
Huzington: I am only aware of a lot of softness and sexual savageness.
Ken: The idea of tolerance to the point of capitulation is shoved down the throats of entire generations, and the instincts boil up, harvested by the corporations in the form of 'rap' music, violence in entertainment and disrespect towards women.
Ken: Modern man has no morality.
Huzington: I think he most certainly has a morality. The world appears to me quite different.
Ken: This development is unparalleled in human history. When the revolution hits the Western world it is going to be more violent than anything the West says occured in Russia after 1917.
Ken: of course, the violence outside of sex occurs amongst populations with naturally high testosterone levels - that's a short way of saying blacks. I think it is far to say that the European race has turned into a race of cowards.
Huzington: In my judgement, all this had come about by way of a complete lack of discipline
Ken: I agree
Huzington: That is partly what I mean by "softness".
Ken: I understand what you are saying
Huzington: Your name....are you a fascist?
Ken: I believe, though, that the cowardice is only superficial - the rage is boiling up inside. When capitalism collapses, the results will be extraordinary.
Ken: I was.
Huzington: There is undoubtedly truth to what you say.
Ken: Mazdak would certainly agree - he and I discuss thees things occasionally
Huzington: I thought he would
Ken: When capitalism collapses, the Government will collapse. In the chaos that follows, the people - of every race - are going to look for strong leaders. At that point I would expect a ressurection of authority, discipline,and probably a return to Victorian ethics, at least amonst the European peoples, to whom it seems native.
Huzington: What is your opinion on eugenics?
Ken: It could be a positive thing. In my opinion, the more intelligent people, the more advanced a society can get. It could be useful.
Ken: What is yours?
Huzington: It is good. Everyone should receieve the benefits of eugenics. This cannot be done in present day society.
Huzington: My opinions are in my "eugenics" thread.
Ken: I agree. It cannot be done with the modern soft morality
Ken: I'll read it.
Huzington: your question about eurocentric marxism.... Eurocentric, perhaps, but not Euro-only.
Ken: I think I understand
Huzington: Revolutionaries need numbers.
Ken: true
Huzington: Women, blacks, etc. Anyone who feels oppressed.
Ken: I don't think the revolution will head anywhere until the West collapses.
Ken: I believe the numbers will first come from amongst European peoples, once the collapse starts.
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: What is your opinion on Feminism?
Ken: what sort of feminism?
Huzington: feminism in general.
Huzington: the feminist movement
Huzington: etc
Ken: Modern feminism is tearing apart the families of the younger generation. It is chaotic, and it is producing chaos. It needs to be stopped. Women getting jobs - that I have no problem with. But it's going too far presently.
Huzington: Okay, I agree with you.
Huzington: I am glad we agree on this particular issue.
Ken: so am I
Huzington: It is very important to me
Ken: My mother has a job - but she focuses on looking after my education and my younger brother
Huzington: That is always good.
Ken: I know. It certainly helps. I know exactly what would happen if my family fell apart like many families now do.
Huzington: yes
Ken: that sort of thing needs to stop - and if that is going to happen to some children, I'm all for taking them away from their families and raising them in caring families or communes.
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I agree
Ken: life after the revolution should not be about 'happiness' - it should be about what is right.
Huzington: I agree
Huzington: Though everyone should be free to do as he chooses, so long as he does not interfere with progress.
Ken: Of course
Ken: Everyone should be free to become the best he can be within his natural capacities, but the pursuit of excellence should be the highest priority - at least, that's what I think
Huzington: Yes, complete agreement
Ken: This is very interesting, we're agreeing on a lot of things
Huzington: Yeah
Ken: About freedom of speech - true freedom of speech, intellectual free speech, should be limited to universities and education academies, where the pursuit of truth is the highest objective. Outside of higher education, I am of the opinion that subversive, degenerate ideals ought to be suppressed.
Huzington: That makes sense
Ken: For example, glorification of violence, sex, encouragement of divorce, promiscuity, and so on
Huzington: Within the intellectual sphere, when truth is certain, it can be made generally known.
Ken: Of course
Ken: and so it should be
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: The same with regard to the Party
Ken: Exactly
Huzington: which is itself part of the intellectual sphere.
Ken: That is how it should be
Huzington: All agreement
Ken: The party and education academies in which politics is the main focus should overlap to the extent that distinguishing between the two becomes undesirable
Ken: The Party should exist for the coordination of society towards the production of excellence
Huzington: Once again, I am all agreement.
Ken: This is very interesting
Ken: Organised religion, if it is to be permitted, ought to be also channelled towards this final aim
Huzington: How do you mean?
Ken: I should provide an example
Huzington: It should motivate the masses?
Ken: If God is to be considered all knowing, all powerful, and excellent, and as the saying goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery, then I do not see a problem in permitting this sort of organised religion
Ken: The Party, the education system, economics, science, eugenics - all should be subordinated to producing the most excellent men and women possible
Huzington: But all that enthusiasm and spirit is a waste if employed for the satisfaction of Deity. It should be transferred to the Society itself.
Ken: and as we both know, the masses cannot be driven by philosophy, but they can be driven by religion - this is how I think the relation between the Party and an organised, permitted religion should exist
Ken: Not for the satisfaction of Deity - but for becoming God, so to speak
Huzington: That is a good idea.
Ken: and as man would naturally look after his brothers, so should the most excellent man work to raise his brothers to his own level, and raise the society as a whole upwards
Ken: the slogan ''life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' should be replaced with 'life, power and the pursuit of excellence' after the revolution
Ken: Christianity has turned man's eyes upwards, and made him cringe - the Party and the ideals of the revolution ought to turn man's eyes upwards, stand up, and struggle higher for perfection, for himself and for all
Ken: that is my opinion
Huzington: I agree with your opininion. You speak of excellence. What, then, do you think of having the population divided, the requisite disciplines for efficient pursuit of excellence decided, and each person within each division trained from a young age to be excellent at only that which has been decided for him and those among him within his division, that discipline which is necessary for societal excellence?
*** Huzington signed on at Wed Sep 24 02:50:35 2003.
Ken: a sort of division of labour, according to natural abilities, for the pursuit of excellence?
Huzington: By which I mean, if doctors are needed, there will be a section of the population employed for the manufactoring of satisfactory doctors.
Huzington: No one will need to decide what he wants to do
Huzington: He will be trained from birth to be excellent at that discipline which is designated by the sector in whcih he was born
Ken: I believe by the age of 13, a child's future development is plain to see for all involved. If he has a sharp mind with numbers, train him for economics. If he has a sharp mind and skill with his hands, place him as a surgeon, doctor, or other similar occupation. A sharp mind and a strong will to power - Party leadership.
Huzington: But wait that long? The most important years of his life are wasted
Huzington: Mill was brilliant because he had a better education than most adults by the age of 13
Ken: Of course not - genetic examination shortly after his birth ought to give a general idea of where the child is destined to go with his life, what sort of occupation
Huzington: That is not possible with present day technology
Ken: hmmm.... perhaps so
Ken: In that case, I would agree with you
Ken: we certainly intend on breeding children for high intelligence, obviously
Huzington: Their natural abilities does not matter
Huzington: They can be taught to be good at whatever we need
Huzington: The ones who are not good can be sterilised
Huzington: And the natural abilities within each division will improve over time
Huzington: We would thus have a society of genuises
Huzington: Their natural abilities, i mean, does not matter at the beginning of my programme
Huzington: just a random division
Huzington: or not so much random, but arbitrary
Ken: I believe eugenics ought to breed intelligent children. These children would then be placed in divisions, and from there, those inefficient at their jobs would be sterilized, those who do excellently ought to be rewarded by being able to breed more children, those who do adequately should have limitations on the amount of children allowed
Ken: A sort of artificial selection program
Ken: with development of technology, industrial work could be handled by machines, eliminating the need for a less intelligent division orientated towards manual labour
Huzington: I am advocating a similar thing. For instance, in the sector in which everyone is trained from birth to be a doctor, those who are unfit doctors are liquidated, those who are good doctors are allowed to have as many children as they desire. The same with those raised to be Party leaders, etc.
Ken: I agree
Huzington: Why "allow" them to have as many children as they desire?
Huzington: That would be allowing them to interfere with progress.
Ken: that is a problem
Ken: they ought to be breeding children who are naturally suited towards the advancement of their division. If they aren't too happy with the physical sexual act, artificial insemination works just as well
Huzington: A desired number should be communicated him based upon his intelligence (higher intelligence, more children) and he should have that quantity of children.
Huzington: brb
Ken: I agree
Ken: ok
Huzington: back
Huzington: telephone
Ken: though what about children who would be born into a particular division (say, doctors), but, as they develop older, show extraordinary talent in another area (politics, for example), while mediocrity in their designated field?
Huzington: Perhaps they can be placed in the miscellaneous division.
Ken: sterilizing such individuals would seem to be an inefficient means of social organisation and progression
Huzington: I doubt that that would happen
Huzington: They would be ignorant of irrelevant disciplines.
Huzington: Why fill their minds with unnecessary knowledge, thereby making them less efficient doctors?
Ken: for example: my father works as a manager for a company, and my mother works for a large corporation in a data entry division. I, however, have no intentions of going into either of those fields, and would much prefer to focus on philosophy and political science
Ken: a youth program ought to be developed so that they do not wander into alternative occupational disciplines, so that they are satisfied with their own occupation
Ken: one youth program specific to each division, obviously
Huzington: That is wholly different inasmuch as you live in a chaotic society wherein it is necessary to have such freedoms, otherwise any sort of progress would be impossible. It is quite different from my society wherein everything must be planned for maximum production.
Ken: of course
Ken: and we must aim for the pursuit of physical as well as intellectual and technical excellence - the individual must derive a sense of joy out of accomplishing well in his division, so that his mind does not wander
Huzington: The only knowledge they need which has nothing to do with their discipline is the official Ideology, the purpose of which is to motivate them to produce efficiently
Huzington: I agree
Ken: especially during the formative years
Huzington: We need a society of soldiers.
Ken: I agree
Huzington: We must be prepared at all times for imperialist aggression
Ken: disciplined, intelligent, technically and physically excellent soldiers
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: A military of doctors, philosophers, labourers - everything
Ken: powerful, unified, with a strong sense of common identity
Huzington: Nothing can be unplanned in such a State. Everything would be ruined.
Ken: chaos is something which cannot be permitted if excellence is to be achieved. the results would be the inevitable decline into degeneracy
Ken: the development of technology, especially in the years immediately following the revolution, is an area which must be focused on. technical ability is power, and power is security
Huzington: How do you reconcile all these agreements with your anarchist ideology?
Huzington: I agree
Ken: My anarchist ideology, as you can tell, is somewhat fading
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I see that as a positive development in your mental history
Ken: my anarchist ideology was orientated towards the maximum achievement of each individual, free from intrusion. This can be planned within a unified and regimented state, obviously, through an efficient employment of the division of labour principle
Ken: Thanks, lol
Huzington: What is your opinion on Stalin?
Ken: He started in a country with the plough and left it with half of Europe it didn't have before and the nuclear bomb, industrialised and militarised and invulnerable from foreign aggression. There isn't much more to be said.
Ken: Stalin did miracles for Russia
Huzington: Okay, good. I cannot tolerate anti-Stalin bigotry and propaganda.
Ken: I don't throw around propaganda. Just ideas. And Stalin did do miracles for Russia
Huzington: There are a lot of anti-Stalin lies and slanders.
Ken: The West seems to throw around massive numbers of dead people, but look at his achievements.
Huzington: His achievements were great, but there is no evidence that Stalin killed anyone.
Ken: And I know enough about Trotsky already. He was a zionist and an opportunist and a traitor to the revolution
Huzington: Stalin was a Zionist.
Ken: how so?
Huzington: It was his idea to have a special spot for the Jews
Ken: Stalin also condemned zionism towards the end of his life, if I am not mistaken
Huzington: He was one of the first to recognise Israel.
Ken: that is true
Ken: Stalin did the world a favour by having an icepick put through Trotsky's head though. A shame many don't appreciate it.
Huzington: I agree that the death of Trotsky was a great event
Huzington: However, it was not Stalin who had him killed
Ken: then who did?
Huzington: The man who killed Trotsky was one of Trotsky's own friends who was disgusted by Trotsky's self-love and egotism.
Huzington: The man who killed Trotsky was Spanish
Ken: interesting
Ken: I have not heard of that before
Huzington: The man who killed Trotsky was awared AFTER Stalin's death
Huzington: in 1960.
Ken: but it would not suprise me
Huzington: He died in 1972 in Cuba
Ken: excellent. that man did the world a favour
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I agree
Huzington: He spent 20 years in a Mexican prison, however
Huzington: Very unfortunate
Ken: that is quite unfortunate
Huzington: awarded after Stalin's death***
Ken: He should have been liberated from prison
Huzington: Yes
Ken: what do you think of the Frankfurt School?
Huzington: Anti-Marxist?
Huzington: the young hegelians, etc
Huzington: are you talking about that?
Huzington: the left and right hegelians?
Ken: No. Pseudo-Marxist. A group of Jewish intellectuals that moved from Frankfurt in Germany to New York during the 1930's, and propagated works that encouraged free love, drug use, degeneracy and other social diseases
Ken: No, the Frankfurt School was later
Huzington: Evidently I have read very little of the Frankfurt school
Ken: Though I am very interested in Antonio Gramsci's work. I'm going to resume reading 'Selections from the Prison Notebooks' shortly
Huzington: He was a Fascist, wasn't he?
Ken: white nationalists like to ***** about the Frankfurt School frequently
Ken: on the contrary, he as an Italian Communist (and a smart one too - Neo-Marxist) thrown in prison and sentanced for 20 years by Benito Mussolini
Huzington: Yes...no I remember
Ken: he died in prison from lack of health care
Huzington: now*
Huzington: I read about him a long time ago. He was imprisoned by Mussolini...that is how I got the fascism-Gramsci association.
Ken: Yes
Ken: Gramsci's work is quite fascinating
Huzington: Yes, I remember really wanting to read his work... I just cannot remember what it was that I found interesting about him...
Ken: His 'Selections from the Prison Notebooks' contains State and Civil Society, The New Prince, Americanism and Fordism, Notes on Italian History, and On the Intellectuals
Huzington: Did not he speak well of Machiavelli?
Ken: I'm not quite sure. I'm currently reading his section, Notes on Italian History
Ken: but I believe he developed Machievelli's ideas more thoroughly in light of Marx's and Lenin's analyses of the State
Huzington: (Link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/ed...rince/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/editions/spn/modern_prince/index.htm)http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/editions/spn/modern_prince/index.htm)
Ken: I have the book on my shelf behind me
Huzington: Do you still go to the Phora?
Ken: I do
Ken: My name there has been changed to 'Aloysha;
Ken: Is there any good work on or by Croce which you would recommend? His ideas were mentioned in the introduction to Gramsci's Prison Notebooks, and I wish to learn more
Ken: Huzington
Huzington: assaHmm.... He does say some negative things about Marxism. He repeats many lies about Marxism, and insinuates the lie that Marxism is a "religion", etc. Depending upon how unaquainted with Marxism you are, I would suggest "historical materialsm of Karl marx". The chief problem with Croce is that he is an idealist and he rejects physical monism. Read some of his books on aesthetics of you do not believe me. "The science of expression" is a good one.
Huzington: Yes?
Ken: ok
Huzington: I was originally attracted by Croce because he said plenty of good about Marxism.
Ken: Ok, thanks for that
Huzington: Then he throws all that out the window and speaks meanly of determinism, which is essential to Marxist thought
Ken: It is
Huzington: Yes
Ken: I became attracted to Croce for his division of man's primary areas as economics, aesthetics, ethics and logic. At the time I was very much interested in the technical aspects of philosophy, so to speak
Huzington: He puts too much stress upon aesthetics and ethics.
Ken: ok
Huzington: Oh yes, and he makes many errors as regards Hegelian philosophy
Ken: Did he write a specific work which covered his general thought?
Huzington: For example, he says that the principal error of Hegelian philosophy is the transition from the Idea to Nature
Huzington: This is completely wrong and he could tell you how but I would have to do a lot of explaining
Ken: interesting. Supposing I wanted to understant the Hegelian philosophy in relation to politics and history, which book would you recommend?
Huzington: "Philosophy of Hegel" will give you some general understanding of Hegelian thought. It is his entire philosophy in about 500 pages. Then, for a fuller udnerstanding, read his Phenomenology of Mind, then the Logic -- especially the Logic
Ken: Ok
Huzington: Understanding the Logic is also essential if you want to fully understand Dialectical Materialism
Ken: Thanks. I'll go and get a pen and a sheet of paper to write this down
Huzington: I do not think there is a specific work
Ken: that's ok
Huzington: "Philosophy of Hegel" by Stroce
Ken: thanks
Huzington: It is true that to understand Croce you must understand the Logic
Ken: are his ideas difficult?
Huzington: Aesthetics as Science of Expression and General Linguistic
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Quite difficult
Ken: I will try, nevertheless :)
Huzington: Are you talking about Hegel or Croce?
Ken: Hegel
Huzington: Yes, most certainly. His philosophy is the most difficult of ALL philosophies
Huzington: Qualified persons have called the Logic the most difficult book ever written
Ken: I will try regardless
Huzington: People have translated Hegel's works without understanding a single word!
Ken: ok, that is disturbing
Huzington: Bertrand Russell, a good philosopher, and even Croce, did not understand Hegel
Huzington: McTaggart, another Hegelian, did not understand Hegel
Huzington: It requires a lot of labourious study
Ken: Hegel must be either a genius, or incomprehensible. I'd rather think he is a genius
Huzington: He is a genius
Ken: In that case I will try to buy the books you have recommended, and read them over the Christmas holidays - I have over a month off school then
Huzington: He is understandable, but his Thought is so difficult that it is impossible to express it without appearing incomprehensible
Ken: ok then
Huzington: I am still having some difficulties with Hegelian thought
Huzington: Though I think I have grasped what is necessary
Huzington: i.e. the dialectics
Ken: ok
Huzington: the "rational kernel".
Ken: I'm going to have a lot of reading to do over Christmas, it seems
Huzington: There is a lot of "mystification" in Hegelian Thought, just to warn you.
Ken: is that difficult to move past?
Huzington: It must be done if you want to fully understand Marx, Croce, etc
Huzington: Yes
Ken: I think my mind will be able to do it, though probably with great difficulty
Huzington: Probably
Huzington: I made an error
Huzington: Philosophy of Hegel by STACE
Ken: Ok
Ken: thanks for that
Huzington: published in 1924 ... it is old, but the best
Huzington: He writes in the most simplistic, lucid language imaginable
Huzington: Very helpful if you want to comprehend Hegelian thought
Ken: alright. You and I seem to have similar views to those Plato puts foward in his 'republic'
Ken: I'll definetly try and find it then
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: I agree with Plato in many ways
Ken: it seems we both do
Huzington: Plato says that we must teach children how to play.
Ken: that is strange.
Huzington: Plato is brilliant in this respect. How can people not see the value in teaching children how to play?
Ken: if they are taught how to play, they should be more adept at playing best
Huzington: To create good citizens...this is fundamental.
Ken: Of course
Huzington: Many diseases of the mind begin in children's play.
Huzington: Sexual sadism, for example
Ken: this is similar to the conditioning we proposed for each occupation division, starting from birth
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: That is the key word, though you used it in a differetn sense -- conditioning
Ken: yes
Huzington: When children associate pleasurable things (play) with things that are bad for society, a problem is being created
Huzington: This is bad conditioning
Ken: good citizens must be formed, not left to their own devices
Huzington: Children must be conditioned to find pleasurable those things which are good for society, for production
Huzington: Children's play must be a simplified version of the real world
Huzington: It must reflect REALITY
Ken: yes - for the achievement of their excellence, and they must be rewarded for using these skills to the benefit of socity
Huzington: Not pointless excercises in "imagination", as it is in present day society. That is what children are taught to do.
Huzington: Imagine for the sake of imagining. Nothing else.
Ken: yes - that is what they are being conditioned to do
Ken: to sit around and dream. dreaming does not make society, nor excellence
Huzington: Look at all these dull children's activties everywhere.
Huzington: They create idiots
Huzington: They treat children as idiots
Ken: Children are smarter than that
Huzington: yes
Huzington: Imagination is good.. but when it has utility.
Ken: of course
Huzington: Dreaming is good when it has utility
Ken: imagination as a tool for creating useful things is excellent
Huzington: Yes, so what we are proposing is different in every respect from present day children's play
Ken: Of course
Huzington: This I find upsetting.
Ken: the aim is to condition children as soon as possible towards the pursuit of excellence
Huzington: The way children play nowadays.
Huzington: That is is.
Ken: That is true
Ken: television, for example - and movies, and music - it is all aimed towards the mass delusion of young, active minds
Huzington: Exactly
Ken: this is dangerous
Ken: it deprives society of excellence in the making, it engineers children into becoming pathetic, delusional adults
Huzington: Not for the purpose of deluding them, however -- this "mass delusion" is merely a side-effect.
Ken: Obviously. This mass delusion is done in the name of 'fun' and 'play', as if it is actually good for the children
Huzington: Yes, it is done in the name of fun and play . . . to sell the product. But the ultimate purpose thereof is the acquirement of money -- it is a side-effect of greed.
Huzington: All these things you hate are side-effects of greed.
Ken: obviously
Ken: hedonism
Huzington: Mhm
Huzington: I think that this is what Plato would say as regards children's play if confronted with modern society
Ken: I would have to agree
Huzington: Play says what is done cannot be undone
Huzington: plato***
Huzington: Plato says that
Ken: this needs to be changed. the coming social chaos will provide fertile ground for the revolution of values
Huzington: What is done cannot be undone. Do you know what the implications of this truth are with regard to retribution?
Huzington: It means that punishment for the sake of punishment is evil
Ken: Yes
Ken: Punishment must be carried out for the purpose of conditioning
Huzington: Punishing people because something is "wrong" is moronic and primitive
Ken: setting an example, motivating the people in the correct direction
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: But our society is against this
Huzington: Punishment ought to be a deterrent.
Huzington: Speaking of deterrents...
Ken: Hmmm?
Huzington: Do not you think that AIDs and HIV are god things?
Huzington: It deters people from commiting vices.
Huzington: good things**
Huzington: Society needs AIDs. She needs HIV. She needs sexually transmitted diseases.
Huzington: How else can you stop the masses from commiting vices?
Huzington: They are good deterrents.
Ken: I do not think they are nessecarily good things. Strict heterosexuals are also capable of aquring this disease
Ken: it must be contained and isolated
Huzington: Then they should not be having so much sex.
Ken: My mother told me recently that a daughter of one of her coworkers caught AIDS off a guy when she lost her virginity at 19.
Huzington: Most people who acquire the disease acquire the disease by way of engaging in premarital sexual contact.
Ken: promiscuity does not nessecarily coincide with AIDS
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: that is true
Ken: HIV is also hereditry
Huzington: Not genetically
Ken: true, through the bloodstream
Ken: the effect is the same though
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Yes
Huzington: Still, why have sex if you are not going to have children?
Ken: it must be cut off and isolated, and those who engage in premarital sexual contact should be made an example as a lack of self discipline
Huzington: you have no Marxist beliefs?
Ken: I have no idea what to call myself now
Ken: I suspect I am more a traditionalist and a Platonist than a Marxist
Huzington: You do not believe in abolition of the bourgeois state and supercession with a proletarian dictatorship?
Ken: The abolition of the bourgeois state I am in whole agreement with
Ken: a proletarian dictatorship, however, I am not sure
Huzington: worker's state
Huzington: ?
Huzington: Okay
Huzington: It is slavery when men do not own the product of their labour
Ken: that is debatable. Men who naturally have more capability ought to be given the resources to achieve their own excellence
Ken: I must go now
Huzington: Goodbye.
Ken: Goodbye
Ken: Nice talking to you
Huzington: Likewise me.
Session Close (Huzington): Wed Sep 24 04:26:03 2003
If you've been keeping up with events at ISF (my conflicts with Huzington in particular) you'll figure out I was lying during the above conversation to see how far he'd go. Peace to you all.