Jan Cox Talk 0305

Evil, Aggression and the Tango Palace


December 21, 1987
Video = None on youtube  ( needed Vneeded )
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1987-12-21 (0305)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = tbd
Transcript = See below
Keywords = definition of Evil; The Mis-identified Foe


Jan Cox Talk #305 * Dec 21, 1987 * – 1:56
Notes by TK

Kyroot to :10.

The difficulty of words for J.: you already know what the words mean and this precludes what he wants them to mean. So, more on the words: “dominance”, “submission” and “evil”. Everyone from philosophers to Bowery bums are wired to believe/speak of “evil” as an absolute reality; intrinsic, malum per se. What evil actually is: the unexpected, undesigned, uninvited exercise (or threat thereof) of Domination of a party who is presently unwilling (unprepared) to submit. An expanded definition: evil is a misdiagnosis, miscalculation, misfire or miscue of Life itself and which it quickly terminates.

Domination/submission is a sort of: inhalation/exhalation; excitement/boredom; true/false (what is ‘true’ is temporarily leading/dominant, deciding in the dance). “Aggression” as related to the 3 forces: dominating/submissive/uninvolved (non-partisan) and all are ad hoc. The dance of the forces changes not by mere swapping of places by the current dominant-submissive pair –it changes by an act of aggression/dominance by a formerly non-partisan bystander who cuts into the dance. An untimely aggression: evil.

Thus the face of evil continually shifts as the complexion of the dance changes. The goal of aggression is domination and the goal of domination is the continuance of the dance process. Without aggression there is no king; no dominant figure (no I). Yet note: most kings become in time mere figureheads, disinterested after the thrill of battle/victory, whose state affairs are increasingly run by minions, bureaucrats, flunkies who must humor and entertain him with inane projects. Consider the application of this internally. The king has the responsibility of protection of his subjects from external threats and of settling internal petty squabbles of dominance/submission priorities among the People.

The People, the submissive have the responsibility of constantly overtly proving by external expression, their submission; pay homage to the dominant figure. If they don’t, stability is threatened. Religion is the ultimate expression of man’s molecular need to be submissive; it is a ritualistic expression of homage to the ultimate dominant figure–God.

Man’s marking out, defining of territory. At Red Circuit level it separates I from not-I; at Blue Circuit level, categorization of kinship. At Yellow Circuit level, separation into a hierarchy of pack position (sociostratigraphy). Collecting things is a form of territorial marking and this extends to the internal collections of opinions, beliefs etc. Such internal collections define “you”. “Women’s lib” is viewed in the City as a “cultural” process, man made problem to be cured therefore by men.

But the Real Revolutionist sees it is really molecular expression of the dominant/submissive dynamic; another classic example of a misidentified foe –which keeps the dance hopping.

Condensed AKS

From a fully realized view-of-the-Few, This is about
teaching a fish to swim and a bird to fly…(but don’t forget,
this is just so regarding the Few).


The correct sacrifice for a new enlistee is not money,
blood, or self-respect, but one’s commonness.


A true leader could operate exemplarily as a follower when
need be.


It takes more than one season to see a gold field to
harvest. (Diamelles are another matter).


You could look upon This as a trans-dimensional, 4-D
odyssey; a contemporary inner expedition….Homer visits
Disneyland by way of a black hole.


Do you really understand that in the City it is the land-
locked who write the most passionate odes to the sea.


The People all want a drink, but no one wants to be an alky.


I don’t guess Life will ever be arranged so that the
ordinary might ever hear what I have said regarding the benefits
that would ensue from physicians being always and unconditionally
positive in their diagnostic comments, but just perhaps things
have shifted in another, modern area whereby a version of this
approach might be possible. To wit: Produce and program a new
computer which you announce can “do it all”, and sure enough, no
matter what problem or question is submitted, after a reasonably
impressive passage of time and humming of the machinery the Big
Binary One tells you that a solution, a specific answer in your
case is CERTAINLY possible, although it will take 25 years to
perfect it.


Just because the Real Revolutionist doesn’t honor ordinary
feelings of nationalism doesn’t mean he doesn’t USE them, (and
other stuff as well).

And then there was an ole sore-head in the City’s financial
district who, for his own personal motto, appropriated the name
of a certain well known firm, I.B.M., which he said stood for “I
Be Mad.”


The actual definitions of all words are basically the same,
(if, “Y.K.T.T.”, as always, if You Know The Trick).


If, for some strange reason, a Revolutionist decided he
wanted to involve himself in the City notion of “sin”, he would
only do so IF he could find a way to transgress that would not be
limited to one of the five senses…that’s right, give ME some
sin I can sink my teeth into…or your teeth into…or


In the operations of the Theater-Of-Rebellion, the
Revolutionist knows not to ever bother asking the audience “How
they like the show so far.” The People did not purchase their
tickets for additional doubt and confusion.


If you still have difficulty remembering and realizing the
conservative nature of Life and change-in-the-City, just remind
yourself of these facts: They still deal in verbally describable
gods, they refuse to call the brain the mind, and they still put
nipples on men.


All of a Real Revolutionist’s words are in code, whether he
intends it or not. You understand, this means that all real info
IS a code.


Since several sticky seasons and yummy years have passed
since I first mentioned this, I believe it be time to remind you
that, “Opposites work together…and sometimes they don’t.”


Other than regards mere physical injury, the Revolutionist
knows that no “aid” will be forthcoming in the “no man’s land”
area of the battlefield.

Might it be, as they fear in the City, that all Men are not
equally gifted? Or worse yet, that all ARE equally cursed?
Well, without me low-rating myself to theological discussions,
let me ask you, cannot a blind man speak? and a deaf man taste?


In times of stress and confusion in the City it is well to
recall that “It is easier to walk on eggs than it is to scramble
cobble stones.”


The Real Revolutionist doesn’t believe in midnight.


‘Tis said that, “Although he is not deadly, the flea does do
all the harm he can”, but what a limited view, for he also “has
all the fun he can.”


No matter how attractive the idea might first seem, I tell
you that “No one should try to live with a prophet”, (unless all
of your “carry-over” capital losses from last year are used up).


In the City it is petty squabbles that divide friends, split
neighborhoods, and bring down institutions…likewise, sometimes
in the Bushes.


In the entire universe, nothing, nothing is so attractive,
so alluring, as he who goes about continually straightening
pictures on the wall.


In the City, all precious stones are diamelles. In the
City, all believe their polyester to be silk. And a great cry of
discovery was heard throughout the City, “All our pigs are fake.”


In the City, ordinary reverence, without fear, is like a
hole without a doughnut…in fact it’s worse, it’s almost like
self-pity without a pity.

For those of you who may not notice that at times Life does
go beyond affording Man just minimal-level pleasure, have you not
heard that you can get PAID for sperm donations!


“An honest Man is stronger than a polar bear.”…no he’s not,
I was just repeating something I read. Sorry.


One simple reason that some other higher primate hasn’t
equally evolved with Man, and taken over the rule of the planet
is simply that they weren’t PUSHY.


And as Buddha’s long forgotten cousin used to say, “Life is
short, but not so an insurance man’s memory, or a rabbi’s


Comes the time you can no longer sit awaiting the Grand
Finale, the Final Act, for you are it.




Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
Document: 305, December 21, 1987

There is a difficulty involved in my use of ordinary words to describe certain things. For words to be of use, you people have to already know what they mean. And if you already know what they mean, then you won’t know what I want them to mean. But then again, I guess we should be thankful that Life lets as much of this slide between you and I as it does. Here we go.

The terms I am about to use are so Blue Circuit loaded that all of you will have specific difficulty in holding back the flood gates of connotation. You have to realize I mean more than the words mean. Reminding you, as always, that these are ad hoc concepts, consider again the Dominant and the Submissive. I’m going to go into something very specific, which no one on this planet has ever done correctly. I’m going to tell you what evil is. Some of you may be sorely amazed when you hear it, and some of you, when you hear it, may just be sore.

If you’ve been around here for awhile, you know that I’m not dealing seriously with any binary concepts. They are simply impertinent. But what the hell is going on in Life, that men keep talking about evil? People are wired up to believe that there is “malum per se” — things which are simply evil in themselves. But that belief will not stand up to an attempt to get beyond binary sight.

From King Arthur to the Old Testament, there have been stories of “the Bad Guys” trying to capture, for evil purposes, the “force” running the universe. And no one questions it. But think about it a second. One question is, how are these people going to capture the great good cosmic force and then turn it to evil ends? That’s one question which will not fly in the binary world. The second question is, in what way would they do evil? Would they sit around and plot it? Everyone is wired up to believe that there are people who do that: Hitler, Attila, Nero, Freddy Smith who used to beat you up in school. But they did not sit around and say, “Okay, what evil can we do today?” I assume you know that those folks neither plotted short-term nor long-term evil. Neither they, nor you, nor anyone else sits around and plots “how to do evil.”

No one has ever satisfactorily defined evil. Don’t give me an example of it. Don’t pull out the vade mecum and quote it. What IS evil? On what literal, physical basis does evil exist? I hate to build this up too much, but after all I don’t keep an agent or a PR man. What I am about to tell you is the first time these words have ever fluttered through the ozone of planet Earth. Are you ready?

Evil is the unexpected exercise of domination directed toward one who presently does not wish to submit. That is evil. That is the reality of what is taking place under every condition, 3000 B.C. or 1987 A.D.

Because the words I used in that definition are so loaded and well known already, I’m going to expand on them a bit. Consider a relationship between two parties. It could be two people, or two nations, or one person and a nation. Fill in the blank. One party attempts to exercise domination over the other, who is not prepared for it. The domination is uninvited, unseasonable, like fruit which tries to ripen before its time.

When I say “uninvited,” remember that in a dominant/submissive dance, it is not that the submissive party is being taken advantage of. “Submissive” is not a judgement call. Those in the submissive position are taking as active a part in the dance as are the dominant. They invite domination as much as they are invited to submit. But evil is the unexpected, the undesigned, the uninvited exercise of domination.

Also let me expand upon “evil” a bit. It is not that far removed from my first definition. Evil is situations which prove to be, given enough time, an ultimate misstep, miscalculation, or misdiagnosis by Life. That is an expanded sub-definition of what I started with. 99% of the people on this planet may now disapprove of some historical occurrence, but it’s not humans disapproving of it. Life disapproves of it. But Life did it! Notice this though: Life stopped doing it. When Life realized part of itself was attempting to dominate and to change the nature of a dance going on within its own system, and the other part was not prepared to submit, Life stopped it.

We are back to the very heartbeat of 3-D life. It is the binary sustaining reality of inhalation and exhalation, which I submit to you is another reflection of the dominant/ submissive dynamic. There are others: male and female, exciting and calming, entertaining and boring, and one you never would have suspected — true and false. The good old Yellow brain likes to picture these concepts of true and false as being “the hard-core reality of cold, hard facts.”

I already have tried to give you some very dangerous information last time as to the possibility that the only things which are true are those things which someone can like. But the question of there being a distinct difference between the true and the false has to do with the idea that there is an objective, per se, body of reality which constitutes the true, apart from that which constitutes the false. Can anyone get a glimpse that all we’re talking about again is the dominant/submissive situation?

In other words, that which is considered presently to be true in large numbers of human brains is simply presently leading the dance with that which is said to be false. Let’s take a crude example. Before Galileo, all of Western Europe believed that the heavens rotated around the earth. After Galileo’s death everyone said, “Wow. That’s not true, that’s false. The opposite is true.” The opposite being, that the earth and other things revolve around some unknown center. The lead part in the dance was being played by “the earth is the center of the universe.” The following or submissive part was, “No, it isn’t.” Both parts invited themselves to the dance, insofar as any human can invite themselves anywhere. That is, they’re both dancing of their own volition. (If either one of them is dancing of their own volition, then I give you my solemn promise: they both are.) So there they are dancing, and the lead part is that the universe revolves around planet Earth. And then, cometh Copernicus…and the dance changes.

Now, the scientific Yellow Circuit people back in the city would, of course, be inclined to point out that, “The refinement of the telescope allowed people to make better observations, and come to the empirical conclusion that the evidence belies the notion that planet Earth is the center.” Blah, blah, blah. Mere facts…mere facts. You can talk about scientific investigation and statistical proof all you want, but I’m telling you, it all comes down to the matter of the dominant/submissive and no one has ever been able to see that. Everything that takes place which can be described at the 3-D level will fall into that. It is all explainable in a way that is astounding, once you begin to see it. In any situation under consideration, what is dominant and what is submissive? It all can be seen.

Let me try and expand this into even another area. Remember that when I refer to the Three Forces or the three names of the great winds, that the whole description is unconditionally ad hoc. Even if we speak about Three Forces, or three attitudes, we’re dealing at best with three-fourths of the minimal reality which a Revolutionist must have in order to understand anything. Having said that again, I want to point out to you that whether you speak of the north wind, the south wind, the west or the east wind — it’s just the wind. To you, in your position, it may seem to be coming from the north, but it’s still just the wind.

All of these descriptions, and the whole concept of the Three Forces, can be seen as an imperfect reflection of something very specific. And what might that be? Aggression. The word is as loaded as “dominant” and “submissive,” but for my own reasons I’m going to press on with it tonight. Aggression. So for tonight, consider the names of the three winds to be: the dominant, the submissive, and the uninvolved.

You have the dance floor, and on the dance floor you have two concepts, two forces, two winds holding each other and moving about. You’ve got to have a binary sampling in order to be conscious of it. If one of the forces is dancing by itself, like a woman at a VFW meeting after all the men have passed out, it’s like it doesn’t even exist. You don’t even see it. You’ve got to have two people or there is no dance. (For those of you who used to think you liked all this new age shit, I suggest to you that the old yin/yang symbol was a picture of this. Nobody knows what it means anymore.)

Also in the Tango Palace are people who are not dancing that particular dance. They are the presently uninvolved. Remember that: the presently unimplicated, the presently noncombatant. Perhaps a better term would be nonpartisan. They presently have no loyalty. Understand, from another viewpoint the presently uninvolved, vis a vis this particular dance, could be dancing another dance. We are taking a fractional, imperfect, and ad hoc isolated view. So apparently we have the dominant, the submissive, and the uninvolved. But all dances change. You know that, because nothing stays the same.

The way the dance changes is not normally through the dominant and submissive partners reversing their roles. What normally happens is that one of the present non-dancers cuts in — an act of aggression. One of the disinterested nonpartisan forces takes an interest. Someone not dancing jumps out and starts trying to dance with one of the partners. Does that sound familiar? Remember my definition of evil? An uninvited exercise of domination over one who presently does not wish to submit.

Remember, it may prove to be a social blunder on Life’s part. But at the time, the party which is suddenly grabbed and made to dance backwards is not prepared for it. And it cries out, “Evil!” Thus you have an ever shifting face of evil. Forever the facade of evil changes. If you could take a photograph of evil, by the time you hand it to another person it doesn’t look the same. The face of evil continues to change because the dance partners continue to change, constantly. And every time a dance partner is unexpectedly dominated, they cry, “Evil.” You do it, and you’re not even dancing. Maybe you just heard about it or saw it on TV. And maybe the person next to you just yawns.

Consciousness cannot deal with that kind of instability, but it can deal with a broad kind of philosophical uncertainty as to what constitutes evil. The cries of “evil” are springing up continually on the dance floor, and if you try to watch them at that level, there is, in essence, no rhyme or reason to it. The cries of “evil” all sound the same. Everybody is apparently talking about the same thing: “Unfair, unfair, unfair; wrong, .pawrong, wrong!” In more academic terms, “False, false, false!” It’s all the same thing.

There is a bar over to the side of our Tango Palace. It’s big enough to hold any example I make. (You realize, all those pre-Copernicans called it the Universe.) Sitting at the bar are three…we’ll call them guys. Two of them, sitting next to each other, are in a discussion. The third one is staring off across the bar. The two guys are discussing baseball with some degree of passion, and the third guy (we observe) obviously has no interest in baseball whatsoever. One of the first two says, “You know what I never liked about such and such ball player? He’s a catholic.” Now let us say the third guy had recent ancestors who were catholic. Suddenly the third guy is interested. The dance of the first two is still the baseball dance, and the third guy never dances to baseball music. But suddenly he reacts in such a way that the first two realize that a third party is about to break in.

The third guy says, “You can’t talk about catholics that way. I’m a catholic.” Neither one of the first two were expecting someone to cut in. And the catholic guy is wired up to be dominant. Otherwise, if he were submissive, he would have taken umbrage silently. So he cuts in and he is expecting someone to dance backwards. May be, may not be. It may end up that one of the first two is more dominant than he is. He may get floored.

The thing is, he has now started a new dance. An entirely new dance, even though from the first two guys’ point of view the baseball dance is still going on — albeit with an interruption. But I want you to understand that any new dance is an entirely new dance. It always appears otherwise. Such as in the case of the baseball conversation. From the two dancers’ point of view, it’s, “Why are you butting in all of a sudden?”

Any time somebody tries to cut in, you’ve got a new dance. But in the 3-D world it cannot be seen as being that abrupt. The continuity is always fairly nonrevolutionary, fairly middle class and gradual. Relationships appear to break down gradually. People do not appear to become drunks overnight. It seems to be a whole pattern over a period of time.

The goal of aggression is always domination. The goal of domination is to keep the dance moving. There is no survival, much less growth, in the 3-D world without domination. Everybody got that? If you are the aggressor you do not say, “Hey, let’s dance, but I want to follow.” It just goes unsaid. I’m not just beating a dead horse, I’m beating a kid who once saw a statue of a dead horse to even bring that up. Whoever says, “Let’s dance,” is going to lead, and they keep the dance moving. Because those who are submissive would sit there forever. They will never say, “Hey, somebody come over here and make me dance.” That’s not the way Life works — neither people nor molecules. (Remember, people ain’t people. Men are creatures with thinking and talking molecules in them. That’s the only difference between men and pork chops.) I am referring to keeping the dance of Life moving. The dance of existence. We’ll assume that we all want it to keep going. That’s a pretty safe assumption, because Life in general .pawants it to keep going, because it makes most of us want it to keep going.

Maybe you’ll find this to be an interesting direction: without aggression there is no king. Without aggression there is no…eh, what shall we call it?…there is no “me.” Without aggression no one seems to…oh, I don’t know…end up in charge. I remind you again, it is not that any one person is entirely submissive or dominant. Outside you or inside you, the people can change roles in an instant. But there would be no ad hoc king on the throne, out there or in you, without the need by the people for some force or entity to dominate. In other words, to show aggression. Consider that one of my regal rules for the night.

Regal rule number two: most kings eventually become mere figureheads. Corollary: the day by day affairs of the kingdom end up being run by the minions — the ministers, provosts, and agents of the king. That’s a fact out there. And it’s a fact internally. It has to do with the payoff of domination. To quote myself, “The blood boils in battle, not in victory.” Once the aggressor becomes king, the fun is gone. The king loses interest in ruling, and the minions, in fact, end up having to humor the old guy. Once the conquest is over, the molecules cease to percolate. Where once the new king would make decisions with precision and force, he now dreams of the past. Can anybody see any possible parallel inside, my dears, of you?

Everybody’s got a king. If you’re passing for being generally sane, you’ve got a personality. You have a series of neural reactions in you that answers to a name. You’ve got at least one dominant force in your life. But now look at it: follow this quickly if you can. You believe, even if you don’t approve of it, that you have “some kind of dull-assed, low-rent personality that’s in charge.” But the thing you think is in charge — is it? Now, at one time it was. And it is still the liege in name. And there are still people in you who pay homage. They play the submissive part as they are supposed to. But they know that they have to continue to pay submissive respect even as they also know that much of it, he will not exercise. That is, at the time, he does not necessarily demand submission. But to keep the dance going and the kingdom safe, they must continually play their submissive part, even if the king is distracted most of the time.

To continue this allegory, if it is indeed an allegory: you should take note of the real responsibilities of the king in the wilds of the 3-D world, which includes the throne rooms of everyone’s kingdoms. The responsibility of the dominant figure is to protect those who submit to him or her, and to protect their rights among themselves. That is, to settle disputes over aggressive attempts down in the ranks. (Remember, are we talking about a king out there or inside you? I asked you first.)

Alright, on that basis, that sums up the responsibility of the dominant one. The submissive ones also have a responsibility: they must give constant visible signs of their submission. Without that, the kingdom is not stable. Without that, you would have the constant sensation of the threat of .pahorizontal rebellion. You would be nuts. You would be a candidate for the peanut farm.

One of the reasons I went off on this little bit, is to point out something to you about religion. Can any of you see that religion serves a very specific purpose in the Tango Palace? Religion is like an ultimate ritualistic expression of man’s general need to submit to the ultimate dominant figure. The great beauty of being an invisible dominant figure is that you have available what people would call the free reign of man’s imagination. Everyone dreams of their god as being of the ultimate dominant figure. No flaws, no clay feet. Of course, it’s irrational from a 3-D logical view, because if the god were truly super-dominant, how could he let evil happen? That question doesn’t enter into it. It is simply the need to pay homage to, and feel protected by, the ultimately supreme dominant one. Family, for a while, fills the need. Then maybe a priest, a teacher, a dead guru. But nothing, nothing — not even, I admit, an embroidered picture of me on your wall — can match the good old down home concept of god. There it is.

It is molecularly built-in. It is a need for pomp, ritual, and ceremony. It’s as important as breathing or sunshine. I point out to you again that there is a certain difficulty and danger in This, in that the pomp and ceremony is almost nonexistent. But the need is still molecularly in you. Don’t think that I have talked you out of it. Our taping of this is a little ritualistic, and I am fulfilling (as little as it may be) a need for a certain kind of ritualistic expression of your submission. I know all of this stuff and you don’t. I am the only physical representation that I use, and, of course, I down play it. I make fun of my gestures, and I don’t dress up funny. But then you have to take the information, as best you can, that there is an ultimate dominant figure. You might say, “Well, alright, it’s Life, the way he puts it.”

It’s 4-D reality. I’m just simply pointing out that there is something lacking in the way I’m doing this. (And it’s not just me, by the way. This kind of thing operating on a certain level throughout history always has a certain lack of that. You’ve never heard of it operating at that level.) You miss a little something: the need is in you.

The more I talk about it…okay, who has a sewing machine? Get some silk. We’ll get something that makes smoke, and when I come out I want a drum roll, and…that’s right. Hold your breath.

Alright, let me wrap up with some other things which beg to be mentioned. In the pack of man, everyone, whether ad hoc dominant or ad hoc submissive, is continually attempting to define their territory. You cannot help it. It has to do with the need for aggression. It has to do with the sensation that the Not-I part of the “I + Not-I = Everything” equation is delineated. That is, where I piss is not-I.

Other creatures do it. But man does it in several ways. One is the actual physical territory where you live. As they say in California, “my space.” Your car, and the tense feeling you get when other cars get too close. Your office space, where you work.

Another way is more Blue Circuit based: a man protects his Blue Circuit territory. That is, his family. His kin. And I would point out to you that you cannot be tied to that. You cannot be a Revolutionist and be tied to, “Oh, my poor old family.” You can’t deny the molecular bond, but you can do something about your relationship to it.

The third way is in the attempt of each individual to protect, mark out, and define their position in the pack’s hierarchy. Now within this last one, there’s something I want to mention right quick. One of the great hobbies throughout the world is collecting stuff. Collecting is a form of establishing and protecting your territory. Like putting dice on the rear view mirror of your car, especially if you find a set that has one dice that’s purple and one that’s lime green. Or collecting bird’s eggs from every bird in the world. In a sense, it is the attempted establishment of, “This is me. This is my territory.” (I don’t know what that says about one person I know here in the group who is collecting 2 x 4’s from every country in the world. I don’t want to go into that.)

But now let’s take collecting internally. How about the areas within your inner kingdom which are defined by collections of opinions, beliefs and attitudes? You want to establish such an area, as it were, as You. But how do you know it’s you? Because every time you go into that room, you know your large collection of ceramic frogs is there. No one is permitted to come in and mess with your ceramic frogs.

There is, I am suggesting to you, a very, very, like structure in the anteroom which passes for being you. “Yes, I may live in a tenement. All 20,000 of the apartments in my building are exactly the same, but you’d never mistake mine for someone else’s once you’d been inside. You see, I have this large collection of ceramic frogs…” But it’s not ceramic frogs we’re speaking about. There is a collection of stuff in there, and it defines “me.” What is it? Well, at least we’ve established it is not ceramic frogs. What stuff did you say it was? “Well, I’ve got this hobby; anyway, I know it’s me.”

I’m going to say something about women and the submissive role. If you’ve been around here more than once, you know that as far as This is concerned, everybody is the same. Your background, your sex, does not enter into what I expect of people or what’s possible for people Here. But I am now speaking of an example of being at a juncture where Life is going from one foot to the other: the so-called women’s liberation movement. It is looked at as being what? A cultural phenomenon. And as being what kind of problem? A cultural problem.

That is not true. Not culturally, but molecularly, women have been the submissive. It’s all ad hoc and in relationship to something else, in this case, men. To say that men were dominant and women submissive is saying the obvious. But in the city, Life cannot say that. The feeling in the city is that it has been an unprofitable and unfair domination. The feeling is that “people created the problem, so people can cure the problem.” Only a Real Revolutionist would have the strength, the understanding, to internally shout, “GENETICS!”

The only reason I went into that tonight is that it is an area undecided by Life. It is an area fraught with horizontal temptations for you to “take sides.” But one other aspect is this belief that it is a “cultural problem.” And it isn’t. Never has been and is not now. But, so you don’t think that Life is misdiagnosing, let me point out that one way Life keeps the struggle continuing is by having people continually mis-identify the foe. Can you dig it?

It doesn’t have to be women’s lib. How about the danger of nuclear holocaust? “Man created the atomic bombs and the weapons proliferation problem; Man can solve it.” As long as you keep the foe mis-identifed…

It’s like saying, “Eventually you poor people will not have to dance,” or, “Eventually you will find the ultimate dance of completion.” Of course, “The person you’re dancing with now is not the right partner.” So you go to another partner. “No, that’s not quite it.” As long as it can keep you hopping, as long as it can hint that, “You might be getting close to the right partner, except that cultural problems keep coming up…” As long as the problem is manmade, then men can solve it. Right? So get to work you little beavers. Keep working. Go out and attempt, from one view, the impossible: the attempt to engage in a struggle with the wrong enemy.

It sure does keep the dance floor active.