Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation

[interestoninterest]

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the h e l l of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence. [...]

.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it?

It's pretty much common knowledge that Mafia is in the "business of killing" and noone doubts it. And there's nothing good about it, yanno.

[regulus]

.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it?

It's pretty much common knowledge that Mafia is in the "business of killing" and noone doubts it. And there's nothing good about it, yanno.

It kinda contradistincted it to the "chaotic/random street punksviolence which amounting to "anarchy," that somehow embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: an assault on the rights of person and property, on the rule of law codifying such rights."

[bigotlaw]

Well, from the Mafia's perspective, there are no absolute moral truths. As a result, ethical standards must be created, or, more precisely, a perspective from which to view the world must be chosen. From their vantage point, murder is not a particularly significant act. It's just murder. For example, their killings are no more alarming than humanity's role in destroying the earth under the hospices of the word "industry." Not to mention that all creatures and even the earth itself, are destined to die. From this perspective, murder, like death, is neither moral nor immoral; it is just a fact.

[internist]

Well, from the Mafia's perspective, there are no absolute moral truths. As a result, ethical standards must be created, [...]

Well, there are codes of behavior that may apply to one group, but not others. Mafia ethics, for instance, allows people to lie and cheat and kill those outside the family, those who threaten the family, but you must be honest to those in the family. It's not what you do, it's to whom you do it. So the "ethics" or "moral truth," or whatever you wanna call it, of Mafia's actions is the "family."

[hiliter]

Doing nothing would just make things better. You know, leaving the system to proceed in the way it is going, so that its rotten character becomes fully manifest. Capitalism is smart enough to actually make small concessions in order to save its whole "configuration" ... is not, then, that the more ruthless and corrupt the capitalist system becomes, the more likely it'll be that largely impoverished working masses will revolt? It may just be that the more curruption and distrust results from the system, the more the indignation on part of the masses will grow -- an indignation and resentment towards the ruling class that will help spark the revolution, a violent act that will change for good the order of things of an incorrigible system like capitalism.

The rationale continues that in this radical culture of disappearance certain "Elements of Refusal", partly unconsciously and partly consciously, are to be employed. Simply not voting -- "apathy" keeps over half the nation from the polls; anarchism never accomplished as much! There are positive parallels: "networking" as an alternative to politics is practiced at many levels of society, and non-hierarchic organization has attained popularity even outside the anarchist movement, simply because it works. Refusal of Work can take the forms of absenteeism, on-job drunkenness, sabotage, and sheer inattention -- but it can also give rise to new modes of rebellion: more self- employment, participation in the "black" economy -- all more or less "invisible" activities compared to traditional leftist confrontational tactics such as the general strike.

Embracing all sorts of non-authoritarian forms of spirituality, from "unchurched" Christianity to neo-paganism. Or the "free religions" -- small, self-created, half-serious/half-fun cults influenced by such currents as Discordianism and anarcho-Taoism -- that can be found all over marginal America providing a growing "fourth way" outside the mainstream churches, the televangelical bigots, and New Age vapidity and consumerism. And of course, construction of "private moralities" in the Nietzschean sense: the spirituality of "free spirits." Refusal of Home as well: "homelessness," which most consider a form of victimization, not wishing to be forced into nomadology. But "homelessness" can in a sense be a virtue, an adventure. And finally refusal of the Family, which is clearly expressed through divorce, or some other "breakdown." Life can be happier without the nuclear family, whereupon a hundred flowers bloom -- from single parentage to group marriage to erotic affinity group.

Will to Power as Disappearance, I guess!

[Madame Desiree]

The capitalist army, the capitalist state, the capitalist bureaucracy, cannot be seized by the revolutionary proletariat and used for its own purposes. It had to be smashed completely and a new state organized, based upon the organization of the working class. In 1905, and later in 1917, the Russian working class, by the formation of Soviets, or workers councils, laid the basis of a new type of social organization. It was by his studies of Marx's analysis of the Commune that Lenin able to recognize so quickly the significance of the Soviets and to establish them as the basis of the new workers' state. Today the advanced American worker needs to know the history of the international struggles of the proletariat. From these he will most quickly learn to understand his own.

Any serious discussion of the prospects for socialism — and, therefore, of the future of mankind — must involve an examination of the October Revolution. This Revolution can be supported or opposed, but it cannot be ignored. The answers one gives to the problems of the present day are inseparably linked to one's assessment of the October Revolution, its aftermath, fate, and legacy. If the October Revolution was doomed to failure; if the Bolshevik seizure of power was, virtually from the start, a fatal enterprise; if Stalinism was the unavoidable outcome of Bolshevism; if the crimes of the Stalinist era flowed from the very concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; and if the final breakdown of the Soviet Union testifies to the bankruptcy of socialist economics, then Marxism, it must be confessed, has suffered a devastating political, intellectual and moral shipwreck. This is, at the present time, the dominant view among university academicians.

If, on the other hand, the October Revolution realistically contained within it other possibilities; if Stalinism was not the outcome of Bolshevism, but its antithesis; and if the rise of Stalinism was, in fact, opposed by Marxists, then the historical situation of revolutionary socialism is very different. The International Committee of the Fourth International upholds the second position, and this necessarily brings us into conflict not only with the outright and unabashed defenders of reaction, but also with the mood of skepticism, demoralization and political renunciation that is commonly found among so many who, at least until recently, considered themselves socialists.

Intriguing, naom!

[sinuous]

Stalin was a piece of *&^%, Lenin not so much. Marx and Engels were geniuses.

How it is possible that most geniuses are either German or French? No Russian genius philosophers, for instance, let alone American ones!

[tg]

How it is possible that most geniuses are either German or French? No Russian genius philosophers, for instance, let alone American ones!

Genius is the sublimation of sexual libido onto cultural and political goals. Libidinal sublimation enables the genius to work toward cultural or political goals with exceptional passion and energy. Philosophic genius is the rarest type of genius. Some societies are capable of producing artistic geniuses, but not philosophical geniuses. Russia, for example, has produced several great imaginative writers, but it hasn't produced any great philosophers. Nations that haven't produced great philosophers have a lower level of consciousness than nations that have produced great philosophers.

Can a person have more than one kind of genius? Samuel Johnson thought that a genius could work in any field; "Had Sir Isaac Newton applied himself to poetry," said Johnson, "he would have made a very fine epic poem... The man who has vigor, may walk to the east, just as well as to the west." Some have argued that Bacon wrote the plays that are attributed to Shakespeare, and thus that Bacon had both philosophic and artistic genius. There have been a few versatile geniuses, such as Leonardo and Pascal, but it's very unusual for a person to have more than one kind of genius. Most geniuses can work in only one field. If Newton had applied himself to poetry, he wouldn't have written "a very fine epic poem." Since Newton knew his own limitations, he never applied himself to poetry. Most geniuses never attempt to work outside the field for which they were born.

What is the origin of genius? Schopenhauer, who thought that character came from one's father and intellect came from one's mother, said that genius was the product of an exceptionally strong-willed father and an exceptionally intelligent mother. Karl Abraham, one of Freud's disciples, thought that genius emerged from a family that was declining in vigor and strength, but that still managed to produce one or two people who combined a neurotic disposition with rare intellectual gifts. As an example, Abraham cited Ikhnaton, an Egyptian pharaoh whose ancestors were vigorous, practical and warlike, and who combined neurotic traits with genius.

Genius can see into the future. The Roman writer Seneca foresaw the discovery of the Americas. In the 13th century, Roger Bacon foresaw the automobile and the airplane. Leonardo foresaw many mechanical inventions, including the steam engine, the airplane, the parachute, the submarine, the tank, and the machine gun. Heine foresaw Nazi militarism and genocide; Heine predicted that the forces found in German philosophy would someday "erupt and fill the world with terror and amazement," and that, "a play will be performed which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll." Kafka predicted that men "will try to grind the synagogue to dust by destroying the Jews themselves." Nietzsche foresaw the psychology of the unconscious, the world wars and the rise of Russia. 

During turbulent times, nations often raise men of genius to positions of leadership. Examples are Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. Do individuals control history, or do history and fate control individuals? The prescience of genius is an argument in favor of fate, and an argument against free will; if events can be foreseen long before they occur, they must have been caused neither by individuals nor by circumstances, but by history and fate. It appears that Hitler was the cause of the Holocaust, and that the Depression was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. But if the Holocaust was foreseen a century before it occurred, then it can't be ascribed to particular individuals, or to particular circumstances. While Hitler was the proximate cause of the Holocaust, and while the Depression was the proximate cause of Hitler's rise to power, the root causes of these events lie far deeper than any particular individuals or particular circumstances.

Throughout his life, Hitler acted like one who was the agent of fate. When he wrote Mein Kampf in the 1920's, Hitler sketched the history of the 1930's and 1940's. He anticipated a great war, and he anticipated that Germany might be destroyed by the war. Hitler felt that his life and his actions were the result not of accident or of choice, but of fate. With fate supporting him, he felt that he possessed great power, that he was invincible, hence he had complete confidence in himself. His confidence enabled him to speak with passion, energy, and conviction, and it enabled him to captivate a nation. Hitler relied on his unconscious to reveal what was fated to occur; he relied on hunches and intuitions. "I go the way Providence dictates," said Hitler, "with the assurance of a sleepwalker." Hitler's dependence on fate and on his unconscious was so complete that he lost touch with reality, and wasn't wholly sane. Napoleon, whose career resembled Hitler's in many ways, felt, like Hitler, that he was the agent of fate, that he could foresee the future, and that he didn't control events but rather was controlled by them. "I always had an inner sense," said Napoleon, "of what awaited me.... Nothing ever happened to me which I did not foresee." Napoleon thought that any attempt to assassinate him, before his fate had run its course, was certain to fail — and in fact, many such attempts did fail.

How is genius able to see into the future? Partly because genius has a high level of consciousness, and partly because genius is in close contact with the unconscious. The prescience of genius is the result of unconscious feeling, as well as conscious thought. The genius draws from his unconscious ideas, images and intuitions. Because the genius is in close contact with his unconscious, he runs the risk of becoming insane. Many geniuses have gone insane; examples are Tasso, Newton, Swift, Comte, Gogol, Ruskin, Hölderlin, Schumann, Nietzsche, Strindberg and van Gogh. Many geniuses were partially insane, if not wholly insane; many geniuses lived on the borderline between sanity and insanity. Schopenhauer is an example of a genius who was partially insane.

Schopenhauer had many irrational fears and anxieties; fearing that people would misinterpret a trance as death and bury him alive, Schopenhauer "stipulated that his remains be left unburied beyond the usual time." Cézanne is another example of a genius who was partially insane. Cézanne experienced "chronic paranoia"; when his friends threw a party to celebrate his birthday, he left abruptly, thinking they were making fun of him. Gödel was so afraid of being poisoned that he stopped eating, and starved to death. It is an indication of the genius' partial insanity that he goes to extremes and is one-sided. The genius lacks moderation. Dostoyevsky, for example, said, "I go to the ultimate limit everywhere and in everything; all my life long I have always approached the limit!" A second indication of the genius' partial insanity is that he's moody, more so than most people are. Genius often oscillates between elation and depression. Kierkegaard is an example of a moody genius. Kierkegaard's mental state was described as "depression, alternating with, but more commonly blended with, a condition of exaltation." Strindberg was also moody; "throughout [Strindberg's] life," wrote one of his biographers, "his moods varied from elation to the blackest depression." The moodiness of genius tends to take the form of depression rather than elation; genius is melancholy. Kafka is an example of a melancholy genius: "every day," said Kafka, "I wish myself off the earth."

[tg]

A third indication of the partial insanity of genius is that genius often has a tendency toward illness. Examples of geniuses who were chronically ill are Epicurus, Pascal, Lichtenberg, Schiller, Leopardi, Darwin, Nietzsche and Proust. Illness often has a psychological cause, and chronic illness is often the result of psychological problems. Certain illnesses, such as epilepsy and asthma, almost always have a psychological cause. Several geniuses were epileptics, including Muhammad, Dostoyevsky and Flaubert. Proust's asthma was a symptom of his psychic state, a plea for maternal attention. While the ideal man, according to the adage, has a healthy mind in a healthy body (mens sana in corpore sano), the genius often has an unhealthy mind in an unhealthy body. Is it surprising, then, that so many geniuses die young?

Genius is childlike. Genius approaches the world with naiveté, as if it were new and strange. Leonardo is an example of a childlike genius; "the great Leonardo," wrote Freud, "remained infantile in some ways throughout his whole life... As a grown-up he still continued playing." It was said of Mozart that, "in his art he early became a man, but in all other respects he invariably remained a child." Though genius is melancholy, it is also, paradoxically, cheerful. Cheerfulness can coexist with melancholy; as the French say, le coeur triste, l'esprit gai ("sad heart, gay spirit"). The cheerfulness of genius is an indication of its childlike nature; like the child, the genius can enjoy things that other people have ceased to enjoy. Kant is an example of a cheerful genius; Herder said that Kant, "had the happy sprightliness of a youth." Kafka is another example of a cheerful genius; despite his extreme melancholy, Kafka was said to be "always cheerful."

Why do geniuses have some feminine traits and some childlike traits? What do geniuses have in common with women and children? Women and children have a tendency toward narcissism, and genius also has a tendency toward narcissism. Because of their narcissism, geniuses are often solitary and friendless. "I have no friends," said Michelangelo, "need none, and will have none"; Michelangelo was said to be "lonely as a hangman." A woman who had known Kierkegaard and Ibsen said, "I have never seen in any other two persons, male or female, so marked a compulsion to be alone." As a result of their narcissism, as a result of their self-love, geniuses have difficulty loving another person. The love affairs of geniuses have sometimes been suspected of having a narcissistic nature. It was said of Beethoven that he "loved only love, not women." Ortega said that Stendhal and Chateaubriand, though they were frequently involved in love affairs, never actually loved. Because it's difficult for them to love another person, geniuses are often bachelors. If they're married and have children, they usually aren't good parents. Rousseau, for example, wasn't a good parent; Rousseau put all his children in an orphanage. Hitschmann said, "If the children of men of genius do not succeed or turn out badly... the narcissism of the fathers should not be forgotten as an explanation." Examples of geniuses whose children turned out badly are Goethe, Melville, Joyce, O'Neill and Einstein.

Just as everyone is to some extent insane, so too everyone is to some extent a homosexual. While the average person has some homosexual proclivities, the genius has even more; the genius is closer to homosexuality than the average person is, just as the genius is closer to insanity than the average person is. Many geniuses were homosexuals: Verlaine, Rimbaud, Whitman, Swinburne, Baudelaire, Wilde, Proust, Gide, Forster, Auden, etc. Why does genius have a proclivity for homosexuality? Geniuses and homosexuals both tend to be effeminate and narcissistic. The narcissism of homosexuals prevents them from loving a body different in gender from their own. If all geniuses are effeminate and narcissistic, why aren't all geniuses homosexuals? The nature of one's relationships to one's parents is an important factor in determining whether one becomes a homosexual. Freud thought that male homosexuality originated in early childhood, and could usually be traced to one of the following causes: an especially close relationship to the mother, a mother with a dominating, masculine personality, an absent father, or a bad relationship with the father. Any one of these causes could hinder the son from identifying with his father, and from acquiring his father's masculine traits. Geniuses who, as a result of one of these causes, couldn't identify with their fathers became homosexuals. Proust, for example, had an especially close relationship to his mother; Forster's father died when he was a baby, and Forster was raised by his mother and his aunts; Gide and Wilde had dominating, masculine mothers. The proclivity of genius for homosexuality is due to both environmental factors and constitutional factors.

Some geniuses, instead of lingering in adolescence, mature quickly, both sexually and intellectually. Examples are Byron and Rimbaud. According to Freud, "sexual precocity often runs parallel with premature intellectual development." The combination of sexual and intellectual precocity, though it may be found in artists like Byron and Rimbaud, is never found in philosophers. Philosophers generally arrive at their central ideas while they're young, but they never develop and express those ideas until they've reached at least their late twenties. Philosophy requires a high level of consciousness, which is attained by repression of the unconscious, and repression of the unconscious precludes sexual precocity. Repression of the unconscious sometimes precludes all sexual activity, hence many philosophers have been sexually abstinent. It was said of Plato that he "never touched a woman," and the same is probably true of Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard, Mill, Carlyle, Thoreau and Nietzsche. Scientists, like philosophers, often attain a high level of consciousness by the repression of their unconscious. This repression sometimes precludes all sexual activity; according to Eissler, Newton "never had intercourse," and the same is probably true of Mendel. Art, unlike philosophy and science, doesn't require the repression of the unconscious, but rather the participation of the unconscious. Accordingly, artists are often sexually uninhibited.

[montparnos]

[...] It was said of Plato that he "never touched a woman," and the same is probably true of Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard, Mill, Carlyle, Thoreau and Nietzsche. [...]

This simply tells me they were all fagz.