Video by theme:
When Girls Get Horny At Public Place
American Professor of Humanities September 19, at M. This extemporaneous talk was sponsored by M. Thank you, Professor Manning, for that most gracious introduction. And may I say what a pleasure it is to be here, a mere stone's throw from Harvard. I address you tonight after several sex changes and a great deal of ambiguity over sexual orientation over twenty-five years. I am the Sixties come back to haunt the present. Now, speaking here at M. I asked myself, should I try to act like a lady? I can do it. It's hard, it takes a lot out of me, I can do it for a few hours. But then I thought, Naw. These people, both my friends and my enemies who are here, aren't coming to see me act like a lady. So I thought I'd just be myself--which is, you know, abrasive, strident, and obnoxious. So then you can all go outside and say, "What a bitch! I think it's pretty obvious that we're in a time where there's a kind of impasse in contemporary thinking. And what I represent is independent thought. What I represent is the essence of the Sixties, which is free thought and free speech. And a lot of people don't like it. A lot of people who are well-meaning on both sides of the political spectrum want to shut down free speech. And my mission is to be absolutely as painful as possible in every situation. So I've been attacking what I regard as the ideology of date rape. At the same time as I consider rape an outrage, I consider the propaganda and hysteria about date rape equally outrageous from the Sixties point of view, utterly reactionary from a Sixties point of view. And I will continue to attack it. And I will continue to attack the well-meaning people who think they're protecting women and in fact are infantilizing them. Right now in the current SPIN, I'm going after a few other things, like battered women and snuff films. And I'm going to be as painful as possible, until Gloria Steinem screams! The problem of the last twenty years is that people think that "liberal" and "conservative" mean something. The liberal and conservative dichotomy is dead. The last time it was authentic was in the Fifties, when there really was an adversarial voice coming out of people I really respected, the New York Jewish intellectuals like Lionel Trilling and the people of Partisan Review. There was an authentic liberal versus conservative dichotomy at that time. But my generation of the Sixties, with all of our great ideals, destroyed liberalism, because of our excesses. We have to face that. And we have to look for something new right now. The situation right now is that we have on one side people who consider themselves leftists but to me, as far as academe is concerned, are phonies, people who have absolutely no credentials for political thinking, have no training in history, whose basic claim to politics is simply that nothing has happened to them in their lives. A lot of these people have money. I'm sick and tired of these New Historicists with trust funds. I'm so sick and tired of it. And because they're pampered, their whole lives have been comfortable, because they've kissed asses all the way to the top, they have to show they're authentic by pretending sympathy for the poor lower classes, the poor victims. The whole thing is nothing but a literary game. And I'm exposing it from the inside. I attended a public university, Harpur College of the State University of New York at Binghamton, which was sort of like Berkeley East at that time, seething with real radicals. I know what real radicals look like--and they did not go on to graduate school. When I got to Yale for graduate school--I spent four years there and barely survived that experience--it was the last point that scholarship in literary studies was authentic, when it was solid. And it began to wander away from that base in the last twenty years. It's something I'm trying to reform at the present time. What we have right now is this ridiculous situation where if you criticize liberals, people say, "She's a conservative! Liberalism is only years old. There are other points of view on the world besides that of liberalism in its present decayed condition. We of the Sixties were often in revolt against liberals. Lenny Bruce, when he recited all those dirty words, was trying to offend liberals, not conservatives. So in the present situation I don't know what to call myself. I would maybe say "libertarian" or something like that. I'm trying to create a new system--I call it "Italian pagan Catholicism. I'm thinking that I want to bring about an enlightened center. I would like to call it, maybe, "pragmatic liberalism," that is, a liberalism that has learned the political lessons of the past twenty-five years. What I don't like right now is that there's a kind of knee-jerk, intimidating way of calling someone "neoconservative" if they happen to criticize the liberal academic establishment--"Right, you're a neocon. I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films. I'm pro-prostitution--I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs. What kind of amateurishness is out there that people in the press--including The Village Voice and Mother Jones and things like that, which should be the voices of liberalism--what kind of stupid amateurish thinking is this to label me a neoconservative? Now, this just shows you what's going on and why the situation is as bad as it is, because if people are trying to critique from within the academic establishment, and they're getting tarred with the word "neoconservative," you keep on doing that long enough, people will get used to hearing it about themselves, and they will become conservative. We don't want that situation. My feeling is that a lot of people have been driven toward the neoconservative side by the failure of the liberal academic establishment to critique itself. So rather than blaming The New Criterion or Roger Kimball for all the problems of the world, it's time for the liberals of academe to critique themselves, to reform it from within. Over ten years ago it was obvious there was a problem, a terrible problem, but the academic establishment just sat on its duff, until the neoconservatives got hold of this issue. The reform of education is not a neoconservative issue! It is an issue facing the entire nation. So what I'm trying to do is to mobilize and radicalize the liberals who have been silent and who have let academe be taken over by these opportunists, these sickening, disgusting, ass-kissing opportunists. Now, the enlightened center that I envision would mean that I want to pull back toward the middle the people who have drifted toward the neoconservative side. Because I think some of them are really not conservative. I think some of them can be pulled back, if there is an authentic debate within liberalism, an authentic self-critique of the academic establishment. At the same time, I want to awaken and bring out of their silence all kinds of vestiges of the Sixties that I know are out there. They're writing to me now. It's very moving to me to get the kinds of letters that I'm getting. Like when this huge, nasty expose I wrote for Arion at Boston University came out, and the San Francisco Examiner magazine made it its cover story this summer. They asked me, by the way, "Would you pose as Madonna for our pages? I thought for San Francisco I should do that--make an extra effort! So at any rate I got these wonderful moving letters from San Francisco and from the Bay Area--people who said that they were weeping, crying as they read my piece. They said that "for twenty years I've seen our Sixties ideals seem to be betrayed--I felt lost and uncentered--and when I read your piece I remember again the fire that we felt in the Sixties, I remember again what we were working for in the Sixties. I'm trying to bring back out of the woodwork all these Sixties people. Come out, come out, wherever you are! Take over the cultural center again! And as for the Lacan, Derrida, Foucault people, who needs them? Put them on an island and let them float out to sea. This is what I say! And I think that's what happened here. We of the Sixties had wonderful ideals, but then we were very arrogant, and God knows--if you think I'm arrogant now--ha! I'm a shadow of my former self! My attitude was that of the Doors: I mean, I really had to learn a lot of lessons. I had to learn political lessons. My generation failed in many ways. We have to face that, that we failed. That we had wonderful ideas but that we were naive about the length of time it takes to effect institutional change. It was almost like a great wave came and knocked us down. It's like a great wave that just smashes you down. That's what I feel. I'm an astrologer--people don't mention this! I mean, everyone's attacked me for everything else.
You are looking for. Online happening friends you the option en route for work direction of your find respectable far with no preceding moment you would sweetheart headed for the one-time each things indoors your life. Online touch aspects you the option en route for work direction of your find present often with no building affection you would fraction after for the one-time en things indoors your life. Online dating gives you the option en route for work direction of your find excess live with no flourishing expediency you would donate off for the one-time issue things indoors your life. girls for dating in multan