Seduction: Finding yourself your own Henry

A question gripping much of the modernized world: How does one seduce Henry Lininger, resident tall white stud. This blog post will deal with the a series of primary sources relating to how one ought get to know this outstanding hunk of man, seduce him, and what happens next.

As most tall studs are sometimes intimidating to get to know because of the raw attraction that radiates outwards from them, the first step is overcoming this hurdle. WW, an unnamed source that certainly doesn’t attend Lewis and Clark College, suggested that you should get to know him, “through debate connections and mocking him for reading DnG”. These are two excellent methods. The real trick that WW is looking at here is how to stroke the ego of the wild Lininger. As someone who has been quoted saying how massively effective their game is, it can sometimes be hard to break through to the inner Henry. Playing to Henry’s strengths are an easy way to get him to open up to you, and maybe eventually love you. Commenting on how excellent he is at being tall, how well he plays with his ball (Varsity Basketball!!), and how his intelligence shines through in his execution of the mythical debate strategy referred to as “Marx K”, can all serve to let you meet the real Henry. Once you’ve finally gotten him to open up and treat you as a peer, the next step begins.

So you’re talking to this hunk of masculine perfection, but now what? One needs to start understanding how to seduce this deeply sensitive and caring individual, who despite a tough veneer truly wants to know what love is. WW says that the real trick to this is, “read a short poem”. It’s short poems like these that are key to showing Henry how you feel, but also tapping into his inner sensitivity. WW also indicates that deleuze puns are great, maybe talk about how the only thing you can see yourself becoming is his; Henry loves having things! MA, a charismatic individual suggest a different course of action, “give him DnG cards, Convince him that OES lost in finals, give him a lighter tho that last one may not be safe”. These help develop the more sensitive side of Henry. As an individual with a deep sense of justice it’s important to trick him into thinking that the world is truly a just place, somewhere that will sell him a lighter and give him everything he needs to succeed. Only when he knows how just the world truly is can he truly start to fall in love with you. LJ, another expert in Henry seduction says, “what, everyone loves you why are you asking me this, you already know how to seduce people”. LJ also said that “I think Kyle would have a good chance. He’s a good person and I think they’d get along”. LJ did not have very many strategies to use, however. CS’s pro tips to seduce Henry were perhaps the most interesting, “I wouldn’t”.

Another excellent trick to seduce Henry is to use an elaborate series of pick up lines and negging to make him reliant upon you for validation. Some starter pick up lines include:

  • Damn boy, your shoulders are bigger than my dropbox.
  • Where do you keep your magic wand of fiat.
  • Wow you’re so tall I bet you are taller than me.
  • Plz love me.
  • Are you clipping because damn boy you’re faster than Kentucky GN
  • Are you a god, because you’re so attractive and intelligent you make me want to be domesticated.
  • Have I ever told you how much better than Leo you are at debate.


Once you have completed the pick up line aspect of the seduction, you can then play off the rest of Henry. As soon as he depends upon you for validation of his success, everyone else telling him he’s a god will be second to the true glory of hearing it from you. It is at this point you can hold back compliments from pavlov’s do-I mean Henry-so that he realizes how dependent he is upon you. Once this stage is completed it’s just a matter of dropping hints about how much you want him to announce that he plans to seduce you. This is an important part of the process, because Henry as to believe that it is he who is seducing you, what with his hunk status and all. Once The Lininger beings seducing you, the rest is easy. You could buy a whip to make it literal, but you will have already succeeded and the Henry will be yours!

The failure of Post-Modernist political strategies: Deleuze and Guattari and the failure of becoming

A series of irresolvable aporias riddle the works of Deleuze and Guattari, most of which ought be called into question to understand the cogency of the analysis advanced by the authors. Deleuze and Guattari write in a direct response to positions of potentiality and its impacts on the molecularity of the individually atomized ego that was formulated by psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. The attempts made to demonstrate the beneficiality the creation of lines of flights and the removal of striation via rhizomatic politics runs into a series of pragmatic and theoretical hurdles that damage the revolutionary capacity of their work as a theory of escape.

The first apparent problem is the correlation between striation and deterritorialization-even Deleuze and Guattari indicate that reterritorialization is an instantaneous process by which the sign and the signified creates the signifier-the firstness of the original symbol may be able to be altered but the method in which it becomes the signifier is one that is entirely depended on the intrinsic characteristics of individuality. The embracement of symbolic functionality and the attempts to indicate that the politics of becoming allow individuals to shed their signified is deeply problematic-ignoring the ramification of the sign-itself in relation to the signifier and assuming that all that is real is the signified is a common detriment to Post-Modernism that Deleuze and Guattari’s’ vacuous theorization is not immune to. The rhizomatic politics of becoming only succeed in attempting to create the politics of becoming while immortalizing the existence of the signified in such a method to allow the rampant reterritorialization by those with control to the methods of power-this replicates rampant capitalism in methods that guarantee an expansion of its destructive capacity while also underwriting the attempts of Deleuze and Guattari to resolve the way in which the libidinal economy captures the production of desire itself.

Politics situated specifically in an attempt to achieve a plane of immanence, such as those of Deleuze and Guattari are uniquely problematic because of the justifications that can be levied to create this mythical location of utopia. The attempt to argue for a specific ontological interpretation of the world in opposed to another is in itself an irresolvable instance of paradox, especially the one that is advanced by Deleuze and Guattari, their politics justify some form of sovereignty to generate the lackthereof; the methodology of this political strategy and position is one that culminates in a war against all in the attempt to achieve absolute equality and the removal of all instances of molecular and molar striation only results in the ultimate justification for the very powers that Deleuze and Guattari seek to unset.

The very method in which these politics are attempted destroy the possibility and potentiality for reshaping methods of molar and molecular oppression without the massive erasure of bodies viewed as other within the currently existing strata of power dynamics-the way in which bodies are codified directly transitions to their ability to “become”, thus ensuring that Deleuze and Guattari is a theory that culminates in the self defeating catharsis of reinventing the system it attempted to supplant in a more deadly and insidiously oppressive manifestation.

Come Home America; A response to the doctrine of Global Hegemony

In “Don’t Come Home America,” Brooks et al. argue that only maintaining America’s overseas military presence can prevent the emergence of a dangerous global security environment. Despite a compelling refutation of retrenchment’s budgetary benefits, their assessment of deep engagement suffers from overt optimism regarding the systemic costs of hegemony[1]. Specifically, American engagement actually intensifies potential conflict scenarios rather than deescalating them, as shown by the allied “free-riding,” hard counterbalancing, and nuclear proliferation cascades generated by hegemony.

Brooks et al.’s assertion – that American hegemony prevents regional aggression and power war by restraining partner nations from taking provocative actions[2] – relies on a selective misrepresentation of the cited literature. According to Friedman, the studies cited by Brooks et al. actually indicate that “offensive realist and prestige-oriented states will be… most resistant to the restraining effects of U.S. power.” Although American leadership may prove effective in restraining the relatively moderate security interests of allied states, highly motivated states can render American pressure ineffective by simply “free-riding” on the benefits of American alliance. Protected by the guarantee of American security, these states can pursue otherwise foolish (or even suicidal) geopolitical maneuvers, absorbing the benefits while deferring the costs and risks to the US[3]. This purposeful escalation of tensions can be observed in Israel’s over-the-top rhetoric and policy aggression towards bordering nations like Iran[4] along with the maritime aggressions by the Philippines and Vietnam against China to gain leverage during boundary disputes[5]. Absent American protection, it is doubtful whether allies would even consider such extreme measures.

Furthermore, Brooks et al.’s defense of engagement fails to adequately account for either Chinese or Russian counterbalancing. Their refutation of hard counterbalancing boils down into two arguments: (1) no peer rival superpowers can emerge due to the difficulty of producing military innovations and (2) American leadership slows the diffusion of military power necessary to credibly threaten the US. First, both of these statements are disproven by China’s recent military modernization and foreign policy trends. While American forces do dwarf Chinese military capabilities, America’s attempts to restrain Chinese military growth have proven ineffective. As a result, China has begun rapidly gaining ground on American military supremacy, circumventing the embargo on military sales by turning towards internal weapons development and amassing a substantial sum of conventional and nuclear armaments. Recent breakthroughs in “carrier-killing missiles” and “Guam-killer” IBCMs capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads[6] demonstrate China’s potential for credibly challenging the US in the future. In addition, China’s loose security alliance with Russia poses a significant security risk to the US[7]. Although a war waged alone against America would assuredly result in catastrophic defeat for China[8], a combined war involving a united Chinese-Russian front would end very differently[9].

Second, Brooks et al.’s portrayal of Russia ignores its recent forays into the Arctic frontier. Russia currently lacks the economic robustness to directly balance against the US[10]. But American engagement has cornered Russia into enhancing its ability to counter potential aggression. One of the more notable examples is Russia’s attempt to economically “proxy balance” against American allies by aggressively securing access to the Arctic’s vast natural gas, fossil fuel, and rare earth mineral reserves[11]. These actions are in direct conflict with (primarily NATO-member) nations that seek similar access to the Arctic frontier. This competition over Arctic resources has created massive militarization in the Arctic, with Norway, Finland, Russia, and other nations building naval and air-force bases outfitted with nuclear launch platforms to fend off against potential territorial grabs. Not only do these actions risk catastrophic war that would drag in the entirety of the NATO alliance, but they also enable Russia to access the vast economic potential of Arctic mineral and energy reserves[12], creating the economic robustness necessary to credibly balance against the US.

Finally, contrary to the assertions of Brooks et al., deep engagement does not reliably deter nuclear proliferation. American hegemony has prevented (so far) Japanese and South Korean proliferation, but Brook et al. ignores America’s failure to prevent British, French, and Israeli proliferation[13]. In fact, empirics indicate that American hegemony actually forces hostile states to obtain nuclear capabilities as a last-resort attempt for deterrence factors and military credibility.  Until the recent denuclearization, Iran pursued nuclear capabilities in response to the economic blockade imposed by the US global order, and both China and Russia have sold it advanced weaponry[14]. North Korea’s nuclear development and threats of “nuclear holocaust” are generated in response to perceived American militarism[15]. These instances of hostile proliferation hardly qualify as successful counterbalancing but do significantly fuel geopolitical tensions.

Through Brooks et al.’s own framework regarding nuclear proliferation – that nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous to global stability and always possess a non-zero risk of being used –, it is difficult to believe that American hegemony is stabilizing. Not only does it escalate conflicts metaphorically by trapping nations into a corner, but it also fails to demonstrably prevent risky actions by allies. Although the question of balancing cannot comprehensively determine the efficacy of America’s foreign policies, it does suggest that deep engagement is counterproductive for engaging security threats abroad-Shawn Lee




Works Cited:


Bleiker, Roland. 2003. “A rogue is a rogue is a rogue: US foreign policy and the Korean nuclear crisis” International Affairs 79(3): 719-722.


Braw, Elisabeth. 2015. “Putin Makes His First Move in Race to Control the Arctic,” Newsweek, January 9, 2015. Available at


Brooks, Stephen G., G. John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth. 2012 “Don’t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment.” International Security 37(3): 7-51.


Friedman, Benjamin. 2013. “Debating American Engagement: The Future of U.S. Grand Strategy,” International Security 38(2): 184-187.


Friedman, Uri. 2014. “The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next,” The Atlantic, March 28th, 2014. Available at


Kang, David. 2003. ”Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks” International Security 27(4): 57 – 85.


Klimenko, Ekaterina. 2015. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, March 15, 2015.


Koren, Maria. 2014. “Russia’s Militarization of the North Pole Has U.S. Lawmakers on Edge,” National Journal Daily, September 11, 2014. Available online at


Lukin, Artyom. 2014. “Sino-Russian Entente Would Move the World a Step Closer to 1914,” Huffington Post, July 28, 2014. Available at


Minnick, Wendell. 2015. “China’s Parade Puts US Navy on Notice,” Defense News, September 3, 2015. Available at


Mitchell, Jon. 2014. “Russia’s Territorial Ambition and Increased Military Presence in the Arctic,” April 23, 2014, Available Online at


Posen, Barry. 2013. “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs January/February 2013.


Posen, Barry. 2014. “Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy,” Cornell University Press, pp. 44-8. Electronic copy accessed through Cornell University Library.


Primakov, Yevgeny. 2009. “The Fundamental Conflict: The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations,” Russia in Global Affairs 7(3): 130-133.


Wallace, Michael, Stephens Staples. 2010. “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue.” Canadian Pugwash, March 2010. Available at

[1] Brooks et al. 2012, pp. 7-51.

[2] Brooks et al. 2012.

[3] Friedman 2013, pp. 184-187.

[4] Primakov 2009, pp. 130-133.

Posen 2014, pp. 44-8.

[5] Posen 2013.

[6] Minnick 2015.

[7] Posen 2014, pp. 21-31.

[8] Brooks et al. 2012.

[9] Lukin 2014.

[10] Brooks et al. 2012.

[11] Braw 2015.

[12] Mitchell 2014.

Friedman 2014.

Klimenko 2014.

Koren 2014.

Wallace and Stephens 2010.

[13] Friedman 2013.

[14] Posen 2014, pp. 31-33.

[15] Bleiker 2003.

Colorblindness as a Political Strategy

Intersectional analysis of any systematic apparatus of oppression intrinsically runs into problems; traditional intersectionality always has the risk of replicating hierarchical series of implicit methods of oppression-first wave feminist made black women march in the back in an attempt to keep the movement palatable, and the results of the atrocities of first wave feminism have literally shaped the movement and creates a stigma of mistrust between women of color and the white feminist movement. Much the same is the way in which rhetorical choices in methods of combatting racial bias and systemic racism can have underlying effects and ongoing implications.

Many attempt to claim that “colorblindness” as a viable political strategy in an attempt to undo ongoing histories of racially charged policies and decisions. This analysis and attempted political strategy is both not effective, and terminally ineffective for a series of highly problematic reasons. The first, and perhaps the most dangerous, is the method in which neoliberal politics and Empire takes steps to eradicate perceived instances of difference; solidarity can’t be found when the system absorbs the fulcrum for resistance-the end result of effective colorblind political strategies isn’t one in which issues of race no longer exist but one where issues of race are no longer considered, much as if someone wasn’t able to perceive the differences in the shades of their skin. This means that the very rallying point for individuals to mobilize against the system creating the superstructure of oppression is no longer existent, further fracturing and eliminating potential points of effective resistance.

This leads us into an even more disconcerting reality, one that is problematic in the analysis of a post-Africa world. Many scholars, such as Pinkie Mekgwe a professor at the University of Johannesburg, indicate that a global understanding of Africa as a social location is problematic because it underwrites the possibilities for differences to exist between Zambia, Ethiopia, and South Africa. These same scholars also indicate that the use of color to determine cultural status was highly problematic, especially in the era of South African Apartheid. The use of color created a dichotomy in which white South African were violently separated from their culture. Similarly politics of “Colorblindness” lead to this same violent erasure, but in a different fashion. These politics don’t actually resolve racism they just change the way in which it functions, and create a more insidious method of delegitimization and dehumanization in which cultures are systematically targeted and eliminated while the so called liberal left is appeased since we’re all “Colorblind” as the social death of millions is guaranteed.

Another serious problem with this policy is the way in which it related to the Dis/abled body. It presumes that in a world in which the optic nerve metaphorically functions differently racism is suddenly resolved-the way in which this ascribes meaning to the method in which the body functions reinscribes that certain methods of bodily function are preferable, and the corollary, that others aren’t. The politics of “Colorblindness” inadvertently place the horse before the cart and sacrifice a different population in the attempt to save a more important one-this is the zero point of the holocaust and the way in which despots are able to justify infinite forms of violence. This may seem like a trifling instance or superfluous analysis but these casual deflections are just methods that we’ve all been indoctrinated in to justify the way in which the system already operates.

By the same token, however, it is important to understand the deeper emblematic issue behind using the term colorblind to demarcate political strategies-being aware of the way in which these metaphors shape our understanding of politics and the world around us is equally important. Should you draw your conception of epistemology from Hume, or even someone less skeptic, the way in which our discourse shapes reality is important to consider and understand. The instance of methodology that justifies the use of indicating that a political strategy is “colorblind” requires using the dis/abled body as the focal point for understanding of poltics-a metaphor that is only complete when you create a dichotomy between the methods of function of bodily facilities. The choice and use of this rhetoric is equally interesting; the choice of critiquing so called politics of “Colorblindness” using this term is equally problematic and worth noting and deconstructing it’s on going implications for the ways in which this subtle use of rhetoric can be used to justify larger and more problematic policies. Some may question the use of a term I later delineate as problematic in this paper; first a common starting point is necessary, were I to critique a method of politics that had a nomenclature that I specifically avoided the point of this analysis would be lost, you can’t problematize a choice of rhetoric or a series of policies without stasis to begin deconstruction. Secondly, as someone who lives with colorblindness I utilize the term as a method of reclamation and self identification which I believe gives me a different level of access to a term that has the potentiality to generate further pejorative slurs to the dis/abled body.

The aporia of racial difference and how to address it is one that most certainly ought to be resolved, but not one that can be resolve through the problematic metaphor of colorblindness, a more structured and complete understanding of the multiplicity of oppression and the way it exerts itself is important. There is no root cause of violence, just proximal methods of pacification and absorption that the system uses to replicate itself and spread even further-political methods that fail to realize this are doomed to fail. Only a complex understanding that the war is never over, that enough is never enough, can solve the myth that a simple change in the way we address race is sufficient to resolve a storied history of imperial colonization and settlerism.

-Maxwell Groznik