Tag: philosophy

Hate is a human right

As usual, the cuckservatives and Churchians are blithely falling in line with the globalists and Babelists, as they rush to endorse Big Brother’s war on hate speech. It’s amazing how they fall for the lies every single time.

The fact is that hate is not intrinsically bad. God Himself hates. There are six things He hates – actually, seven that he detests. There are specific individuals He has hated. There is a time to love, and there is a time to hate.The Christian is instructed to hate as well as to love, indeed, we are told that if one does not hate, one does not fear the Lord.

And that, of course, is the root of the pagan campaign against hate. They wish to arrogate to themselves the decision what you will, and what you will be not, permitted to hate. They want you to love Big Brother, and therefore you will not be permitted to hate him.

But hate is our birthright. Hate is part of what makes us human. Hate is an aspect of our free will. And if hate is outlawed, or worse, eliminated, there will be no moral basis for love.

Hate is a human right. The war on hate speech is a war on our humanity. #IStandWithHateSpeech

Real vs imaginary democracy

Another selection from my suffrage debate with Louise Mensch at Heat Street that I think is worth discussing:

Louise: Let’s start with the fact your argument is,  if women vote, it will have a given outcome that will move society to the left. On those grounds, you should surely object to voting of any description, including by men, because your argument appears to be that if the people vote a way that you don’t think that they should vote, this shouldn’t be allowed.

Your argument in fact, as logically stated just then, is not against women voting. It’s against democracy itself. You think that if people vote, in this case you think women should be banned because they’re more likely to vote left-wing. That is an argument saying that if somebody votes the wrong way, they should be banned from voting, which is of course itself an argument against democracy at all. What do you say to that?

Vox: I say that you are mis-applying it, because as I said, I support everyone voting in a direct democracy, because there everyone is directly expressing their own will, and whatever they get, they deserve. If we all vote to burn down our houses, and then we burn down our houses, yeah, there was no deception there. We all knew what we were getting in for, and we got it. What we’re talking about is representative democracy, which is by definition not democracy. We’ve already decided that we’re going to limit the will of the people.

Louise: No, we haven’t. The will of the people in a representative democracy, for example the United States, is that they choose, they have realized en bloc that it is too much to vote on every single decision directly. You’d have a referendum for everything from your local dog catcher to gun control, abortion, et cetera, and you’d presumably have as many referenda as people wanted to make motions. It doesn’t work.

In a representative democracy, the decision that the people are taking is we are going to elect you to exercise judgment for us in this way, right?

 Vox: No, but that was never made. This structure was imposed on us, and so no one has ever, there’s never been a referendum supporting this. There’s never been any votes for that, but the rules of the representative democracy are such that they are intentionally designed to limit and even eliminate democracy. For example, in California, when you saw Section 8 pass, and then it was overturned by the will of a single judge.

The whole system of representative democracy is to a certain extent a misnomer because it is actually entirely anti-democratic. The whole reason these structures, both on the parliamentary side and on the judicial side, is specifically designed to prevent democracy. Once you’ve accepted that principle of, “Okay, we’re going to limit democracy,” then it’s really a question of where you’re drawing the line. I’m just suggesting that a line should be drawn in a different place than it happens to be drawn today.

 Louise: But you are suggesting, you just said, which I don’t agree with, but you just said that representative democracy doesn’t equal to the will of the people, period, so you’re not really arguing against women having the vote. You’re arguing against anybody having the vote in representative democracy. You’re arguing for an anarchic … On the one hand you say you’d like to conserve things. On the other, you wish to tear down representative democracy, which would mean dismantling the entire United States’ constitution and system of government, because what you have just to women applies to everybody and everything.

If representative democracy is so bad, it can’t be okay, even if only men have the franchise.

Vox: But we’re talking about two different issues here. We’re talking about on the one hand a discussion within the context of representative democracy, and obviously it’s much more conceivable at this point in time to modify the rules of the existing system, and then we’re talking about completely trashing the system in favor of something else….

I would like to see the transition from representative democracy to a techno direct democracy simply because it’s possible now. Not only that, it’s actually entirely viable considering, at least in the United States, most of the so-called representative don’t even read the legislation that they vote on.

Louise: I can tell you, the fact is, again, just like I can speak to this, having been an elected representative. Those are incredibly complicated. It would in fact, while commentators often make this point, you rely on summations, as we all do, in order to understand what the bill is arguing. Otherwise, you would have to be a lawyer in order to be an effective politician, which I think it’s one of these canards.

“Oh, they didn’t read the bill.” The fact is that bills are written in highly legal language, and as a elected representative, the responsible thing to do is to read, understand, and familiarize yourself with a summary of a given bill, because only a lawyer can understand the ins and outs of the clauses in which legislation, and that’s why it’s called legislation, is written.

Now, before you comment on this, read this article about the Montana Supreme Court striking down legislation that was a) passed by the Montana State legislature, then b) passed by 80 percent of the Montana electorate.

The Montana Supreme Court has barred state officials from reporting the immigration status of people seeking state services, striking down the last piece of a voter-approved law meant to deter people who are in the U.S. illegally from living and working in Montana.

The court’s unanimous decision on Tuesday upholds a Helena judge’s 2014 ruling in a lawsuit that the law denying unemployment benefits, university enrollment and other services to people who arrived in the country illegally was unconstitutional.

The justices went further, rejecting the one remaining provision that required state workers to report to federal immigration officials the names of applicants who are not in the U.S. legally.

“The risk of inconsistent and inaccurate judgments issuing from a multitude of state agents untrained in immigration law and unconstrained by any articulated standards is evident,” Justice Patricia Cotter wrote in the opinion.

The Montana Legislature sent the anti-immigrant measure to the 2012 ballot, where it was approved by 80 percent of voters. The new law required state officials to check the immigration status of applicants for unemployment insurance benefits, crime victim services, professional or trade licenses, university enrollment and financial aid and services for the disabled, among other things.

Now, if you are so inclined, please attempt to defend “representative democracy”, which is observably neither representative nor democratic. And recall that you will receive neither points nor credit for citing the outdated “mob rule” objection which preceded these events by more than 200 years and quite clearly did not anticipate them.

The debate between direct democracy and so-called representative democracy is more accurately described as a debate between democracy and a deceptive parody thereof.

Nicolas Kristof admits left-wing intolerance

It’s a rather remarkable admission, considering the average left-liberal’s ability to deny the difference between black and white, between male and female, and between American and non-American:

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

The truth is that they don’t believe in what they claim to believe. They think they want La Raza, Muslims, and American Indians at the table, but they’d be scared out of their gourds if they actually believed that they weren’t going to do the driving.

I am increasingly certain that the white liberal-left simply has no idea whatsoever what is in store for it or what the consequences of its actions are going to be. This should not be a surprise, as they show very short time preferences in every other aspect of their thinking. They simply can’t think outside of their childish “America is white and strong and always will be, so Mommy and Daddy will save us if our stupidity gets us into trouble” mode.

Anyhow, it’s just as well they underestimate and fail to understand us. It will make it that much easier to move them out of the way when the real world finally comes home to roost.

A terrible peace

Robert E. Lee is supposed to have said, “It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it.” But when I look around at the wreckage of what now passes for Western culture, when I see the ongoing degradation and decline of Western civilization, I cannot help but think that perhaps peace is more terrible still.

Seventy years of relative peace and prosperity has made our young men hedonists and homosexuals, cravens and cowards who are more inclined to literally emasculate themselves than demonstrate even a modicum of courage. Seventy years of relative tranquility and safety has made our young women into shameless sluts and whores, barren harridans and harpies devoid of self-respect and self-control.

What has peace done for our morals, for our arts, for our sciences? What has peace done for our universities, for our churches, for our moribund civic and social institutions? What has peace done for our nations, invaded by pagans and barbarians and prostrated before them, too helpless to even complain, let alone resist? What has peace done for our minds, our souls, even our bodies, fat, bloated, soft, and weak?

Is it possible that too many generations of peace and pleasure have proven to be little more than an enervating cancer on our culture? Is it possible that peace is more terrible than war?

If these are the fruits of peace, then peace is a dreadful thing. If this is truly the best that peace has to offer, then for the sake of Man and Western civilization, let there be war.

Good rhetoric in action

To show how really good rhetoric works, notice how it can be summoned and utilized in a variety of ways to instantly shut down any rhetorical sally from the target.

Elizabeth Warren@elizabethforma
@realDonaldTrump: Your policies are dangerous. Your words are reckless. Your record is embarrassing. And your free ride is over.

John Cardillo ‏@johncardillo
Next Fauxcahontas will tell us that #Trump corrupted her people with Whiskey and rifles.

KABOOM! That’s the effect you are looking for. Notice that there is no attempt whatsoever to respond to the dialectical aspects of the sally, nor is one needed.

A tale of two rhetorics

Some of the white nationalists on Twitter have been remarkably sensitive over my observation that #whitegenocide is ineffective rhetoric. To be fair, most of them haven’t read either me or Aristotle and quite clearly don’t understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.

But even someone who doesn’t should be able to grasp the fact that the term SJW has proven to be far more rhetorically effective than the “white genocide” meme, and it has done so in far less time.

That is what the empirical difference between effective rhetoric and ineffective rhetoric looks like. Interestingly enough, there are some indications that “cuckservative” may be similarly limited, but it is probably too soon to tell. However, the fact that “cuckservative” is already utilized half as often as “white genocide” despite being around for less than one year tends to indicate that it, too, is a more effective term.

Regardless, it is important to remember that clinging to suboptimal tactics is one of the most effective ways to ensure one fails to accomplish one’s strategic goals.

Why #whitegenocide doesn’t work

The objectives of the white nationalists behind the #whitegenocide meme are laudable. They seek to defend the right of people of European descent to live, to maintain European cultures, and to preserve European nations. They seek to demonstrate that diversity is intrinsically anti-European. These are all very good, desirable, and for those of us who value Western civilization, true and necessary goals. Western civilization is a European construct.

But the #whitegenocide meme simply does not achieve its purpose, it does not work, because it is a misguided attempt to use dialectic in the place of rhetoric. This is obvious, because those who use that particular meme are always – always – having to rationally explain and justify it. And it can be justified rationally, at least to those with a reasonable grasp of history and sufficiently long time preferences. But that doesn’t make it good rhetoric.

As those who have read SJWAL know, the fact that something can be rationally justified is not only an entirely different question than whether something is rhetorically effective, it is a very strong indicator that the meme in question is not rhetorically effective due to the fact that it is clearly not rhetoric at all. One does not persuade the emotions through the use of logic.

When people think of “genocide”, of what do they think? What is the one single word that immediately springs to mind when someone says “genocide” to you? It’s not “Holocaust”, it’s not “Jews”, it’s not “Rwanda”, it is “bodies”. We are all programmed to think of stacks of bodies, limp and scrawny and robbed of all dignity, when we hear the word “genocide”.

Well, where are the white bodies? They don’t exist. So, to make the connection between the term “genocide” and the serious problem of the 50-year assault on the various European nations and cultures requires an abstract leap, and what is worse, an abstract leap that ignores the instinctive emotional connection. So, #whitegenocide fails because it is not rhetoric at all, it is pure dialectic that predictably fails to move the emotions.

Contrast, in comparison, this ad for The Man in the High Castle which was quickly pulled because it was inadvertently serving as effective propaganda for the very ideas and peoples it was attempting to denigrate. It was run with the hashtag #whatifwelost.

What if we lost? That snapshot of a supposedly scary future looks like a considerable improvement on 21st century America, in which single white mothers raise irreligious, low-IQ, racially-mixed bastards in tenements without support from the children’s fathers, most people are up to their eyeballs in debt with less than $400 in savings, no one under the age of 40 can afford to buy a home, and it is illegal to fly the American flag lest it harm the tender sensibilities of young Aztec invaders.

Remember, the best rhetoric is based on truth. In this case, the effectiveness was rooted in the truths being communicated emotionally regardless of what the creator’s intentions were. With the rise of tribal politics, the Alt Right, and Trump shattering the Overton Window, something that looks very much like that, less the swastikas, will be a successful campaign ad within a decade.

As #GamerGate has demonstrated, the best memes are visual rather than verbal and they appeal to the emotions rather than to the intellect. They should be positive rather than negative, radiating confidence and certainty rather than fear and doubt. Some of the best memes I’ve seen are those produced by female white nationalists, which tend to feature pretty blonde white women in traditional dresses with white children; women respond to them with either palpable longing or instinctive rage.

The exact terminology doesn’t matter. Both #GamerGate and #NotYourShield were successful hashtags. The Young Swedish Democrats slogan “Europe Belongs to Us” is remarkably stirring. So, I would suggest that white nationalists use hashtags such as #WhiteAmerica, #WhiteWest, and #Whatifwewon, combined with positive imagery, if they want to gain more traction among those who value Western civilization and find white people attractive. Another option would be #WAGA, or White America Great America, which would be an effective spinoff of the Trumpean #MAGA.

Now, I think self-identified white nationalists have a challenge in front of them, in that only in America does a singular “white nationalism” really mean anything; in Europe the various white nationalisms are entirely distinct, and indeed, this is part of the problem that the many American Indian nations failed to surmount. That is why they would do well to endorse all nationalisms from America to Zion; I am an avowed Red Nationalist myself, and I suspect even the most rabid white nationalist has no problem with sovereign Indian reservations.

It is hard, after all, to argue with “France for the French, Israel for the Jews, America for the Americans.” The globalists can only win – assuming that is even possible, which it probably isn’t – if the various nationalists fail to ally against them. That is why “nationalism” is such a scary word to them, whereas they love nothing better than to accuse people of “white nationalism” or “white supremacy”.

The dank memes are important too, of course, and that is where the “Immigration is Rape Culture” sort of attacks are effective. But they are most effective when they attack undesirable consequences rather than specific groups of people. In general, when it comes to rhetoric, it is best to be direct in defense, indirect in attack. Consider how #GamerGate seldom aimed memes at Gawker or Kotaku or Polygon, but at the lack of ethics in game journalism, which everyone knew applied to Gawker, Kotaku, and Polygon.

White people have the unalienable right to live in white societies if they so choose. That right is called free association, and diversity, multiculturalism, and immigration are all anti-Constitutional, anti-American attacks on that. As an American Indian, I hope enough of them are wise enough to exercise that right before they, too, are forced upon their own Trail of Tears amidst the shattered remnants of Western Civilization.

If you want to learn more about the difference between dialectic and rhetoric, and how to make effective use of the latter, I strongly recommend reading my book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police. It has an entire chapter devoted to the subject.

America is not an idea

And Americans are not proposition people:

The concept of American Exceptionalism is one that on its face would seem to be a healthy one, which is what makes it so pernicious. In practice, American Exceptionalism is a favourite idea of the Glenn Beck crowd. Often what this belief comes down to is that the rules that apply to every country on the planet don’t apply to America, because there’s a piece of paper with ink on it in Washington that claims so.

America isn’t bound by blood like every other nation on the planet. Ethnicity and race may matter everywhere from England to China, but not in America. America, you see, is an exception to these rules, because America was a country created by ideas put forward by the founders. America is a proposition nation, they will tell you. Ideas built America.

This seems to me to be quite the concept! I wonder what it would look like to see Liberty and Equality running around Boston in 1750. How would the Declaration of Independence have managed to push further and further westward, trekking through miles of dense forest, weathering the rain and the snow and the hail, civilizing what was in in effect barren wilderness? What a sight it would be to see ideas clearing forest, laying down railroads, and building canals! I can’t say I have ever seen anything so incredible, but perhaps I would if I took a trip to the propositional nation to the south of me.

Yet, somehow, I doubt it. What mainstream conservatives have largely forgotten is that ideas can shape societies and peoples, but they don’t create them.

It would have been vastly preferable if the Founding Fathers had stuck to the original term – the Rights of Englishmen – rather than trying to make them sound universal for the purposes of rhetoric.

Just to give one example, those who don’t believe in the existence of a Creator God cannot possibly appeal to unalienable rights that stem from Him.

Of enthymemes and false erudition

First, Philalethes observes that my use of rhetoric was, indeed, effective:

VD’s original use of “Aztec” in the WND article was effective rhetoric, the Slate author’s snarky reference to it was at least attempted rhetoric, and then VD’s present response was also rhetoric, by the clever tactic of twisting the poignard out of her hand and stabbing her back with it. For me, it worked quite well, whether or not it was based on an enthymeme (about which I knew nothing until tonight).

Which is the point: either rhetoric draws blood, or it does not. Maybe for Mr. Camestros it did not, but that’s all he can legitimately say about it – though his effort to destroy the rhetoric by dialectic would appear to show that he is at least aware that this device did and would draw blood in the minds of most readers. So in sum I must agree that all Mr. Camestros has accomplished here is to make a fool of himself with his attempt to speak magisterially from the high seat on a subject about which he obviously knows less than does the person at whom he is aiming his barb.

Second, I will explain how the now-banned Camestros Felapton either badly misrepresented, or simply failed to understand, Aristotle’s fundamental distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, as well as the purpose of the latter. He’s rather like a tactician who doesn’t grasp strategy, as he seems to have a basic knowledge of the technical aspects without understanding their basic purpose or how they can be utilized:

I know what an enthymeme is, thank you, which is why I re-expressed your enthymeme as a formal syllogism with premises. I do so to highlight what your un-expressed major premise was. Put another way, what was the underlying assumption that you were appealing to in your rhetorical device.

That assumption appears to be this:
“People who are part-X are not people who are paranoid about X” Which is best described using the technical term ‘bollocks’.

If your response is an ‘effective’ one then it is because your audience is accepting that assumption as being correct.

An enthymeme has UNSTATED premises (or conclusion). The premises and/or
conclusion are suggested or implied (in the non-logical sense of
‘implied’). You seem to be thinking that ‘unstated’ means ‘logically do
not exist’. That is incorrect. With an enthymeme the reader is expected
to ‘fill in the gaps’. This is why I asked you what your premises were
so as to re-express your enthymeme as a formal syllogism.

This initially made me suspect that Felapton was simply being dishonest. The reason he wanted me to translate the rhetoric into dialectic, and complete the formal syllogism, was so he could criticize it from a logical perspective and thereby discredit it in an attempt to persuade others to believe Slate’s claim that I am paranoid about Aztecs. (Which was, in itself, merely another step towards his real purpose.) He was pushing me to state the unstated because an enthymeme does not only contain unstated premises, but those premises are often incorrect from the purely logical perspective. This is why Aristotle gave this type of syllogism a different name and devoted considerable effort to defining and explaining how it worked, because otherwise it would be nothing more than an incomplete syllogism.

Consider one example provided by Wikipedia:

“Candide is a typical French novel, therefore it is vulgar.”

In this case, the missing term of the syllogism is “French novels are vulgar” and might be an assumption held by an audience that would make sense of the enthymematic argument.

Now, obviously not all French novels are vulgar, so therefore, Felapton would argue that the syllogism fails logically and is incorrect. That is why he was trying to get me to state the unstated premise of my Aztec enthymeme, so that he could attack it dialectically. But as I pointed out, the syllogism was an enthymematic argument, not a logical argument, and therefore his attempt to logically disqualify it was totally irrelevant. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the book he has not read, there is zero information content in rhetoric; it is not designed to inform and persuade, but emotionally convict and persuade, because, as Aristotle correctly informs us, many people cannot be persuaded by information.

This is the point that Felapton fails to grasp, and his subsequent comment tends to indicate that it is not merely dishonesty on his part, but also a genuine failure to understand the distinction between rhetoric and dialectic that underlies his incorrect statements on the subject.

A great place for you to start to get a better understanding of the role of enthymeme in general and its relationship with logic would be Aristotle’s rhetoric itself. I think you perhaps have misunderstood the distinction as somehow rhetoric (in Aristotle’s sense) as being utterly divorced from logic. If so then the word you are looking for is not ‘rhetoric’ but ‘bullshit’. Substituting the word ‘bullshit’ for ‘rhetoric’ in your response, renders it a better description for what you seem to be trying to say.

However, Aristotle did not advance the notion of rhetoric as BS or sophistry but as an art of persuasion but persuasion towards TRUTH by rational means.

“It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.

The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic.”

What Felapton clearly fails to understand here is that the fact a highly skilled dialectician will also be skilled in the use of rhetoric only means that the best and most effective rhetoric is constructed in a similar manner and is in line with the truth. It absolutely does not mean that the use of enthymematic arguments that are not in line with the truth are not rhetoric, for the obvious reason that there would be no difference between a syllogism presented for dialectical purposes and an enthymeme presented for rhetorical purposes. But the two related concepts are intrinsically different and we know why. Consider Aristotle’s additional observations:

  • Persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have
    proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive
    arguments suitable to the case in question. 
  • The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such
    matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in
    the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated
    argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning.
  • It is evident, therefore, that the propositions
    forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be “necessary,” will
    most of them be only usually true.
  • We must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides
    of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both
    ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order
    that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man
    argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of
    the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do
    this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially.
    Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well
    to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are
    better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and
    easier to believe in.

In other words, Felapton has confused Aristotle’s admonition to use rhetoric in the service of the truth with Aristotle’s definitions of what rhetoric is as well as with his instructions on how to use rhetoric effectively. In fact, Aristotle makes it clear that both dialectic and rhetoric can be used impartially on either side of an argument, although it is much easier to identify the deceptive use of dialectic due to its reliance on complete syllogisms and strict logic than it is the deceptive use of rhetoric due to its incomplete structure and its reliance on apparent truths that are accepted by the audience.

What Felapton calls “bollocks” and “bullshit” is nothing more than what Aristotle calls “apparent truth”. But, as we have seen, rhetoric can rely upon these apparent truths just as readily as upon actual truths. And in this particular application, my rhetoric, even structurally reliant as it is upon apparent truth rather than actual truth, is more persuasive, and therefore more effective, than Slate’s rhetoric, in part for the obvious reason that it is absolutely true.

There is no room for false modesty

Not where genius is concerned:

Keyboardist Morris Hayes arrived at Paisley Park as a production assistant. Under Prince’s tutelage, he eventually became not just a member of the New Power Generation but the band’s most senior member.

“I was just one of those church cats that played music by ear, so at first it was very difficult for me to keep up. We wouldn’t just learn one song, we’d learn a string of songs, and when we’d come back the next day I’d forget some. I remember he pulled me to the side and said, ‘Are you a genius, Morris?’ I said no. ‘O.K., then write it down. I don’t write it down ‘cause I’m a genius. I’ve got a million of ‘em, and I can remember. But unless you’re a genius, write it down.’ He gave you that extreme focus, where you knew you had to really come with it.”

It’s fascinating that unlike so many gifted individuals, Prince was able to coach less talented and help them improve. I wonder if that might have had something to do with his early relationship with Andre Cymone, his friend from junior high and member of both Grand Central and The Revolution, of whom it was said that he could play everything Prince could play, but only if Prince showed him how to do it first. Speaking of which, this article about his performance at the 2004 ceremony honoring George Harrison tends to support that anecdote as well as put both both his performance and his demeanor in context.

I had no idea that Prince was going to be there. Steve Winwood said, “Hey, Prince is over there.” And I said, “I guess he’s playing with us?”

So I said to Winwood, “I’m going to go over and say hello to him.” I wandered across the stage and I went up to him and I said, “Hi, Prince, it’s nice to meet you — Steve Ferrone.” And he said, “Oh, I know who you are!” Maybe because I’d played on Chaka Khan’s “I Feel for You,” which is a song that he wrote. I went back over and I sat down behind the drum kit, and Winwood was like: “What’s he like? What’d he say?”

Then I was sitting there, and I heard somebody playing a guitar riff from a song that I wrote with Average White Band. And I looked over and Prince was looking right at me and playing that song. And I thought, “Yeah, you actually do know who I am!”

I was actually more surprised that Prince had ever heard anything played by a band called Average White Band than at the fact he would remember a riff from it and be able to play it from memory. But then, they were pretty funky and even I would recognize “Pick up the Pieces”, so I suppose that makes sense.

My favorite part of the Harrison tribute article is how the clueless lead guitarist kept playing the Clapton solos in rehearsal and Prince didn’t make a fuss. He just strummed along, waited for someone else tell the guy to back off, then waited until they were on stage to show him how it’s done. Prince being Prince, I strongly suspect it was his quiet annoyance at the guy’s earlier failure to know his place that drove the unusual nature of his performance that night, particularly because he told the producer to let the guy go ahead and play the middle solo.


“Look, let this guy do what he does, and I’ll just step in at the end. For the end solo, forget the middle solo.”

That wasn’t just genius being expressed on that stage, it was also the contempt of a genius for mere talent and skill. Hey, even geniuses sometimes require motivation.