Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Soviets and the Pharaohs

In what meaningful respect was the Soviet Union--and particularly that ideal of the Soviet Union, as a "dictatorship of the proletariat", where everyone but a small elite was the proletariat--different morally from Pharaoahonic Egypt?  Lenin was in fact preserved in a major public monument in a prominent public space.  He was embalmed using 20th century technology, and placed on display in a pyramid of sorts.

In both cases you have masses of slaves operating as cogs in a massive centrally planned economic machine.  You have reminders everywhere of the power of the rulers.  In Egypt they are carved into stone, and in the Soviet Union they are posted on walls, broadcast on the radio, and yes, shown in  public monuments.  Pictures of the ruler are everywhere in the Soviet Union, and he is more or less worshipped.  Failure to do courts arrest, torture, and/or death and/or exile.

I would stipulate that high/low is a primitive construct, one rooted in ancient biology, and made vastly worse by the capacity for abstraction unique to humans.

It is circles we should seek.  A church has a high/low, and a front/back.  There is an authority implied by the masses facing one way, and a ceremonial superior facing back, from an elevated place, where they claim to act as God's agent.

Egalitarianism uses the circle rhetorically, but intends the church.

I think most of us can accept the myth--and I intend here a deep symbolic reality which I lack the historical knowledge to tie certainly to known physical realities--of primitive tribes around the world sitting in circles and talking.  Perhaps there is a Chief, and perhaps he sits in a place of honor, but he is in the same circle.  Once there is a Lord, and he faces outward, then primitive simplicity has been lost.

The circle is my own vision for the future.  If you think about it, the internet is in some respects an endless series of circles.

Victim is the new black.

Friday, September 23, 2016


There is a profound difference between "I have a path", and "you must follow my path."

I might say we all wonder through the woods in our own way.  We cross the endless eddies and currents of the sea in our own way.  A path is an evolving thing.  You can feel it being created, but you are not exactly the one doing it.  That is why, while you have influence, it is more like it is being made for you.

It seems to me that the universe is an endless concatenation of Rube Goldberg devices, where many critical junctures are Schroedinger's Cat sorts of indeterminacies, that only come into being once a decision is made.

And it seems to me that the path of wisdom, and the fundamental method for dealing with and embracing change, which is our main task in this life, is treating this universe as interesting.  How UNEXPECTED.  I did not see that coming.  Well, this is interesting.  Where is the opportunity?  How can I surf this wave and enjoy it?

People who need you to do what they are doing have not, at root, found their OWN path.  They have not connected experientially with the ebbs and flows of life, and learned to interact with them in creative ways.  The compulsion to push others should likely, at the end of the day, be seen as a covert method of pushing oneself into something you don't want either.  It is a way of pushing away fear.

I find myself speculating on this with difficulty, because I have never felt, as far as I can recall, any need to force my views on anyone else.  I persuade continually--indeed I argued continually about everything for many years, and still do sometimes--but I certainly don't want to be copied.

Les Deplorables

It occurs to me Trump is having fun in this campaign.  Like most people, I instinctively like and tend to trust to a certain point people who know how to have fun.  It implies at a minimum they are not OCD ideologues, and at best a generosity of spirit and outlook, that I think does genuinely characterize Trump.

Obama comes across as a sour-faced scold, does he not?  Whatever the words he is given, he always turns them into a lecture about how bad you are and how good he is.  Trump is more like "life's great!!!  Come join me on the podium."


I was pondering today that final healing from the sorts of wounds that get expressed as addictions requires understanding the part of you that pushed you into those behaviors.  It is not mental understanding.  It is not describing what happened.

What it is is finding a qualitative gestalt within yourself, an array of sensations and feelings and thoughts, all conjured together in a sort of knot in your nervous system, contacting this gestalt, and doing Kum Nye with it: you contact the whole thing, enter into it, merge it with the breath, and expand it.

What I felt tonight doing my practice is that this part is inherently something that has had internal violence done to it, over and above the violence that created the initial traumatization.

Think about it: when something horrible happens, especially when you are a kid, and especially when it was done by cold and thoughtless, or even intentionally cruel parents or other people supposed to protect you, you still have to function.  You still have to show up to life, even though it terrifies you.  You have to go to school.  You have to be a good boy or girl, and continue to do what you are told.

How do you do this?  Push the pain back in the hole.  This is violence.  This is a separation made necessary by the need to survive.

You know what?  That is exactly what Tom Waits is talking about here:

The Devil: he has a string in all of us that can be plucked, and it is a long time before it stops vibrating. For some, it never does.

Healing, then, is done with compassion.  It involves communicating to this part that as imperfect as your psychological command and control structure is, as imperfect as agency necessarily is when dissociation is present, that you will do your best never to act out in anger to this part, and to include it in your thoughts and prayers, to take it with you wherever you go, and to spend time with it, talking.

I am in the final stages of this healing, and I'm trying to figure out how to approach it.  This is what makes the most sense to me at the moment, and I thought I would share.  I hope it does someone some good.


It seems to me that tolerance is a mid-point between enmity and understanding.  You don't speak of tolerating people you love.  There is a continuum between close friend and enemy.  Somewhere in the middle a modus vivendi can be crafted by the wise.

And as I ponder it, it seems to me what the word is INTENDED to connote is a situation in which the behavior of someone is mildly or greatly bothering you, but you choose to tolerate it, to put up with it, to let it be and let it go, because it is either not worth making the fuss, or because on a level of principle you have decided not to allow your own feelings about something to cause you to react with social or physical violence.  Putting up with flag burners as a matter of principle would be an example.

Here is the key point: if there is no internal friction, that is not tolerance.  And in this regard I would differentiate psychologically mature tolerance from the childlike and irresponsible version on full view in Europe and large segments of America.

Tolerance is "I have feelings and habits, and you have different feelings and habits, but we can still get along in peace."  This is mature.  This is Liberal.

What the Left--what paid and professional agitators funded by that demonic wart George Soros and his ilk--do, is they say "you don't get any feelings.  If you object, we will shout at you, insult you, attempt to marginalize you, and throw hate at you."

Anyone who accepts this proposal is displaying a profound lack of psychological boundaries, of mature defenses, of personal agency, of moral discipline. You have submitted your own ego to the control of mutable Others.  This, again, is what happens with the headless ones, as I call them.  It does not lead to genuine tolerance, real peace, or any form of meaningful happiness.

Today's thoughts

OCD is anxiety with a terminus. It is a way of regularly grounding the Lightning.

Could we call leftists Hydrophobes?  They are afraid of the concept of purity, and of deep feeling, and it is a synonym for rabid.

I was listening to The Doors the other day and noticing Jim Mortison talked about freedom a lot. Most of the counterculture did back then. They don't now. Rather than doing their own thing, they all do the same thing and feel entitled to demand the same if he rest of us.

If I were President, I would schedule a low key, informal meeting of the worlds leaders, and see if we couldn't figure out some map to a future all of us would want to live in. The people "planning" our future don't like most of us. I like America, but see no reason to pick fights. How can we all get along together? How can world leaders build effective and real friendships?

Thursday, September 22, 2016


I am increasingly realizing that pendulating my own trauma is quite necessary--in and out, in and out--but that dealing with other peoples emotions requires some complex, intuitive coming in and out too.

There is benefit to sympathy, to feeling what others feel. But we also live in a world where something is tugging on this sense continually, every day, and most moments of that day.  If you look, you can find, as you choose, something to gratify, horrify, sadden, or gladden you, each and every day.

To my mind it is superficial to focus ONLY on the positive.  And it is masochistic to focus only on the negative.  It is possible to process both, without a large distance, but with some distance.  You see it, you acknowledge it, but you are not compelled to feel the obvious feelings.  Your feelings are your own.  My feelings are my own.

Maturity--boundary protecting--in this world requires the ability to recognize, to see, to process, to not overlook, what other people are feeling, without also getting caught up in it.

I saw this clearly today.


Math represents a static order. Nothing is in motion. No spontaneous evolution is possible.

Complexity represents order in motion. It is inherently robust and resilient as an order.

Imposed orders are inherently unresilient and weak. That is why on going coercion is necessary.

Many intellectuals--this is indeed perhaps the defining attribute of their cognitive depravities--want to use the mathematical model, the static model, in order to understand systems in motion. Such is the Marxian Dialectic Materialism. Such is the concept of "structural" white privilege. No such thing "exists". It is posited as a static trait of moving objects.

I would assert that any system you can understand fully is not complex.

Given that the vanity of these emotion driven talking heads is that THEY can understand the world, the tendency is virtually irresistible to want to hack the world into simpler pieces, to satisfy weak egos driven by anxiety ridden minds and in general weak and clumsy bodies.

I value strength. Very little good comes from weakness, whereas much good comes with disciplined strength.

Complexity, moral decline and the Left

It occurs to me that the fundamental project of all authoritarians--and variants of the Leftist pathology are recorded early on in Chinese history, where they had de facto Communo-fascists ( to be clear, the rulers are never equal to the people in any authoritarian system by definition, so a devout dictatorship is equal to the results Communists always achieve in reality, if not in rhetoric, which is to say propaganda)--is to decrease systemic complexity.  Reducing the number of people empowered as individual agents inherently makes the system less complex, less robust, less interesting.

Early on, all aspiring tyrants learn they have to pander to the people until they get the weapons of the government under their control, and directed at a disarmed populace (guns, it occurs, to me, add complexity as well: to the extent they are distributed evenly they equate in some respects to distributed physical power).

Socialists of course appeal directly to greed: everybody wants more of everything, with less work.  They appeal latently to people's sense of envy and resentment.  But of course this always fails.  Other peoples money runs out.  The promises can't be kept, even if an echo chamber can be created between the government, community "leaders", and the media, saying "everything is great, everything is wonderful."

But what can be enlisted in their service, which has no practical limit?  Self pity.  Grievance.  The sense that the world owes you something, and that this is a moral claim, and that you can and should feel righteous anger at everyone who is not like you.  This justifies failure. It justifies lack of effort.  It nurtures the latent narcissism in weak people, and grants them a sense of self esteem which feels like the real thing, but which hasn't been earned in any way.  It mobilizes anger, and makes it politically useful.  Because after all, the people proclaiming your victimhood MUST have your best interests at heart, right?  Right?

Of course not, jackasses.  Don't be so fucking stupid.

It seems as well to me that a primary spiritual goal in most religions is inner peace; finding tranquility in an unfair, often hostile, unreliable and difficult world.  We read most these days about "fulfillment" and "meaning", since these are needs, too, which seemingly are more important than peace, since for most of us life is, if anything, too easy, certainly in comparison with the lives of most of those 100 years ago and on back into prehistory.

But as far as peace, in what does it consist?  Systematically reducing the number of things which "trigger" you.  If someone offers you anger, offer them peace.  If someone wrongs you, deal with it without resentment.  Much of Christianity is about not being triggered, and using that as a path to deep, soul level relaxation.

So logically, if building inner peace consists in reducing your triggers, then the opposite would both be increasing the number of things that trigger you, and systematically seeking not to learn how to deal with it, but to change the outer world to reflect your inner disharmony and weakness.

Virtue, as I see it, is nothing but a reflection of psychological laws which exist at the level of instinct, body, and spiritual awareness.  It is not a set of rules for what you "must" do--I have in mind here both old notions of an ontologically rooted morality, and the more modern "angels on the head of a needle" versions of streetcars and quests for "perfect" moral decisions in complex perceptual environments--so much as rules of the game if you want to win at life.

Have a simple code.  Live by it.  Understand some failures are likely if not inevitable.

My own:

Reject self pity


Be Curious.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016


It seems to me that the answer to nearly all political and social questions is "more complexity".  "More freedom" is implied, but complexity is the point of freedom.

I had a relevant experience today, but without sharing it, I will ask: would you want to live in a world completely, utterly, systematically, deprived of apparent randomness?  Do you want to live in a world where nothing unexpected ever happens?

Me: fuck, fuck no.  Whatever happened to me--and in a nutshell something unexpected happened and I reacted as an asshole, because that is my default--I interrogated, and asked: what was that about?  And I got an interesting and unexpected answer.  This could not have happened, if something unexpected had not happened.

Most of Taoism can be summarized as a plea from the 6th century BC for complexity, and Hayekian Extended Orders.  Perfect morality is inherently flawed.  We have prisms through which this makes complete sense.  Fuck: observation will do.

Monday, September 19, 2016


Would it not make more sense to speak of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Islam, than "radical" Islam?  All the so-called radicals do is read the Koran and take it literally.

The Ultra-Orthodox would be those who carry out killings in the name of Islam, and the Orthodox those who cannot find it within themselves to say it is wrong.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Jerry Maguire

Nobody can complete you.  But they can give you permission to complete yourself, and many people wait all their lives for that permission, which they mistakenly think they need.

The play of relation

I used to spend a lot of time in bars.  I still do sometimes.  A bar is a place where you can go to numb your pain with alcohol, and usually be surrounded by people who feel the same need, who you can frequently talk to.  I took a while off from bars--I did give up drinking for a while, but it does still seem to have some role to play in my life--but went to two yesterday.

This morning I woke up feeling something was different yesterday, and it hit me: I was more emotionally present than I used to be.  Most people, everywhere, in all circumstances, approach other people with some sort of need.  They might need to feel understood, or validated, or sexually desirable.  They might want to use someone for something--for short term companionship, for sex, for money, for a favor of some sort.  Many people are simply in the habit of being around people and being with nearly anyone makes the feeling of solitude--the one that calls up a host of unwanted and "exiled" emotions--go away.

So two people start talking.  Both have latent agendas, even if they don't process it that way.  Both know that to talk you have to listen, but their listening becomes a hiatus in their talking.  They are secretly focusing on that one cool story or point that they just have to make in response.

Most people, when they are interacting, are doing so selfishly.  I don't say this as an intrinsically bad thing.  It is inevitable in some respects.

In past posts I have spoken to our animal nature, our instinctual similarities to primates.  What I want to be clear is that we are not BOUND by our past, and our present biology.  What we need to recognize is what is THERE, so we can grow beyond it.  We are not chimpanzees.  They lack the ability to grow beyond their own nature, at least as a matter of conscious planning born in abstract thought.  We have this ability, especially over time.

Who are two people who approach a relationship of any length playfully, without an agenda?  They are cocreators of something new and interesting.  Rather than think of what you want, or even what the other person wants, you just see what happens.

It seems to me that both need and compassion--if compassion is a need, as I have argued it can be and often is, where people NEED to be needed--make us blind.  We do not SEE the person in front of this.  At a deep level, I have in mind Martin Bubers I and Thou, "Ich und du".

It seems to me that many of us are habituated to approaching others with some sort of purpose in mind, with some sort of pulling or pushing in mind.  But what if you are two balloons who touch in the wind?

Saturday, September 17, 2016


First off, those last two posts (which I just deleted) were me drinking. I still do that.  I make no apologies: it remains a needed tonic.

I have gotten through and reached the primal texture of my pain.  I am not depressed, or anxious. I am in pain.  It is the pain of a decisive disconnection from my mother and the possibility of nurturance that happened many years ago.

This is the sequence: intellectualism, then behind that numbness (which can and does lead periodically to depression), then behind that anxiety and anger (with the expression of anger an excellent way to disperse anxiety, with of course many negatives in train), then behind that the main show: pain.

Being able to confront and feel this pain is a major step.  It is the only way to dissolve it.

The point I wanted to make though is that I think the capacity for nuance is the most important marker of social and emotional health.  Either/or is driven by a primitive part of the brain.  Our social brains are capable of so much more.

And specifically I was contemplating a notion I will call "social distance", which is the idea that your human relations, the people you know, should exist on a continuum for you, consciously.  Immediate family should be closest, followed by close friends, followed by long term acquaintances, followed by people who think and act like you, followed by your community,  followed by your fellow countrymen and women, followed by everyone else.

And within all these categories degrees of connection are possible.

The point I would make is that if all social connections must first be run through an abstract filter of political correctness, then the possibility of spontaneous and open intimacy is lost or greatly reduced.  It is affected, certainly.  And the original political correctness was Christianity itself, which classified everyone into saved and sinner.

The Germans kept Du and Sie.  The French, tu and vous.  The English did not.  They use the formal You for everyone.

To a great extent, I think human beings are wired for chimpanzee like social connections, with instinctual capacities for understanding relations on an extended basis: family, friends, rival clans, etc.

The singular contribution of the English (I am no student of philosophical history, nor do I want to be, but I have in mind the English Parliamentary system and Locke's "life, liberty and property")  was to make human beings abstractions, and to grant them all the same rights in principle.  This is logical, and I think salutary, but I think it also is a root of that academic condition they like to call modernity.

I look out my window and I see homes and apartments with TV's, with nuclear families, with nothing like the connection to extended family that most humans have experiences for most of our history.  There are many exceptions of course, but most American families are very split up: husband and wife, and children and parents and grandparents.

I think abstraction has conquered the landscape.  The ostensible rallying cries are freedom and economic prosperity, but I wonder what we have lost.  I say this as someone who often feels lonely, but who carries the maddening burden of being unable to imagine connection the way other people do.  This is something I will figure out--AM figuring out--with my body, with my instincts, with what arises naturally and spontaneously, but I cannot resist the comfort of framing it intellectually.

Again, this is a sort of pendulation for me.  Now, time to go back into silence.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016


Best line: "Despite her unshakable reputation for being dishonest and untrustworthy. . ."

Monday, September 12, 2016


Ten thousand things come before I.

Sunday, September 11, 2016


Remembering in my own way, I am going to relink the recent article published in the journal of the European Physical Society, which is the professional society for working physicists, which argues that there is no possible way that all three buildings were brought down in the manner claimed. One building collapsed at near free fall velocity despite not being hit by a plane at all.

Their concluding thoughts: 

"the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities."

I will comment that over the years, many military professionals, architects, firefighters, pilots, and others have come forward and called bullshit on the dominant narrative.

Here, for example, is Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

Here is Military Officers for 9/11 Truth:

Comments from 34 year Air Force veteran who retired as a full Colonel:

"In my first position paper, titled The Precautionary Principle, [see below] written shortly after the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon, I cautioned readers against a rush to judgment, although the immediate evidence suggested the crime had been an inside job. As the years went by, a virtual mountain of physical evidence was collected by hundreds of highly qualified investigators -- evidence sufficient to convince any dedicated Grand Jury that the horrendous events of 9/11 were clearly an inside job. The Precautionary Principle no longer applies. It is time to positively conclude that a well-orchestrated and obviously pre-planned cover-up of the worst mass murder in our country's history began immediately following the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. Nearly nine years later [this was written in 2010] the criminal cover-up continues. Fortunately for our country, our judicial system provides no statute of limitations for treason, first degree murder, and terrorism."

Reverse Gerrymandering

If you think about it, the current apparent policy of Obama in not just allowing illegal immigration, but seemingly facilitating and directing it, could be seen as reverse gerrymandering.  Instead of redrawing lines to include the groups you want, you take the groups you want--and illegals are happy to land anywhere--to the places where you need votes.

As a general rule, Latin American countries have chosen for most of their history, since they've had the vote, to try and vote themselves other people's money.  This never works, so strongmen have been a part of the landscape off and on in most countries for most of the past 100-150 years.

Mexicans who come here illegally can be assumed to favor the same policies which destroyed their own country.  And those policies are those espoused by the Democrats.

I agree with many observers that if this policy is ratified by law--and supported by a newly Left-wing stacked Supreme Court--the rule of law in this country will have been dealt a final blow.

And we need to be clear, clever Fascists--and Hillary and those around her are definitely clever--keep a surface sanity, and an outward appearance of fairness and gentility.  But people start getting arrested, and the media does not report on it.  Judges start sentencing people for fictitious crimes, and it all appears legitimate.

Even in Nazi Germany, even in fascistic Communist nations, trials were still held.  The outward appearances of justice were maintained.  All crimes were justified in the complicit, prostrate press.

Take something as simple as Hitler's invasion of Poland.  He had a number of prisoners executed, dressed in Polish Army uniforms, and dropped on the German side of the border.  He then claimed the Polish had attacked Germany.

This is a dangerous time.  It is foolish to deny it. I am going to start volunteering for the Trump campaign this week, and donating what money I have.

Friday, September 9, 2016


It occurred to me this morning that obsession is order without complexity.  It is an order based necessarily on exact repetition.  If the repetition is not exact, then the order, and sense of belonging in that order, is lost.

As animals, we are meant to live in relatively stable worlds where something new sometimes intrudes.  Healthy people both welcome novelty and appreciate sameness and continuity.

But it is hard to overstate both the shock of going from a state of believing in God, and God's messengers and representatives, to that of hating or disbelieving in God, and being therefore cast from the previous order.  It is a form of trauma.

And if we take as exemplars the nihilists of the French Revolution, or the actual Nihilists, who give us that name, whose progeny facilitated the Bolshevik Coup, what we see is that their eyes were dulled by "not-belonging" and that destruction became their obsession.

The goal of the Soviets, and the French before them, and frankly since, has been to first attack belief in God and church, then family, then community, then nation, then culture.  It has been to deny humans--who are connection-seeking creatures by nature, from finding anything available to attach to, at least once they have been indoctrinated.

Necessarily, on a biological level, this leads to obsession as an ersatz-order, and specifically a Leftist obsession.  By design, it is all that is left, and because it is not a natural order,because the people inhabiting it are not emotionally or socially present--trauma is in the very DNA of the disease--there is nothing real to cling to.  And so compulsion enters, and specifically the compulsion to repeat.

And it is not a compulsion to repeat the same things.  When a Catholic says the Hail Mary, he or she typically finds comfort in it.  It is a long tradition.  They are thereby connected to the past and presumably the future, and a very wide present which extends over much of the world.

But Leftist compulsion is oriented, daily, around the expression of tribal solidarity through hatred.  As I say, it is a simple order lacking in complexity.

To be clear, a modern factory has as its goal zero defects, no mistakes.  But all factories are still formally complex systems, into which the new and strange can and does still intrude.  So too with human life, but to the very great extent that the factory is the model for modern social life, with perfect safety, perfect replication, perfect reliability in all systems the goal, then we have to understand that the obsession of the Left is with banishing all inconsistency, all intrusions of the truly complex, into their maniacal world.

From this basic process, one can derive Soviet Russia, and Jacobin France, Pol Pot, and the artificial famine of Mao.  One can derive the Daily Cause, and the corruption of people like Arianna Huffington who once likely with justice considered themselves Liberals.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The shadow

I've been making some solid progress in integrating myself in recent days.  We are meant to be meshed together, the threads which compose us a unitary whole, even while separate.  Many of us are ripped apart, and conversations and understandings needed between our parts.

Today during my Kum Nye practice I had that scene come up from The Shining, where the beautiful naked woman becomes a twisted and sickening hag.  I felt the feelings of disgust and revulsion that came up, and I kept the two images in my mind, and asked: who were you before?

And it hit me I had a before too, that I have evil in me too, but that every psychopath on this planet has a before.  Being good is natural, and it is pain that pushes us in other directions.

And it hit me that it is not our ego which suppresses our dark side.  It is commonly supposed that our vanity keeps us from self knowledge.  It isn't: it is pain.  You cannot know who you are without feeling how you became that way, and if it was overwhelming and happened when you were very young and vulnerable, these feelings are awful.  I use booze to deal with them, but that is changing.  I can feel, now, the part I am feeding with my drinking, which NEEDS it.

I don't think most people who do not have horror in their lives realize how life saving the ability to sedate oneself reliably is or can be.

But something is changing in me.  I can feel it.  I am beginning to get back on the positive side of the ledger.

Soviet style propaganda

Read through this article.  It is AgitProp, designed to fuel hatred and anger towards Republican, and reward with a sense of moral sanctity those who adhere to the Democrat brand and ideology.

There are a couple of jewels in here.

Until the GOP ban, Michigan offered voters a bubble on their ballots allowing a straight-party vote without checking off all the individual candidates, which is favored by many black voters. Without that one-and-done option, black voters would take longer to vote and create long lines in precincts already plagued by long lines. 
Translated, blacks can't read so good, and all those options confused them.  Now they can just vote the Democrat ticket again without all those nasty words and names to plow through.

The GOP must be panicking now that the federal court judges who once backed voter-ID laws are getting wise to the GOP shenanigans. Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District says his vote upholding the Indiana law was wrong; he realizes that photo-ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.” Boom! 
Translated: the smart kids buy this bullshit, and you should too.  Boom!

The GOP has a sinister Plan B in North Carolina.  

Translated: GOP evil.  But you have a friend in Jesus and the Democrats, which are practically the same things.

It’s crazy that the modern Republican Party calls itself the “Party of Lincoln” and Trump has called the Democratic Party is the “Party of Slavery.”

Crazy, because undeniably true.  True is bad.

Don’t be fooled by this historical amnesia. The two parties switched sides for good when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson rammed the Civil Right Act and Voting Rights Act through Congress. The Republican Party is now the Party of the New Jim Crow Voter Suppression.
Proportionately, more Republicans voted for those acts than Democrats.  LBJ had to ram these bills through in the face of relentless Democrat opposition, as for example that of Robert Byrd, ex-KKK leader, and on her own account a "mentor" to Hillary.

This is the sort of shit filling the airwaves, saturating the internet.  This is the sort of shit that makes actual progress almost impossible, because it makes honest, probing discussion of real problems and following real solutions impossible.

It is not accurate to call it imbecilic.  It has a purpose--that of rallying the usual troops around the usual metaphors and inaccurate assumptions--and it serves that purpose.

It is accurate to call it willfully wrong.  As such, it constitutes a crime against humanity, literally.

And I will note Yahoo put it on its main news page, and that it has comments disabled.  I would boycott these assholes, but it is assholes all up and down.  Lunacy reigns.  I can't get away from it.  But I will continue to write about it.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016


Note the day.  You won't find me with a nice word to say about the Gray Whore very often.  They have done far too much to justify mass death and widespread horror, social failures at home, and to make the American people comfortable with the Big Lie.

I would call your attention too to how the issue gets treated as a public health problem, as a demographic issue, as if the fact that people are lonely is not reason enough to care about them, as if we weren't all in this shit storm together, as if loyalty and caring were not innate human traits which do not need to be justified.

Does all of life need to wind up on a medical chart or government survey?  No.  Is this a sort of ersatz meaning system for socialists?  Yes, I think it is.  They have rejected what comes naturally.  They have rejected who they are: human beings.  And yet, they are not something new: they are something very, very old.

Connectual frustration

I have had sex with a lot of women--as best I can recall, the number is around 40--because I used to be pretty good looking, and I have never been shy.

And what I have learned is that sex doesn't really solve anything.  The main lasting positive is the pride in the conquest. It is good for self esteem.

But in my own case, and I suspect that of a great many men, I consistently found myself unable to respond to women emotionally, on their level, in a connected way.  For the more attentive women--and I can count 3 very attractive intelligent women without batting an eye--this failure on the front end prevented the seduction in the first place.  They could see I wasn't there.

My last relationship with a woman she was OK with me just coming over every Tuesday night for sex, and asked nothing more of me.  But even though this is about as congenial an arrangement for a man as could be imagined, even then--before all this work and learning I've done in the past few years--I could feel something wasn't right.  I didn't know what.  I couldn't name it, but I ended the relationship some years ago.

It is said that women use sex to get love and men use "love" to get sex.  I think this is wrong.  Both sexes need to feel understood, appreciated, loved.  Men are merely more stupid about the whole thing, in general.  Our culture, of course, is vulgar.  We are fueled by sexual fantasies driven by increasingly disturbed pornography, that cannot ever lastingly satisfy anyone, because their real need is social.  They need connection, understanding.  Everything else moves them away from their real needs, their real wants, and makes them more and more angry, frustrated, and alone.

Since I read regular sexual expression helps prevent prostate cancer, and since I am concerned with my health, I express myself most days.  I pretty much never look at pornography of any sort, since I have a very vivid imagination, and I find most of it gross.

What I have in recent months started doing is including the emotional component.  I am trying to develop the ability to be in the room where the sex is, to be present emotionally.  I will literally start with meeting a woman, going on a couple dates, then go all the way through, then at the end imagine the pillow talk, her leaving, and what comes after, and how I feel.  To my mind, this is much more mature and less cartoonish than what you can see on porn sites.  And it is mental rehearsal for whenever I do decide it's time to head back out into the dating world.

I don't like passing up opportunities to bash Freud or the professional left, and won't here: we are living with the legacy of bad ideas in the sexual--the connection--realm, and it is hurting us culturally, which is to say almost universally as individuals.  Married men feel like they are missing out, single men view sex as an acceptable end,  women feel like being used is OK, or that they won't find a man who can connect with them emotionally.

All of our instincts for compassion, for intimacy, for caring, for love are suppressed.  I called this Qualitative repression some years ago, and continue to feel that a useful term.  College students are fed ideas which were bad when they were rolled out a hundred years ago--that sexual "repression" is unhealthy, that the sexual instinct is more important than the connection instinct, and that people are disposable.  We are all disposable.  This is the net teaching at most universities.

I'll leave it there.  This is more autobiographical than I like to get, but it may be useful for someone.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Voter ID: an alternative

First, I will reiterate that NO recount is possible without paper ballots. Period.  Full stop. There is no other correct answer I can see.  Any computer system can be compromised, and the errors never teased out.

Secondly, though, it occurred to me that if we are going to assume for the sake of political argument that black people are inherently and generally inferior to white and Asian people to such an extent that it is unreasonable--the word used is racist, but of course assuming they are that fucking stupid is itself the actual racism--to ask them to provide the same documentation required to drive, cash checks, buy booze, and board airplanes, then we may as well make it is simple as fucking possible to verify their identities: we photograph and fingerprint the voters who vote but do not produce ID.  That way you can avoid having hundreds or thousands of people traveling from voting booth to voting booth pretending to be different, and sometimes dead, people.  We could scan and cross-index fingerprints, and as needed compare pictures.

This would not prevent people both voting for themselves, then voting for someone else in another district who is dead or was not going to vote, but it would make the whole thing harder.  And it might piss off enough people for all of us to admit that assuming the worst of blacks is vastly the more racist policy.

Now, I assume, perhaps erroneously, that the rolls will be checked to make sure all registered voters are in fact citizens, but if we have fingerprints, and particularly if we set out long jail terms for voter fraud, we might get some goddamned common sense back.

I often feel I am living among lunatics.  They repeat as their own ideas imbecilities they have simply heard repeated, and consider themselves intelligent for having done so.  Oi.  And Oi usually means I'm drinking, but I'm not.


if you think about it, the primary job of politicians is convincing the electorate, and their fellow politicians, of their sincerity. Self evidently, everyone promises to fix something, but practically, since the systems in play in complex topics like economics are so recondite to average people, the REAL task, particularly for Democrats, is rationalizing failure in such a way that they continue to seem interested in solutions to the problems--like the failure to flourish among many blacks in this country---they claim as their own core concerns.

And a particularly insidious loop, on that particular issue, is that the very failure of the policies is argued as evidence for why Democrats are indispensable. "You are poor", they say. "How could you possibly survive without us?" In that circumstance, and as long as they remain believable, the generalized amelioration of black poverty would be an unmitigated disaster.

This might well be labelled a moral hazard.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Sensory diversity

how many textures does the average person encounter in an average day? How many smells? How many unexpected sounds?

It seems to me modern life, where everything is smooth, predictable, electronic and sanitized, cannot but deaden our senses and the intelligence--the intuitive, instinctive, natural intelligence--which regular and open connections to those sensations enable.

There is something to be said for walking barefoot, feeling the textures of trees, smelling nature, listening to wind in the grass and the flow of water.

Simple truth

Any time the government gets bigger, the potential for abuse gets bigger.  And the more power and privileges government employees have, the more incentive they have to protect and expand them at the expense of the people.  This is simple human logic.


I was thinking about "dark matter/dark energy": there is nothing dark anywhere in this universe: there are merely perceptual limitations.  In pitch blackness, at the bottom of a mile deep cave, everything is bombarded continuously with neutrinos and other radiation which, for its part, does not "see" the visible, "solid" universe.

Thought as pendulation

If you think about it, thinking about emotions is a type of pendulation away from them.  It is the opposite of processing them.  It is sometimes necessary to use symbols--words--to perform logical operations, but it can never be inherently therapeutic.

Single parents

If it is true that adult resilience can be largely predicted by how lovable mothers think their children are when they are two, then it should be fairly obvious why single parent homes do so poorly.  Children feel everything their mother feels, and if she is feeling anxious, lonely, angry, sad, she is not loving that child: specifically, she is not making it feel lovable.

It may or may not be the case that "there needs to be a man in the house", but there definitely needs to be love, safety, and attention.  Who is a teenage mother living in poverty in a dangerous neighborhood?  Well, she is a saint if she is fully available emotionally, particularly when her own mother never modeled the behaviors she now needs to be showing her own child.

Humanity is not clay.  Our DNA, the hard wiring of our brains, our entire instinctual complex, is not something that can be molded like clay.  It cannot be overthrown overnight through any amount of violence generated by emotionally retarded, petty, arrogant, and blind intellectuals.

We have to work with who we ARE, not who it is preferable to believe we are.  Public policy has to be grounded in sanity, and the assumption that most people will pursue their own self interest, if they can perceive it, and that living productive, creative, engaged lives is and should be the goal.


So let me get this straight: you feel the need to feel offended on behalf of people who are not here, because they MIGHT be offended?  If you feel both the right and duty to feel the feelings of others, why not express all the possibilities? They may just have found that joke fucking FUNNY, so you need to laugh on their behalf.  It might have reminded them of their mother that just passed away, so you need to feel sad.  They might not have even heard what I just said because they were thinking about their mid-terms, so you should feel nothing.

Or perhaps, you could just mind your own business, and stop being such a judgmental, rigid asshole.

If you think about it, there is a fair amount of prejudice/racism inherent in the idea that it is possible to predict with absolute confidence how "they" would react.

The ESSENCE of the Leftist project--and I am speaking her of ideas, not people--is reducing the world to homogeneous "theys". That is all class theory is: the elimination of intra-group diversity at the level of principle, combined with fright and anger whenever someone behaves inappropriately, with "false consciousness".  Ponder how fucking arrogant and out of touch that is.  And yes, I am again thinking of Sartre and his fellow frogs.  Their work lives on today.

They used "middle class" (bourgeois: in Alinsky-speak "have a little, want more") as an INSULT.  Ponder that.

I will wonder out loud as well why nobody has pointed out yet how fond Hillary was of Alinsky.  Granted, nobody seems to have cared that Obama considered him his most important political influence--a Communist who dedicated his main book to Lucifer--but it could be something put in the public domain.  Certainly lying is something he recommended.

Friday, September 2, 2016

A Post Moral order

It seems to me the principle engine for individual and social progress is curiosity, which is ideally combined with patience and kindness.

When we speak of "Morality" in our current climate, we are usually speaking of behavioral standards which, if violated, occasion the violence of censure.  This censure can be internal, expressed as guilt, or external, as expressed in shaming and/or imprisonment.

It is interesting to think that the word "order" can mean both something arranged in a coherent fashion intelligible to our minds and/or senses; as well as a demand that we do something, as in "the officer ordered me to . . .".

Implicit in historical social orders is that some violence was needed to maintain harmony, i.e. order.  Ideosyncratic understandings--particularly in Judeo-Christian-Islamic orders--were met quite often with death and imprisonment.

What I would propose is that healthy morality is an outgrowth of play, which itself is an outgrowth of generalized mental and emotional health, which itself cannot come into being except through freedom, acceptance of diverse behaviors and ideas, and self knowledge on the part of every individual within that order.

Morality, so called, in other words, is not a rigid system for judging others, but a spontaneous effect of healthy social relations, as the Taoists argued long ago. The very existence of morality as a field of study indicates its essence, the truth within it, has been lost.

Might I say "where there are words, there is darkness"?

Anthony Weiner

I knew a guy many years ago whose wife left him for another woman.  It fucked with his head badly for a really long time.  It would be difficult to imagine a more decisive blow to a man's sense of masculinity.

What if the rumors about Hillary and Huma are true?  Would that not go a long way to explaining his bizarre behavior?  


From birth to roughly age 5 you are who you are. From 5 to 12 or so you are who you think you're supposed to be. After that you are some combination of those two and who you choose to be. It is not possible to choose who you want to be if you can't remember who you are.


I feel that shame is EXACTLY equal to social disconnection.

Now, we speak of shaming people.  We speak of shame-based cultures.  Implicit in this word, as used there, is that an act has been committed which has caused a reaction in others such that they are socially excluded.

But in Developmental Trauma Disorder, the issue is that person was never properly socialized to begin with.  They never entered human society with a fundamental trust in, and sense of safety with, other people. Their--my--first impulse is to say NO to everything.  To say yes you need trust.  That trust is not there, because the sense of safety was never established at a primitive level.

To the point, though, I think if you could take physiological and neurological snapshots of someone feeling shame for having been banished from their group, and someone who never entered the group in the first place, they would be very similar.  The speed with which a shamed person might reenter the group, if atonement is performed, is of course vastly faster, since there is a history upon which to draw.

For myself, I feel there is some part of me which responds to my every effort at personal growth and doing the "right things" (diet, exercise, etc.) with BULLSHIT.  Some part of me feels another part of me is a bad salesman with a cheap tie and a fake smile.  It is maddening to feel, but gratifying to see.  You cannot correct problems you cannot see.  So realizing how bad you are fucking up is major progress.

And this is not really fucking up.  It is trying to deal consciously and patiently and systematically with problems I did not create and could not have prevented in any way, given my birth conditions and birth parents.

But I propose this condition, which also fosters self defeating behaviors, since our organism is likely organized to respond to social shaming with attempts at atonement, much in the way you will see dogs apologize for screwing up, be called psychic snow.  It is cold.  It surrounds you.  And it must be thawed.

I may come up with something better, but I think much of time you need new words to think new thoughts.  We need never be limited by language, because we can always make up new words.  Never doubt your perception because you have not seen what you feel described.  Perception precedes and vastly exceeds description. 

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Trump is going to lose HUGEEEEE!

Just kidding.  I think he will win big.  Hillary cannot do anything to win back the people she has alienated, but he can.  And at the end of the day she is a conniving, cold hearted bitch who has likely had a lot of people killed, and who will start eradicating fundamental rights on day one through fiat and a complicit system.

But look at this:

What do you see?  NO COMMENTS.  Yahoo particularly keeps posting these Trump hit pieces, where no comments are allowed.

It is easy enough to understand the methods of aspiring totalitarians, but much harder to understand the motives.  What do they want?  What do they think they want?  What unacknowledged emotional needs and pains are driving them?

In the modern world we have a pretty good understanding of Developmental Trauma Disorder.  Bill and Hillary likely both have very severe cases of it, and both may actually be clinical psychopaths.  Their fucked-up-ness is explained: their mothers did not love them effectively.

But who supports them?  Who says "Global Fascism?  Sounds good to me.  How can we lie, cheat and steal in the pursuit of it?"

And to the point here, who are the people defending the indefensible?  Is it just sheer stubbornness?  Emotionally driven perceptual blindness?

After all we know about Hillary, who still feels a compelling need to lie, cheat and steal in the service of her agenda?  The venal?  Surely their numbers cannot be that large.

Whatever the specific answer, it is clearly a mass psychopathology which is moving away from general societal happiness and well being, and towards violence, injustice, cruelty, and mass social and economic failure.


once a mind has embraced its own logical dissolution, how can it be recovered? This is a practical and immediate problem. To be persuaded by logic, one would first have to value it, to consider it "dispositive of normative values", in a world where tribalism and grotesque, violent emotionality is the norm.

You have to recreate the mind in order to address it, which brings us back to those I call the headless ones.


Somebody needs to get a picture of Hillary that says " I am not a crook."

Large irony she worked on the Watergate panel and was herself accused of gross ethical violations, including compulsive lying.

Word of the day

Well, Trump has delivered a major speech and the complicit media realized a long time ago that a synchronized, simplistic, code word oriented counter-offensive works best in preventing outbreaks of rational thought among the sheeple who occupy so much of our country.

My guess is the word is truculent. Bellicose would work too.

We will be told that asking people to immigrate legally, that enforcing the same standards Bill Clinton called for in the mid-90's, is morally equal to calls for mass murder and concentration camps. Why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING GET AWAY WITH IT. It's that simple. Big lies can be told in public and repeated by the usual pundits because we never hold them to a higher, morally acceptable standard.

Edit: looks like the Cause and Huff and Pout are sticking to darkness. That was a good meeting they said. Great mess engine they said (I had messaging but mess engine works too). So even though Hillary is not going to make any campaign appearances for s month, after credible--now MORE CREDIBLE-- rumors about her health, despite the fact that campaigning is normally how you demonstrate fitness for the job--she is staying home in bed, and letting her accomplices chant "Donald Dark Trump and his Darkening Darkness."

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Self Regulation through Other Regulation

"I demand that you treat me in a certain way, or else I'm really going to lose it."

This is not reasonable.  It is a type of blackmail, in which you imply negative consequences for people not allowing you to control their behavior.

And it is not mature.  Here is the thing: there is a world outside our ears, and a world between our ears.  Maturity is both dealing well with what flows from the world to us, and with what happens within us in that process.

Anyone who can only calm themselves in very narrow, carefully defined, defended, protected spaces--and one wonders if it happens even then, since no space can preclude anxiety--is weak.  They are helpless.  They are traversing the route back to the womb, or back to being immobile creatures entirely dependent on luck, like anemones.

The path to happiness is the path to self regulation, is the path to self mastery is the path to being able to remain calm cool and collected in increasingly various, difficult, and potentially stressful situations.

The path to happiness, in other words, is AWAY from ersatz wombs called "Safe Spaces".

Now as someone who has dealt with trauma all my life, I GET, I GROK, that there is a time and place for the sense of safety.  I understand personal pain.

But I have never asked the world to go out of its way to be nice to me.  I HAVE asked for emotional support.  I have asked for hugs.  I have solicited kind words on occasion.  I have valued people who were nice to me.  And I have yelled at people who, in my estimation, were assholes.

I get the sense, with all the special snowflakes nesting in our college campuses that one day I might be locked in a box for refusing to use the word "Cis", which I still don't know the meaning of, and do not intend to look up, because the pseuodo intellectual bullshit underlying will simply piss me off.

I didn't laugh at this video at all.  We are few short years away from this being reality, if we don't wake the fuck up:

Mental illness, emotional pain: these are problems to be solved, not badges of honor.  Everything the Left touches goes into regression.  We regress emotionally, intellectually, culturally, socially, economically and even physically. We are winding the clock back to times when raw violence, tribalism and bestial instincts ruled the world.

Here's a word for the snowflakes who want to tell us how to act: Wlbur: Whiny Little Bitch, you are.

Asking politely for reasonable amounts of courtesy has long been a thing.  Getting in people's faces because of their unfamiliarity with your increasingly bizarre and loony list of demands is not asking for courtesy.  It is demanding people kowtow to you and your infantile ego. It is demanding you be treated as a superior, because you are a victim.  It is the opposite of everything good humanity has built in the past millenia.


The argument made by Communists--and our universities are filled to this moment with people who, for all intents and purposes, fall under this rubric, although they may use words like "Open Society"--is that corporations, which we might view as the new synonym for "Capitalists" abuse people.  They take their labor and make money off it.  They do things unsafely.  They hurt the environment.  They are "greedy"  (versus, you know, all the countless billions who work hard every day for no reward at all).

In the 19th Century in America, and in present day China, there were clearly abuses.  People worked long hours for low pay in unsafe conditions, and many landscapes were destroyed.  This is clearly true.  What is equally true is that there are no more robber barons in America, and that the implementation of  Communism in China has not prevented their emergence there.  Both in 19th Century America and in present day China, the cooperation and protection of the government was necessary for these abuses.  Labor otherwise could and would have organized.  It is impossible to illustrate the foundational corruption of Communist ideology more simply than to point out they ban labor unions.

Here is my point: if we think of government not as an alternative to Capitalism/Corporationism, but as a larger equivalent, then the idiocy of putting all power into its hands should become obvious.  Communism is Megacorporationism.  It is where the Corporation is everywhere, and has the power of life and death over every employee, who is also a slave.  Everyone works for the same corporation, and nobody can protest, or find somewhere else to work, without risking death by fleeing.

The All, Every Operator

If one is determined to think as sloppily as possible, if incompetence is a primary goal, then one can scarcely do better than to assume homogeneity among heterogeneous groups, and at that to assume the wrong characteristics.

As one obvious example, anti-white bigots assume both that all whites have benefited somehow from oppressions of blacks that happened a hundred years ago and only in some parts of the country, AND that all whites, then and now, hated black people; that even if they thought they were not racist, that they WERE racist; that it was somehow in their DNA.

There is no justification for this belief, other than that it provides a simple solution to a complex problem.  Simplistic thinking meets emotional needs.  It meets the need for control.  It meets the need to alleviate the anxiety of uncertainty.  It can provide a pseudo-intellectual rationalization for the expression of fundamentally anti-social emotions, among people who want to retain a sense of their own goodness and moral rectitude.

I think one could think of the need for abstraction where people are concerned as in most cases nascent or explicit psychopathology of one sort or another.

Clearly, we are animals.  We need one another.  We need safety and security.  We need the feeling of meaning, which is likely tied to the feeling of belonging.

But the specifics, what people believe and why they think they believe it, are extraordinarily varied.  It is bigotry, pure and simple, to say things like "all whites are racist", much less "they, who did nothing to us, who took nothing from us, owe us".

Most people are simple minded children, and the abuses are worst among those whose "educational" attainments would, had their education actually been effective, have warranted trust in them on the part of the masses; as things stand, Buckley's comment that he would rather trust the leadership of the country to the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than to the faculty of Harvard is as true as ever.

Uneducated people guess and know they are guessing.  The allegedly erudite err with confidence, often, and never look back.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016


Freud posited that the sexual instinct underlies most human behavior.  Later in his career, he had to add a Death instinct too, since he survived World War 1.  His reasoning was simple: all animals are born with the instinctual drives to survive, and to reproduce.  They are little homing devices that first find food and shelter, then want to fuck everything they see, and poot out little thems that can carry their genetic material to the winds and seas.

This is not unreasonable, but I don't think it unreasonable to add another instinct: the social instinct.  The desire to be with ones own kind, to connect with them, to synchronize with them, to be with them.  From what I read, the need for social connection is hard wired.  There are sections of the brain dedicated to it.  We suffer, inherently, when we are separated for too long from our own kind.  Damage to this part of the brain is the most important, most damaging, part of trauma.  The capacity for connection, for sending and receiving social transmissions, is impaired or eradicated.

And the other instinct he failed to name was that involved in self regulation, which I might summarize as the capacity for calming oneself.  I am tempted to assert that the most important thing you could ever know about a person is how they calm themselves when they perceive the world as hostile. Not superficial calming: the real deal.  This is who they really are.

Sex, of course, is calming for most people, but what I would assert with some confidence is that it is a poor substitute for the drive for connection.  People MOST want social membership, to be understood, to be ensconced in a safe order of other human beings.  Sex can be a means for two people to open up to one another, but it can also be a means of generating distance and alienation.  Either way, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for anything approaching happiness worthy of the name.

I'll leave it there for now.  This was worth saying, but I will likely expand on it at some point.  My life is large streams of feeling coursing through me, that I can sometimes understand.

Men versus Women: a Macroargument

I found this an interesting read, and I think most men would benefit from reading it.

The comment I would make is that what she fails to understand is that men really are much stupider than women when it comes to social cues, empathy, overall awareness. It really is like there are two qualities of perception, two completely different worlds.

Imagine an intricate canvas by Bosch.  Many have created intricate canvases, but fuck his is the first name that came to me of something really busy.  Imagine the colors in the canvas expanded, and the images expanded.  That is a woman's perception.

Imagine the whole thing mostly covered in grey, with spots of bright red or green here and there, completely denuded of context.  That is an average man's perception.

What they argue about is what the painting shows.  She tries relentlessly, using every word she knows, to describe the intricate imagery, but he just doesn't see it.  So she gives up and accepts he is an imbecile.  Or she moves on to another man, likely one with a similar handicap.  Or she stays single, or she dates women.  Those are her options.

In reading this piece, I obviously can't say she is wrong.  She is obviously right.  Her perceptions are accurate.  What I would add though, is that she is perhaps failing to account for how fucking stupid men are.  She is thinking they intend wrong, that they are hostile.  Some of them plainly do, but most of them are just idiots.  That does not excuse it, but they really don't intend to be creating hostile environments.

She cites as an example grown men oogling 13 year old girls boobs.  In my mind there are actually three, perhaps four, possibilities.  1) He doesn't even know he's doing it.  He is that stupid and unaware.  2) He is doing it on purpose, but he is too stupid to realize she sees it.  3) He is a creep, knows what he's doing, and knows she knows. 4) Any of the above, but he thinks she's older than she actually is.

I doubt there are any men on this planet who have been in long term relationships where their woman felt safe enough to tell the truth, who have not been told: YOU'RE A FUCKING IMBECILE.  WASN'T THIS OBVIOUS?  You know, how I felt, where this was going, what you should have said, that a much bigger bouquet of flowers was needed, that you needed to wash the dishes, that I needed help with the kids, that I needed emotional support, etc.

We do have two classes of citizens where social awareness is concerned.  This is clearly true.  And men are clearly the dumber ones where this sort of thing is concerned.  We are stupid.  There can be no doubt.  And sometimes we are aggressive, violent, ugly and awful.  This is clearly true too.

This is the macrotruth.  To this, though, I will add that women by themselves are very often petty, backstabbing, vindictive, and score keepers.  I have two daughters, and both of them very much prefer male friends for this reason.  They know where they stand with boys. If they don't like them, they say, in effect, "I don't like you".  There are no games.  There is little or no guessing.  Men, being simple, are what they appear to be, most of the time.

Doris Lessing dealt with this issue in what to me was an interesting way in her book "The Marriages between Zones 3, 4, and 5", or something close to that.  She portrayed women as superior, but lacking something that men alone, being men, provided.

Can we dream of a world where imagination is important, and various interesting possibilities for the improvement and evolution of human kind are often and openly discussed?  This is my own dream.  I dream a lot, and I suffer a lot, but 1) it's my job; and 2) my God, how could I live any other way?  My life is beautiful.

Predator instinct

The fight or flight exists in the limbic system, according to my still very rudimentary neuroanatomical knowledge.  The freeze is in the brain stem, as is the shit your pants and go out of body.  I think that is right, although freeze may be limbic too.

But all of these are REACTIONS to violence and danger.  What is going through the head of the mountain lion stalking an unaware goat?  There is likely something like adrenaline,but it is focused, clear.  Their figurative hands are steady, their focus intense, but whatever fear there may be is channeled into awareness and attention.

I think I read somewhere that predators don't get the shakes like prey do.  They don't get the animal equivalent of PTSD which they then have to literally shake off.

Is there a predator instinct, which combines elements of all three levels of the human brain, and which is exemplified by people with "killer instincts"?


Somebody needs to make s list of all the people who will leave the country if Trump gets elected so he can use it in his campaign literature and advertising.

Monday, August 29, 2016

You are worthless Alex Baldwin

For no particular reason. It's of course interesting to me to speculate on the mental health of Trey Parker particularly, and Matt Stone as an accomplice, but fuck it.  They have made me laugh many times, and these issues are complicated.  They are clearly not stupid, and I will admit I sometimes feel like John Malkovitch in "Burn after Reading".

This life is interesting.  It becomes less interesting when everything has to be in a box.

And Alec Baldwin really is worthless.  


It is worth noting that slavery was only ever seriously practiced. in the South, and only from, I'm guessing, 1700 or so until 1865.  We have 50 States.  Slavery was legal in KY, TN, TX, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, TX, MO, MD, DE, VA.  I may have missed one or two, but that is 13 States.

So even in the time of the Civil War, most of the country did not "benefit" from slavery (which was never a particularly good economic system).

And within the slave owning States, it was the 1% who owned most of the slaves.  At least 90% of EVERYONE in all those States never owned ONE slave, much less many.

And a great many people who now live in the United States have ancestors who immigrated within the past 150 years, which is to say after the Civil War.  That is my own case.

I was accused today of using blacks to get ahead, then denying them my "privilege".  This is absurd.  My ancestors immigrated to the North, after the Civil War.  Blacks have fucking jackshit to do with anything where I personally am concerned.  They did not help me or my ancestors, or hurt them.  They were completely irrelevant.

We need to understand that overeducated lunatics are accusing ALL white Americans not only of crimes NONE of them committed, but of crimes not even their ancestors committed.

I reiterate: no psychologically healthy person with intact boundaries and reality testing can accept this guilt.  It is inappropriate, masochistic, and most importantly: IT DOESN'T HELP ANYONE.

Half this fucking country belongs in a looney bin.

Chant and response

Who is the enemy? 


How do we identify them? 


What is to be done with them? 


Who are we? 


Why are we better? 


A real question, for a real world, if we lived in one.

If it is racist to criticize Obama, is it also racist to criticize Allen West?


Self evidently, this is a perceptual exercise.  These are not my views.

I don't like black people.  They are stupid and ugly and violent and they hate me and everyone who is not like them.  I don't have to talk to them to understand what they are.  You can't talk to them because they are too stupid to understand anything you say.  The best thing is to keep them out of the public sphere, not to give them playing time on the airwaves or TV, and hope they just crawl back in a hole where we can all ignore them.

I don't like conservatives.  They are stupid and ugly and violent and they hate me and everyone who is not like them.  I don't have to talk to them to understand what they are.  You can't talk to them because they are too stupid to understand anything you say.  The best thing is to keep them out of the public sphere, not to give them playing time on the airwaves or TV, and hope they just crawl back in a hole where we can all ignore them..

I don't like the Alt Right.  They are stupid and ugly and violent and they hate me and everyone who is not like them.  I don't have to talk to them to understand what they are.  You can't talk to them because they are too stupid to understand anything you say.  The best thing is to keep them out of the public sphere, not to give them playing time on the airwaves or TV, and hope they just crawl back in a hole where we can all ignore them.


Not sure how long this term has been around, or where it started, but I like where their head is at.

For many decades, calling someone "far right" implied extreme xenophobia and bigotry.  It was tantamount to saying they were Nazis, and wanted basement torture chambers.  These things are, of course, creatures mainly of the Left, even if Franco and Pinochet could plausibly be called rightists.

But Alt-Right is hipsters and normal people who are horrified by the increasing censorship of reasonable opinions, who are scared of the increasingly strident hate speech emanating from the Left, who are fine with homosexuals and weed AND guns, and who do not necessarily oppose social safety nets of some sort, but fear the Federal Leviathan--the wars on Poverty, Drugs, and "Terror", with the last clearly having served as a Trojan Horse to get in place ubiquitous surveillance endorsed by the public only because of pervasive fear.

Alt-Right is Trump, is people who do not fit molds, who have not been part of the problem, and who are sincerely interested in actual solutions to real problems.  That does not describe mainstream Republicans, and the Democrats of course break everything they touch, at least in recent decades.

HuffPo freaks out fellow Democrat with Stalinist censorship

This guy is a Democrat, somebody who had been a welcome poster/contributor on Huffington Post, and they flushed his articles on Hillary's health down the Memory Hole, and banned him from posting any more.  He has, he says, filed hundreds of stories, but has never had a story yanked like this.  He says "this is happening in the United States, in 2016, and it is really scary."  He says he is "spooked out", and that he is neither clumsy nor suicidal.  He says he has never seen anything like this before, what he calls "non stop propaganda".

Sunday, August 28, 2016

PBS censors the Green Candidate

In case you thought censorship was only of the Right.

There is an agenda, one coordinated through the Democrat Party, and seemingly a playbook for Republicans as far as what they can and can't talk about, and everyone, including most of Fox, pushes it, on the major networks, most of the time.

There is a lot of money at stake, so behind all this is Big Money.  It is wrong, of course, to demonize all corporations, but some of them ARE demonic, just as some people.  In the same sense we do not view all people as criminals because some are criminals, it is not right to view all corporations as bad because some are.

People work for a living.  They do things in the expectation of gain.  They work, in other words, out of "greed", which is one framing, and necessity, in another, and in the expectation of achieving some measure of physical safety and security and comfort in another.

Corporations are no different.  If they do not turn a profit, they don't exist.  If they don't exist, that work doesn't get done, and that work doesn't get done, you get Cuba or Venezuela.

Laws exist to rein in the bad corporations, and specifically, the bad, greedy psychopaths who run them.  So too do market forces, which can and should punish bad corporate behavior.

What the Trans-Pacific Partnership seemingly exists to do is provide powerful corporate counters both to legal control, and to free market forces.  It exists to weaken the power we Americans have to limit bad behavior.

Stein and Trump, for these reasons, oppose it.  Hillary supports it, because buying and selling people and influence is her stock and trade.  The TPP was made for her, and she for it.

The Fed

It's funny how they always use opaque language, even in journals which are not targeted at professionals, but rather the general public. It is like this stuff is only meant for those who know the code words, and can be relied on to support and be a part of the system.

But I will note that they have admitted, in as clear a language as is possible for these tools, that my plan for the Fed to buy up ALL debt, public and private, in the United States is completely doable.  There are no limits on the Fed.  It can print an infinite amount of money, and do so instantly.  People do not grasp this, because it is a BIG idea, because something large is hiding more or less in plain sight, and until they grow balls and imagination, until they learn to ignore their training and conditioning, they cannot see it.

They see clothes on the Emperor.  They are not pretending at all: that is what they see, to the extent they think about it, and very few people think about fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve at all.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Dealing with illegal immigration

Since it's in the news, I thought I might add my two cents.

There are four issues:

1) People living in this country who came here without permission, are staying here without our knowledge, and who do not pay taxes, but who do quite often consume community resources.

2) People living here illegally who are criminals.

3) People who want to come here illegally.

4) Government enforcement of our laws, and/or its abrogation and flouting of our laws.

We need to be clear with regard to issue 1, we can and should treat differing communities of illegals differently.  They are not a monolithic group.  They share a common culture, but they differ widely in their impact on different areas.  In assessing how to treat people already here, it is quite possible to focus on differing areas differently.  Personally, I think anyone living in a Sanctuary City should be an immediate focus.  These cities are in blatant violation of Federal law, and they should be punished for it.

Migrant workers seem not to affect much at all.

And workers in differing industries will affect the local economies differently in differing States and cities.  We think of this group of 11 million people or whatever as one group, but they are really many groups, with many different impacts locally.

It would be quite possible to develop a many year strategy to understand who is where, and decide perhaps to legalize some, and deport others, depending on a number of factors, including how long they have been here, their community involvement, etc.  I personally would make their ability to speak English in that equation.  If they have been here a long time, and have not learned English, they are not trying to blend in, and should be deported.

The issue of illegal criminals is easy: deport them all.  Obama has been releasing them, to prevent their deportation, and there is no moral or legal justification for any of this. It is wrong, and it is illegal.

As far as the wall, it might again be useful to speak of "walls".  In certain areas, walls will need to be high and thick.  In other areas, roving drones and ground sensors and ready ICE folks will suffice.  We do not need a 2,000 mile wall.  It may be sufficient to build a couple hundred miles worth of walls, in key place.

Most importantly, we must have the WILL--really, even the desire, or the integrity, or professionalism--to enforce our laws.  Obama is not just not enforcing them, but is openly helping and supporting and encouraging illegal immigration.  Hillary will do the same.

If Trump does nothing but do the job already assigned to him on the books, he will be marked success.  But I think he will be ready and willing to take border control to the next logical level, to deport people who are victimizing both Americans and other illegals, to deport people who are negatively affecting American standards of living and comfort, to deport people we just don't want for any reason at all, and to change the mentality of Mexicans to legal immigration, rather than the free for all we have right now, which punishes those who attempt to follow the law, and rewards, for now, those who impatiently break it.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Alex Jones

What I think Jimmy Kimmel doesn't get, is that as crazy as Alex Jones is, people KNOW they are being lied to, and he is directly driving traffic to , because people have a hunger for SOMEONE, anyone, who is not speaking off a script.

And I do think Kimmel opened the jar.  She is weak, and he couldn't risk her failing.  Pickle jars do pop when you open them.  And there IS a short hard turn, before it happens. Jones is not wrong, even if calling it a pickle can is not a great phrase for him.

I will be the first to admit I have a hard time watching him, but I am glad he is out there, and saying what needs to be said. I doubt anyone else picked up the firing of Dr. Drew immediately after he publicly said responsible things as a doctor about Hillary's physical health, based on what she herself has released.

I see it spun here, on the link Drudge provided:

Ponder what is being said silently with this:

Pinsky made headlines last week when he announced on his radio show he is “gravely concerned” about Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s health and the health care she is receiving. It played nicely into Donald Trump’s position that Clinton is not healthy enough to serve as POTUS.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Trump and the KKK

This is a REALLY risky strategy.  I get the feeling I used to get watching Family Feud when someone said something really stupid, but everybody cheered anyone, hoping against hope.  This was the best they could come up with a a meeting on how to beat Trump, while running an old, run down, sick career criminal with zero personality and enough scandals to occupy most of a spreadsheet.

It reminds me too of the epic FAG response Alex Baldwin gave at the end of Team America, after the rousing Dicks, Pussies and Assholes speech: "Uh, Global Warming!!!"  Pulling out the race card, again--really, leaving it out, but pointing out that it is still there, is hackneyed, obvious, and wrong.

Donald Trump is not a racist and there is not, and never has been, any evidence for it. If he were a racist--you know, pal-ing around with people like Robert Byrd--it would have come out on the last 3 decades.

And anyone who is not a mouth breathing imbecile will grasp this before election day.  Trump is getting on message, and there will be a number of debates.  Once they grasp that Hillary is grasping at straws and telling horrible lies about Trump, we will see a lot of people pull away from her, and enter the Trump camp.  These attacks can't be continued for months.  They can't be sustained, because they are offensive and wrong.

All of these tactics are the sorts of things you might do just before the election, after all the debates are done, but not NOW.  You might get a short term spike, but that is why you save your ammunition.  For his part, Trump is saving his heavy guns for closer to election day.  We have September and October.  We have Julian Assange waiting in the wings.  We have a very high risk of complete burnout on the 24/7 attacks on Trump.  CNN may well help him get elected, their best efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.

These people are panicking.  Trump is not a flash in the pan.  He is not a lightweight, and he is not stupid.  And he is saying things which have needed saying for a long time.  He is showing himself to be a leader.  We have needed someone with the balls to stand up to the crass ineptitude and corruption of our Parties and media elites for a long, long time.

Edit: I have a feeling that there is this wave of pent up energy just over the horizon, and I have the feeling that the professional Left and elites can feel it too.  They are pushing against it with every tool at their disposal, with all their energy, but the harder they push, the larger its potential energy becomes.  I think a day will come when Trump is up by double digits, everywhere that is in play, and that he will bring States into play the Democrats thought were safe.  There is that much anger.

Reading social media, it is easy to forget a whole lot of people who vote are not discussing politics on the internet, but they KNOW they are being called fools, and looked down on by left wing elites.  I see this daily when I interact with college indoctrinated lefties.  Nobody likes being called a fool and laughed at, and my best guess is that a LOT of people who stayed home in years past will be voting enthusiastically in November.