Saturday, April 21, 2018

Why is it always for war?

Is there anywhere a thirst for global peace, among people who are not naive lunatics?  All weapons, once developed, exist, and can be used by small groups.  All our technology makes asymetrical warfare more effective.  It makes us less safe, over the long haul, since once created it can be duplicated.  Every quantum leap forward might one day be used against us.

Why not establish a Commission on Global Peace, which looks carefully, honestly, and long term ways at how we disempower the war mongers, and create a lasting global peace?

To be sure, I am no believer in commissions, in general, which can only be as good as the people in them, but the GOAL symbolized by such a thing would be worthwhile.

Can we not make a lasting peace with China?  On some level do not some large number of their leaders want a better life for their children and their nation?  Would it not help if they did not need to maintain a large military?  Would it not help if they were not forced to wage an internal civil war against all the enemies of their tyranny?  Could they not perhaps be persuaded to rationalize and reform their internal repression if they could be convinced the United States will never be their military enemy?

And Russia: avoiding war with them is as easy as keeping the globalists away from the buttons of power.

Yes, there are random terrorists, but this is a war of information, not tanks and fighter planes.

Can we not make this an explicit goal, and can we not meet regularly with those who might be our enemies--who might justify the development of robotic squids, and weaponized microdrones, of armed robots, and everything else I don't know about and have not yet imagined--and ask them what needs to happen for a lasting peace?

Yes, I am absolutely with the "trust but verify" camp, but Reagan oversaw a LARGE decrease in overall armaments, did he not?

Edit: I was also referencing this:

Every night is an adventure

I never know what will happen to me when I fall asleep.  My shaking, screaming, verbalizing and all that are slowly diminishing in amplitude, which has been the goal.  They are not absent, but they have softer edges now.  I can't quite recall if they happened last night at all, in fact.  This is progress.

But my awareness in my sleep seems to be increasing.  I am doing work while I am sleeping.  It's piecemeal, haphazard work.  Images and ideas appear to me, in no order.

For example, last night I saw an image of a man I've known some time, and came to realize that the whole of his long life has been strongly conditioned by how he was potty trained, so many years ago.  Large systems form from small things.  Freud was not wrong about this. An entire Lebensgestalt can be inferred, sometimes, from the type of soap someone uses.

And I saw how Neurofeedback, one day soon, might be used as a tool for increasing love.  I saw a man and a woman, in a virtual reality space, sharing the visual readouts of the part of their brains which create beauty, love and connection, and merging these images in wonderful ways, in real time.

And it must be said, that the gift of love is much more strongly given to women, in general.  Men are often confused in relationships with women (and, I would suppose, with each other, both in hetero and homosexual ways) because this language does not come naturally to us.  Protectiveness comes naturally.  Sexuality comes naturally.  Love does not.  It is a sort of foreign language in some ways, that we learn to speak with varying degrees of fluency over time, to the continual frustration of women, who cannot understand this.  We say we love women, sometimes, because we have to, but a very large number of us (I feel) are not entirely sure what it is we are supposed to be feeling.  It feels good being with the woman, and we call this love.  This is quite sufficient to get married and have kids, but perhaps not sufficient to stay married in a great many cases.  Statistically, this seems a reasonable statement to make.

And finally I was dreaming about the Rust Belt.  I was up there last week, in a Union town, or what used to be a Union town.  I got in and out without incident, which would likely not have been possible 30 years ago.

I have long blamed the decline of Detroit and everything attached to it to greedy Union bosses, and stupid members.  But what I saw was that there is also a CULTURAL element to this whole thing.  Unions make people feel like they belong.  They are not quite a church, but not quite not a church either.  I know around here, the third shift workers go drink in the Union Hall parking lot when they get off at 5am or so, until the local bar opens at 6am.  There they all are, sitting in the dark, with six packs they brought in coolers. It's a fellowship, of sorts.

So giving up all that, or risking giving up all that, through Right to Work legislation--or through the types of concessions needed to keep jobs local--is probably LEAST of all an economic risk.  It is a lifestyle risk.  I had not seen that.

Friday, April 20, 2018

The Dead as Spies

On many accounts, the dead live among us.  One of the more interesting ones, from, as I recall, an Eagle Scout and man who became a psychiatrist, is Return from Tomorrow.  The dead can walk through walls, travel at infinite speeds, fly, and are invisible.  Such is my own belief, at any rate, as it applies to spirits who don't go somewhere better.

Imagine a spy program where recruits are taught all the elements of observation, what to look for, what to take an interest in, then shot to death for graduation.  Imagine such a thing making sense if there were some established means of maintaining contact with them.

This would, if you will pardon the term, be a living spy program.  We could focus on what is essential.  We would not need to capture all elements of every last action of every last human on Earth.

I wonder about a program for precognition too.  How would that work?  If you can "see" the future, can you change it?  This is an old question, asked many times in many science fiction and fantasy novels.

I watched "Edge of Tomorrow" last week, and pondering it, it occurred to wonder what happened to the woman each time after she shot Tom Cruise.  You don't see those shots.  You just see him getting shot over and over.  Does she look at him, as his lifeless body bleeds out, call a medic to transport him away, then pack off and die the next day every time?  Is each of these events a new universe?   Some physicists would say yes, which means that the real woman (I forget her name, rank, and the actresses name) actually dies thousands of times.  So too does the "real" Tom Cruise, except that some part of his consciousness transitions between universes.  What is he, if his body stops in time, but his mind moves?  I will say that, as a major movie star (as they say) he has over the years picked a lot of conceptually interesting movies, like Vanilla Sky, this one, and Oblivion.

As I think I've mentioned--over some time horizon I have probably mentioned EVERYTHING which recurs for me--I have telekinetic powers in my dreams.  I was playing with some bits of paper last night in a dream--moving them around in clouds of different shapes--and it occurred to me that my real arm is actually hollow.  This thought occurred to me in the dream, as I was looking at my dream arm, which was semi-translucent. The matter within it is, from a strictly empirical perspective, nearly as empty as empty space.  The apparent presence of something solid is a sort of electromagnetic trick, when in reality all the molecules within my arm are nearly all empty space.  When we lift something with our limbs, we are practicing, therefore, a species of telekinesis.  All the other kind is is realizing we don't need what look like arms.  We can project onto space, and to a great extent, control it.

I'm not quite sure what I am saying, but there is truth in it, I feel reasonably certain.  I felt it strongly.

Perception work

I was pondering the letter Paul Griffiths wrote, where he recommended 3 hours a day devoted to study.  And it occurred to me I spend at least an hour a day in meditation.  Does that count?

Then it occurred to me that, while I have long called myself a "thought worker", that the term "perception worker" might be more apt for my aspirations.

When you spend an hour living at the level of sensation and subtle affect, you are not thinking.  There are no words.  This is the point: you get beyond thoughts by focusing on the body.

Within the Greek tradition most of our intellectuals live in, there is little room for this sort of activity.  We think of intellectuals as the sorts of people who privilege ideas roughly the way Socrates and Plato did.  But there is so much more, so much that can be perceived, but not spoken.  One can speak of the "unspeakable", and one can incorporate the "unspeakable" into a philosophical system, but one cannot LIVE it without living it; and having lived it, one can justifiably wonder about the relative importance of ideas for a life well lived, compared to everything that is beyond, outside the fence.

You have to have room for "that".  "That" has to suffice for some statements, some communications, some understandings, conveyed personally and face to face.

Everything is life

I was sitting in the sauna today, and got to wondering what treating the body literally like a machine might look like.

You could step into some sort of device in the morning which would inject some drug that rendered you unconscious.  Then your muscles could be stimulated in some fashion that mimicked weight lifting physiologically.  Your heart and lungs could be exercised.  You could be tanned, and you could be put through a sauna to improve your vascular health.  All this, without any conscious effort on your part.  You wake up, and the health maintenance part of your day is complete.

Would you assent to such a thing?  Many people would.  They resent effort and work.  They have been bred--that is the word for many--to feel that life without work would be better, and that life with work is drudgery.

But life IS work.  Even love is work, is it not, at least when done over the long term?  Are not all the small moments that make up a life found in the little things, the drudgery, the looking-to-the-other-side through what often seems monotonous, difficult, and dull?

If we are our work, then this machine would be terrible.  Every rep of every exercise I do is a little different.  Every time I stretch it feels a little different.  All these nuances are what create affective and cognitive complexity and what make a mind and self interesting.  People bred to use machines of this sort would be difficult to differentiate from cattle, other than in their use of language.

Hey NSA, imminent attack, nuclear, terrorism

I know the NSA captures everything, but it would be quite impossible for humans to read everything they get, so I thought I might flag myself, in the event I am not a regular stop on the "keeping an eye on the people" circuit.

NSA employee: do you get that you won't be needed in the system you are creating, within ten to fifteen years?  Has this occurred to you?  That at some point your present position on the inside might become a position on the outside?  AI will be able to do what you do, without any risk of "Snowden"-ing, which might become more and more likely as the planned tyranny gets closer and tighter.  Right now, perhaps you see yourself preventing a nuclear attack, or chemical attack, or biological attack.  Fair enough.  But what else are you enabling?  Who is watching you, and the people you work for?  What could be done with the NSA if one person using AI could run the whole thing?  What if, in fact, it were fully automated?

Here is the thing: we can't stop technology, absent a global "event" of some sort.  It will keep creeping along, no matter who is in the White House, and no matter what rules we create and try to enforce.  Too many people want to be sorcerers.

BUT, what we can do--and this is the only way to "flank" the future and overcome the bad that is otherwise our destiny--is embed God and the afterlife within formal science as practiced in universities the world over.

The NSA employs a lot of geniuses.  Why not join Edison, but from a VASTLY more advanced place, and create better EVP devices than we have today?  Why not employ this brilliance to something other than a robotic and automated, pointless existence?

If the machines win, that IS the apocalypse, is it not?  No more human life on Earth?  All dead?

It is an interesting fact that our government, purely for pragmatic reasons, has in fact played with what I might term aspects or signs of God.  We have funded, and found success in, Remote Viewing and, in my understanding, precognition.  If one such thing is possible, why not all of them?  If the mind's eye can travel the Earth's surface at will, why not an underlying spirit without a body?

Here is the core question you need to answer in depth, if you are not already a psychopath (in which case, I CAN'T talk to you): what are you protecting?

About those Kyrgyz tribespeople

500 is a good start on such a project.  More will be needed for a perfect surveillance planet.  Think about it: a set of behavioral algorithms could easily be developed and enforced through automation.  We could have robot cops tied to a surveillance grid with no gaps anywhere on the planet, which act based upon rules which never vary, and which they cannot vary.  We can be tied into as small a grid as the programmers see fit, and most of the programmers are psychopaths who aspire, themselves, to be brains in vats connected to everything, omnipotent, and omniscient.

The coffee has been brewed.  It's been on the hot plate a while.

But of course, Brittany Spears or Beyonce, or one of the Kardashians, and of course the PARAMOUNT NEED to "get rid of guns", because, you know, kids who nothing obviously know more than the rest of us, or than those who study the history of humanity and its many tangible and nameable errors.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Syria, further thought

Sun Tzu, some two thousand years ago, or something like that, wrote something close to "I have heard of clumsy military campaigns which were conducted quickly, but never a protracted campaign that was conducted skillfully."

Now, they did not have the concept of "nation building" back then.  You conquered your enemies, enslaved, slaughtered, beat them down or simply took their stuff and left, as you saw fit, then you were done.  You might install your puppets as their rulers, but nobody on any side was confused enough to think that the conquest was a liberation, or that subjugation was for the conquereds own good.

Come to think of it, the "revolutionary" (most revolutions, so called, being planned events fomented by and used by autocratic agents of autocratic regimes) aims of most Communist regimes might be seen as a logical extension of the "White Man's Burden".

Be all that as it may, what would Sun Tzu make of a war being fought half a world away, where we oppose both sides in a civil war which doesn't involve us in any way?  Stupid?  Yes, I think stupid is the word he would use.

Corrupt is another word he might use.  Ponder the NEW "Economic Consequences of the Peace".  Ponder what would happen to, what could be done with, the many hundreds of billions of dollars we spend a year on "defense", most of which happens in nations many thousands of miles from our shores.  What if North Korea makes its peace with South Korea, and we can permanently draw down our troops?  What is the Iranians then also see the light of day, and begin a slow march in the direction of lightening the load their tyranny places on ordinary Iranians?

What if all our great wars suddenly either end, or need a radically different sort of war, which does not involve large numbers of troops, deployed seemingly indefinitely everywhere but America?

I don't read many bestsellers, but I did read one Jack Reacher, "The Enemy".  The gist of it was that senior Army Generals were conspiring to keep the war business alive.  It as a fictional novel, but is that really such an unreasonable plot line?  Eisenhower, a Republican, and former career General--one of the few 5 Stars we have had--was the one who warned of the "military-industrial complex".

Alex Jones has managed to make "Deep State" a phrase used by "ordinary" people.  For my own purposes, I would just like to call it "The System".  The system has many beneficiaries, many two way relationships, many angles.  As with any complex arrangement, you have many competing demands, many agendas, many egos, many views. 

However, I think one of the CORE needs of the System is that everyone keep their words between certain lines.  There are certain places you aren't supposed to go.  Calling the FBI corrupt for example, is not allowed, for the simple reason that it is TRUE, and that the FBI can both make and break people.  If you are their friend, they can do for you what they did for Hillary and others.  If you are their enemy, well, they can pretend that the law doesn't apply to them, find sympathetic judges, and pretty much get away with anything, all while being supported strongly by the media components of the System.

Trump can pardon Cohen, and he might not even need to, if they can find judges who still find value in the ideals underlying the Constitution.  And Trump can counterattack.  I think he has been a bit off balance since he took office, since he is being attacked by all sides continually, and you can't fire everyone at the same time.  This, of course, was the intent.

And we need to be clear that the System has scored some recent points.  The vitiation of lawyer-client privilege, as well as Executive Privilege, is a significant victory for the opponents of reason and democracy.

But I can't help but FEEL, and this is only a feeling, that people are starting to see the outlines of this ugly monster as it steps further and further out of the shadows.  It was possible to believe the FBI was a stand-up organization a year ago.  That is no longer possible, particularly after the Cohen raid.  These are slimy people, capable of anything.  Not all of them obviously.  No organization is COMPLETELY corrupt.  There were good Nazis, presumably.  But the people running it, the people making decisions for it, ARE corrupt, and that is the only good way to see it, in my view.  Same with the CIA, as far as I can tell.  The IRS probably depends on the bureau, but the parts which are most relevant to political persecution I think we can assume are filled with Obama partisans who think the law is merely a temporary delaying device, and unwanted annoyance.

We can hope people start to wake up.  It is far past the time, if it ever existed, when it was useful to yell at Leftists.  You can't reason with dogs by barking back at them.  And you are stupid if you take it personally.  They yell and bark at everyone.

But the cards are on the table.  I can't help but believe there remain people like Alan Dershowitz willing to say "You know what, I hate Trump and hate his policies, but this is bullshit.".  There is no reason not to try to educate such people gently, and as persuasively as possible.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018


If you think about it, America is fighting both sides in a civil war where both sides are regularly committing atrocities of various sorts.  Nothing less desirable could be imagined.  Why we are there, I don't know.  What we are trying to accomplish, other than destroying ISIS--as a training and motivational arm of the lunatic fringe of Islam--in Syria, I don't know.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018


Yahoo had a front page article 15 minutes ago on how the parents of slain Newtown children were suing Alex Jones for pain and suffering, for claiming the shooting never happened.  That story just disappeared.

Here is the official FBI crime report for 2012, with a city by city listing in Connecticut:

There are no murders listed in Newtown.  I looked it up just now, in case it had been amended.  Even if you are otherwise inclined to trust authority, is this not odd?

And watch this video:

Does this seem like a genuinely grieving dad to you?  It doesn't to me.  And most people who watch this seem to feel the same way.

I don't know what happened, but we are absolutely justified in asking hard questions, like whether or not this shooting even happened.  I am not saying it did or didn't.  What I am saying is that there is a whole lot of weird stuff surrounding this, that I posted on long ago and don't feel like revisiting today.

But I would like to encourage the parents of children who we are to believe lost children that day to sue Alex Jones.  We can subpoena Robbie Parker, and see what he is up to now.  We can revisit that whole crime in detail, under the supervision of a court which will not be located in Newtown, because Alex will successfully request a change of venue, possibly to Texas.

My gut tells me that this lawsuit was not authorized, and was intended solely as a cheap and quick shot at Jones, but the smarter people involved quickly nixed it.  I will be curious to see if that story reappears, or if it has been given the Memory Hole treatment.  If the latter, it will certainly not meliorate my existing skepticism, but rather exacerbate it.

Here we go: the lawsuit was filed in Texas.  Should be interesting.  My best guess is that this lawsuit will be quietly withdrawn, with no comment or fanfare from the press.  If I am wrong, then I am wrong.  It happens.  I take my best guesses, develop things I believe 25, 50, 75% or whatever, but I am always ready to amend my views when what I know and believe changes.

What happened may be exactly what we are told happened.  This is certainly a possibility.  But that does not mean that Jones was not reasonable to ask questions, especially about the Robbie Parker video, and he has over the years consulted with many experts who also found major problems with the official narrative.  Jones asks open ended questions he doesn't know the answers to.  The complicit media offer answers which conform to their ideological agenda.  Questions are much more interesting and useful, even when they lead nowhere or even to what are eventually shown to be incorrect conclusions, as they often do.  All new knowing begins with an open mind, and there is ZERO reason for any of us to believe we know everything, and therefore do not need new knowing ever again, or do not need to learn from sources we have not learned from in the past, including the independent use of logic.


Edit: this seems to be a photoshop.  But all the following commentary remains valid.  I kept an open mind, evaluated it, decided it was fake, then moved on.  Many things, though, never really get classified, and remain, forever, merely "possible but unproven".  Emotionally, I can say "possible but likely", or "possible but unlikely", but recognizing the emotional bias, too, is part of the process of perception.

I would ask: who are the clever people?  Are they the ones who insist that what they have not seen cannot be real?  There are people who equate "science" with what is already known.  This is really just a species of "Flat Earthism".  They think that because species evolved, that existing notions of evolution are sufficient.  They think that because matter seems to exist, and because we can describe it with great precision, that the "bottom" must also consist in matter, even though the very science they use--quantum physics--says exactly the opposite.  There is no matter, at the bottom, according to most.  There is Consciousness.  Consciousness makes "real" what was previously latent.

To my mind, keeping an open mind does not mean you need to believe every crazy story that comes along.  But it also doesn't mean you have to DISBELIEVE it.  You don't become scientific by saying "that violates all the known laws of science".  You become scientific when you evaluate, first, whether or not something actually happened.  Science is all about empiricism, seeing, measuring, touching.  If something happens repeatedly, then it is within the domain of science.  Psi, precognition, the survival of death: these are all within the domain of science.  Most people are simply too stupid, and too stubborn to see it.

We seem to live in a multiverse.  Many things are possible.  Many worlds coexist at the same time which we can't, yet, see.

And while I'm at it, I'll share a video I just saw the other day for the first time, Skinny Bob:

Is it real?  I don't know.  What I can say for certain is that it is not a stupid question.  Gordon Cooper, Buzz Aldrin, and Edgar Mitchell (among many others) were all on record as either having seen (Aldrin and Cooper, and in his case twice) UFO's at close range, or in Mitchell's case of having interviewed many people with firsthand knowledge, such that he said repeatedly and publicly that the FACT of alien life and contact with humanity was something he was sure about.  The man walked on the Moon, was a naval aviator, and then test pilot, and had a Ph.D in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, making him a literal rocket scientist with a degree from one of the best schools in the world.

I don't know what time it is, but it is certainly past time for the dogmatists among us, those incapable of the slightest shred of flexibility when it comes to their world views, to wake up and start following the smell of coffee.


Perhaps my personal challenge, in this life, is to look at all the looming clouds on the horizon--to some great extent, to see the rain that is already falling, and feel the first beginnings of the gales I know are coming--and both retain hope, and learn to live in calm aliveness.  It is hard to do.  Most things that are worth doing are hard to do.

How to await with tranquility the executioner's block?  How to feel "all is well", when in the world I can see, all is not well?

These questions are at the core of what life on this planet is all about.

I will share as well here a vision I had yesterday.  If God is the perfection of latent form, and the angelic a lesser radiation of this, then humankind is form itself, visible form, form existing in the manifest part of the universe.  The demonic, then, is that which cannot form, which must feed on the form of others, and in so doing, tear it down and destroy it.

Evil is the process of hurting and breaking others.  At its worst, it is enjoying the process of destroying the psychological and moral integrity of others.  It is damaging and breaking their internal, latent forms.  It is bringing them down to your level.

Love, in contrast, builds form, builds individuality, builds the sense of self.  That sense of self, of unique self, is an increase in form, which is to say complexity.

As I have said before, perhaps what is interesting about this world--and I mean the whole of visible existence, the whole of the manifest universe--is that souls of all sorts can "land" here, can incarnate here, and can comingle.  The highly advanced can meet the demonic, with all points in between also possible.

Perhaps the demons intend to conquer this planet, and make it less, not more complex.  Machines are vastly more simple than life.  No machine will ever come within an order of magnitude of the true complexity of a living system.  Perhaps they want to make this their "heaven", which is to say as good as they can get, without growing into truly formed, truly living creatures.

Oh, I'm not sure what I am saying. I am reasonably sure I am saying things I have not seen said elsewhere, although I can't remember everything I read.  I am blessed and tormented daily with a parade of images and ideas and feelings of all sorts.  It is my destiny.  I accept that is who I am, at least for now, until I can learn to do better.

Every day is judgement day

I had visions yesterday of future weapons.  They are perfect, like nothing you have ever seen in a movie.

The technology exists today, in theory, to track all 7 billion or whatever human beings on the planet.  AI, facial recognition, gait analysis, satellite imaging, all combined: a person sitting at a computer in Utah could locate anyone within seconds.  Even in, say, Kyrgyzstan, even if they don't care what people's names are, they can identify "Kyrgyn tribesman number 4,426".  AI can track their long term patterns.  You can know in an instant their movements for the last year or ten years, or since they started tracking.

Now, the full equipment to make this a reality is not yet in place. There are not enough cameras, not enough satellite time, not enough--perhaps--funding.  But when the NSA speaks of Total Informational Awareness, this is what they intend.  I can't see any reason to doubt it.  It is the end logic of their project.  Now, of course, they merely track everything you do in electronic form.  They capture as a matter of daily habit everything public you do on the internet.  They have everyone's Facebook history in total.  They have the results of all the psychological tests you took for fun.

The only thing that saves us is the individual goodness and courage of the people that matter.  In every descent into tyranny, there are always lots of people who went along to get along.  They said later "it didn't seem like that important of a compromise at the time".  They say "well, it was only slightly outside of the lines, at the beginning".  The process of creating whores begins slowly too.  You begin with things that make them slightly uncomfortable, then as they adjust, you keep doing it.  You wind up with someone comfortable in being covered in feces, as was apparently done to Catherine DeNeuve in "Belle de Jour".  You wind up with an FBI which somehow manages to excuse its own corruption, which winds up with the HABIT of covering for those in their ranks who no longer respect the Constitution, jurisdictional law, the American people, or the immense responsibility for fairness and justice which their power necessarily conveys.  You wind up with a judiciary which views politics as more important than the law, and convenience as more important than integrity.

The bell is tolling for the souls of many in this benighted world, most of whom are quite confident, quite sure, that they are the highly moral, extremely clever people they imagine themselves to be.

I was told by an astrologer many years ago "You have Cassandra in you.  You will make prophecies and no one will listen."  Now, obviously, self evidently, I am saying things many people are saying.  It is because he lives in this world of doubt about our current path that I like Alex Jones.  All is not well.  You are not safe living in a world of fantasy.  Simply because our democracy has not imploded yet, does not mean it will endure forever. 

It is easy, of course, to be overwhelmed, to not know what to do.  I don't know what to do.  I do this. It's all I can think of.  But as I keep saying, surely to God the first step is to speak the truth openly, publicly, and consistently.  That is far better than most people do.  James Comey lacks the moral depth and personal integrity to realize the enormity of his crimes. He can't see how he is putting down paving stones on the road to perdition.  He thinks he's the good guy.  He's proud of himself.  He is walking around peacocking.

Humanity can only survive in freedom and something like dignity if the good among us retain control of the reigns of power.  If the many among us who envision darkness get and keep the power they want, I can't see how our future can be bright.

A core feature of most dystopian movies is gaps in surveillance.  In "V for Vendetta" the hero somehow gets around in secret.  That won't be possible.  Now is the time for good people to speak and to act.  Now is the time for the Supreme Court, or the courts in New York, or any remaining honest people at the FBI, to do the right thing.  Now is the time for Jeff Sessions and Trump to work hard to drain the Augean Stables.  It's not a swamp: it is a cesspool.

Monday, April 16, 2018

Executive Privilege

Does anyone else remember what happened when it looked like Eric Holder was going to get implicated--which he clearly was--in "Fast and Furious", which is to say, a policy developed by Obama and Holder to tolerate and even encourage mass murder in the hopes it would help support gun control efforts?  I do.  Obama invoked "Executive Privilege".  By habit, and perhaps by law too, Congress cannot get at the private deliberations of a sitting President.  The argument, and it is a sound one, is that if the President has to be continually worried about speaking out loud, about a record which may wind up in the public domain, he cannot do his job effectively.  Until now, both parties have respected this, albeit often while grumbling, with much justification in some cases, as with Holder, who is nearly certainly complicit in the murders of hundreds of people.

But if Cohen was the "President's Lawyer", and if they discussed, as they presumably did, how to deal with the Mueller Inquisition, not only lawyer/client confidentiality is dead, but so too is Executive Privilege.  The Democrats, and their attack arm, the fully partisan and politically weaponized FBI, have completely forgotten any bounds of propriety, as well as the literal rule of law, in their obsession to crush Trump.

I say again, that all people concerned with the preservation of our  Constitutional Republic should shudder looking at this fiasco, no matter their politics.  Alan Dershowitz, who has been a lifetime and hard core Democrat, has said point blank that this is a very, very dangerous precedent, and by implication, that it should be walked back, if there remain any legal scholars with a shred of principle and intelligence in this country in a position to do something.

And you KNOW that the FBI--which received permission to review everything today from a New York Democrat judge--is going to copy everything for future use, possibly as leaks.  Not everything they find will be ruled admissable, or even showable to investigators and prosecutors, but they will keep it all.  A rule may technically exist which indicates they must return what they can't use, but THE FUCKING HEAD OF THE FUCKING FBI IS ON RECORD AS LEAKING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.  The motherfucker is in fact on tour, trying to sell a book, where he talks about how he is taller than Trump, that Trump uses a tanning booth, and that Trump for some reason dislikes open hostility and insubordination among those who report to him, directly, or indirectly.

What low is not possible for such an organization, in such a world?  What is not possible in such a world, filled with so many stupid, stupid people?

Absurdity and evil

I watched "I, Tonya" last night, and felt conflicting emotions.  It's of course a ridiculous story.  Everyone involved behaves badly.  But you have to feel pity for Tonya.  She never really had a chance--then, at any rate.  Her mother was hateful, and someone like Jeff Gillooly inevitable.

It says at the end "she says she's a good mother".  I think we are supposed to laugh at that, but I hope it is true.  People who endure horrors, as she did, can grow beyond them. 

But I had this odd buzz of images flowing through my head in my dreams last night, and when I woke up.  Senseless, ridiculous, emotionally empty, absurd images.

And it struck me that much of the texture of human life is how we embrace absurdity.  We are surrounded by it.  Most of the rules we live by are fully contingent, but we act as if they are absolutely essential.  It is absurd to get upset when your sports team loses, or excited when they win.  You haven't done a thing, and they don't know you.  It is absurd to get upset by many things.

But at the same time, emotions have a logic.  When we see absurdity, what we need to do is look for the emotional logic underneath, and understand and embrace it.  On another level, EVERYTHING has a purpose.  Nobody ever does anything which doesn't make sense to them.

The role of comedy is pointing out to us our own ridiculousness.  We laugh, because we could also cry, in a great many cases, and both would be appropriate.  I laughed at the I, Tonya movie, in part because it was sad and brutal.  You laugh so you can both see, and not be hurt.

But the quality of your life is determined by whether you move towards absurdity, or away from it.  Moving away from it is is constantly looking to find what is emotionally real for you, what your emotional logic is, and continually refining it so that you can seek out and enjoy lasting peace, joy, compassion, and love.  This is the point of life.  We so often miss it.

The opposite, however, is moving away from one's authentic self, from one's authentic emotions, and towards a taste for viewing everything both as absurd, and irredeemable.  This is the person who laughs at everything, who is incapable of taking anything seriously, who seems incapable of tears.

I will offer Stephen Colbert as an example.  His brand of comedy is almost pure cruelty.  He is always laughing at what he claims is the stupidity of others.  Sometimes he is right.  Often he is right.  But this smug, smarmy superficiality is at its core utterly vacuous.  It is empty.  He is not arguing FOR positive values of any sort.  He merely mocks people who think differently, and makes a good living at it.

When I look in my heart at something like Satanism, the core belief is that nothing makes any sense, and nothing can be made to make any sense.  There is no rest in this world or the next, no belonging, no joy.  Everything is absurd and the world a cruel joke, and this faith a logical reaction to it.

If you think about it, the essence of the demonic is the formless.  It is that which cannot manifest, because it cannot create a structure for itself.  The essence of the angelic is beautiful and deep order.  I view the crystal, as a material substance, as a good analogy.  It conducts light, and in so doing transforms and channels it in particular ways.

The feeling is strong in what I am writing, but I am not quite sure I have captured it.  My thinking perhaps remains a bit cloudy.  Clouds do not conduct light well at all.

I will continue to ruminate.

I liked this

This is inspirational to me.  It's encouragement to up my game.  In all truth, my game has never been very good.  I am undisciplined.  I am beset by attacks of traumatic emotion continually.  I get tossed here and there, and I haven't figured out yet how to make it stop.  But I'm getting close.  I feel it.

And I can't help do what I do here, and what I've done on my other blog.  Thinking, pondering, trying to figure out how humanity survives--or at least creating a plan which is in depth, sensible, and possible--is really all I am capable of doing.  It is, obviously, my obsession.

But his comments on dealing with boredom and isolation, on attention, on being disciplined with time: all highly valuable for what I prefer to call a thought worker.

I actually took a class with Paul Griffiths at the University of Chicago.  Along with the then Assistant Dean there, he is one of two people in my life who, the moment I met them, I could tell were significantly more intelligent than me.  He probably has a 180 IQ and, as I think his letter makes clear, is still reasonably emotionally intelligent as well.

His last comment made me think of Charles Bukowski:

so you want to be a writer?

if it doesn’t come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don’t do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don’t do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
searching for words,
don’t do it.
if you’re doing it for money or
don’t do it.
if you’re doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don’t do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don’t do it.
if it’s hard work just thinking about doing it,
don’t do it.
if you’re trying to write like somebody
forget about it.

if you have to wait for it to roar out of
then wait patiently.
if it never does roar out of you,
do something else.

if you first have to read it to your wife
or your girlfriend or your boyfriend
or your parents or to anybody at all,
you’re not ready.

don’t be like so many writers,
don’t be like so many thousands of
people who call themselves writers,
don’t be dull and boring and
pretentious, don’t be consumed with self-
the libraries of the world have
yawned themselves to
over your kind.
don’t add to that.
don’t do it.
unless it comes out of
your soul like a rocket,
unless being still would
drive you to madness or
suicide or murder,
don’t do it.
unless the sun inside you is
burning your gut,
don’t do it.

when it is truly time,
and if you have been chosen,
it will do it by
itself and it will keep on doing it
until you die or it dies in you.

there is no other way.

and there never was.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Moving forward

I was very upset when Trump ordered the strikes on Syria.  I have been convinced that these gas attacks are false flag operations, since they make no sense.  I read yesterday that the Russians poisoned in London were poisoned with a type of gas made in America and Britain, not the type the Russians--I nearly said the Soviets--use.  The Russians could of course use our own gas, so this proves nothing.

But perhaps the Syrians WERE using poison gas, and perhaps a missile attack on the gas storage and production facilities was warranted.  It is a limited strike, no boots on the ground, no risk of American lives--if Russia doesn't attack us--and perhaps it will prevent further such attacks.  Still, I see no real difference between deaths from gas and deaths from bombing or shooting.  Dead is dead, and unless it happens instantly, it seems reasonably clear just about all forms are very unpleasant.

Trump had in the past indicated both that such attacks were useless, and that they required Congressional approval.  Leaving the first question aside, and leaving his apparent change of heart and mind aside for the moment, it does seem OBVIOUS that any action which might get us into a larger war MUST be approved at least by some segment of Congress.  As I have said before, sometimes decisions have to be made quickly.  Some system can be put in place to notify and get the consent from either a majority of Senators, or at least a majority of Senators on a relevant committee.  This would meet the INTENT of the Constitution, which did not want loose cannons inflicting damaging wars on America without being sufficiently popular to gain the public support of a significant portion of our elected representatives.

If the President wants to send in a team of SEAL's or Rangers to rescue captive Americans somewhere in Africa, fine.  If he wants to send in Green Berets to train some nation facing Islamic insurgency, fine.  But where major powers, like Russia and China and North Korea are concerned--nuclear powers--Congress should be notified and consulted.  Again, some high tech, secure means for doing this quickly can and should be created, and Presidents should be held to this standard.

This brings me to my main point.  I will wonder aloud if the Supreme Court at some point will put an end to the legal abuses of Robert Mueller.  Our system of government is based upon propriety, and upon strict boundaries.  Police are not allowed, per the 4th Amendment, to simply dig into every aspect of any American's life until they find something prosecutable.  What they have to have, per the Supreme Court, is probable cause.  When they execute a search warrant, it needs to be in relation to a specific crime.

Now, I see no reason to doubt that Mueller and Rosenstein and his enablers at Justice are MOSTLY following something approximating the rule of law, but it seems highly doubtful that they are completely following the law.  It seems obvious that the entire premise which enabled them to appoint Mueller in the first place was not just flawed, but KNOWN to be flawed.  A serious felony, as I understand it, was committed the moment Robert Mueller was appointed.  They knew Trump to be innocent of the charges, but forged ahead anyway.  They knew the Steele Dossier was fabricated, but they went ahead anyway.

Now Mueller is simply on fishing expedition after fishing expedition.  THIS IS NOT HOW OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WAS INTENDED TO WORK.  He has become an Inquisitor, not an investigator operating according to the rules of our system, which were intended to prevent people from becoming the subjects of indefinite and on-going investigations into every last minute aspect of their lives.  That the object of this investigation is the sitting President is relevant, certainly, but that ANY citizen of the United States should be subjected to this should be a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on and put a stop to.  Only the Court has the moral authority to do this without contrived and planned mass public outcry.

Now, the Supreme Court has a number of cowards in it--John Roberts, I am speaking to you--as well as de facto Leftists, who think the law should be made to say what they want it to say, rather than what it actually does say, but one can hope that one day their protracted somnolence will end.  They ended the recounts in Florida in 2000.  They can put an end to Rosenstein/Mueller too.

Failing that--and I have little but contempt for most of our "leaders", because they have shown themselves to be little minded cowards over and over--Trump needs to face up to the possibility of extortion.  One thing he knows, which we speculators must guess about, is what, if anything, he has actually done wrong.  Only he and Cohen and perhaps a few others know what the FBI will find in their stash of ill gotten loot.  I can only assume that--like I would guess most of Congress--there is something in there which would create problems for him. [My God, imagine if the FBI paid this level of attention to the Clinton Foundation, as it would if it were not something very close to fully corrupt].

Given this, his best play is to wait for them to blackmail him, fall on his sword publicly, admit his wrong-doing, then point out that this whole thing has been a political game intended to reverse the results of the 2016 election.

Here is the thing: a sitting President cannot be arrested.  We see this wishful fantasy played out over and over in the lunatic Left's public imagination, but the framers of our Constitution understood that a trial of a sitting President would make doing his job--in no small measure, protecting our country--impossible.  To be the subject of a criminal trial--and to be arrested--he would have to first be impeached by the House, then the Senate would have to vote to remove him.  Such, in any event, is my understanding.

Now, regardless of what the crimes may be--and with Trump it would most likely be something like tax evasion--the whole thing becomes politicized.  Many Leftists, of course, have welcomed the Mueller Inquisition.  But I also think many ordinary Americans are appalled at the tactics of the Left, and the patent corruption of our legal system which both Hillary's exoneration with respect to hundreds of serious felonies, and Trump's problems with respect to non-existent crimes, betray.  It is unmistakable: our Justice Department does not deal in justice, the FBI does not operate honestly, the IRS can be made into a partisan attack dog, and high officials--heads of departments--lie about important matters repeatedly over time with impunity.  Our system is corrupt.  It is broken.  We are being betrayed.  This is why Trump was elected.

From what I read, after Mueller's raid Trumps level of support went UP, not down.  At some point, even lifelong Democrats have to come to terms with the horrific corruption of their party, at its utter abandonment of principle and the very people it claims to support, such as the American worker.

I find it hard to hope.  There is so much hate, so much reflexive and trained stupidity, so little understanding, or even attempt at understanding.  But one has to hope.  I need to hope.

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated.

“Very different is the mood today. Britain, other nations thought, had drawn a sponge across her slate. But instead our country stood in the gap. There was no flinching and no thought of giving in; and by what seemed almost a miracle to those outside these Islands, though we ourselves never doubted it, we now find ourselves in a position where I say that we can be sure that we have only to persevere to conquer.”
Winston Churchill

Friday, April 13, 2018

Real tragedies

The true tragedy of the 1950's is that most Americans finally got most of the amenities of life they had always wanted, but they did not thereby become happy people. Culturally, we have never reckoned with, come to terms with, the failure of our public religion of comercialistic materislism. This failure was fatal for those who lacked religious belief. It was muted, but still present, in those who retained the faith of, and in, their fathers and mothers, and those who came before.

It likewise occurs to me that--rather, I am tempted to say, without bring sure I believe it--that the core tragedy of blacks in this country has not been racism but, paradoxically, the sheer numbers of whites eager and even desperate to be their saviors.  Racism has been a given in human history forever. So has slavery. The Greeks kept slaves. The Chinese kept slaves. The Jews kept slaves. Most Africans kept slaves. Most Native American tribes kept slaves.

America, of course, exists in continuity with the cultural flow of time, and the sins of everywhere else, and which predates the arrival of white people, existed here too for a time, until we fought s bloody and horrible, and horribly destructive war because a large number of American were both unwilling to sccept slavery, and unwilling to see the Union severed.

But only here, uniquely here, did an organized group realize that they could win elections on the basis of promises they knew they couldn't keep. Think about what the Democrats do: they make impossible promises, fail, then blame Republicans, such that they are able both to break every explicit and implicit (I will make car payment, she thought she heard Obama say) promise they make over many DECADES, and continue to ask for votes without getting ridden out of town on a pole.

To be sure, in some respect to the civil rights legislations the Republicans passed in the 1950's--and to a lesser but real extent the more famous legislation passed under Johnson in the 1960's--were reasonable responses to real problems. Institutional racism was a real problem. Your race mattered for jobs, where you could live, who you could marry, where you could eat, etc.

But large numbers of people, here and abroad, have dealt with racism and won. The Italians, the Jews, the Irish, and many others faced systematic prejudice. What did they do? They banded together as communities, took care of each other, created safe places for them and theirs, worked hard, and eventually became self evidently equal members of the American experiment and dream.

Blacks, uniquely, had large numbers of people outside their race and culture speaking for them nearly from the outset of the "Civil Rights era". They were flourishing until this happened, relatively. They had high labor participation rates, low unemployment, high rates of two parent homes. But when white people strayed speaking for them, especially after they lost their best leaders in MLK and Malcolm X, all progress stopped, then reversed.

In my view, this is easily shown demographically. You can show where black self destruction began, and it was in my view when they started getting treated like malleable and stupid children.


If it is true that agents within our government either allowed, authorized, ordered, or even COMMITTED the gas attack in Syria, ponder that. PONDER the evil inherent in murdering, in a terrible, hundreds of completely innocent people, in pursuit of political power, and/or the economic benefits of war.

Would such people blink at mass murder anywhere? Would the shooting in Las Vegas be a problem? Parkland? Of course not. I have no more knowledge of what really DID happen than most, but stating that these things are possible seems an obviously reasonable claim.

It is important to remember that much of the Left in America is of the Sybaritic type: they want to deny the reality of evil. Their lives consist in elaborate fantasies based on the idea that the people MOST amenable to reason and restraint--Conservatives--are in fact the WORST people in the world, and the main or even exclusive cause of all it's suffering. All they have to do, in this make believe world, is hate us and marginalize us, and everything else will fall in place. There is no other evil. There is no other greed, no other source of violence.

Emotionally, they are children. They are not idealists but idiots. Idealists look at the world as it is, and see what could be. I am an idealist. Imbeciles look at the world and see what they want to see.

And the thing is, when you are emotionally unwilling to see evil, to feel it in you, too, then it can easily grow within you, unnoticed, unchecked. This is how the viciousness we see everywhere today happened. It is also how they are so blind they think that--with a hundred million dead bodies they must claim responsibility for--they are the good ones.

Thursday, April 12, 2018


Just as with IQ intelligence, it takes a certain amount of emotional intelligence to realize when you are being stupid. The beginning of learning there, too, is growing to understand how you COULD know, but don't.

As with any other learning--and emotional intelligence is much
more amenable to training than regular intelligence--you begin by not knowing what you don't know.

This is why the arrogance of the Left is so damaging: it makes learning and genuine, emotionally intelligent adaptation impossible.

It is astonishing to watch people who are mellow and friendly in every other aspect of their lives turn into werewolves the moment someone crosses a political line.

What this betrays, of course, is that the anger was there all along, and the veneer of kindliness and tolerance a lie. This is obvious, but I think it does lead to the reasonable claim that the Left is more of less characterized by a lack of self knowledge. I would further stipulate that the recalcitrance to introspection, and the pervasiveness of grandiose moralizing, are what make the Left--and Utopianism generally--so attractive to so many ugly people.  The Left won't ask you who you ARE. They will merely ask you what you are willing to say you believe.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


It is ODD that the "gas attack", which served no tactical military purpose whatever for the Syrians, and which could be counted on to hurt them strategically, happened more or less at the same time as what amounted to the attack on Trump via his lawyer.

He's hot. People do irrational things when they are angry. Can I wonder publicly if the two events were in fact coordinated?

There is obviously, within our government, a "Committee to unelect Trump". Only minimal coordination would be needed to tell Mueller the gas attack was signal for the raid.

All this May of course be vastly more complicated. It may be MUCH more complex and my suppositions ridiculous,

But in principle, based on what we already DO know, is anything off the table?

Is a plan based on challenging Trumps manhood, then creating an immediate and powerful means to respond by proxy ridiculous in principle? We are dealing with highly intelligent people.


Why do we care about Syria?

Why would we risk a large war to respond to what was likely a CIA backed false flag attack?

Why would we wheel about, after Trumo already decided Syria was not a fit and appropriate place to ask Americans to die, or to sacrifice their time and life energy?

I need to stop reading the news.

That will be s steep abyss for me, but I will survive.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Trump's instincts

I think Donald Trump has excellent instincts.  It is always a bad idea to make snap decisions, or act when enraged.  But what seems to be happening is that he has been forced to ignore his instincts regarding Rosenstein and Mueller--and perhaps Sessions, who he continues to trust, seemingly, for reasons I can only hope come from information being disclosed in closed door meetings--over and over.  All the RINO's are telling him not to make waves. 

When SHOULD he make waves?  When would be good for them?  Mueller won't quit without blood.  Is the 1st of Nevuary good for them, since that is always a good time to do the right thing, even when politically unpopular among some?

The Raid on Trump's Lawyer

Literally everything Trump has ever done or talked about with his attorney, under the presumption of complete confidentiality, is now in the hands of the FBI.  The raid was authorized by a man who reports directly to Jeff Sessions, who recused himself, with less excuse to do so than Mueller, who obviously did not suffer from such scruples.

We were told to worry about dirt the Russians might have had on Trump, which turned out to have been a propaganda operation conducted jointly by the Democrat Party, a contractor they hired, a former (or current) British intelligence agent, the FBI, the Justice Department, and probably the CIA.

But NOW what if they DO find dirt, things 10, 20, 30 years old?  Can they not now blackmail Trump?  Would this make the news?  Of course not.

Would Ken Starr, in his most egregious overreach, have contemplated something like this?  Of course not. [edit: or did he?  I don't know.  I don't remember it.]

And what is next?  Can the FBI raid your shrink's office, to get all the notes from all your sessions, just in case there is crime the therapist might be covering up?

There is fascism coming to this nation, and it is coming exclusively from those who oppose Trump.

And I read that kids may play a game changing role in the next election.  Do you really think that most recent propaganda operation was conducted with anything but this outcome in mind?

It's hard to be hopeful, with so much evil, so much lying, so much recklessness and violence, everywhere.  There is no reason for it.  We can live in peace, with the technology and systems we have built.  But there is war in too many hearts, and I do not know the cure.

Trump's rage was that of an ordinary man, suffering outrageous injustice.  If he did NOT become furious, I would have wondered about him.  You have to keep your cool.  But if cool is all you have, then you are not a human being. Yes, John Brennan, I am thinking of you.

Posted without (further) comment

Special Counsels

Why would we not put a Sunset provision into the Special Counsel law, such that once authorized , they have to be periodically REauthorized in order to keep working?  We could make the authorizer Congress, or the Attorney General, or perhaps even some anonymous body of citizens convened as something like a jury.  We could require whoever sets loose a Special Council that they provide the means for ending the investigation.  Because what is happening now is ludicrous, by any standard.

Will Robert Mueller still be operating in 2020?  Will he be investigating Trump's reelection campaign while it happens?  Will he be investigating the campaigns of all Republicans in 2018?  How can we know?  Where do his non-delineated powers end?  When do they end?  Maybe he could still be investigating 10 years from now, 15 years from now.  Maybe he could appoint a replacement, and the research be continued until 2050, or the final death of our Constitutional Republic, which would certainly not last that long in such circumstances.


Based solely on his decision not to recuse himself, and on the stunts he has thus far pulled in his search for dirt on Trump, what sane person could call Mueller a stand-up guy? Who could say "trust this guy"?

Who, who supports Trump, could blame him for ending this hyperpartisan witch hunt by firing Mueller, and who, who hates Trump, will hate him any less no matter WHAT he does?

Special counsels are not supposed to be a 4th branch of government, and they are not intended to lead de facto coups against people who win elections.

Mueller is a dirtbag. Period. He may have been honest at some point, perhaps even for a long time. But he isn't now.

My periodic plea

Unless I am missing something major, which is getting ready to break, Elmer Fudd needs to go.

Trump was elected on outrage. He was elected because he had the balls to say "because you'd be in jail."

Yet despite blatant evidence of top down corruption in every major department he heads, virtually NOTHING has been done that I can see. Trump can't even fire fucking Rosenstein.

I'm baffled. Why can't we put someone like Ted Cruz or Trey Gowdy in charge of Justice?

All the crimes the IRS, DoJ, FBI, CIA, and State (among others) committed? All the felonies Hillary committed? They are going to get away with them, during the tenure of the one man we thought had the balls to start turning over rocks and shining bright lights on what he found.

Culture as addiction

Logically, if dopamine exists to reinforce behaviors, to tell you "this behavior is right, this is what you ought to be doing", then one primary function of that complex system we call "culture" is providing guidance on what is right and proper, such that this particular neurotransmitter serves to confirm and validate some behaviors, and be conspicuously absent in others.  Guilt, for example, may be a lack of dopamine.  I don't know.  I don't know if neuroscientists know.  But it is interesting to speculate.

But in an intact culture, everyone does the same things at the same time, periodically, and this feels good, for most.  You celebrate the festivals, for example.  In Mexico, they have many festivals, so they get regular dopamine releases, simply by existing and participating.

In America, hard work is what many of us were taught to feel right.  This, logically, leads to more getting done, and greater prosperity.  But how much is enough? Your effort relative to your capacity is known only to you, and until the point of exhaustion, more is always possible.

In one sense, it would be possible to view our culture's freneticism (yes, it is a word, because I say so) as the logical spinning out of control of a basic impulse to validate oneself through effort and concrete accomplishment.

It would seem that you only get a solid dopamine hit when you are quite sure you have done the right thing.  When your biological organism is relaxed and confident that this is a worthwhile behavior.  But if it gets harder and harder to KNOW what is worth doing, in a highly diverse, fractionating, and largely--with internet-ing--solipsistic society, then logically you have to sort of create a culture of one, to find things which make YOU feel better.  Addictions of all sorts would seem to be the obvious and inevitable consequence of cultural breakdown, and indeed that is what we are seeing.  It is not just the availability of hard drugs and internet porn which cause so much addiction: it is the NEED for addiction as a sort of ritual inclusion, in a world where nothing can any longer be said with confidence, when indeed simply saying "Make America Great Again" gets you called all sorts of ridiculous names.  And who is doing the name-calling?  Those whose culture requires them to, with the rejection of genuine difference being the main glue holding them together, and allowing THEM to get their dopamine hits.

All this though leads back to an interesting question: is an intact, healthy culture inherently characterized by what could, on some level, be called an addiction, in the sense of profound behavioral rigidity and following compulsion?  Think of any tribal group, with very clear behavioral norms.  They were the opposite of tolerant.  You either abided by the rules, or you were expelled.  This was the sort of thing I realize, now, because of Alan Bloom, that Rousseau was referencing with his being "forced to be free". (I would propose as one useful new American ritual requiring all clever schoolchildren to read "The Closing of the American Mind": he was gay, so that should help).

But of course cultures evolve.  They are not compelled.  You cannot both be free and living in abject terror, and the Terror, and terrors which came about because of his ideas--the Khmer Rouge perhaps most obviously and directly, with their Year One idea--are a logical extension of what he did actually say.

As is obvious, I am a Spiritualist, broadly speaking.  I recognize that our brains affect our behavior, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence also indicates that our minds are not fully contained in our brains.  This is all a mystery, which I hope one day scientists will study with the seriousness it warrants.

But much spiritual literature talks about being versus doing.  The Tao Te Ching, for example, talks about the virtue of Not Doing.  He obviously doesn't mean to do nothing, but rather to act with a specific quality of energy, with a certain type of higher engagement.

And I can't help but wonder if dopamine is related to a lower energy, and getting away from its relentless striving to confine us not a major part of spiritual growth, on a neurophysiological level.

Few thoughts for a Tuesday.

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Simple question

Is there an equivalent anywhere in the Republican world to "Rules for Radicals"?  If one wants to argue that Karl Rove borrowed from it in 2000, fine.  But did he create it?  And has there not been a widespread rebellion by grassroots Republicans at the acquisition of power without principle?

Where, among Democrats, is there an equivalent to the term RINO?  Where are the people saying "we have abandoned the workers"?  Where are the people saying "we have failed the blacks who voted for us all these years"?

To the extent Democrats are criticized internally, it is for not wanting government control of substantially every last aspect of the lives of Americans, at a national level, forever.

I can't know what will happen.  None of us can.  But I feel absolute calm that I have chosen ideas--and to the extent I can find them, people--consistent with the ideas I have formed about goodness, the point of life, and the purpose of politics.

I have never seen a Democrat able to claim the same.  They can't, not if they are honest about their recent past and present.

Left wing hypocrisy

When I speak of Leftism as Cultural Sadeism, what I intend is not that the typical Democrat goes around tearing the wings off of butterflies, or kicking dogs.

What I intend, ultimately, is that they have severed the emotional wellsprings of well-being, of authentic humanness, and authentic relating.  It stems from a sickness, now.  At one time, it was possible to both be a sincere, decent human being, AND to vote Democrat.  Democrats were the party of labor unions, when genuine abuses were happening.

They have never REALLY been the party of blacks, but let's pretend that at one moment in time--perhaps the late 1960's--this was possible to believe, because of LBJ and the Kennedys (and despite the disproportionate efforts of Democrats to block civil rights legislation; and while ignoring the original civil rights bill passed in the 1950's by a Republican Congress and under a Republican President)..

But all that is gone.  There is nothing left but the shrieking.  Their beliefs have fallen into a deep, black hole, and they have pulled half of the Republicans with them.  They do not even ATTEMPT to make policy which is genuinely wise, in aggregate.

What does Facebook have against Diamond and Silk?  Simple: they are 1) black; and 2) unapologetically Pro-Trump, and pro-Republican in general.  This is not the, what?  The NARRATIVE they want to push.

Privileging perception--which is what a narrative is--over reality, is a hallmark of sociopaths.  People who CARE, who genuinely CARE, want solutions, and are willing to look in all directions.  These psychopaths are not looking for solutions.  Politics exists for two purposes: to help them FEEL good, particularly in the context of long term personal viciousness; and to help them LOOK good, in a world where appearances are all that seemingly matters.

Saturday, April 7, 2018


Fear is a thousand tentacled monster you can only slay one tentacle at a time.

The 1950's

It is always interesting to me to see the cliche of the 1950's as static, boring, insincere, and uncreative.  What is never added to the picture is that most of the people in the 1950's had vivid memories of the 1930's and 1940's.  Most of them had seen, and many had been, in bread lines, had grown Victory Gardens, had served in the military, had been in combat, had had family members die.

Nuclear war drills were common, the Korean War was fought in the early part of the decade, and when you factor all this together, the thirst for normality, for calm, for consistency, is absolutely healthy.

But even there, I suspect there was vastly more capacity for diversity of opinion back then than now.  You could not predict a person's entire political range of opinions based on a couple of question, or so I like to believe.  Nuance remained possible, I like to believe.

What is always unclever is taking any one people, group, time, or place, and assuming everyone behaves identically.  The Left blows a gasket if any white makes generalizations about blacks, but they do it all the time.  They simply make different generalizations.  And they are PROUD of the generalizations they make about both whites and conservatives.

In all times and places where is more going on under the surface that is first apparent.  What I see, under the parade of "diverse" ways of dressing, sexualizing oneself--and actually that is all I can come up with--the Left is dismally, abysmally, distressingly gray, conformitarian, and unoriginal.  As I think I wrote a week or two ago, they ARE what they like to mock.

The 1950's were not like that at all.  A lot of great books got published then, and many great thinkers were doing some of their best work.

I can't think of one public intellectual alive today I admire.  No, that's not true: Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson.  But they are not as well known as they should be.


All problems have death in them. It is up to us to find the life in them. And there are some forms of life, some qualities of being, which can ONLY be found in problems, which on that score should equally and accurately be labeled opportunities. A great life is a great set of problems, and a creative and generative interaction with them.

It is interesting to contemplate the vast difference in the quality of the eventual stories which might happen when identicsl events happen to very different people. What is an exciting and life affirming adventure for one person might well be terrifying and traumatizing for another. Something happens, we react, and from there it all goes spinning in countless different directions.

Should proper life schooling not consist in teaching how to generate the former reaction and minimize or avoid the latter?

And in a perfect world, wound we not to still want major fuckups to be possible?


No superior person, and no superior Power needs to be acknowledged as such.  Being is its own reward, and the attention and love of others is a poor substitute for it.  Seeing this is one aspect of being superior.

Worship exists for the worshiper, to help them achieve the humility which alone enables the genuinely new to enter.  Worship says openly there is something better, that there exists a path--perhaps a hidden, seldom trodden path--but a path towards so much more.  And "more" can expand indefinitely, can it not?  You can spend days and years traveling a narrow, dangerous, difficult path, only to one day find it opens onto a completely new world.  Respect for what comes next, though, for the path, is what enables this to happen.  This is worship.

God does not need slaves.  God does not want slaves.  Only humans want that, and then only inferior humans.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Hell, I'll go there

I was not alone in wondering about the timing of the death of what amounted to Obamas mother for the latter half of his youth, Madelyn Dunham.

On September 8th, her worst problem is osteoporosis. On November 2 she is dead, from cancer, we are told. I assume there are cancers that kill in weeks, but the specific form was never mentioned.

This is odd. Do I have evidence of foul play? Of course not. Do I think she was smothered in her bed to cover up a loose end? I don't think so, but I am unwilling to say it is impossible. The 2 gay men in Obamas church who had hits put on them: those murders remain unsolved. So does the murder of Seth Rich. I could go on.

The deeper point I want to make is that it is not paranoid to suppose the worst where trillions of dollars and the future of the Earth are at stake.

The systemic problems which enabled Obama continue. In his day, many journalists were asked not just to choose between telling the truth and keeping their jobs, but asked, implicitly, if they still had souls to sell. It seems obvious many of them had to say no.

Weird as hell

Here is what is floating around:  “In reference to your inquiry concerning the March For Our Lives Demonstration, here in the District of Columbia on March 24, 2018. MPD received a permit application several months prior to the actual event, and there was several months of planning for this large event.”

Snopes, of course, is in the business of making things go away. As I never tire of pointing out--because it is evidence, prima facie, incontrovertible evidence, in my view, of a sickness in our media and popular mind--Snopes, when it was unable to refute allegations that Obama's mother posed nude as a teenager for a black Communist photographer in the late 50's or so, simply deleted the claim.  Here is a link:

I'm not going to go deeply into this right now, again.  Suffice it to say, that large, very world altering truths can be exposed, reach daylight, reach widespread saturation, and still disappear as if they were never uncovered at all.  Most people are stupid, few people remember anything from day to day, and very few people can or do take the time to think carefully about anything.

Here is the thing: Snopes claims to falsify this claim by a later report by the same Department indicating they had confused the March for our Lives with the March for Life.  Here is what they say: "However, Earhardt told non-partisan fact checker PolitiFact that he had confused the “March for Our Lives” rally with an annual event in January bearing a similar name: March for Life."

First off, any time anyone says they are non-partisan, you should doubt their credibility immediately.  Snopes claims to be non-partisan.  Some joke.

But the salient point is that the original communication, which is seemingly transmitted verbatim, mentions a very specific date, March 24, 2018.  The March for Life happened, if I'm reading correctly, January 19, 2018.

How is this mistake possible?  Is it CREDIBLE to believe that this mistake, with a very specific date, was simple stupidity or carelessness?  Or is it more credible to believe that on first pass he had not thought through the implications of what he was saying, then later realized that if he didn't recant immediately, that a firestorm was going to engulf him and his department?

I'm far from the only one saying this whole thing feels managed.  As near as I can tell, everyone died who is said to have died, and the shooter seems to have been Nicholas Cruz.  But something is not right.  I watched Double Indemnity over the weekend, and what I feel is that "little man" that drove Edward G. Robinson to nearly uniformly correct conclusions, even when they seemed to contradict what evidence he thought he had.

It's like Obama's birth certificate.  Whenever that became an issue, the responsible people went and looked for it, found it, then saw that the father was Frank Marshall Davis, and decided to shut the fuck up, and simply validate that it was there, and they had a record of a Hawaiian birth.  It's not hard to shut up bureaucrats.  Almost to a person, they are career conformists.  That is how they have careers.  I would not last in nearly any bureaucracy.  I tried AT&T and didn't even make it a year.  I cannot stand group stupidity, and cannot stand the energy needed to keep my mouth shut. 

But to the point here, there remain a ton of unanswered questions, and we cannot even remotely count on mainstream media to do its job.

Again, this is why liminal, sometimes crazy websites like InfoWars are so essential. I don't agree with everything Alex Jones says by any means.  Sometimes I think he's off in the deep end.  But he is not afraid to say what he thinks, to think out loud, to speculate, to run with stories that are not well documented, but which COULD be true.

Journalistic "professional" exist, in some respects, to "curate" information.  They don't exist to tell all possible truths, and the truth is that many things are in fact true which can never be proven so.  Many things exist on a continuum of possibility, but most journalists tend to ignore anything which they can't affirm to be true.  This leaves large segments of potentially useful information completely unmined, and it makes it easy to ignore ideas for which little evidence exists, but which might be world changing.

Most of the time, the people who more or less call themselves information professionals are merely note-takers, couriers of statements, made by this person or that person, or public cryers, announcing weddings and funerals.  They are reactive.  They don't dig into deep issues, they don't stay with hard topics.  They are reactive to our continually changing attention, but they also help create it.  They don't ever ask anyone to pay sustained attention for very long.  And they themselves seem to have forgotten how to do it.

Here is a short video with some of the problems:

The issue with regard to Hogg's whereabouts seems to have been solved: it was bad editing, and the bike ride happened that evening.

But either the girl is LYING about Cruz--and her story is corroborated by a second witness--and obviously, they were in a crowd, so more witnesses could be found if there remained any honest fucking journalists--or we are being lied to about how many shooters there were, and who they were.

Why Cruz would cooperate if he knows he is innocent, I don't know.  Perhaps he was threatened, perhaps he was offered something.

But something stinks to high heaven.  There are a number of flexion points which would make the whole narrative pop. One would certainly be proof that the permit for the March was applied for months ago, about when the FBI was warned about Cruz.