Monday, December 31, 2012

Marco Rubio--HuffPo


Perhaps I am mistaken, but in my fantasy world I like to imagine there was a time in our history when people had substantive discussions about important matters in a mature fashion. An era when intellectual tolerance was a habit, and debates sincere and rational, and erudite.

What you have just published is a piece that might be titled "The Marketing of Marco Rubio". You have virtually nothing about his ideas, or how they might be superior or inferior to those of whoever he runs against. You have said nothing about our looming fiscal disaster (this is about as short as the case can be made:

In short, what you are contributing to is the dumbing down of America. You are asking us to value polish and appearance over substance. You are telling us that Obama's marketing talent is a virtue, when in fact all it did was enable a mediocrity about whom we can verify virtually nothing (Trump's $5 million remains unpaid) to ascend to the White House. For people who only care about their side winning, perhaps it is understandable to view this as a good thing.

But this is not a football game, and the consequences of our looming national failure will affect everyone.

Sixty Second Habit

I got this email from Barry Joe McDonagh.  His Panic Away program is excellent.  I have never had panic attacks, per se, but I have had attacks of grief that were so intense they were functionally identical.  I would encourage anybody barely holding on, and afraid of getting pushed over the edge to get his program. It's quite simple, but effective.  It gives you defensive tools that are well worth the investment.

Importantly, it was with hearing his approach--welcoming and encouraging negative emotions--that I realized how to process my own emotions.  You have to go through them. You can't go over or under them.

In any event, this is a cut and paste, and looks like a good idea to me:

This is the world's most powerful 60 second habit:

Get a small notebook and within 30 minutes of
waking each morning write down just one thing you
are grateful for.

Just one thing and it should not take you longer
than 60 seconds to write it down.

Done. That's all you have to do.

This one simple habit is worth more than
bars of gold. I am very serious about that.

Universities around the world have studied the
art of gratitude and scientifically proven its benefits
as one of the surest ways to improve a persons
sense of well being.

Here is one example from Dr. Robert Emmons of the
University of California at Davis and Dr. Michael McCollough
of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas:

"The first group kept a diary of the events that occurred
during the day... the second group recorded their unpleasant
experiences, [and] the last group made a daily list of things
for which they were grateful."

The results of the study indicated that daily gratitude
exercises resulted in higher reported levels of alertness,
enthusiasm, determination, optimism and energy.

Additionally, the gratitude group experienced less
depression and stress, was more likely to help others,
exercised more regularly and made more progress
toward personal goals.

According to the findings, people who feel grateful are
also more likely to feel loved.

Wow...Isn't it incredible to think you can tap into all that
through a simple 60 second habit done daily!

Each time you write one thing that you are grateful for,
imagine it like you are making a priceless deposit into
your emotional bank account.

It may be the best thing you do all day.

So let's start this powerful habit together on January 1st
and get 2013 off to a great start.

60 seconds is all it takes but if you are feeling
a resistance to this, like it might be too much
of a commitment then do it just for one week
and see what changes you notice.

You can post your comments and progress on this blog
post here

I will check back in with you at the end of the month and
do a survey of those that have participated.

Some quick pointers before you begin:

-Get your small notebook ready this week and place it
somewhere you will have easy access to it. Be sure it's
a really nice notebook so that it feels important and
special to you.
-Don't start until January 1st!  Helps build suspense.

-If you struggle to come up with things each day
to be grateful for, write these questions in at
the back of notebook.

What am I truly grateful for in my life?
What relationships do I have that others don't?
What do I take for granted?
What freedoms, unique abilities, and options do I have that others don't?
What advantages have I been given in life?
Who has helped me recently?
What happened yesterday that I am grateful for?

Looking forward to hearing how you all get on. You can post
your progress here

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Economic pattern

Data Point One: Last post, in which the data CLEARLY shows that even the most draconian tax increases imaginable would not come CLOSE to closing the gap between projected liabilities and income.

Data Point Two: Read this article.  Salient quote: "In 2009, foreign purchases of U.S. debt amounted to 6 percent of GDP. The current percentage has fallen by over eighty percent to 0.9 percent of GDP. So who’s picking up the slack? The Federal Reserve, which is buying a mind-blowing 61 percent of government debt issued by the Treasury Department. ”The Fed is in effect subsidizing U.S. government spending and borrowing via expansion of its balance sheet and massive purchases of Treasury bonds. This keeps Treasury interest rates abnormally low, camouflaging the true size of the budget deficit,” wrote Lawrence Goodman, former Treasury official and current president of the Center for Financial Stability, last March."

Data Point Three: "Basel III  is a global regulatory standard on bank capital adequacy, stress testing and market liquidity risk agreed upon by the members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2010–11, and scheduled to be introduced from 2013 until 2018.[1][2] The third installment of the Basel Accords (see Basel I, Basel II) was developed in response to the deficiencies in financial regulation revealed by the late-2000s financial crisis. Basel III strengthens bank capital requirements and introduces new regulatory requirements on bank liquidity and bank leverage. The OECD estimates that the implementation of Basel III will decrease annual GDP growth by 0.05–0.15%."

Basel III will be deflationary, as it will require higher reserve ratios.

First, I want to note in passing that the Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by large banks, and has complete secrecy with respect to its actions, and has no legally enforceable fiduciary duty to anyone--although, self evidently, the self interest of member banks will no doubt be paramount.

Secondly, though, it submits to what I might term the "council" of the members of the Bank of International Settlements, even though it is clearly "primus inter pares." It is a sort of shadow world, like the council on the Avengers, that reports to no government.

To the point: currently, over half of our borrowing is being enabled by the Federal Reserve.  As banks have less money to lend, as the economy slows for a variety of reasons, as tax receipts decline even at higher rates, and as spending GROWS, the relative importance of the Fed will skyrocket.

It would likely not be exaggerating to say that TODAY we are at a point where our government quite literally cannot operate without Fed money, and this process is increasing in scope, and will continue to in a virtually exponential fashion for the foreseeable future.

This state of affairs means that ALL politicians will have to kowtow to the Fed, or risk ruin.

Keynesian Fascism is based on this basic process, in which the government gets its hands into everything, such that it is a web from which it is impossible to untangle functional, meaningful economic liberty, or truly free markets.

The Fed is buying the government.  It is using inflation--always a wealth transfer, remember--to buy influence at  the highest levels.

Now, none of the people involved need money.  These companies have asset portfolios that would dwarf the wealth of most nations, and their CEO's make hundreds of millions over their careers.

It does seem likely that power mongers at the highest levels--aided and abetted by amoral thieving academics like Paul Krugman--have a plan for us to reach a place where we BEG for government.

I will note, too, that since banks create most price inflation. the fact that their reserve ratios are going up will in part mask the inflationary effects of all the new money being put into circulation by the Fed.

Quantiative Easing is really simply a mask for this process, and economic decline is actually a good thing for them, since it masks both inflation, and the actual motivation for the money creation.

True Deficit

Everyone who has kids or claims to care about the future needs to read this article:

Data Point One: actual accrued liabilities are kept off our Federal balance sheets, in a manner that would be illegal for almost all private businesses and public pension funds.

Data Point Two: if we accrue them honestly, they amount, approximately, to some $86 trillion.

Data Point Three: "When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit."

Data Point Four: "According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws."

Conclusion One:  "if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved."

Conclusion Two (my own): not only is Granny CERTAIN to go over a cliff--not only are substantial cuts to the programs going to essential for national survival--but our kids are going to go over a cliff as well.

There will come a time--assuming we don't fall into a history-deleting tyranny--when  the idiocy and short-sightedness, and simple greed of this period will be seen with the contempt they well warrant.

Fiscal Cliff HuffPo

From here:

The situation is simple: we have two groups of lunatics arguing over whether we should continue to increase unsustainable spending quickly or slowly.  What they in fact are arguing over is whether we want a complete fiscal collapse in ten years, or if 5 years would be more congenial. 

There are only a couple sane people in all of Congress.  Rand and Ron Paul are the only ones who come readily to mind.  We are borrowing over a trillion a year.  Obama wants this number to go up by increasing taxes and increasing spending even more. 

We are already some 86 trillion in the hole with respect to Social Security and Medicare.  This means THE MONEY WILL RUN OUT.  THE MONEY WILL RUN OUT.

Our children--well, let me be more specific--YOUR children are going to hate you.  They are going to ask how you could be so callous, selfish and irresponsible as to fail to make plans for the future, how you could be so blind.

Excellent video on gun control

This is well worth the watch.  Very well done (although I wish he had linked his sources at the end)  If I had put a presentation together, this is about what it would have looked like.  He gets into ALL aspects of the issue, dealing statistically not just with gun ownership (30% lower homicide rates in Conceal Carry States; 42% less violent crime), but also social issues.  He makes the excellent point that much of our violent crime traces to the perverse incentives created by our drug laws, which--just as happened in Prohibition--actually facilitate violence by literally making crime pay.  Or the War on Poverty: if people married at 1970 rates, most urban poverty would disappear.  85% of prison inmates come from single parent homes.

The thing is logically coherent, fact filled, and lucid.

I am going to send it to a couple local school districts, and perhaps a few randomly chosen college professors.  It is that good.  I would encourage anyone reading this to post it on their Facebook, then email the link to a few people.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Ray of Sunshine

I would like to introduce a counterpoint to my normal doom and gloom and cranky/weird/insightful/ introspection:

I strongly encourage you to watch the video at the end, the 4-ish minute one.

It truly is "wars and rumors of wars", isn't it?  If you can't release the fear here, now, in whatever circumstance you find yourself, you can't do it anywhere else.  There are people going hungry in Africa and elsewhere, I suspect--who suffer, and of course don't want to suffer--but who worry less than we do here, surrounded by living conditions far in excess of the greatest kings of old.

There is no reason for me to stop blogging, to stopping trying to understand, to comment, to contribute, but I have every reason to stop worrying, to stop fearing.

A life lived in fear is a life half lived.  Don't remember where I saw that, but I've always liked it.

Love in a time of cholera

I have not read the book, but find the title evocative.  When distress and misery are around you, do you not still have the opportunity, the chance, to love--not just a person, but yourself and life?

And in truth we have it so easy, at least for now.  It is what MIGHT happen we fear.  I went into a Whole Foods yesterday, and it is miraculous how much stuff they had--the extensive cheese selection, the fresh produce, the olive bar,, the high quality beef, salmon and sausage.

I was going to to this as a separate post, but I'll ask this question here: if you knew, for sure, that you create your own reality, how easy would it be for you to imagine the best possible future for you?  I suppose it might be easy for some, but I suspect for many of us it would be quite difficult.

In some respects all but the most emotionally healthy people are afflicted with a sort of Multiple Personality Disorder.  We have parts of us that crave success and love and all the good things in life; then we have a part that is afraid of losing what we have, of risking; or which is outright self sabotaging. Many, many people dream less, work less, achieve less because some part of them thinks they aren't worth it, don't deserve it.

Certainly that has been the case with me.  This is hard, I think, for people to understand who have not been subjected to sustained efforts to eradicate them.

Right to work

This is a reasonable piece:

It’s my belief that a basic right we have as free citizens is to not be forced to do something we don’t want to do. That is the basic definition of oppression, something our country has long fought against, something many of our citizens fled their homelands to seek refuge from on our shores.

Friday, December 28, 2012

Bill of Rights

It is worth reading through them, here.

You will note that 4 through 8 deal in some ways with the means by which a government can restrict a person's freedom and privacy.  The NDAA violates most of them.

Arguably, the 10th Amendment, as well, should regulate the police power of the Federal government.

Tyranny is something a long time coming, and the first necessary casualty in that war, if it is to be won by the Fascists, is logical integrity.  Words need to be made to mean whatever they need them to mean, and to be mutable even then.

Our leading thinkers--I nearly and incongruently almost said "best", although "most esteemed" might work as well--have given  up the challenge of word defense.  This is why I feel so much fear for the future.  How can the middle hold when the people who are supposed to keep it together are running around jabbering nonsense?

Edit: Actually, it is worth reading the Preamble, as well, which I had never read:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


This is not as organized intellectually as I would like, but it is well referenced:

It deals with the evidence for the survival of death.  I think is a better initial resource, but the point I wanted to make here is that it is apparently censored in the formerly Great Britain.  Quite literally, EVIDENCE, scientific EVIDENCE is being suppressed.

I will point out again that the Brit's do not have a Bill of Rights. Orwell got his idea for memory holes from actual work at the BBC.

The right to keep and bear arms--to secure liberty by force if necessary--is second only to the rights of religion, free speech and assembly in our own Bill of Rights.  That placement is very intentional, in my view.  


Why in God's name would you consider passing new laws being "productive"? I would consider a Congress that passed NO new laws--no, one which revoked existing laws--to be "productive". Beyond any possibility of contradiction, the existence of new laws is, ipso facto, a curtailment in our liberty.

Of course, if fascism is your aim, then absolutely you have picked the correct system of measurement.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The Symbolism of guns

Guns represent power.  When dispersed among the populace, they represent freedom.  A man or woman choosing to carry a gun is doing more than facilitate self defense: they are choosing response-ability; they are choosing to believe that they themselves are best qualified to protect themselves.  They are rejecting the mindset that protection--and everything else--is somehow OUT THERE, somehow someone else's job.

The concept of the militia was the citizen-soldier, that every able bodied man was potentially a part of the army, potentially someone who would play a role in our national defense.

Freedom is about self organizing systems, about people getting together to solve problems spontaneously, organically, locally.  Guns are an inextricable part of this.

No guns, no freedom.  It really is that simple.

We will not stop future Newtowns by passing draconian regulations.  We might in fact make them more likely.  In my view, the only moral, sane, responsible response is to question why IN HELL we continue to pretend that suicidal mad-men will check their guns at ANY door.  We consistently disarm prospective citizen soldiers, and prevent them from doing their own police work.

The record is clear: 14 killed on average when the "professionals" do the shooting, and 2.5 when civilians do.  One number is larger than the other, and not likely to change.  There were 26 dead in Newtown.  5 revolvers with 6 rounds would have done that.

We need to focus on common sense, CONSTITUTIONAL solutions.

Hillary Clinton

It is worth pausing a moment to consider what to me is the fact that our Secretary of State, one of the most important officials in our government, faked an illness to avoid testifying about the murder of at least one of her employees--four Americans total--murder seemingly watched by many in her organization, and likely including her.

She faked an illness to avoid answering why the two Americans who chose to fight back were denied AVAILABLE air support.

This is execrable, nauseating.  Honor is not a word which means anything to her, or anyone in the current government, as far as I can tell.

I read that the Senate Republicans have said they will not confirm John Kerry until Hillary testifies.  If so, that is a good thing.  We will fail as a nation if we cannot get more people doing their jobs with integrity.


Driving the frozen north last week I was looking out my windshield, pondering the sensation of pleasure.  I have fun watching leaves blow, and clouds move, and the movement of light in the sky, and just about everything.  And it occurred to me that behind EVERYTHING you see there is God.  When you reach out to an object, God is behind it.  When you draw your emotions out in objects, you are already moving towards the worship--the connection with, the recognition of--God.

In Asian traditions Tantrism consists in many specific practices, but what I would submit is that the essential one is sensuality.  It invokes emotion, and connection. It is not an ascetic austerity, devoid of humor and blood, but on the contrary the pursuit of wisdom through sensation, through pleasure.  Perhaps most famously, sexual intercourse is made a ritual act of worship.

Idolotry is what you get when you focus on an object.  What I realized is that the whole point of their practice is to see that we exist in a web--the meaning of the word, as I recall--of connections.  Traditional meditation tends to cut off connections.  It tends to frown on emotional expression.  But I feel that this also curtails all the natural happy energies of life, those that make it enjoyable.  And I can't see how anyone unable to live happily in this life has in any way warranted heaven.  On the contrary: who can give who is miserable, who is punishing themselves all the time?

Goodness Dharma

My depression, which I've had substantially my whole life, seems to be breaking. It is quite extraordinary for me not having to fight every step.  And my thinking seems to be clearing.  I think deep thoughts because they are not any more painful for me than regular ones, which is not the case for most people. On balance, I think this has been a good thing.

It occurs to me though, that my body of thought is emotionally weak.  I have developed a theoretical template for defining and facilitating the growth of Goodness, but I have not articulated a Dharma, which is a Sanskrit word meaning many things, but for this purpose I intend duty, or path; a behavioral gestalt that guides and informs decision making and behavior.

What I would submit we must all do roughly daily is spend some time working to understand our world in a dispassionate way and improve it.  This means working daily to grow emotionally, intellectually, and physically.   Emotionally, particularly.

We need to work daily in building an inner beauty that is contagious. This means surrounding ourselves with beauty, in music (I'm listening to this right now, and it is quite pleasant), in poetry, in visual art.  I think laughing daily is highly helpful, and think most people would benefit from watching at least one good comedy a day.  I just ordered the first season of Frazier.

Ponder deeply what you feel when the energy of generosity flows from you.  Most emotionally healthy people will know what I am talking about.  There is a wind that blows when you are being truly loving.  It is very pleasant.  Feel this energy and work to build it.

And notice all the ugliness around you.  You can't help the world, the shootings and wars--at least in the near term--but why ADD to it with violence in media and music?  Why allow yourself to be addicted to the worst aspects of life?  If you like excitement and adventure, take up motorcycle racing or mountain climbing.   I have no objections to those.  They are healthy outlets for energy.  But why expose yourself to things that drag you down, even if they are titillating or exciting in the process?

Consider that you can raise your daily emotional state, you can improve it, by changing all the inputs you allow. Your unconscious is geared to process what you feed it, and if you are feeding it junk, it is adjusting your internal qualitative state to match.  It is doing what you tell it to do.

I feel heaven sometimes.  It is very different than here.  But why not exuberate (yes, a neologism) it?  Why not develop the courage to be a center of balance and peace and  positive energy?  Why not use your time here to build what is good and wholesome, and oppose with all your heart what is evil and pernicious:?

It can be done.  It has been done.  It needs to be done again, better.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Johnny One Note

HuffPo again.  The linked editorial is worth the read.

Fact:: in theory, history, and legal precedent, some form of gun ownership is guaranteed by law.

Fact: this means guns are not going to disappear.

Fact: The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started. (from here:

LOGICAL conclusion: empowering teachers to defend themselves and their students is the only moral option. Anything else is doing NOTHING effective to stop shooters. It is merely a sop to hysterics.

Another comment on gun control, HuffPo

In response to the question on how many mass killings with guns there have been in Japan recently.

There were 8 children killed with a knife and some 20 wounded just a year or two ago, in Japan.

And to the point, Japan was a fascist, totalitarian state for most of its history.  Non-Samurai were banned under penalty of death from owning "state of the art" weaponry.

Freedom and guns are inextricably related.  They cannot be separated.

And in point of fact, there are MANY countries where guns are illegal and gun crime is common.  Jamaica and Mexico are two obvious examples.  You can't get "guns off the street".  They can be smuggled.  This means only criminals have them.

The democratization of gun ownership is foundational, elemental to democracy outright.

Gun control

Only one thing has been shown to stop mass shootings. One thing. Not two, not three. One thing: that is someone shooting back.

We should not have armed guards at schools, but it is stupid to pretend that responsible individuals--and these are the people teaching our kids, so one hopes they are responsible--are incapable of carrying and protecting handguns.

Gun free zones do not stop criminals. They advertise that no one will be shooting back.

You can pontificate all you want, but if the goal is actually DOING something, which is a refrain I see over and over, that is the most OBVIOUS, simple, and cost effective thing to do.

Posted here:

I am likely driving my Facebook friends crazy, so I am going to start cross-posting here.  If I take the time to write something, I want to be sure it appears somewhere.  I wrote a five paragraph response to Michael Moore's (could he be any uglier?) latest piece, but unsurprisingly it did not make it through moderation, despite consisting of nothing but careful and factually based reasoning from basic premises.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012


I am growing, which is a good thing.  I've been slightly off my rocker the last week, perhaps. [although I think worrying excessively about the propriety of what I say would likely be a net negative for me.  It's better, I think, to screw up then correct it than to not take a position at all.] 

Be that as it may, one thing I have recently started doing is engaging with my breath. I think one could make a case that the primary PHYSICAL reality we all deal with is the fact of our breath.  If you think about it, breath is both conscious AND unconscious.  We can choose to take a deep breath and hold it.  But if we don't think about it, it happens anyway.

I've been reading in a superficial way "The Perceptible Breath", by Ilse Mittendorf.  Her basic position is that trying to control the breath is useless, but so is ignoring it.  The basic method is simply to let it come, naturally, then let it go, naturally.  No work is needed.

But I find in doing this that all sorts of emotions start coming up.  I would speculate that part of the reason for the effectiveness of Wholotropic Breathwork is that it accesses a root element of our unconscious perceptual reality, which is our breath.  I suspect most all emotional constraints and traumas and everything else is locked up in our breath.

It is a strange thing: to be alive is to breath, which means that to accept life you must accept your breath.  Sometimes, though, I get angry with it, angry with life, impatient, perturbed, untranquil.

We have what I normally call bodily gestalts, which is the result of the peace we have made between the need for motion and constraints on the willingness to move created by fear, and emotional scars.  Moshe Feldenkrais noted many years ago that given perfect calm, all people would "operate" their bodies the same way, but we all know that many people we can recognize simply by how they move.  This gestalt is also, I would submit, a paradigm, a framework from within which you perceive the world, but one which INHERENTLY prohibits certain types of movement.  The emotional "binding", and the perceptual binding are integrally linked.

As any long time readers I may have well know, I like to dream. I dream of a day in which the normal, standard education provided to all people in the world includes a physical education that teaches them to be aware of emotions, to process emotions, and to grant the world access to them, and all the wonders of experience that will enable.  I visualize ritual centers, and beautiful monuments.  Why not build Rivendell?  Why not emulate the fictional elves in the Lord of the Rings and dedicate ourselves to tranquility, harmony and beauty?

Breaking hard

Someone once told me, approximately, that if you don't break easy sometimes, you break hard.

In ritually determined cultures, traditional cultures, in almost all cases you have some version of a Bacchanal.  Christmas (which by the way derives from Christ plus Mass; holiday, in turn, derives from Holy Day) itself was layered on to the Saturnalia, which was a multiday party where everybody let it all hang out.

All people--which by definition includes people organized into a social order--need to yell shout and scream sometimes.  You need to "lose it".  You need color, wildness, chaos.  Our own Halloween is a pale reflection of this.  Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and the Caribbean, and Carnival in Brazil and elsewhere are examples.  In India they have Divoli.  Even the Muslims have a party at the end of Ramadan.  I suspect Japan and China have their historical examples.

I was thinking in particular of the Tarahumara Indians (Raramuri, approximately, in their own tongue, meaning the "running people") are very calm and reserved normally, but when it's time for a run, they get high as kites, drink heavily, fight, screw each others wives, pass out, then get up and run 50 or 100 miles, which of course is also an outlet for energy.

These mass shooters, it seems to me, are exercising and exorcising energies that have been pent up for long periods of time and which they had no other way to get out, no other socially condoned pathway, no route to letting their hair hang out in public, and not feeling the fear of rejection.

If Adam Lanza has expressed himself in small ways repeatedly, and not been rejected, I think the shooting would not have happened.

I will add, though, too: in past ages, it simply was not possible to interact with artificial human beings, which is what we are doing when we watch movies and TV and play video games.  You were either fully alone, or with actual humans.  I think this emphasized tribalism--the past was not less violent--but also a sense of continuity with at least your own group.


Apparently I am not reading enough.  No, CERTAINLY.  There is no ambiguity.  I should have been on this.

The authorities did say they found a .223 with Lanza, along with a Sig and a Glock. The gun in the trunk was a shotgun.  I have seen the Bushmaster called an M-4 and an AR-15, which are different weapons in my understanding (the AR-15 is longer, I believe), but I think it's close enough for me to call this one done.

Here is a link:

And another:

Paranoia is a strange thing.  It is usually wrong, but not always, and thus it is hard to gauge when it is appropriate.  Most of the time we worry too much, but there are rare times when we worry too little. Lacking perfect knowledge, it is a constant balancing act.  Here, I failed through a lack of due diligence.

My apologies for a preventable fuck up.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Posted at HuffPo

Only about half my comments get through at HuffPo, as far as I can tell, so I always try to crosspost them.  I promised my Facebook folks I was done with politics for the day, so I'm putting it here.

Everyone needs to read this:

I have studied this issue in some depth, and the fact of the matter is that it is UNAMBIGUOUS that the "consulate" was not a consulate at all, but a secret meeting place.  The official report calls it a "Special Mission Compound", and which had an annex a mile away, which is where Woods and Doherty apparently were when the structure was attacked.  There were no security guards because the place was supposed to be secret.

The best guess right now is that Stephens was in charge of funneling arms to Syrian rebels, about half of whom AT LEAST are Islamists who want to use the chaos to install a misogynistic totalitarian regime along the lines of what Obama just got installed in Egypt. 

The original intelligence source predicted a false flag chemical weapons operation in the works, and said he had first hand knowledge of Americans training Syrians in how to operate chemical weapons.  The use of such weapons has already been called a "red line" which would likely bring direct American involvement.  For this reason ALONE it would be sheer insanity for Assad to use them. 

Ponder who you just reelected President. In my view, he is fully capable of this great evil.  We know NOTHING about him but what he has shown us, and that is precious little.

You are complacent because you have not been punished for it, yet.

False flag Syrian operation

Well, reports are appearing of the possible use of chemical agents, which Obama has more or less will give him the reason HE needs--we do still have a Constitution, and declaring any war without Congress still violates it--to commit U.S. troops.  We need to be clear: AMERICA has no strategic interests in Syria. They are not sponsoring terrorism and are not a threat to us.

Further, given that Assad KNOWS already that use of chemical weapons will bring the U.S. in, he would have to be suicidal to do it in all but the most extreme circumstances, which are not there yet.

These are evil times.  I watched the Hobbit tonight, and was thinking about the homology of a regime--ours--seemingly willing to tolerate up to millions of deaths in order to install a fascist regime, and the various evils in Middle Earth.  Orcs are just a metaphor.  The evil behind them is quite real: real bodies, real rapes, real torture,. children blown to pieces, communities destroyed, starvation.

We must resist this evil with all our power, forever, until we are dead, mad, or confined.  That in my view is the law of life.

I will say again that is my sincere hope that we can find a whistleblower, someone with the courage to risk condemnation, death, and jail to save millions of lives.  People out there know what time it is.  Tell us.

Or possibly the Russians will weigh in.  Candidly, if they want to come down on the side of Assad at this point, I'm with them.  We have NO strategic interest in overthrowing him.  On the contrary, given the likelihood of an anti-American Islamofascist regime getting installed, it is CONTRARY to our interest.

Fuck Barack Obama, and fuck all the evil human beings he surrounds himself with.

Edit: I will add, look at the timing.  Christmas Eve.  Everyone is home for the holidays, and has the TV turned on.  If we see images of mass misery tomorrow, that will not have been by accident.

For a psychologically normal person, it is virtually impossible to conceive of being able to issue orders like this.

Finally, of course none of this is proven.  It is speculative.  But often that is all you get.  I may be wrong.  That would make me very, very happy.  I sincerely hope I am.  But I don't think I am. The Benghazi-Syrian and false flag scenarios just make too much sense.

Edit two: we have to consider, too, the possibility that Stephens was murdered with the cooperation of our government, because he knew too much.  That actually makes sense too.

Homo Vindictus

I was reading a review of Quentin Tarentino's latest--Django--and thought that we need a new term for the type of man who runs ONLY on thoughts of vengeance.  Can you deny that a basic pattern in many of our films is crime and punishment?  The originality is coming up with really good bad guys--interesting bad guys,who are the stars in some ways, even though we know in all but Horror films they will almost certainly die--then interesting ways for people to start dying.

Yesterday (was it?) I posted on  Communist atrocities.  It is worth noting that the Communists are so violent because the entirety of their propaganda and creed is oriented around inducing hatred and violence that, because it is abstract, tolerates no barriers or checks to its ferocity.  The opposition to "bourgeois" morality means that, practically, the only moral values are properly directed hate and conformity.

I have said this many ways, many times.  This is another. I will be connecting this all together soon under the heading of social propaganda.

For now, though, consider the movie Jamie Foxx just made, and his comment about killing all the white people.  What Tarentino has created does not sound all that different from the Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats.  The whole jist of the movie is killing white people, as far as I read.

I watched Pulp Fiction once, and Jackie Brown once. I refuse to otherwise endorse in any way this talented but mentally ill moral cretin.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Benghazi report: my two cents

I am scanning the report.  OF COURSE it is a white wash, but like all propaganda, you can see grains of truth in it.  I'm not going to take the time to read the entire thing.  It was unquestionably written by people tasked with generating politically acceptable verbiage.

One very salient point to me is that they did not refer to a Benghazi "consulate", but rather a Special Mission Compound and Annex, neither of which were fortified.  Here is their way of putting it:

Special Mission Benghazi’s uncertain future after 2012 and its “non-status” as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left responsibility to meet security standards to the working-level in the field, with very limited resources.
They more or less grant that it was a successor to a previous building that had, no doubt covertly, served as a headquarters for our military support of Libyan rebels:

The U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, established in November 2011, was the successor to his highly successful endeavor as Special Envoy to the rebel-led government that eventually toppled Muammar Qaddafi in fall 2011. The Special Mission bolstered U.S. support for Libya’s democratic transition through engagement with eastern Libya, the birthplace of the revolt against Qaddafi and a regional power center.
What this 39 page report does not address is what the actual "temporary" purpose of the Special Mission was, given that Gaddafi was toppled something like a year ago; why Stephens was there; what the actual events were in detail--there is no timeline I can see scanning it, for example, even though they claim there wasn't time to mobilize military assets, and even though we have seen credible claims that Woods or Doherty were lasing a target, which is only done when Close Air Support is available; why support was denied; and who saw what in real time.  We have seen NUMEROUS reports that the whole clusterfuck was viewed over a many hour period on live feed.

I will reiterate that to my mind the most plausible explanation of events is the one, approximately, given by the unnamed intelligence professional I referenced a week or so ago: the building was acting as a headquarters for a covert mission funneling weapons from Libya to Syria, and that the attack on Stephens was carefully planned by people familiar with his movements and activities.

Yes, they found a few fall guys and gals.  But let's not be stupid: the final decisions were made at least at the Cabinet level.  In my view, Hillary is culpable directly, and Obama indirectly, since these were his policies they were implementing.

We need to be clear: Obama could make the case internally to our intelligence and military professionals that he wants a "democratic "regime in Syria, all while secretly--with separate people, separate funding--working to advance Islamism in Syria, and ensuring their eventual victory there.  He seemingly has achieved that aim in Egypt.

It is IMPERATIVE we get to the bottom of this.  Potentially millions of lives are  on the line. Yes, I know their horror will not intrude onto "The Price is Right", daytime soaps, or get serious media coverage.  But real people may well suffer real and awful fates--the sorts of things we see in actual Horror movies--because of policies this bastard of a President is pursuing in an utterly cynical and amoral way.

Communist atrocities

If you are serious, you have read somewhere the transcript of the testimony John Kerry gave--what he lied--with respect to atrocities committed by Americans.  In almost all cases, the reports were complete fabrications, and the soldiers alleged to have seen them could not even have been in Vietnam at the time.

At the same time, decades of determined lies and deception have hidden from view the very real atrocities committed CONSTANTLY, and with high level support and direction, by the Communists. 

As one example, Cambodia fell in large measure because we cut off assistance, and if memory serves because the Vietnamese communists lent them support (although they later had a falling out: people forget that the Vietnamese have long been oppressed by the Chinese, and had cultural differences).  There, wires WERE routinely attached to testicles.  There were houses where dozens of people were tortured to death EVERY DAY, for no reason other than that, as one example, they owned glasses and were thus viewed as "intellectual".  It was the reign of Satan on earth.  Nothing crueler could be imagined.

But the war in Vietnam wasn't much better.  Let me excerpt "The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam" once more.  WE MUST REMEMBER THESE THINGS.

About the Vietcong record of terror in South Vietnam there can also be little dispute, because the facts are too well established.  Since 1960, when the insurgency was first getting under way [this was compiled in November 1971], Communist terrorists have killed  over 36,000  South Vietnamese civilians; they have kidnapped 54,000 [what fate awaits these people?  Slavery?  It seems likely].

The terror is not savagery for savagery's sake.  Neither is it the work of undisciplined soldiers, operating without instructions (as a unit of American soldiers did at My Lai). On the contrary, it is a deliberate policy, conceived at the highest level and communicated in detailed directives to Vietcong units at all levels. . .

Organized terror--of a ruthlessness and on a scale that defies civilized comprehension--has been a cardinal aspect of Communist policy from the very first day of the Vietcong insurgency.  By and large the Western world knows of only a few of the more massive and gruesome terrorist incidents--like the massacre that took place in the Montagnard village of Dak Son in November 1967, when the Vietcong attacking with flamethrowers, moved from hut to hut, incinerating alive more than 250 villagers, two thirds of them women and children.  In addition, 200 Dak Son villagers were kidnapped, never to be heard of again.  But the thousands of small incidents of terror--equally merciless, equally gruesome, and which account for far more victims than the big incidents--with exceedingly rare exceptions go unreported.

If did not make the press, for example, when on October 27, 1969, the Communists booby-trapped the body of a People's Self Defense Force member whom they had killed--so that when relatives came to retrieve the body, four of them were killed in the explosion. Nor did it make the press in May 1967 when Dr. Tran Van Lu-y told the World Health Organization in Geneva that over the previous 10 years Communist terrorists had destroyed 174 dispensaries maternity homes and hospitals; had mined or machine gunned 40 ambulances and had killed or kidnapped 211 members of his staff.

If the Free World knew little or nothing of this day-to-day terror despite the presence of hundreds of correspondents in South Vietnam, what chance is there that the Free World would know anything at all about the bloodletting that would inevitably take place if the Communists came to power, expelled the western press corps, and then proceeded to deal with its enemies?
 That bloodletting happened.  Hundreds of thousands were killed, and millions were physically abused and tortured in "reeducation" camps.

If I seem at times paranoid, I would ask you a simple question: how much of this did you know?  Put another way, can anyone plausibly claim that the actual history of Vietnam has not been thoroughly hidden from public knowledge by an educational system seemingly run by people willing to ACCEPT these horrors.

Communism is evil.  It is horror. It is putting serial killers in charge of the prisons, and installing sadistic psychopaths in all positions of power, then concealing the whole thing with a carefully planned pattern of lies.

John Kerry, Vietnam, and "Swift Boating"

One cannot deny the effectiveness of the habitual--reflexive--lying by the Left.  Joe McCarthy said that one Communist in government was too much.  And he was right.  How many pedophiles are too much in an orphanage?  And plainly, as evidenced by Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and others, there WAS an effort at Communist infiltration of our government.  Perhaps most tellingly, Obama's idol Saul Alinsky complains right at the beginning of "Rules For Radicals" how hard it was to be a Communist in the early 1950s'.  THAT WAS THE GOAL.  We had then many would-be traitors, even as we have many today.

Getting Obama elected required completing retooling our perceptual process, such that we no longer judge pedophiles, and think that there is no limit to the number appropriate to an orphanage.  Up is down, black is white, good is bad, and truth telling is lying.  I am not exaggerating.  What Obama has gotten away with is staggering.  What the Left in general has gotten away with is staggering.

Consider the arrest and release of Bill Ayers.  He not only worked for the overthrow of our government, but actively dreamed of turning the American people over to Cuba and Vietnam and North Korea, and allowing for mass reeducation (euphemism for psychological and physical torture) and mass murder.  In what historical period other than our own would he not have been shot, or at least put in jail for the rest of his life for treason? In what historical period other than our own could he go from aspiring Hitler to teaching the teachers of our young?

Now we read John Kerry is to be made Secretary of State.  At this point, some history is in order.

The Vietnam War, as we know it, began when Ho Chi Minh became a Communist around 1919-1920, and cofounded the French Communist Party.  He spent the 1920's and 1930's as a Communist organizer, mainly in Vietnam, but if memory serves he traveled, and met Stalin several times.  I believe he even lived in Russia for some years in the 1930's.

Since French rule was odious, many revolutionary groups emerged in the 20's and 30's.  Ho Chi Minh issued consistent orders to kill the leaders of opposing groups, particularly when others were focused on resisting the Japanese, and just after the revolution began in 1946.  Let me quote to you from a pamphlet any serious student of the war in Vietnam should read, "The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam".  It was a summary prepared for Congress in the period (1972) when we were still deciding whether or not to betray both the valiant efforts of our soldiers, and our ally South Vietnam.  But I get ahead of myself:
 The elimination of their opponents was one of the most common means the Communists used to establish Vietminh control over the entire nationalist movement.  Against people whose interests or political convictions made them incorrigible enemies of the Vietminh, the Communists practiced a policy of physical extermination from the very beginning of the revolution. [a few names: Bui Quang Chien, Vo Van Nga, Nguyen van Sam, Pham Quynh; the list goes on]
So what happened is that all TRUE nationalists, all true Vietnamese patriots, all true pure anti-colonialists were simply butchered by the Communists, from the very start.

In 1954, if memory serves, France quit.  In 1956, Vietnam was split in two.  One sees the argument that there should have been a vote, but this ignores the fact that the North was already a Fascist State, and had already killed at least 50,000 people considered ideological deviants.  No election in such a condition can mean anything.

During the partition, the North left many partisans behind, and began nearly immediately to infiltrate dogmatic Communists into the south to sow terror.  They used both force and lies.  Force was they come into a village in the middle of the night, have the only guns to be seen, and demand both food and soldiers.  If denied they rape the women and shoot a few men.  Then they come back the next night with the same demand.  Faced with this choice, it is not surprising many eventually consented.  Lies: they tell you everything will be golden sunshine if they can just get the Americans and their Vietnamese running dogs out of the country.

America, facing a global battle for perceptual positioning, sees this gradual invasion of the South by the North and decides to take action.  The war eventually becomes a proxy battlefield between the Soviet Union--which bankrolls the North (and to a lesser extent China, which provides massive amounts of manpower to the North, so they can field more soldiers)--and America.

While not vital militarily, Vietnam is seen as a proving ground as to the resolution of America in the face of constant Communist efforts to win allies.  Put another way: the world was watching, to see who the better ally was.  If we had lost this perceptual battle, we would have become more isolated diplomatically, and eventually militarily.

Around 1965, the battle of the Ia Drang River Valley is fought.  In it, American soldiers faced conventional NVA regulars, and the deaths of some 100 Americans caused the deaths of some 1,000 NVA.  General Westmoreland, in my view, concludes from this that if we can engineer enough battles like this, that through attrition our eventual victory is assured.  So he basically replicates the initial "patrol" of Hal Moore across the country.  Obviously, though, "once bitten twice shy".  The NVA figure it out, and we never achieve a death toll like that again, until Tet.

Tet we win.  Tet is a CATASTROPHE  for the North.  They think about quitting.  Peace talks are on-going.  There, they are claiming they want no more war, while at the same time they had just launched an offensive that was designed to win converts and facilitate a full-blown revolution.  The result is a massive increase in SOUTH Vietnamese patriotism, and a large scale, generalized increase in support for America and for winning the war.  The South Vietnamese begin to realize what failure will mean. Let me quote you again from "The Human Cost":

During the Tet Offensive of 1968, the communists occupied a portion of the city of Hue for 26 days.  When they were driven out on February 24th, some thousands of civilians were missing.,  In 1969, a series of mass graves containing the bodies of missing civilians were discovered.  Some of the victims had been shot, some had been clubbed to death, some had been buried alive [as Diem's brother had been, decades before].  Counting those still missing--who must be presumed abducted or executed--the estimated civilian toll. .  . comes to 5,700.

It was established that the killings were in no sense random, but were carried out on the basis of explicit directives and from prepared lists of names, the Communists moving through the streets methodically with their clip boards and pulling the victims from their houses.
I'm getting long.  Net, net: we get new leadership in the form of Creighton Abrams, who realizes that the base of the NVA is the countryside, and who enables the rural Vietnamese to protect themselves, as well as providing them support needed.  They figure out who the bad guys are, and in most cases put them in jail (some of the bastards we just shoot).  With the losses in Tet 1968 and 1969, the Vietcong (who are always in some form ultimately NVA) disappear.  By 1972 they are gone.  The whole South is safe.

The war is won by 1972.  I want to repeat that: the counterinsurgency, that of people mortaring Saigon, pulling priests out of churches and shooting them, of executing mayors and police chiefs,  of ambushing American patrols is done.  South Vietnam is as safe as the American countryside.

This is why in 1972, the North launches a conventional, tank-led invasion, which is repulsed with American air power and Vietnamese ground troops.  The war is won again.  The invasion has been stopped.

Then a Congressional coup happens in America.  Richard Nixon is forced to resign from office for the crime of not admitting soon enough just when he found out about a break-in he had not authorized.  All public policy making is weakened in the aftermath of the scandal.  Communist propaganda makes it look not only like the war is not won, but that it CAN'T be won, even though it is already over.  We give up, the NVA army rolls in a little, sees that we won't respond, despite desperate requests from ARVN, then rolls down the country.  Mass slaughter and misery follow.

John Kerry is an important figure in all this.  Let me offer some testimony from a senior NVA commander:

[the antiwar movement] was essential to our strategy.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news . . to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.
Treason is "providing aid and comfort to the enemy".  We have the enemy EXPLICITLY stating that aid and comfort was being provided.  The situation cannot be simpler.

Now, to John Kerry.  I won't repeat things that have been printed elsewhere.  What I want to do is quote a text on him, and apply a few facts.  The quote is lengthy, and taken from B.G. Burkett's excellent book "Stolen Valor", the thesis of which is that our soldiers performed extremely well in Vietnam, were guilty of very few of the crimes they were accused of, and that most of the stain on their reputation has come from opportunists like John Kerry, cranks, and Communist propagandists.  Most of the people alleged they had commited atrocities can be shown not even to have served in Vietnam.  The Vietnam Veterans against War that Kerry attached himself to lied over and over and over and over.  Burkett documents case after case after case of this.

The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity.  It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

In April 1971, the VVAW staged a demonstration it called Dewey Canyon III, "limited incursion into
Congress".  The protest was named after an operation in 1969 that sent elements of the 3rd Marine Division into Laos.  About this same time, an ad appeared in the New York Times signed by forty-nine American servicemen from the 1st Air Cavalry urging support for antiwar demonstrations..  But as United Press International later reported, the men, members of a Mekong Delta-based helicopter unit, had neither read nor paid for the ad.
I want to pause for a moment and underscore this: deception was at the HEART of the anti-war movement.  Virtually everything they said and did was a lie.  These are the people Kerry aligned himself with.

Dewey Canyon III featured Vietnam veterans marching on Washington in a very dramatic, emotional way.  Long-haired, scruffy, dressed in camoflauge and the remnants of military garb, and draped in medals, they presented the image of men who had obviously been tested in battle [most of them had not: Kerry had, but he only served six of his twelve month rotation] and had seen the horrors of war. . .

. . .At the end of the day they held a candlelit march around the White House.  After a man who said his son died in Vietnam blew taps, the soldiers began flinging their war medals over a high fence in front of the Capital: Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals, Silver Stars--bits of ribbon and metal hurled in the face of a government that had so betrayed them.  Some, after throwing away what cost them so dearly, broke down and cried.

One of them was John Kerry, Vietnam Navy veteran and aspiring politician who had been among those who had organized the protest.  Kerry flung a handful of metals--he had received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star medal, and three Purple Hearts--over the fence. Kerry spoke later that week before the the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, putting a face on the anti-war movement [i.e. HELPING an anti-war movement we have already established the North Vietnamese THEMSELVES said was a major source of consolation] far different than one seen before--the scruffy hippie or wild-eyed activist.  Kerry represented the All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government.

From start to finish, the public took Dewey Canyon III at face value, not understanding they were watching brilliant political theater.  Kerry, a Kennedy protege with white-hot political aspirations, ascended center stage as both a war hero and as an antiwar hero throwing away his combat decorations..  His speech, apparently off the cuff, was eloquent, impassioned.

But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry's medals turned up on the wall of his Capital Hill office.  When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.  And Kerry's emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it.  TV Reporters totally ignored another Vietnam veteran, Melville L. Stephens. . .who that same day urged the Senate not to abandon America's allies in South Vietnam. 'Peace for us must not come at the cost of their lives.' Stephens said in a speech he wrote himself.

Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist.  Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. 'I thought of him as a rather normal vet', a friend said to a reporter, 'glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.'
The people who served from John Kerry did not fault his courage.  He did in fact get shot at in anger. What they fault is his fundamental character and integrity.  He lied for political gain.  He gave credibility to a movement that was plainly invaluable in preventing American support for South Vietnam in the final assault.  At the time, if memory serves, the USSR had the largest army in terms of numbers, America was second, and North and South Vietnam were third and fourth in the world.  All the South needed was money, air support, and naval transport, and it would still be free.

To make a long story short, John Kerry is an asshole.  All these Democrats are.  Barack Obama is an asshole.  Joe Biden is an asshole.  Hillary Clinton is an asshole.  Bill Clinton is simply a clever asshole.  These people use people, they lie, they cheat, they steal.  They care NOTHING about principle or personal integrity.  All they care about is power and how they look in a mirror.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Wild ideas

This has been an odd week for me.  I spent some 30 hours working by myself in a 50,000 square foot building in the middle of a blizzard, second shift.

But there are times and places when you need to go to the weird, the demonic, the counterparadigmatic, the demented.  We have Halloween for a reason.

All my adult life I have read relatively mainstream books, which for me might be Paul Johnson, Jacques Barzun, etc.

[I think I actually missed commenting on his death; "From Dawn to Decadence" influenced me a lot, and I count myself a fan.  I was down in San Antonio a while back, and actually briefly entertained fantasies of meeting him, but of course it was impractical.  I would far rather have met him than any rock star or actor living or dead.  The person living I would most like to meet is Doris Lessing.]

But I have long had a habit of making perhaps every 20th book something massively contrary to dominant paradigms.  One good example is Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods", or a book on UFO's, or ghosts, or Atlantis, or the Illuminati.

What you do when you incorporate these types of things is stretch your mind.  If you think of perception as a sort of internal mirroring of what is actually in front of you, you can only reflect things for which you have a reactive surface, for which your mind is prepared.  And since we can't know how things REALLY are, it is in my view a good practice to stretch your mind from time to time. 

OK, two wild ideas: what if Lanza was trying to PREVENT the murder?  What if somehow he knew it was going to happen, but got there too late?

Second: what if "Fast and Furious" had as its actual INTENTION providing guns to Mexican gangsters, so that they in turn could serve as enforcers or assassins as needed?

Thinking is fun if you put no limits on it.  For me, to say something is POSSIBLE is almost never to say I believe it.  Most of the time, if I don't have to render a judgement, I don't.  I keep a lot of things in the "could be/insufficient evidence" category.  I have no need to be right all the time.  I deal well with ambiguity, and will say that we all live with it.  Some people are just too stupid to realize it.

Sandy Hook: Parallax View?

8 days after the Newtown massacre, the school is still being investigated.  Think about this.  We have an ostensibly simple narrative, in which a deranged kid shoots his mother, forces his way into a school, then systematically double taps 20 grade schoolers and six adults before taking his own life.  Simple enough.

But according to every account I have read, he was found with either 2 or 4 pistols, and even though his mother OWNED an AR-15, whatever they found was in the trunk of the car,  which is an inconvenient place from which to shoot anyone.  Moreover, the video I posted a couple days ago did not seem to show a Bushmaster .223 at all.

The coroner, though, says that a "long gun" was used, i.e. a rifle.  The difference between a 9 or 10 mm round and a .223 is the difference between a lager and a stout.  It's not hard to tell the difference.  Moreover, they can do ballistics matching.

I think a reasonable guess can be made that they have not yet found the murder weapon, which is inexplicable if Lanza was the sole shooter.  Read this quote through that prism:

Although the gunman is dead, Vance said, a thorough investigation is necessary.

“We need to know were there any laws broken by anybody anywhere that may have contributed to this,” Vance said.
This is a grade A clusterfuck from a police perspective.  They no doubt did not initially treat the shooting scene as a CRIME scene, since it seemed obvious who did the shooting.

But someone may have literally gotten away with murder.  If there was security footage, they will have pulled it, but I suspect there weren't since this was a normally safe place.  This leaves them with dusting everything, looking at everything under a microscope, and hoping they get lucky.

It may literally be the case, though, that they have shell casing everywhere from a weapon that isn't there.  That would be interesting, to say the least.  If that is the case, I hope they have the courage and integrity to admit it.  It would  be better for all to live in doubt, than to let someone capable of murdering children systematically go free.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Cass Sunstein and Conspiracy theories

Noodling around for a paper on preventing successful mass murders (Hint: the shooting stops quicker if people are shooting back), I found this paper from Cass Sunstein, written just after Obama was elected and before he was inaugurated.

Sunstein does something in the Obama administration, but I forget what, officially.  He's a czar of some sort.

The net is that he wants to claim that anyone who does not believe the dominant narrative on 9/11, or in global warming, or in a number of other things he has stuck in there, is suffering from a lack of information, and that a possible appropriate response is "cognitive infiltration" of target groups. 



To the House members who blocked the latest deal, I have two words: fuck and you.

As I understand it, the plan was to raise taxes on those making a million or more.  EVERYONE should have grasped that this increase was purely symbolic.  It will have no effect on our national debt, our annual deficits, and little effect on the people it was targeting.

But why the fuck do you think Democrats keep winning elections (Hint: like the one they just won)?  Because they effectively portray Republicans as the party of greedy white men.  What IN GOD'S NAME DO  YOU THINK BLOCKING THAT TAX INCREASE SAYS?  Huh?  Any answers?  I'm waiting. 


Principle is a means to an end.  Every decision any one makes about anything is a means to an end.  The principle of less government means more freedom.  More freedom is a means to greater self development.  More self development is a means to greater happiness, and happiness, itself, can be grown.  It is a proper end.

But the end, here, is less government, is it not?  Do we help or hurt that cause by giving people more reason to vote for our ideological opponents? 
I reiterate: fuck you, jackasses.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Consumer culture

Last night I was dreaming about Christmas shopping, just sort of taking in the orgy of spending on things that happens this time of year every year, and the Doors song "My Wild Love" kept going through my head.

Think about your own childhood.  Are some of the strongest affects not related to things and not people?  Think Rosebud, who encapsulated a lost innocence in Citizen Kane (Cane?  I'm not going to look it up).  I think back to a Rat Patrol lunchbox I had when I was a kid, my first.  I didn't know what Rat Patrol was, but I liked the jeeps with the machine guns.

Or candy.  Think back to the candies you used to eat.  Extend the sensation, and see what else is around you, what memories, long hidden, come up.

We live in a world in which the transient and frivolous characterizes most of our most important emotional moments.  The more you connect with people, the less stuff you need.  Conversely, the more alienated you feel, the more objects come to serve the role of nurturing.

"My wild love"'s lyrics are irrelevant.  What matters is the sense of a Indian chant, of a ritual, of a communal connection.  I think my intuition was trying to grant me a clear juxtaposition.

And to the point, many tribes accused the white man of being like locusts, consuming everything in front of them.  To a great extent, this is true.  Just look out your window and imagine what it looked like 200 years ago.  For most of us, that is a very different picture.

We need cultural reform.  The Socialists want to kill our souls and put us in boxes.  This is not needed, not for human survival, not for cultural survival.

In these pages, I have proposed what I feel strongly are workable solutions to ALL our problems-spiritual, scientific, political, economic.  ALL our problems can be solved well, in ways which promote ecological sustainability, generalized well being, and happiness.

Conspiracy theory

This is an interesting perspective.  You have to consider the source--black helicopter central--but the media used is NBC and the like.  The initial reports were that they found two hand guns with him (Glock and SIG were named specifically, with one a 10mm and other a 9mm if memory serves), and an "assault rifle" in the car.  There is no reason to doubt either of these claims.  But the autopsies showed that a "long gun"--i.e. a rifle--had been used.  How do we explain the contradiction of a dead Lanza a hundred yards or more from the alleged murder weapon?  Were there two shooters?  Was Lanza brainwashed, as alleged with the Batman shooting as well?  I keep an open mind, and it seems there are some plainly incongruous facts here.

As I say from time to time, I reserve the right to be stupid, to appear nuts, and to contradict myself.  My purpose is to engage with the facts at hand at any given moment to the best of my ability, as even small changes in the factual landscape can lead to large changes in my conclusions.

What we have now does not appear to make sense.  I want to be clear: the emotional costs of a large hole in the dominant story will be ENORMOUS, and the pressure to put this "behind us"--as if an unsolved murder of 20 children can ever really be put behind any serious, honest person--will be huge.

I want to add as well my black helicopter, tinfoil hat perspective, just because I CAN.

The MOMENT this attack happened my first thought was that the media narrative that had been gaining traction around the possibility of a massive cover-up regarding Benghazi, and the possibility that Obama is effectively committing treason, albeit in a deniable way (he can claim his aim was to support Syrian self defense in the face of relentless genocidal attack, even while he was making sure the jihadists got the best weapons), was going to be derailed.  There was going to be a sea change in the media weather.

As I have noted before, I count 3 other times when a sort of wind was blowing that suddenly dissipated due to some tragedy.  As I look at the month preceding the election, I had a sort of vision of a Romney victory the night before the first debate.  But I ALSO had a dream of people being voluntarily decapitated, the night before Sandy hit the Jersey short.  I don't know what, if anything, besides normal weather caused that storm, but it FELT like a literal spiritual black cloud coming in.

This feels the same way.  We need to ask some hard, very  unpleasant questions.  Obama's grandmother died the night of his election.  Is it POSSIBLE she was murdered?  He didn't like her, as far as I can tell, and I doubt she was holding on for his election.  He used her illness as an excuse to fly out to Hawaii in the heat of the election--when Hawaii was not a State in contention--but also at a time when the birth certificate was threatening to become an issue.  Did he really fly out there to bully State officials into silence and then cooperation?

I will note in passing that Donald Trumps $5 million offer to give to a named charity if Obama will release his records remains unanswered.

To the point here, was Lanza a Manchurian Candidate, who got sent a GO signal by someone close to Obama?  I know: how would anyone suggest something so monstrous?  I will counter with this: how could anyone contemplate with apparent equinimity the murder of 10 million Americans, as Bill Ayers (who has dined in the White House at least once) did?  If other people are doing the shooting, you are dealing in abstractions not different than cartoons. 

And was it NOT coincidence that Ayers appeared trampling an American flag in the New York Times, on
Sept. 11, 2001?  Was someone connected both with the attack and the Times sending a coded message?

Ayers--who as I have mentioned is a strong candidate for having been the actual author (you can Google search more links) of both of Obama's books--said ''I don't regret setting bombs. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' He said this on a day in which I have argued bombs were plainly used to bring down at least Tower 7, and by extension likely Towers 1 and 2.

Even if everything I just said is true, there is no reason to give up hope.  Hitler set the Reichstag fire, but the fact is that if people had not reacted by granting him more power, his quest to be a dictator would have been thwarted.  Even granted UTTER cynicism and disregard for human life--even the lives of little children--there remain many honest Americans.  Even 99% of Obama's most robust supporters think they are helping humanity, not hurting it.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012


I have to admit that the shooting in Newtown bothered me much less than the revelation that Obama may be intentionally intensifying a war in Syria that might leave a million people or more dead, and then result in a dictatorship that denies the citizens basic rights they have NOW.  Assad is not angel, but the Muslim Brotherhood consists in demons who will drive all light from the country in the name of God.

Benghazi should continue to be our focus. 


I have thoughts pop in my head on occasion, especially when I am tired.  Tonight, after a very long, very tiring day, the thought popped up "I want to be an assassin".  Now, when this happens, I ask myself "was that my thought, from my unconscious, or a communication with someone else"?  Many of you may roll your eyes, but I do believe in telepathy.  The evidence, if you actually examine it objectively--which is to say in a spirit of sincere scientific inquiry--is overwhelming.  Certainly, I am not schizophrenic.

I looked at it, and thought "that is Adam Lanza".  He wanted to be an assassin.  He wanted to shoot people in their beds.  He wanted to be thorough.  Why did he shoot his mother four times?  Quite obviously if the first shot was in her face, that was sufficient.  I think he was living out a fantasy of being a professional, and professionals don't leave anything to chance. 

Why did he shoot the kids twice?  Same reason: professional diligence.  Why did he pick small kids?  Because he was a coward, and he knew no one would fight him.  He shot himself the moment a man with a gun showed up.

I don't think he was crazy in any formal way.  I think he developed a warped way of interacting with the world by doing too little of it.  Think about this: he lived in a HUGE house, he was 20 years old, and he didn't have a job, didn't complete the last two years of high school (in my understanding), and played video games ALL THE TIME.  He seemingly had no friends, and his mother more or less fostered a bunker mentality by believing that the end of the world was coming, or at least a general social collapse.  That house must have felt something like the house occupied by the ghosts in the Nicole Kidman film "The Others".  He's alone all the time, probably with an overprotective mother, spending hours and hours and hours in a hypnotic trance.  Reality testing would blur for him.  When he shot himself, he quite possibly may have been thinking he was rebooting a game.

I am very tired, so this may make no sense.  I will offer once again the excuse that it has long been my belief that the more ideas you have and express, the more ideas you will be able to have and express, and the greater the variety, the greater the likelihood you'll occasionally stumble like the blind squirrel upon a really interesting kernel of deep truth.  Often I am exploring in the dark, and will admit as much.

Tomorrow should see a number of posts that I have in backlog. 

Assault Weapons ban

There is a very simple argument to be made on this issue: IT'S ALREADY BEEN TRIED.  We banned assault rifles and high capacity magazines from 1994 to 2004.  It had no measurable effect on crime or mass shootings, but did create an enormous demand for the weapons.  Put another way, the ban put MORE guns into circulation than there were before, but that fact had no net negative effects.

There have been two mass shootings stopped by private citizens with guns, one in Texas and one in Oregon, just in the last week.  The fucking media won't cover them.  Unless there are a lot of crying women, they don't want to know about it.

For my part, I think "gun-free zones" should be eliminated in all places where there are not already armed guards, as in State and Federal buildings.  I would even allow concealed carry in banks.  If someone is going to rob one, they won't need a gun permit first, but if they come in and fear they might get shot, that changes the dynamic.  One bank down in Texas did that, and they have not been robbed since.

Hate and anger

I was praying the other day, and "help me learn to hate without anger" came out.  I have this sort of valve I turn to let the deeper parts of me flow out into the light.

As often happens with me, I said it without understanding it.  But when I thought about it, it goes back to my post on hate a week or two ago.  Hate is the difference maker.  It is what DEFINES a social order.  The basic refrain "hatred of sin is the beginning of wisdom" echoes throughout the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.

But what would hate without anger look like?  As I feel it, it would be a sense that THAT--say shooting children to death--is ALWAYS wrong.  It is an instinctive, visceral reaction.  One need not follow it with anger, but I think a sense of disgust should be present.  For a moral virtue to be real, you must have a sense of sin rooted in you deeply.  If you lie, you must feel disgust.  If you cheat, you must feel disgust.  You must hate in order to have a meaningful, meaning-creating form.

Monday, December 17, 2012

The unit of conscience

Can one not definitionally distinguish between Statists and true Liberals by asking what the locus of conscience--which is to say expressed morality--is?

Statists claim that societies, not individuals, are moral.  The only criterion for morality is equality among those ruled.

Individualists claim that the proper unit of morality is the individual conscience.  Since there can be no other unit of PERCEPTION, and since morality is simply a way of viewing the world, I see no possible argument which could counter the position of the Individualist.  Societies are dividual.  They break into parts.  The parts are the INdividuals.

Thus, Socialism is inherently a creed which rejects individual conscience, and in so doing, as I have pointed out often, IN REALITY entrusts morality to individuals who, in having adopted socialism as their creed, have already rejected moral absolutes. 

This is why sadism becomes an essential element in societies fully constituted on socialist principles.  If there is no sense of right and wrong, then might makes right, both in the sense of physically imposing its will, but also in the sense of creating a morality in so doing.

Running Amok and my Church (again)

This article is interesting on several levels.   I will key on one: "the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections."

Is mass killing perhaps just a part of the human race, when not expressable through war? Look at this description of running amok, which is a term originating with the Malays:

In a typical case of running amok, a male who has shown no previous sign of anger or any inclination to violence will acquire a weapon, traditionally a sword or dagger, but presently a variety of weapons are used, and in a sudden frenzy, will attempt to kill or seriously injure anyone he encounters. Amok typically takes place in a well populated or crowded area. Amok episodes of this kind normally end with the attacker being killed by bystanders or committing suicide, eliciting theories that amok may be a form of intentional suicide in cultures where suicide is heavily stigmatized.[citation needed] Those who do not commit suicide and are not killed typically lose consciousness, and upon regaining consciousness, claim amnesia.

What I would submit is that when people are not connected with nurturing others on a deep personal, meaningful level, this sort of thing is inevitable.  The question is how to build a better society that does this.

As I have said, my personal idea is the creation of millions of little tribes of 24, in which completely unregulated emotional expression is a regular feature, and based upon Wholotropic breathwork; autogenic relaxation; what amounts to group therapy; Kum Nye; and intense exercise, of which the best example is CrossFit, and perhaps very long endurance marches or swims.

At some point, I literally imagine having structures with a chapel, a robust gym, relaxation rooms, and perhaps even a bar.  I have visions of groups of people singing drinking songs together, with big steins of beer. We could have dancing classes.  It would be a true community center. 

Note, too, that COMMUNity and Communism have the same root.  Communists want connection, but use means which make it impossible except through the intermediation of fear and violence, which of course are also a form of dysphoric connection.

I recently started the process of founding a non-profit to focus on building this, but am presently stymied by not having ready access to a board of directors.  Apparently there are websites linking people with boards.  I will pursue this after the first of the year, when I should have more time.  I have asked several people, but the ones with the professional standing to warrant inclusion have not responded.  I think they think I'm nuts. People don't found churches.  Nuts \found churches.

If you are reasonably successful, though (a business owner or professional of some sort), and have an interest in serving on an unpaid basis, please email me at .  My intent is to get enough money to pay for certification as a Breathwork Facilitator, and eventually to focus on buying a physical structure to support my project, and then convincing other people in other cities to do the same.  This is the level of response needed, in my view, to the crises we face.  Words are not enough.  No book anyone will ever write will make the difference we need.