Thursday, January 31, 2013

War on the 20th Century

The assholes at HuffPo--to be clear, moderators who are working to silence opinions which make them uncomfortable--are blocking a lot of my stuff lately, so I'm going to start assuming again that I need to cross post:

From here:

It bothers you that the President can't fulfill one part of the Constitution, and your solution is to vitiate some other part of the Constitution?  That idea alone would tell me you were an Ivy Leaguer.  As Orwell said, some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals are CAPABLE of believing them.

Our system is not designed to work fast.  This puts the brakes on bad ideas, and tends to ensure only good ideas--and good people--get through.  This is common sense.

Conversely, one of the arguments most commonly made in favor of Fascism is that it is "efficient".  Tyranny IS efficient, for the tyrants.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Bon Mot Sketch


Pain is knowledge coming in the hard way.

Pain is knowledge coming in the hard way, because you missed the easy way.

Pain is knowledge coming in the window because you locked the door again.

Pain is knowledge in a hard-to-digest form.

Saturday, January 26, 2013


I don't think I have ever used all caps in a headline.  I am doing it here.  This is both the most emotionally poignant and logically coherent argument against all the gun banning bastards I have ever seen.

Quite literally, both of her parents died BECAUSE of gun control.

Share this, link it, email it.  Every American with a brain needs to see this video.  Fight these assholes.  Fight them without cease until they retreat back under the rocks where they and their horrible, evil ideas belong.

Friday, January 25, 2013


Phrase popped in my head doing my Kum Nye exercises this morning.  This is what I want: the perceptual FLEXIBILITY to be as diffuse as a cloud, and as directed and hard as a hammer.

I have posted little this week because I have been getting some good non-verbal work done.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Sandy Hook Conspiracy again

Here is a more recent conspiracy post:

I will note in passing that those two nuns sure look like men.

I've been alive for almost half a century.  I vividly remember the day I woke up to get the paper, and saw a headline like "600 Dead in Guyana" from the Jim Jones mass suicide/murder (not everyone went voluntarily, and the kids weren't old enough to understand).  I remember Columbine, Virginia Tech, Patrick Purdy.

This one feels different.  I can't explain why the cops were there for over a week after the shooting, if they did not feel they had missed something.  I can't explain why there was ANY lack of clarity on what weapon was used, or why initial reports did not include an AR-15.  I can't remember ANY shooting where there was this level of conflicting information.

And of course the timing just seems to convenient.  Obama has long wanted to ban guns, but was afraid to take it up in his first term since he wanted a second term.

I had a dream a few nights ago where people involved in a Sandy Hook conspiracy were being liquidated.  The people behind it realized they were not going to get what they wanted, so they were eliminating anyone who knew the full story.  Some of them were firefighters/paramedics.

It will be interesting to see if anyone close to this story has an accident.  As I always do, I will note that the dream had personal meaning for me, and that meaning was actually positive, as I interpret it.

Please consider, though, that all Communists by definition reject common sense morality in its entirety as an artifact of the "bourgeois" ethos.  So too do Satanists, who in my view do exist.  Logically, if we accept, as I do, that intention can influence external events, then Satanism would work as well as any other creed; and since the lust for power--to recover power lost due to an inability to process spirit, albeit in a way which can NEVER bring happiness--breeds monomania, it has some advantages over Goodness.

Ponder that if Tower 7 was brought down by plan, that plan was hatched by people quite willing to commit mass murder in the pursuit of their ends.

There are many good people in this country: most of them.  Our future rests in people in a position to do so to stop evil.  This will start with not overlooking evil because its scale is too large to fathom.  What is, is.  The Holocaust happened.  The starvation of Ukraine happened.  The torture and murder of one third of Cambodians happened.

The facts are not as compelling here as in Tower 7 UNLESS someone can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that numerous Sandy Hook sites popped up PRIOR to the shooting, as is alleged.  Frankly, I am no more qualified to comment on the evidence that I am on the heat at which steel beams melt.  (In that latter case, I am just quite sure that a campfire would not do it).  That would be a good task for the FBI or CIA.  Or Defense Intelligence Agency, which has my vote for the "least likely to be corrupt".  This is quite literally a national defense issue.

As I have said before, I am willing to grant that ELEMENTS of these departments might be vulnerable to corruption--it is possible to the point of certainty--but not the whole departments.  I do not accept that.

Harry Potter and gun control

Near the beginning of "The Goblet of Fire" a group of death eaters attacks a camp filled with magical people who came to watch the Quidditch World Cup.

Here is the thing: EVERY ONE of those people was armed.  All of them.  Even the kids, most of them.  You have perhaps a dozen people attacking thousands.  How is it that everyone ran away?

How is it that most people failed to note this?  It is because we expect OTHER PEOPLE, professionals, to defend us, at least in Britain.

We never see ANY American warlocks and witches in any Harry Potter movies, but they exist.  Let us transpose this World Cup to Houston, Texas.  Those death eaters would have gotten their asses fried.

America is unique in the world, in many ways.  We do not need to look to other nations as to how to do things.  They have tyranny and oppression down pat.  Just 60 some-odd years ago Britain kept hundreds of millions of people in thralldom.  The French still held many colonies, from which they extracted taxes, cheap labor, and cut rate prices on commodities.

The list goes on.  We may be coarse by Continental standards, and more ignorant than we should be, but if we look across either ocean the most educated people have lost God, common sense, and faith in humanity, which we still retain in large numbers, to our benefit.

Frui Diem

According to what I read on the internet (this may be wrong), "Frui" is a verb form of fruor that can be used injunctively to mean "Enjoy the day."

Happiness makes you more productive, too:

Carpe Diem?

This means "Seize the day", as I was taught: attack it, control it, bend it to your will.  The day is your bitch.  That's how I've always heard it. 

The intent is to live more, be more, throw off all restraints and pursue your aims without reservation.

I've been doing a lot of what I call qualitative work lately, which to the untrained eye would look like me drinking too much while listening to music, then sleeping in.  To the trained eye it would also look like that.

To me, though, I am trying to establish a good working relationship between my conscious mind and my unconscious.  I am trying to expand the area of free flow within me, flow which is currently constrained by dark areas, by traumas which affect the flow by preventing things from pursuing the most direct path.

Increasingly, I see that my task in this life is be a gateway of flow.  My task is to contact heaven, then become a window through which that light flows.  This is the Valley  Spirit of which Lao Tzu spoke, in which winds flow through you.  You are a conduit.  This is "baraka" (both Hebrew and Arabic share the word, if I am not mistaken), "darshana", "Windhorse".

You can't do this if some part of you secretly wants to drown little kittens, due to some long ago unprocessed trauma. This is, to be clear, not as far as I can tell one of my fantasies, but is offered in the spirit of exaggeration for effect.

I was looking at a link on "tapping" the other day, which I had not heard of. Here is a link:

I was going to try it, then looked at the face of the guy doing the video, and wherever he was, he wasn't THERE.  From this I concluded, rightly or wrongly, that this is a process for getting at external signals, but not deep underlying realities.

There is no easy way to do qualitative work.  There is no easy way to heal deep seated trauma, particularly ones going back to early childhood, or on Stan Grof's account, even the birth process itself.  You have to revisit them homeopathically.  You have to reactivate the old pain, but within a supportive environment, which in my case means being as kind to myself as I can be.

And it's working for me.  I can feel old, calcified emotions beginning to move, in what amounts to a flow of water through old canyons.  This, I feel strongly, is how you contact the light that makes all of us flow, dance, within the universe.

I remember reading some time ago Albert Camus' "The Plague".  It influenced me.  Camus was an atheist, but he always struck me in his later work as someone genuinely trying to do the right thing (unlike Sartre, who I hate).

In that book, he had a man who moved one pile of beans from one bowl to another, one by one, every day.  His claim was that that activity was as good as any other (he apparently had retired, or had others to care for him).  I would submit that if the activity activated the Valley Spirit, it WAS useful; and if it was done--as seems likely--in a spirit of bitterness and hate, then it ALSO was no different than working a normal job in the same spirit, other than that it did not benefit ANYONE, including himself.

So many people, it seems to me, aggressively move beans from one pile to another, every day.  They are out to get rich, or famous, or to gain power.  Or they are quietly unhappy, but never do anything to change their circumstances.

There is, in my view, only one real task in this world: to grow spiritually.  This growth leads naturally to spontaneous generosity, as you have an overabundance of everything you REALLY need.  You are rich, and this leads naturally to charity.

Few thoughts.  I really do have work to do, but I get a few days most weeks when I get to do this, and I am grateful.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Stimulus Conspiracy

This was written for a subsection of Front Page Magazine, whose name I have forgotten.  NLB are the initials apparently.  It was rejected by a guy named David Swindle who has apparently moved on.  He said I had not proven my case.  You be the judge.  I am a somewhat acrimonious, opinionated person, clearly.  But this is because I do not compromise when it comes to the truth as I see it.  There are plenty of people who have learned to see through other peoples eyes.  Very few people are able to treat old things as new.  I believe I am one of those people, rightly or wrongly, and thus value my independence greatly.  It's not a great way to get published, but hey I don't want to have to whore myself out to an editor anyway.

Twenty dollars is missing from your wallet.  Go ahead and look.  See?  You only have what you had yesterday.

In solving a crime, Sherlock Holmes would no doubt agree that remembering to see what is not there is fully as important as linking together what is there, and much more difficult.

Quietly, unobtrusively, 6.4 Billion dollars have gone missing that should have been put into circulation.  No one seems to have sent out a search party, or moaned their loss, but dividing that number by some 300 million Americans gets you a bit more than $20.

This money was wasted, certainly, and more likely stolen.  Those seem to be the only plausible explanations. 

(insert more tag)

You see, a 2 million dollar Stimulus check was written to, and cashed by, the 99th Congressional district of North Dakota.  The problem with this is that that district doesn’t exist.  It never has, and unless it gets double the population of California, it never will. 

In total, according to the site responsible for monitoring the most massive outflow of cash from the Federal Government in American history, some $6.4 Billion was given to some 440 Congressional Districts that have either never existed, or were abolished decades ago.

According to Ed Pound, director of communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Obama (link) Administration’s bureaucracy we were told would track the money:

Recipients file their reports on a password-protected site. That information is then relayed to officials who oversee the website to post, Pound said. Unless an egregious error is noted, Pound said they post the information exactly as it is received.

“Our job is data integrity, not data quality,” he said.

This would seem to indicate a check—actual or virtual—is created by someone, deposited by someone, then self-reported.  You get the money, then type in whatever information you want.  That information is then duly relayed by the RATB to the taxpayers, as if they had done their job. 

This system, quite obviously, is open to fraud.  If you are plugged in, you get money wired to you, your buddy Twitters you a password, you log in, then you type in anything that sounds plausible.  Can we not suppose that legitimate recipients are cognisant of their district and zip code, meaning that errors of this quantity cannot be random?  We are talking about amounts equal to the annual revenues of large multi-national corporations.

And according to their chief spokesperson, the very agency tasked with monitoring the money is in essence saying that if people cheat, they will not be caught.  Once the money is gone, it’s gone.

If you add to this the fact that former Weatherman (link) Jeff Jones (link)—Bill Ayers pal (link)—helped craft this thing as part of the Apollo Alliance (link), you realize that maybe leaks were part of the plan all along. Consider what Jeff Jones does: he “owns a consulting firm that helps grassroots leftist organizations promote their agendas and fundraise successfully”.  Does it seem unlikely that some of these checks that no one seems to want to track will wind up funding political activities?

Why wouldn’t they?

Sandy Hook Conspiracy

As any longtime readers will know, I keep an open mind towards ALL iterations of reality.  Reality is some subset of what is possible, and if we presumptively remove prior to factual analysis certain iterations of what is possible, over some time period this lead necessarily lead to large errors.  Materialism is just one LARGE example of this process.  It is untenable empirically; yet it is still the intellectual "law" of the land, and only rarely subjected to ANY form of rational, scientific scrutiny, particularly those logically oriented towards teasing out the consequences of how the universe actually seems to be constructed.

With regard to Sandy Hook, it did strike me as ODD that the presence of an AR-15 nowhere appeared in the early reports, despite the fact that he only seems to have shot up one classroom.

Without really knowing what to make of it, I will pass along a site which claims that multiple sites relating to Sandy Hook appeared BEFORE the shooting, here:

For those with conspiratorial biases in interpreting the world, it did also seem ODD that the timing was so convenient for Obama.  It began his second term on a perfect note--the mass murder of children with a "scary" looking weapon that is otherwise a virtual non-presence in our criminal landscape--for gun control.

To state the obvious, if these sites really did appear early, then there were a LOT of people involved in this thing, likely reaching up to the highest levels of government.  As I said some time ago, the "Stimulus" may have had as part of its purposes funneling money to mercenaries and radical groups for training and equipping.  I wrote a piece for some side part of Front Page Magazine some time ago on how at least $6 billion seemed to have gone missing.  It was rejected by some guy who claimed to be a former leftist, but who did not seem intelligent enough to have actually understood the moral basis of conservatism, or what I call Liberalism.

I will post that piece--which candidly may have just been poorly written--which I shows clearly AT LEAST that the accounting system was ludicrous.  That part is indisputable.

I will finish this post with a thought I have nearly posted several times, but will post here: given that most video games are linked on the internet, there is no reason to suppose that subliminal messages or outright personality attacks could not be send to vulnerable individuals over the internet.  I have specific techniques I think would work, and which evil human beings somewhere have likely already come up with, but will not further elaborate here other than to say I think it is possible.

Actually, post-hijack--that of course is the technically difficult part--let me posit that one possibility is someone downloading images of children to shoot into, say, Call of Duty, so that the atrocity could be practiced.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Politico Post

From here:

It's not popping up.  It will, I suspect, but if I typed it, why chance it?

They claim "our goal [is] trying to pass laws that make it easier to make our communities safe", but any fool can see that gun control, so called, is ineffective. You make communities safer by locking up the bad guys more often and for longer.  It is no coincidence that as our crime rates are dropping substantially that our prison populations are swelling.

What you do NOT do when you ban ANY gun is make that gun less available to criminals.  By DEFINITION anyone who is a criminal does not obey the law.  There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, and there can be ZERO question that absent a Nazi style police state that large numbers of them will remain in circulation long after a ban on gun is passed.

And we need to be clear: Bloomberg is an unprincipled elitist who wants to tell people he considers his social inferiors what to do, what to eat, and what access to effective self protection he will allow them.  He has a standard for himself--the billionaire standard--and to the extent he thinks about anyone else, it is to tell us to live our lives the way he and his fellow plutocrats see fit.

Obama does not fight Big Money: they PUT HIM IN OFFICE, TWICE.  Think about it: what form of government would aspiring totalitarians want?  One that is expanding, or one that is shrinking?  That is a no brainer.

Any and all laws these idiots might get passed will make it harder for hard working Americans to defend themselves while contributing to overall increases in violent crime, like happened in Great Britain and Australia.

We can't give these awful people an inch.  Not one millimeter.  They will have their police departments in open revolt if they push this too far.  Most of them are on our side, that of decency and fairness.

Friday, January 18, 2013


My own world view--the cognitive paradigm within which I construct my mental reality--is that we all exist within a web of connections.  I am a sort of nexus point, a node in a network, but to say that I, per se, am somehow uniquely wonderful in any way is really just not a necessary or useful sentiment or statement.

As I live my life, the question I ask myself: what work needs to be done?  As I look across the "home" within which I live, where is the unfinished laundry, the unwashed dishes, the meals that need cooking?  Put another way, the life which needs living?

We are meant to move.  The most pernicious thing you can do to any person is to denigrate in any way the process of work.  Clearly, in our modern world we often live as machines.  We do things which are meaningless to us because the context is so large we can't grasp it in an emotionally meaningful way.  But even in a cubicle farm, if you try to do things with a pleasurable quality of consciousness, relaxation, and diligence, it will be better for you. And these things are possible.  You can control them.

The point I wanted to make here though is that arrogance is INHERENTLY separation.  The process of feeling superior to the web within which you live your life is the process of feeling apart from it, separate from it.

No perceptive person can fail to grasp their sundry limitations, or the countless ways in which they depend on others.

Thursday, January 17, 2013


Freedom is defined by how many types of behavior are possible.  If everyone is self destructive, then someone who is mentally healthy is the outlier.  If everyone acts the same, the one who acts differently defines the extent of freedom.

The great fallacy of the Left is that they are tolerant.  They are not.  They are bigoted towards any internally directed forms of morality, with religion being the most obvious example.

A definition

I wrote a note to myself some time ago that "A definition is the most basic fact."  I feel like I posted it here, but would approach it perhaps differently than I did before.  Clearly, words can be made to mean anything, but a definition is what I mean, and the better the definition, the better you understand me.  It is a means for organizing thought, and for preventing miscommunication.

In actual science, the value is that you can POINT to a concrete thing or process or outcome, which you then term a "fact". 

However, the need for definitions in the Humanities is perhaps only heightened by the possibility of ambiguity.  It is perhaps not overstating the case to say that virtually all of our contemporary social ills stem from abuses of language stemming from failures of definition.

What you mean by "justice" matters, does it not?  Truth?  Beauty?

White Father/Black Mother

This phrase keeps popping in my head.  When this happens, I try to explain what it means.

Here is an interesting data point I had not considered: Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was only 18 when she had him.  She had a November birthday, 1942, and he was born in August of 1961.  This means she got pregnant when she was BARELY 18.

Frank Marshall Davis, who I have argued seems most likely to me to have been the father, was born in 1905, meaning that in 1960 he was 55.  This is a 37 year difference.

Over and above the fact that one does not have to think long or hard about the wisdom of admitting an avowed and active Communist as a father, the mere difference in age, combined with the difference in race, would  have been HUGELY controversial.  He could have been her grandfather.

And to the point of my little "voice" (no, I don't hear actual voices), this feels as I look at it (good fodder there for NLP'ers) more like a rape, more like an exercise of the droit du seigneur, more like a slave master raping a slave. More like a white man and a submissive, powerless black woman.

Why did she abandon young Barry to return to Indonesia?   Did she feel no maternal tugs at all?  Was it that she, too, was on an FBI watch list, and wanted to protect him?  Or was it that she always felt like he was a child forced on her, a product of the cruel abuse of her innocence?

At some point in our history, it would be interesting for someone to get a sample of Obama's DNA somehow, and compare it to the Davis's.  That part can be done scientifically, even if the actual personal histories are buried.


If you're like most people, you have never heard of Jainism, which is a sect typically folded within "Hinduism", and in which all life is sacred.  They believe all life is sentient, even plants.  Different types of life have a different number of senses.  Plants, if memory serves, have one, which is quite consistent with Cleve Backsters finding.  They are not oblivious to the world around them.  They can't see, and can't think, but they can feel.  Just think back to Backster's initial finding, in which the plant more or less got excited when it was watered, in a manner not entirely unlike dogs when they are about to go for a walk.

The ultimate act of charity in this creed is to starve yourself to death, so that you do not live at the expense of ANY other form of life.  Their holy men sweep the roads ahead of them, lest they inadvertently kill an insect.

You can read more here:

Maybe take a break from the news for a bit.  Learn something new.

Cleve Backster, again

You could do a simple experiment in which a plant is hooked up to a polygraph machine, and a researcher gets a series of notes, 5 of which say "Do not burn the plant", and a sixth of which say Do burn the plant.  You could randomize them per whatever protocol is currently in vogue.  You could even put the researcher in a separate room, from which no conceivable hormonal transmitter could emerge to affect the plant, although I think it might be important for the researcher to be able to SEE the plant.  You could ignite the flame remotely.

I think the results would be strong and consistent, and utterly inconsistent with current biological paradigms of life.

As I say often with regard to our political world., there will come a time, hopefully, when we wake up and wonder how so many people could have been so stupid for so long.

Life is sin

Christ famously taught that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  What needs to be pointed out is that we need not revile ourselves, we need not hate ourselves or others.  Certainly, we need not judge others.  What we need to understand is that if we were already relatively perfected, we would not exist on this planet at all.  The simple fact that someone is HERE, ALREADY implies a relative lack of spiritual development.  This is a remedial education camp.

Sin is separation from God, which happens when we fall short of hearing the call of the best within us, when we cloud our true perceptions with rationalizations, and emotional coverups, to justify doing what is expedient but not right.  Life on this planet is already separation from God, who is much harder to see here.

These are my intuitions.  I want to be clear that I base them in part on experiences I have had, but in part as well on things I have simply read.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Cleve Backster

Everyone should know this name. Watch this video:

What you will see there is a simple, EASILY replicable experiment WHICH CANNOT BE EXPLAINED WITHIN A MATERIALISTIC PARADIGM.

What so-called skeptics do with data like this is not refute it--they can't, as there is no conceivable explanation for this within traditional paradigms--but ignore it.  They have successfully ignored this work for 40 years or more.

Why? What is the benefit to thinking of man as machine?  What advantage accrues to anyone in defending an idea that is not just empirically wrong, but pernicious morally?

Myth Busters apparently replicated his research.  So too can any contemporary researcher with simple courage and curiosity.

I want to be clear: most large paradigmatic shifts have come from very small outliers, things which could not be worked into existing theories, which could not be explained by existing theories.  In almost all cases, existing theories were modified with radically new CONTEXTS.  One could almost say they were supplemented.

Newton did not become wrong when Einstein proposed General Relativity, nor did General Relativity lose its usefulness when it was falsified as a final explanation by Bell's Theorem.

I remember Carl Sagan talking about the significance of how Mars moved within Ptolemaic astronomical models.  They could make everything but Mars work.  But in the end, a heliocentric view of the solar system had to be adopted to explain, what?  The DATA.  The stuff which REAL scientists rely on, rather than fashionable prejudice.

Einstein predicted light would bend around the sun.  It did, and we adopted his theory.  He predicted that quantum theory would imply information transfer at faster than light speeds, which within his model were impossible.  He was wrong.  Such transfers have been measured.

Science is in theory always advancing, always willing to kill its intellectual children--to which concrete human beings are in psychologically comprehensible ways quite attached--in search of a better idea.

Who out there has the courage to pursue this avenue of investigation?

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Politico Post

From here  I can't see it, even though it should have gone up, so I'm reposting.

Just as many children would have died had he used the two pistols as originally reported.  The worst school massacre in American history happened nearly 100 years ago, when someone bombed a school.
Banning "assault rifles" will accomplish NOTHING, just as it accomplished nothing the LAST TIME they were banned.  This is all about the government eroding, one by one, all the rights which constitute freedom. 
The Constitution exists to PROTECT US not just from one another--that is properly primarily the role of State and Local law--but to constrain a Federal Government which was seen as a necessary evil, and whose primary role was the protection of the United States as a whole, and regulating the relations of the sundry States.

There is ZERO evidence indicating ANY of these laws will accomplish anything meaningful.  On the contrary, gun bans in many other countries have led to ESCALATED violence.  Britain has over 3 times as many violent crimes per capita as we do.  Chicago sees hundreds of murders annually.  There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation, and if they are banned, it will only affect law abiding citizens.

By DESIGN these laws ONLY hurt law abiding citizens.  They will do NOTHING to curtail crime, and I am of the mind that ALL limits on gun ownership need to be opposed because it is clear that the end game of Obama and his cronies is to vitiate the Second Amendment outright, which is a necessary step on the road to the global tyranny powerful elites are trying to foist on us simply because they want to and think they can.

HuffPo--gun control

Generally speaking, they seem to censor all posts to do with Global Warming and any editorials written by celebrities determined to exercise their mediocrity in public.  Matthew Modine is a celebrity, so I assume it will not get through, so I'm reposting it here. Here's the original article.

If someone is trying to rape you, you WANT something "specifically designed to kill people" don't you? Or is the concept of self defense something that never enters your mind? Why do cops carry guns? Because they are effective.

You seem barely able to see 1789 through the mists of time. What about, say, the year 900 in Spain, when only Muslims were allowed to carry swords? What about 1650 in Japan, when only Samurai were allowed to carry swords? What about most of British history, where only elites and the military were allowed to carry guns? What about the Jim Crow era in the American South where only white people were allowed to own guns?

History is clear that a monopoly on the effective use of force leads to and supports tyranny. That fact had not changed in 2,000 years, much less 200.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Psycholiterary Therapists

Logically, if there is a psycholiterary field of study, there ought to be practitioners.  These would be people who prescribe art.  Could art museums be segregated by emotive outcome?  Could literature generally?  Music?

I think everyone should watch "The secret life of plants", which should be a part of all core curriculums, or at least the part dealing with Cleve Backster's work.

In moving through life, there is really no more important initial question than whether we are machines happening to possess apparent sentience, or actually conscious beings which interact directly with our surrounding universe. 

Once a firmly positive, and scientifically founded context of connetion is established, the way forward becomes subjective and unique to each actual in-dividual. Psycholiterary therapists can help with this.

Two threes

I reject self pity.

I recognize that most happiness comes from choosing my work, or from accepting work which chooses me.

I dedicate myself to cultivating an ever-increasing capacity to take large pleasure in small things.

I resolve to regularly move between abstraction and personal observation, and to seek both the most concise abstractions, and the most perceptive and specific observations.

I resolve to always recognize that all reality exists on a continuum, and to place all observations in context.

I resolve to always remember that Acting For does not necessarily equate to Acting To.


I think a better word might be "effortlessness", as in "unable to make an effort". Or perhaps "optionlessness".

If you think about it, if you are mowing your lawn by yourself, you are help-less.  No one is helping you.  But no one NEEDS to help you.  You can do it by yourself.

Or powerlessness, although given that I recognize both qualitative and quantitative power I would submit that you are never powerless when conscious.

As I think about it, it just seems to me that the word, itself, weakens people.


All of us have within us the capacity for irrational anger.  I say irrational, because the only rational use of anger is when you are actually under attack.  Often, though, we will be angry about one thing--one valid cause of anger--but wind up instead directing at someone or something else that has nothing to do with it.

I love babies, but for some weird reason I occasionally feel violent towards them.  I think it is because they are so small and innocent, and I was small and innocent once, and it got me hurt.  It's a deep rooted psychological thing.

But all of us have a shadow side.  All of us are potentially capable of irrational violence, violence which appeases some inner demon.

Look at the success of the most recent "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".  All I know of it is that they showed images on normal evening TV of a women bound and gagged, and a chainsaw poised to cut off her arm while she screamed.  This passes for "entertainment": the solipsistic consumption of the pain of others.  For such people, some inner recess of their souls says that "what is out there, doesn't matter". They are alone inside.  Violence does that.

And the thing is in 3D.  Tell me this is not tweaking some young and impressionable minds.

I'm off topic. Ahimsa, to me--and I feel I've said this before, but I am not sure here--is the eradication both of pleasure in violence, and in irrational violence. The two are roughly the same thing, with the difference that I think all people are born prone to the second, and only eradicate it through constant vigilence.  I do not feel it need mean the eradication of violence outright.

HuffPo post on global warming

 From here:
The lack of response makes me wonder if others can see it, but I cannot say definitively it was censored. It was pointed out to me as well that I did add the category "if it is happening, and if man is causing it, is fixing it still cheaper than riding out the effects?"  This is far from clear.  There have been periods when we had no polar ice caps and life THRIVED, and of course no one is even remotely suggesting this will happen again.
Intelligent people--which excludes most journalists and academics--will ask three sorts of questions:

1) Is the Earth warming? If we are making that claim, what metrics are we using, and how does this warming fit within broad climate contexts? Based on the past record of these people--and there is clearly a type--they are cherry picking data that excludes actual measurements of temperatures on both poles.

2) Is anthropogenic CO2--as opposed of course to the CO2 the dinosaurs breathed--a principle cause?

3) Will cutting down on emissions NOW do anything?

I have studied this topic extensively--MUCH more extensively than the many silly people who unknowingly do nothing but repeat talking points--and it seems clear to me that even if we DID cause an increase in temperature, virtually nothing we do now will make a bit of difference, since the relative role of CO2 diminishes as its concentration increases. Each doubling causes half the effect.

I deal with this topic at length here:

It seems obvious to me that the threat--the manufactured threat--of Global Warming is trojan horse for global governance

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Psycholiterary Studies

As I suppose many people do, I sometimes fantasize about what I would do if I had unlimited power.  What policies would I pursue?  In my case, I would in general eradicate most large scale restrictions on freedom, and trust that people could self organize in either better ways, or at least THEIR ways.

But tonight I was thinking about universities.  I have of course often criticized Humanities professors for being morally obtuse, and in general intellectually destructive.  So of course I would abolish most Humanities departments, at least as currently constituted.

As one example, though, would it make sense to return to the "classics" of Western literature?  Are these "classics" not in part the REASON our tradition has devolved to the point of collapse?  Does "Pride and Prejudice" help mold better characters?  Who knows?  I see no reason to reflexively to return to what never was, and would think it more intelligent to move forward to an considered use of literary and other art.

Thus, it occurs to me it would make sense to develop a discipline which has as its focus and goal the development of ideas and principles--which of course it would test, as I fully envision this being a scientific enterprise--on how to create art which both ennobles the artist, and either helps lessen the burden of the co-participant--the viewer--or fills them with a broader happiness and sense of possibility than they already had.  Or both.

Our literary tradition is filled with all sorts of literature.  Take Edgar Allen Poe.  How do you make him useful?  I won't say it can't be done, but I will say it is not clear to me HOW and in what contexts it can be done.  Someone should study that.  I could get behind something like that, if done sincerely.

Our entire problem is that our great orienting principles, like human rights and equality before the law, are being desecrated by those for whom egalitarianism is the only creed which they can justify.  This can be reversed and MUST be reversed if what is good in humanity is to survive the on-going onslaught on common decency being launched on us by the post-moral intellectual aesthetes.


Rather than calling Keynesian economic "Demand Side" we should call it "COMMAND side economics."

I trust my meaning is clear.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Windhorse Visualization

Think back to a glorious day you have had.  For me the temperature is perfect, I am outside, and everything is in harmony, between the sun, the clouds, the breeze, the feel of the air.  You feel good, really good.  Go back to this feeling in your memory and let it grow.  If you do not oppose it, it will tend to grow naturally.  Simply let it be.  Let it grow.

Now imagine you are radiating light, like a jewel with expansive powers, or like a sun.  It simply flows through and radiates.  If you keep the happiness and pleasure going, the light will seem to come too.  It goes with happiness, with joy.  Let it shine.

Now imagine you and your light are on a parade float, and your whole experience begins to move.  You are not moving yourself, but you are being moved.  Go slowly.  You may feel a bit unsure at first, but relax and flow into it.  I suspect with a strong root in the experience, you can work to moving very fast, but I have not done so myself.  Any movement is good movement.

To my way of thinking, this is the root feeling of Windhorse.  It is the essence, the root, the beginning point of the best sort of Goodness.  Remember it from time to time, and bring it into your life, wherever you are.

Laughing and sobbing

Have you ever noticed that what your ribs and diaphragm and chest do are quite similar both in sobbing and laughing?  Both are cathartic releases of emotion.

I am increasing inclined to view the root repository of tension and anxiety as the intracostal muscles and the diaphragm.  It is for this reason that deep breathing over a long period, as in Wholotropic Breathwork, stimulates and releases emotions, when it happens in a supportive environment.

I will add, too, that I think what the breathwork does is get you into a space without movement--a trauma, or perhaps even a mystical experience--and then add movement, through the evolution of music. 

I may have made that comment earlier, but can't remember.

Rock and Roll

Passing through Cleveland yesterday, I stopped for a short while at the Rock and Roll Museum.  My short take is that the Birchers were right: rock has on balance been a pernicious influence.

What maintains cultures is continuity.  To maintain continuity you have to VALUE continuity, and the essence of rock is breaking with the old, rebeling, destroying in some iterations.

There was a room of photos of 80's era bands.  None of them looked happy. 

The posters in the gift shop consisted in either horror show bands like "Five Finger Death Punch", and "Bullet for my Valentine"--none of them smiled, either, of course--or vapid pop to appeal to teenage girls.

Once you lose control, how do you regain it?  If you regain it in a position of not having access to open, plentiful, sincere love, then you regain it in power.  What else can one make of an album titled "Kill 'em all", Metallica's first?

All this anger makes sense to people.  It is not just Other-destructive: it is SELF destructive.  All power mongering is, since the root of malady is a loss of a self not dependent fully on context.

I'll have more to say, but as usual I've overslept a bit.  I never fuck up completely.  I just don't adhere to the highest standards of what is possible professionally.  This work, in any event, is much more important to me.

This blog

It's worth saying from time to time--as I'm well aware I do--that this blog is my public note space.  For a long time--years--I kept all my notes private.  What I found is that it is a pain in the ass editing and publishing them, so what I decided to do is just post my musings here. 

I don't agree with everything I say here, reserve the right to contradict myself and be stupid, and some of what I post will not make sense, or be fragmentary.

A quote I wrote down long ago from Thoreau went something like "It need not be long, but it takes so very long to make it short."

For me, at least, verbosity is the spring of concision.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Sentimentality versus passion

I would submit that sentimentality is always a bit narcissistic.  You look at yourself weeping over the kids in Africa, and weep because you are weeping.   What a lovely person you are.

This is quite a different emotion than empathy, or the commitment to help which follows it.

Meaning system, another try

Meaning is that which minimizes qualitative pain, and maximizes qualitative joy.

An optimal truth system is one which focuses on the qualitative growth in knowledge, and secondarily the quantitative growth.  It is far more important to know what life IS, than what insects reside in the Amazon rain forest.  It is far more important to recognize and integrate the idea that our souls and bodies separate at death than to cure cancer or heart disease (and in any event, little progress other than early detection and early intervention has happened over the last half century).

An optimal political system is one which maximizes the number of meaning systems.

An optimal economic system minimizes quantitative pain (cold, hunger, illness) and, by the same stroke, maximizes access to plenty.

Self evidently, you cannot maximize generalized wealth by decreasing it.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013


I'm sure I've been through a few iterations of this, and will go through more, but will offer the following as something that makes sense to me at this moment:

Meaning is that which justifies both suffering and deep joy.  The stronger the meaning system, the more pain you can suffer without complaint, and the greater the joy you can feel.

Countless shreds and shards, and streams and rays of meaning can be created in this world, where creation is vision.

Modern Art

I was in what I will call a transgressive museum yesterday, one well funded by the State and Local governments, and no doubt a few spent dissolute rich people.

Wandering around in this morass of meaninglessness--can I stipulate that when someone wants to "contextualize" something they are admitting being lost?--it occurred to me what a RELIEF anger is in such an environment.  It was welling up in me.  I was getting images of being a KKK Night Rider, as a vastly preferable alternative to living in that horrible world.

We need to recall that the artistic climate leading up to Bolshevism was Futurism, which extolled meaninglessness.

We need to recall that the artistic climate of Berlin in the period leading up to National Socialism was one of Dada and horror.  "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920 )might be viewed as one of the first--perhaps the first--Horror film.  Or M, perhaps the first film about a serial killer.

Or Bauhaus, which was a de facto rejection of historical culture, where "culture" within my terms is "that which facilitates meaning."  It rejected historical means of generating meaning, while offering nothing new other than a purported "rationality".

The artistic world was out of creative ideas for benevolent, desirable social and personal growth and transformation.  It rejected the old, without having understood what functions it performed, without grasping what actually matters in a social order.   I have argued that art should be INTEGRATIVE.  I have offered specifical moral values it should foster: the rejection of self pity, perseverance, and enhanced capacity to see, in all the possible sense of that word.

I am willing to countenance any and all events in art, if they lead to growth of these virtues.  "The Cabinet" might--I have not seen it--but I see no credible reason to suppose most modern horror does.  How do you want away more generous, more open, more loving?  You don't.  You want away traumatized, but addicted to that feeling.

Berlin saw constant street battles between Moscow-supporting Communists, and National Socialists, who believed no in the primacy of the worker, but of the GERMAN.  This was their only difference: Fascists are in general more honest.  Hitler did in fact advance the cause of most ordinary Germans, whereas Lenin and Stalin helped virtually no one outside a power elite.

But the point I want to make is that nihilism, a sense of helplessness in the fact of the task of meaning formation, leads to violence. 

The KKK thought it was defending a way of life, and the virtue of its women.  They were no more wrong in this than are Communists in claiming they defend the rights of the worker in the face of oppressors.  Communists tyrannize, with very few exception, EVERYONE in a society, including Party members who forget their special standing, and need to conform publicly in all cases to even the most idiotic Party lines.

I would actually go so far as to say that the violence of the KKK was more RATIONAL than the violence of the Communists.  The KKK killed perhaps 4,000 people over a span of a century.  There were WEEKSs when Communists killed that many people.  The KKK was trying to resurrect a social order that had been destroyed in war.  The Communists had nothing to point to, no creative activity.  No net positive for virtually anyone, but rather countless trails of tears, including the countless millions displaced by their policies, in an analogous fashion to our displacement of Indians, but multipled by a 100.

The KKK terrorized a small part of society--and to be clear, what they did was clearly evil; I am in no respect defending them, other than to say their terrorism was much more defensible than that of the  Communists--but Communists terrorized EVERYONE.  There was no reliable "us".  There was no reliable group, no family, no place where trust was warranted.

As I say from time to time, my view of Communism is that it is as close to a purely evil creed as can be imagined.  One could say that literal Satanism would be worse, but if it were called by that name, it would still be more honest, and could scarcely be more sanguinary.

And this evil--this justification of a violence made psychologically necessary by artistic and intellectual failures--is facilitated by meaninglessness of the sort on display in hundreds of museums the world over.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Be your own mother

Contemplate the state of a happy baby: it feels safe, surrounded, warm, and loved.  It's physiological state is one of deep relaxation.  It does not have stress hormones in it, and if there are "feel good" hormones--like seratonin, if memory serves, or perhaps the much-touted endorphins you get with exercise, then it is filled with those.

What I would submit is that this reaction, being in large measure physiological, is potentially under our conscious control.  You can learn to secrete the hormones, to feel the feelings, to relax the muscles, that are similar to the feeling of a happy baby.

Consider the Buddhist practice of loving kindness (karuna, if memory serves).  It is a flow outward.  But to do it properly, it must first be directs INWARDLY, correct?  You cannot hate yourself and love others, truly.  That is not how it works.

In my own case, my mother may as well have been schizoid.  I have struggled with the term, but by all accounts I cried a lot, and got hit a lot when I was 2 and 3.  Like many, I missed that early experience with bonding.  According to traditional theory, I'm screwed.  But I don't accept traditional theory.  Fuck limitations set by others, especially so-called "experts".

Despite not having been nurtured myself, by my mother or wife, I was very loving with my children.  One of my kids once told me "you look like my father, but you're really my mother" (I'm "practically a breast": name the movie).

Where did that come from?  I don't know.  But I can say that the practice of loving is comforting for the one doing it.  Empirically, in my own experience, love does not have to come first to you for you to offer it to others.

This means we control our own experience.

This is very important, because what I see, looking at our cultural landscape, is a lack of love.  See that kid with the "love" t-shirt on?  His mother is probably a clinical narcissist.  That is why he smokes pot and listens to escapist, vapid music.  Many if not most hippies were and remain functional narcissists.  As I once heard it put, "There was a lot of loving back then, but not much love."

Consider these young women who go down to Florida on spring break and fuck 3 guys, probably in what most would consider undignified circumstances.  Do they become good mothers?  Some, yes.  Many, no.  Where did they get the love, and/or how did they decide to love anyway?  I think they marry some good looking rich kid, who cheats on them.  These are gross generalizations of course, but I think have some truth in them.

The essence of spirituality--and I think I've said this--is first and foremost the ability to comfort yourself in difficult circumstances, and thus to have emotional reserves for others even in the most trying of circumstances.  It is not about mystical experiences, except to the extent they are USEFUL in this task.  What was miraculous about early Christians was the equinimity with which they met often very horrible fates.

Have to run.  Hopefully this is useful for someone.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Trillion Dollar Coins

Alexander Hamilton, if memory serves, proposed that Presidents be elected for life.  This proposal was thrown out, of course, but until he proposed it all iterations of the role of President were very weak.  The four year Presidency was, in my understanding, made possible in some measure by his throwing out a radical, benchmark destroying proposal.

Likewise, I would suggest that a proposal being thrown around to mint trillion dollar coins is radical.  It is stupid.  It does not address the underlying SYSTEMIC problems.  But the fact that such an idea is being discussed in public hints at a willingness to go farther in our thinking than we have hitherto.

As this article notes, "there have been 250 sovereign defaults since 1800".  In all cases of which I am aware, what happened was a government spent more than it could raise in taxes, borrowed heavily, and eventually was unable to make its payments.  It said to the creditors some version of SORRY, then reset its ledgers.  Obviously, there are many ways in which this happens, many ways in which creditors get some of their money back (invasion was at one time considered an acceptable option, if memory serves), but the fact remains: you can at some point just say: you aren't getting your money back.j

There were 1.3 million private and business Chapter 7--total liquidation--filings last year.  This means people and companies--like Solyndra--reached points where they could not hope to pay their bills, and simply walked away from their debts. 

My proposal (click on the first picture, with the mechanic, here) is a default that is utterly unique, unlike anything I've seen tried, and unlike almost all proposals I've seen.  It is most like the Chicago Plan, which called for 100% reserve banking.

The simple and ineluctable fact is that increasing productivity should be leading to increasing income per hour worked, and corresponding opportunity for leisure.  John Keynes 15 hour work week would have come into being, had he not lived to teach us to borrow and spend.

There is nothing wrong with the value of our money increasing steadily--as it would were new money and new claims on our new wealth constantly being created--IF there is no public or private debt, as there would not be, if we had true Capitalism and free markets in the banking sector.

My proposal will work.  I am convinced of it.  I am not an economist, but I have thought it through carefully, and often, and see no foundational flaws.  Defaults are common.  Mine is simply a democratic default, which erases the debt of EVERYONE, not just the government.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

HuffPo post

From here:

I will add, that it is persistently interesting to me how the Left systematically takes the truths--the documentable, factual, empirical truths--of conservatives, and simply appropriates the RHETORIC directly, without making even rudimentary efforts to show how it applies; how, for example, it is somehow "lunacy" to want to discontinue the road to national bankruptcy.

I just have one question: do you invert the truth 180 degrees intentionally, or simply out of the long standing delusion that your side is inherently and always rational, and can thus lay claim to the actual truth without delay or hesitation, regardless of the facts?

The simple reality is that spending was $2 trillion under Clinton.  It will be (we think: no budget has been passed or even seriously proposed under Obama, so it's hard to be sure) roughly $3.2 trillion under Obama IN 2012, and trending sharply up.  That increase in SPENDING has nothing to do with ANYTHING except increases in the SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.

We are on a path to insolvency.  What merit, I ask, is there in pretending that if we postpone rational discussion for another day that some concrete good will have been done?  To be irresponsible is not the same as being responsible.  They are, in fact, the reverse of each other.  In the real, actual world. some ideas are better than others.  Some PEOPLE are better than others.  You, here, are betraying a mediocrity of spirit and intelligence that, if you could see it clearly, would give you ample cause to consider long bouts of silence.

The 86 trillion dollars in unfunded--UNFUNDABLE, to be clear, in any conceivable scenario--liabilities would give any rational person pause.  It does not give you pause.  Ergo. . .

All the Leaves are Brown

In our current environmen--at least as most people process our current environment--it seems impossible to imagine that anyone would be so UNCIVIL as to attempt to impose tyranny on us, but the fact of the matter is that that is EXACTLY what has been proposed by mainstream professors, publicly, with seemingly no backlash.  Imagine what their discussions look like in private.

Please read this link, which I have posted from time to time:

Government Aphorism

The business of government is producing more government.  This process will continue until blocked by the will of the people.  The law will slow it down, but not stop it.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Curiosity, more

Yesterday, I thought I had screwed up, and that my mistake was going to cost me 4 hours of work.  I paused to consider.  In the process I wound up wandering around a huge construction site, that was to me in any event quite interesting.  If it's not obvious, I like exploring.  I don't need to do anything dramatic, just change scenery enough to SEE something new, think something new, create for myself a new experience.

Anyway, wandering around it occurred to me that even in failure you can find things that are interesting. Curiosity is a type of excitement that goes on and on and on.  It's not quite a purpose in life--although I think it could serve as one, and a better one than many I see--but it certainly adds energy to life.

And it hit me that even in zero sum games, that you lose, there are things you can find that are interesting.  And it occurred to me that that fact can take all the sting of loss out of the thing.  You get the excitement of victory, ideally, and the consolation of learning something in the worst case.  Put another way, no excitable, curious person, can ever lose, finally.

That's a good thought, I think.

My next bumper sticker--to cover up the last Republican who didn't win--will say "Be Relentlessly Curious".  There is so much value in it. Imagine if all Americans were genuinely curious, genuinely interested in asking questions and hearing answers.  It would change the landscape of our nation quickly.

Oh, and I solved my problem.  I just needed a bit of space to think it through.   To the point here, actually, solving it meant thinking a new thought, and discovering something I did not know.

Self comforting, for real.

What if you grew up without a mother, or anyone else to comfort and mother you?  You would have to learn self comforting.  It may seem counterintuitive, but I think people really can learn to say the things to themselves, and do the things for themselves that mothers normally do.

I think of the Buddhist monks wandering India--or the Sannyasin, or any other itinerant monk:  they get cold.  They get hungry, tired.  They must sometimes despair.  What comforts them?  Their creed and practice.  Their creed and practice serve the role of companion and mother, or wife.

Many mystics have spoken of God as a lover.  Lovers comfort, do they not?  They ease pain.

I would submit that the ESSENCE of spirituality is the facilitation of emotional growth which enables people to live happily alone and in difficulty because they have learned how to comfort themselves, or to take it in non-ordinary ways.

Redemptive Ecstacy

Stanislov Grof has talked about how he feels, based on very long term experience dealing with people in altered states of consciousness, that the birth experience is very important in influencing later life.  It remains with people until they process it.  Difficult births lead to certain personality impairments that can only be healed with what I tend to term ecstatic states, states in which the inner healer is enabled to function properly, in terms of qualitative reorganization of the personality gestalt.

This led me to wonder: in cultures where ecstatic states are rare or absent, do people unconsciously blame the mothers?  Is the inability to process these states a source of misogyny?

I think of Islam, where virtually everything is banned.  They don't like singing, dancing, painting people, drinking.  They prize sobriety over all else.  Given a percentage of the population that will have undergone traumatic births, how can they ever process them?  They can't.

Conversely, it would seem to me that cultures which value femininity would tend to have many more ways of processing feelings, deep experiences, of releasing deep down pent up tensions in some way OTHER than violence.

Homo Vicarius

First off, errata:  I'm not a huge Bocephus fan--I like his father a lot more--but even I know it is whiskey bent and hell bound.  Also, I did not address the putative topic in my last post.  I'll get to it eventually, but not tonight.  I've managed to tire myself again.

The other day I was in a Half Price Books store, and looked at the wall of movies and music, and thought "that is a wall of sensations, of vicarious experiences".  That is what we buy, isn't it? Experiences?

But following up on the point I made yesterday, it is SOMEONE ELSE'S experience.  You are watching.  They are doing. They are out there, and you are in there with them.  Some part of you, I feel, never leaves.

This is habit forming.  It is a way of interacting with the world that you don't see, that is hidden.  After all, you swerve to avoid obstacles in the road, laugh with your friends, smell the grass when you are mowing the lawn.

But something is missing.  You are being carried.  You are not taking turns in your interactions with the universe.  In a room filled with light and life, you only see scenes from another room, far, far away.

Over the last day or so I've been swiveling around this seeming dichotomy of reason and emotion, of abstraction and concrete experience.

I have said from time to time that thoughts are machines.  Reason is the systematic use of thought.  It is, we might say, the MECHANICAL use of thought.  It is the building of structures that in theory, in the abstract, in their ideal forms, DO NOT CHANGE.  A squared plus B squared always equals C squared.

Plainly, reason machines are useful in building material things, objects for use, like tractors, and test tubes.

But reason cannot be made an end in itself.  It is a transitional device, a bridge from an A worth visiting to a B worth visiting.  Making it an end in itself is living on the bridge.  You live nowhere.  You are not alive to the real world. to the many forms of "weather" surrounding you.

The very first act of abstraction is to eliminate emotion.  You must be clinical, detached.  That's fine, but then what?  The process becomes habit.  The emotional energy grows undetected. The disrupting passions erode sanity in the dark, unseen, because the perceptual filter of such people screens them out.  They are in their self estimation dispassionate, scientific, objective, and in reality horror stricken by the core lack of meaning in their lives, which they feel to the extent they put all their eggs in the basket of reason.

We can talk to the universe, and it answers.  That is where God is.  God is not an abstraction, or a logical puzzle, but a reality that is ONLY open to those who can process the world as other than detached observers.

Life interacts with life.  Machines do not interact with anything.  They are built for a purpose, exist for a purpose, and are not open to influence, only reconstruction by another agency.

Socialism is the logical end of logic.  It is society as machine, with all the gears well manufactured to fit with all the other gears.  It is abstraction brought into reality, dispassion expressed through an explosion of rage masquerading as something else.
Nice video.  Salient points: violent crime and homicides have dropped by 50% in the last twenty years.  Violent crime is 3.5 times higher, now, today, in England than it is here.  Put another way, Brits are much less safe, even though they are less likely to die from the violence visited on them.  Virtually all our crime is concentrated in cities.  If we cut out that crime, our crime rates would be equal to or lower than the countries the Left wants to compare us to.  Finally, only 3.5 %--roughly one in 30--homicides are committed with rifles, and the AR-15 and assault rifles generally are a subset of that.  The data is unambiguous that more guns equals less crime.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Self comforting

This is a set of three ideas, that as I contemplate them after what is for me a long day (I count anything longer than 12 hours as long, even though I know full well that by military and farm standards I'm a pussy) I think I am going to run together for simplicity.

First idea, which is a big one.  Yesterday, I got up, did my stretching, did my lacrosse balls . . .

[I need to do another post on them--hell, I may not: get 3 lacrosse balls, duct tape two together, and the smallest soccer ball you can find.  Use the single lacrosse ball on your traps, by leaning into the ball on a wall until it hurts.  Hold until it gets soft.  Repeat in another tight spot.  Do it on your shoulders, lats, chest (theres a spot just under your collar bone that will be interesting), your feet, your hips.  Then lay on it, with no weight at first, then after a few sessions whatever you can stand--I use a 40 lb. weight vest--and just find the tender spots, and stay with it till it gets soft.  The double ball you put on your spine, starting in your lower back.  Do a crunch of sorts, or whatever it takes to get weight on it.  Do many positions, and work your way up your spine.  Use the soccer ball for your hip flexors and upper thigh.  Doing this work, you will likely notice many memories and images popping up spontaneously.  I suspect that most people keep tension in some spots for years, even decades, and releasing it causes perhaps not accurate memories, but ones evocative of something long ago].

. . .then my Kum Nye exercises (I like to scent the room with rose essential oil.  Yes, I am heterosexual, decidedly so.  No, I do not have a satchel or a hairdresser.).  I was going to do some pushups and pilates, but decided to lay down again.  Some inner voice told me to.  As I lay sleeping/dozing, it hit me that there is a part of our brains which cannot tell the difference between TV and reality, with the result that many of us treat the real world, unconsciously, as a somewhat inferior version of TV. This spot is right in the middle of our existence.

The importance of this, I realized, is that existence is interactive, whereas artificial reality is not.  I realized this driving into a sunrise, and realized that for perhaps the first time ever I felt a PART of the scene in front of me.  It was not external to me.  The sun saw me even as I saw it, in some weird way.  We were connected.  I was a part of the context in a deep way of everything in front of me, in much the same way we are told Native Americans and other cultures looked at reality.  Those trees, those clouds: they are not fully "out there".

TV dulls this.  Even books dull this.  Both act as intermediaries to experience.  Both give out, but do not return.  And I think living in either kills or numbs some part of our spirit.

Second point:  there is a violence in abstraction.  I have said this before, but as I contemplate it, reason itself consists in removing oneself from "flows" like water.  It consists in trying (I say "it", and have in mind common sense--but in my view flawed--conceptions as iterated in modern scientism and socialism) to make all the currents of life stop, so they can be catalogued and analyzed.  It is like drying the ocean to see what is in it.

This is the emotional reaction Scientistic apostles have to RESEARCH, concrete empirical data that suggest the primacy of connection. of flow, and the illusory nature of object-hood.  It destroys their whole conceit.

It is sometimes logical to be illogical.   Specifically, what I have in mind is the NEED for emotional release, to sometimes allow oneself to completely lose control in whatever promptings are suggested in an ecstatic trance.  We have to balance the so-called Apollonian with the Dionysian.  I have said the before, but never seen it so clearly.  Quite literally, an overabundance of detachment leads to attachment.  Releasing emotional barriers is CONDUCIVE to the effective use of reason, and not at all an impediment to it.

I have in mind, of course, AT LEAST Grof Holotropic Breathwork, which is a time and space delimited experience that facilitates the eruption of whatever is truly deeply on your mind.  You can choose to attend.  You can choose to start, choose to stop.  You can attend once, or many times.  It is up to you.  But the experience is easy to induce, and should in my view become an integral part of any future global culture.

On that note, I did want to note that I have been searching for an alternative word to anarchy, since as all self proclaimed anarchists will tell you, they don't want chaos.  I am of course sympathetic to the aim, even if most of them have done something close to no thinking as to how to bring it about.  To my mind, it is self evident that as the morality of a group or nation improves, the need for governance decreases.  So the logical task is to prevent the fucking bastards in the Academy and Wall Street from ruining our planet, while working to build increased moral virtue across the land.

Then I realized I already have the word: Telearchy.  That will work for a group of people of any size who have a shared goal, which I have repeatedly suggested ought to be qualitative joy, although eudaimonia would work well as well. 

Finally, since I have drinking to do and just realized my brain is full, I wanted to comment on the importance of curiosity.  As I realized yesterday, the HABIT of being interested is in itself something which will keep anyone, no matter their metaphysics or quality of their philosophy, moving forward.  Curiosity is reaching out to the world, touching it, interacting with it.  And as I noted several (some number) posts ago, when we reach out to the world through the sensations of interest and pleasure, we are reaching out to God through His creation.

If you eat a good meal and truly savor it with curiosity and attention, that is worship, in my view.  And it doesn't need to be a simple meal.  Why not a great meal?  But my point is that a truly curious person, someone truly interacting with the whole of their perceptual being with their world, would also be able to enjoy a simple meal too.  I just want to note that I don't think God has any desire to deny us pleasure on this earth, if we enjoy it with gratitude.

I will add as well that this whole concept of "mindfulness" works in concept, but it has never worked in reality for me.  You know, the whole "wash the dishes mindfully, etc."  I can't do it.  What I CAN do is enjoy the work, and in particular enjoy doing the work well and efficiently.  But there is nothing wrong with getting a broom that feels good in your hands, or selecting a very pleasant dish soap, or tableware you enjoy looking at, etc.

That is about half of what went on in my head today.  I just can't contemplate the rest right now.  It will appear eventually, unless it doesn't. 

Whiskey BOUND!!!  (but not hell-bent, if anyone was asking).