Thursday, October 31, 2013

Imagination

When imagination is not being used as a means for the creative solution of problems, in most cases it substitutes for the capacity to process present experience.  You can avoid what is in front of you by existing somewhere else.  The problem is that if you never "are", you can never become.
 
I had in mind here comic books, and dungeons and dragons, and science fiction and fantasy; but this applies equally to leftwing utopianism.  They don't count death as real.  They don't count suffering as real.  They don't count people as real, and they don't count themselves as real.

Edit: I would actually add some forms of "right wing" utopianism.  In principle, is John Galt's mountain hideout that different that varying iterations of a society founded on "reason", or "science", which is the claim made for Marxism?

This is an oldie but a goodie:

There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.  Raj Patel (who based on the title of the book where this quote apparently occurred, is likely a leftist despite the 50 year failure of socialism in India.)

Be here, now.  Solve problems here, now.  If you are somewhere else, until you come back, no one needs you.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Nice piece on the militarization and indoctrination of substantially everyone who works for the government.

Obamacare and the Insurance Companies

In the same manner that large Wall Street banks wrote the so-called "Wall Street Reform"--which plainly was intended to strengthen and make more secure large banks, at the expense of small banks and the taxpayer--large insurance companies from what I can tell in large measure supported Obamacare.

I have long wondered about this.  It seems clear to me and most that Obamacare is intended to put them out of business.  Certainly, some of them, like United Healthcare, the biggest insurer, may be counting on taking over most of the market, then getting contracted by the government to provide ALL services in a single payer-like scenario.  Or maybe the top five.

Certainly in terms of enrollees they are only picking up between them perhaps 10% of the overall market, and Obamacare puts caps on how much profit they can make relative to revenues.

What now occurs to me is that at least for the next five years--and most CEO's of large corporations seem unable to think beyond that time window--most Americans will be required by law to buy health insurance policies of a grade and price beyond what they were buying, and those who are unable to buy them will now get subsidies from the government to pay for their insurance, which means that even the poor will be picking up expensive policies.

This means that net revenues overall will increase a LOT.  Not only are they bringing new people on, but they are able to force people, by law, to buy policies that are more expensive than they otherwise would have chosen.

When these insurance companies are sending out cancellation notices, they are thrilled.  Most normal middle class Americans will take the hit and pay the higher rate.  They are forcing people into more expensive and more profitable policies.  They may be constrained in profit percentages, but overall revenues will increase enormously; and in any event I don't think what is being forced on them is all that different than their historical norms, and certainly more than they would expect to see in an actually competitive market, where all carriers could sell all products in all States. I think most big insurance carriers have considered a 5% net profit an extremely good year for some time.

So the CEO's of Wellpoint, and United, and Humana and the others may have just said "fuck it.  Who knows what the future holds?  We can sure as hell make hay now."

Certainly, I am in a position to know that these companies have been expanding steadily for two years or more.  Now it makes more sense to me.

Again, if a leftist is talking, he or she is lying.  Here, they claimed to be socking it to the insurance companies.  And they may yet--to our collective detriment--but not until after a lot of us get fleeced, and a lot of executives get richer.

Saudi Arabia

Can we discard out of hand the notion that Saudi Arabia is to Islamism what the old Soviet Union was to Communism?  Can we reject out of hand that at the same time it is publicly condemning extremism that it is privately funding it?  Certainly, they seem to be funding the Syrian Islamists, and to be funding Muslim Brotherhood operatives the world over, who could usefully be compared to Communist International agents in the previous Cold War.

Can we hazard a guess that the co-conspirators on 9/11 were not in fact Americans--or not acting as Americans--but rather private mercenaries contracted by the Saudis in order to create a reason to invade Iraq, and to expand the scope of the American government?

Communists think on 50 year timelines.  Why can't Islamists?  Why could they not fund through illegal campaign contributions and outright bribes a government which was all-powerful, which they could then in turn buy, as seems to have happened with Barack Obama?

Why could they not have a 100 year plan to convert the world through SUBVERSION first to leftist tyranny, then to imposed Islamism?  Why could they not employ the same tactics that Communists use?

Could it be that they rejected their non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council precisely to be LESS public in their opinions, so as to make their private actions less subject to and open to scrutiny?  Or was it a fit of pique that Obama wasn't even honest enough to stay bought?

I don't know.  I am missing a great many variables.  Good answers start with both good and numerous questions, though.

Usefulness

I was reading through my last couple of posts, and I use this word almost as a mantra.

Here is the thing: anyone who is not thinking practically in terms of the logistics required to accomplish specific, desirable outcomes, is between useless--and more often--damaging.

Most of us can likely agree that global peace and prosperity are desirable goals, but anyone who is proposing means without evaluating if those are likely to be effective means, anyone who thinks that merely having a goal constitutes morality, is being self indulgent.  It is narcissism, infantilism.  It betrays a lack of moral and emotional maturity.

And with regard to Leftism, even a casual student of its history knows that it is crooked and rotten at its core.  It is IN PRINCIPLE a rejection of the common sense morality and decency that makes it possible for human beings to live happily in harmony with one another, as I have repeatedly argued at length, particularly on my other website.

Modernity

I am educated enough to know that academics in the Humanities spend a lot of time talking about Modernity, or used to, and I can't see where else they can go within the limits they have set themselves.

We see Gemainshaft compared to Gesellshaft, which is roughly community versus society.  We see discussions of alienation, the lack of a sense of place, and the lack of a sense of purpose.

These, in my view, are not problems to be DESCRIBED, but rather SOLVED.  They are practical, logistical problems, and there is zero doubt in my mind they have solutions.  I have provided solutions in many ways on many levels.

The problem with our universities is they continue to embody the fundamental split in Western tradition between body and mind. The work that academics do involves writing books.  Even if it involves watching somebody or something for some period of time, the ultimate outcome is a big pile of words.

In religious studies, which is my field, there is a common tendency to overvalue the beliefs of a group of people, and to undervalue the praxis, because the beliefs can be analyzed and manipulated in the abstract more easily, since they are already ideas.  Praxis--by which I mean ritual in its broadest form--has to be DONE to be properly understood. You have to sit in their shoes, smoke their weed, get naked and dirty, to understand them.

But even if you do this, it still gets expressed descriptively.  There are not anthropologists coming back and saying "we should try this here", by and large.  They are not trying to figure out how to improve the ritual element of our socity, how to reintroduce one that is vital, real, energizing, harmonizing.

That, however, is what they SHOULD be doing, as that would actually be useful.

Can we not grant that social harmony and individual happiness are not strictly a matter of dopamine receptors, and brain chemistry?  Can we not grant that culture can both hinder and further human happiness?  And having granted this, can we not grant that it ought to be the role of people who study culture to make SUGGESTIONS?  To add ideas?

Could you imagine a university in which emotional development was a core focus?  Why not?  Why not make personal development as important--more important--than reading Chaucer, or studying European history?

For myself, I have worked out a reasonably good model that I think will work.  It has content; it has ideas; it is does not consist exclusively in what it is not (which is the case for moral relativists and postmodernists).

I would like to see the mainstreaming of Holotropic Breathwork and Kum Nye, as expressed within a philosophical framework like that I created in my essay on Goodness.  You need a base belief structure--what I suggest are three absolute principles that can be deployed in innumerable ways--an individual practice, and a communalizing (I may have just invented that word, but if so it needed to be invented) ritual.

We all need ways of calming ourselves down and of promoting positive emotions.  Kum Nye does this.

We need some set of principles that does not change with the wind.  My three principles do this.

And we need both connection with others, and occasional craziness in our lives, ideally shared craziness.  Holotropic Breathwork does this.

In my dreams--and everything of course may fall apart completely, as I assume I am on multiple lists, and can imagine many ways I may die--we build temples where groups of people can meet and both meditate in groups, and do the Breathwork.  And there is no reason people could not give lectures on useful topics.

As I have shared, I think it would be useful and interesting to create a social structure parallel to the family structure which complements and supplements it, in which groups of 20 or so people develop long term bonds through repeatedly doing the Breathwork together.  Shared trauma and wild experience builds strong bonds, and seeing each other weekly or so over years, while sharing those experiences, would build bonds perhaps better than those forged in war.

I'm thinking perhaps one Holotropic Breathwork session a month, and shared Kum Nye perhaps twice a week. Over time, you could go to any of these people with any problem you have, and receive genuine presence, genuine caring.

And we build millions of these groups, the world over.  I have zero desire to tell anyone how to live their lives, other than that I would encourage them to value their lives and pursue their own vision of happiness.  But the very lack of specificity would allow local cultural preferences to be maintained and perhaps even enriched.  I want more diversity in the world not less, and there is no reason this would be inconsistent with peace.

We can build global peace and prosperity.  It is possible.  And we can do it gradually, and pleasantly.

All of the supposed "utopian" dreams of emotionally disturbed people contain nothing but their own desire to commit suicide, and their vain and psychotic need to make the world join them.

We have choices.  We all have choices.

Obama and Iron Man 3

I think it would be most useful to think of Obama as nothing more than an actor, reading scripts. In this regard, a good analogy would be with Ben Kingley's Mandarin, who comes across as quite dramatic, but is in reality a low grade buffoon.

I have seen the claim that Valerie Jarrett--who takes nearly as many Secret Service members with her on vacation as Obama does--is the real power behind the throne.  And who she takes her marching orders from is anyone's guess.  They do have names and addresses, though, which are knowable.

Do Mossad or Aman know?  One wonders.  The destinies of our nations are closely linked.

My mission statement

To be patiently persistent in matter of importance.

Inner Work

I am capable of using reason very effectively.  I have on many cases created what I view as very strict, disciplined, but thorough treatments of complex topics.

At the same time, I often trust my gut, my intuition.  The previous post was the result of being attacked twice in my dreams last night by Islamists.  One shouted "Allahu Akbar" (which means in most cases "I am about to shit on God and curse the righteous") and threw a grenade.  Another tried to infect me with anthrax.

I very much believe that dreams CAN reflect deeper realities, realities outside the realm of my own unprocessed and unconscious emotions.  I still have a great deal to get through, so this could be some remaining reflection of self sabotage. 

At the same time, I do feel a Muslim influence in all this, and it seems likely the Saudis--who as a nation are unimaginably rich--are playing some major role in world affairs.

That is not what I wanted to post about, though.  I don't claim to operate a normal blog.  I am odd in many ways, but I cherish that.  I think everyone should cherish the gift of being unique.

In my meditations recently, I have realized that when dark forces come up, I do not need to resist them.  Satanic powers will eat me, attack me, destroy me, and I can watch on calmly, as I have realized that I come back, I revitalize.  What I am cannot be destroyed.  I need fear nothing.  My body can be destroyed and my mind perverted, in this world.  I can be brainwashed and broken. 

But some higher self exists which never touches this world, which enables a "reboot".  This means I can be absolutely persistent and indestructible, in an absolute sense.  I am unstoppable.

And I have been watching these things arise and, say, bite my head off and eat it, and I realize that what it is eating, what it can touch, is not my actual head.  My body consists in light, not darkness, and darkness cannot touch light.  To the extent it is doing anything, it is helping me purify myself.

I think this is the essence of the practice the Tibetans call Chod.

I will add as well an interesting experience I had yesterday.  Due to a bad decision, I got stuck unnecessarily in traffic for 45 minutes yesterday.  I'm like anyone else, and really dislike prolonged periods of alternating between stopping and going five miles an hour for twenty feet.

But they talk in Kum Nye about integrating experience with breath, so I thought I would try that.  I focused on my impatience and sense of being trapped and did my best to expand it, and blend it with my breath.  And to a great extent, it helped.  What I realized is that once you embed that process of accepting experience and blending it with breath you don't conquer those feelings once, but potentially permanently.

What would life be like if you were permanently beyond complaining?

The flip side of this is that it is possible to suppress feelings, to never ask yourself who you are and what you really want.  Most people do this.  They fall by chance into one pattern or another and even though they are vaguely dissatisfied, they never address it.

I think a life well lived is one where you consciously pursue the things that make you happy, and on the flip side learn to accept without complaint all the inevitable inconveniences and sufferings of the world.

As I have said often, I view Kum Nye as an effective system for this, and will go farther, actually, and say that in my own experience it is by far the most accessible pathway to the sorts of realizations Buddhists talk about.  I feel most other forms of meditation get the cart before the horse: they ask people to meditate before they have learned to feel and to relax.

Further Conspiracy

First off, we need to be clear that Obama seemingly has committed a Federal Felony by using a fake Social Security Number.  It seems likely he was never renaturalized after having been an Indonesian citizen.  It is quite possible--indeed it seems likely--that he never attended Columbia.  It is likely--and has in fact apparently been admitted by Michelle Obama--that Bill Ayers was the actual author of both of Obama's books.  If you remember back to those halcyon days when it seemed Obama was intelligent and articulate, those books were principle pieces of evidence.  And for his part Ayers once envisioned massive concentration camps for Americans unwilling to submit to  Communist sadistic tyranny, and foresaw the need to kill up to ten million Americans.

So thinking that we are looking at a house of lies is scarcely paranoid.  On the contrary, it is difficult to grasp and accept the extent of the fraud which enabled Obama to be put forward as a candidate, much less elected twice.  It is impossible to fathom the depth of the betrayal committed by the complicit media, the extent of the lies propagated by people who should have known better.

What if the computer glitches are happening with regard to Obamacare because everyone thought that a coup would have already taken place?  What if they never thought they actually had to develop the website?  What if all the money given Michelle Obama's roommate, or most of it, wound up in hands dedicated to other tasks?  What if some of it even now is supporting Syrian Islamists, or domestic radicals?

Alex Jones broadcast a story about a secret nuclear weapons transfer here: http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-high-level-source-confirms-secret-us-nuclear-warhead-transfer-to-east-coast/

Following this story two senior nuke commanders were fired: http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-high-level-source-confirms-secret-us-nuclear-warhead-transfer-to-east-coast/

Now Alex thinks they were bound for Syria, to start a global war.  It is just as likely they were going to be detonated somewhere in the US, everyone who knew about it killed, and blamed on Al Quedists.  We can't know, but something stinks to high heaven.

This story was the result of an actual patriot leaking a story to the ONLY NEWS OUTLET THAT WOULD COVER IT.  What if all the cover stories were ready, everybody had their lines memorized, and ONE PERSON did the right thing and prevented mass disaster?

What if Obama has viewed his job all along as simply biding his time until other people completed the preparations for a coup?  What if he is on the golf course, and seemingly uninterested in his job because his job consists SOLELY in providing the necessary authority for others to put in place a road map to tyranny?

I would like to submit some ideas to senior military commanders as well.  I get this image in my mind of some 3 or 4 star General finding out about the FEMA camps, and the plan to house Americans in large numbers in them, and demanding an explanation.  Finding out it goes to the top, to Obama, he demands a meeting.  He is refused, by the Commander in Chief, to whose authority he must ultimately submit.

What that person still can do is create contingency plans to destroy or occupy these camps.  I hate to telegraph possibilities--I have a lot of ideas I never put in the public domain precisely for this reason--but my overall impression of the imaginative/creative capacities of senior military leaders is that they are not actually all that smart in most cases.  As I have shared, I was once told by a very seasoned, career, upwardly mobile Navy Commander about the prospects in Iraq, in 2006, that "I am career military and it is hard to be optimistic", meaning he wasn't seeing then anyone willing to understand the situation and respond appropriately.  But for every Westmoreland there likely exists an Abrams, even if they don't usually get credit.

Further, anyone wanting to fundamentally address an attack on our Constitutional Republic and our way of life has to remember that the Fed controls all electronic interactions.  It may or may not be in the public domain where the servers are, but every debit card transaction, every credit card transaction, every money transfer between banks, every topping off through Federal Funds goes through the Fed.   They report to no public agency and they could shut down our financial system in an instant.  They may be complicit in this whole program--it seems certain that senior members are--and thus likely have a plan in place to do this.  In any civil conflict, taking control of the Fed would be a top priority.

I am of course no general.  I have no training in strategic thinking.  These things are in many respects obvious.  But I discovered long ago that was obvious to me was not obvious to others.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Obama's planned coup

Read/watch this: http://www.infowars.com/leaked-video-military-police-briefing-with-fema-over-gun-confiscation-and-martial-law/

It appears clear beyond any reasonable doubt that contingency plans have been created based upon Army Field Manual 3.39-40 in which a role for regular military and National Guard units is seen in which they would operate domestically, and under the control of the DHS, which as I have pointed out often has made itself into a paramilitary force.  To be clear, the control is under FEMA, but FEMA is under the DHS umbrella.  My treatment of the manual is here: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2013/03/open-letter-on-army-fm-339-40.html

As I point out, they are quite clear about the chain of command, and the training being taped at the original link is simply indoctrination.

And we need to recall that all totalitarian regimes have Sondereinsatzgruppen.  The Nazis, for example, used the Waffen SS to commit mass murder behind German lines when they invaded Russia.  The Bolsheviks had the Cheka, which commited all manner of atrocities, but normally in such a way that the public and regular army only suspected them.  They did not know for sure what was going on.

And here, what is being taught is that the military MP's should just keep their mouths shut and let other people do whatever "is needed", which in my view plainly includes the extensive use of the camps clearly described in the manual as prison camps, reeducation camps, and as existing in the United States.  As I said, I did a pretty close reading, and excerpted relevant quotes, and there is little ambiguity in them.

When I say senior military leaders in this country need to be mapping out a strategy to counter a coup, I mean many things, but first and foremost logistics.  Obama is the Commander in Chief.  Could he not order all ammunition locked away?  Could he not order all tanks to be mothballed, all jets sequestered or commandeered by his fellow travelers? Our Generals and Admirals need to be alert for signs.  They need to have contingency plans to repel an attempted coup.  They need communications.  What if Obama orders the NSA to jam all signals?  What if they obey?

To the extent America faces an existential threat, this is the most important one, and I would hope our senior leaders are astute enough to grasp this.  Clearly, the pretext for tyranny may be a nuclear detonation of the sort that for a moment seemed planned for South Carolina.  This does not mean that the bomb did not come from anywhere but America.

The numbers of people who would actually be able to contemplate destroying our political system and enslaving Americans cannot be large.  I would have a hard time thinking more than a hundred people know all the details of what is planned.

And this is certainly cause for hope.  Americans are not Russians.  We are not nihilists in large numbers.  We did not just fight a war in which we were slaughtered in huge numbers, futilely, as ordered by an absolute monarch.  Nor can he promise the world as Lenin did and be believed. We are not oppressed by the government in the way, say, Castro was able to claim Cubans were.  There are no French colonialists as there were in Vietnam.  Obama is not a war hero like Mao was.

What works in the favor of true patriots is that Obama and his minions can't know with certainty what orders will be followed, who is just playing along and will frag their unit the moment they get orders to break the law.

He has no mass mandate for a coup.  He can't expect even a short holiday of support, like were given Mao, Castro, Giap (or whoever the first leader of the conquered South was) and others.  All of his options, looked at honestly, are bad.  The Fabian strategy was a good one, but the sauce has broken.  Post-Obamacare the Tea Party will do nothing but grow.

One hopes that there exist actually sane people among this group, and that they might come to their senses and alert people openly.  We have done a great deal of good in this country, and around the world, and to state the obvious, mass murder never did anything but cause mass suffering.  There is nothing redemptive in it, nothing positive.

Good campaign slogan

Common sense and common decency.

Add to this: jobs and safety for the poor, opportunity for the middle class, and support for job creators.

Obamacare Sex bias

My understanding is that Obamacare requires insurers to provide free contraceptives to women who request them, and free abortions on demand.  This alone should make the premiums for women, and families containing women, much higher.  My guess, though, is that these costs are being borne equally by both men and women.

As I point out in my treatise on Obamacare, insurance premiums MUST go up on almost everyone.  Not only is the Medicaid limit being raised up significantly, but subsidies will be paid to people who don't qualify for Medicaid even under the new standards.  Further, you have minimum deductibles, they have to cover "wellness" visits, etc.

Add on top of this the Obamacare bureaucracy which must be paid for as well.  This will come out of tax revenue, but it will no doubt be costly.  It cost over half a billion dollars to build a website that could have been done in the private sector for $500,000, or 1/1,000th as much, and at that the website DOESN'T WORK.

And I don't buy the argument that the flaws are intentional.  They know they can't hide the true premium hikes forever, and certainly not until the next election. I think the contract was given to Michelle Obama's buddy because they  believe in the spoils system, likely in exchange for favors of some sort, like divulging personal details of political enemies; and her buddy was not equal to the job.  Full stop.  Taxpayer money used to pay bribes to people who should not have won the contract.

Obamacare can only be seen as yet one more way of sucking money out of the productive and funneling it to the unproductive or less productive--income is an accurate measurement of one's economic usefulness in a free market, which is fair--all in order to get votes.

But I think Obamacare sucks so epically that it is going to FORCE leftists to admit that government is not always the answer, that it can't reliably be trusted, and that Obama LIED about the outcomes to be expected.

I also think that if Republicans get smart and start courting blacks, we have a historic opportunity to roll back the sustained assault on our liberties and common decency that has been the project of the Left over the last century or so.

As Charles Barkley pointed out: "the poor have been voting Democrat for 50 years and they are still poor."

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Kun Zhi

This term means roughly "blocked energy", or "emotional blockage".  I don't know what language it is from, but since I came across it in my Kum Nye training, I will guess Tibetan.

As my energy begins to flow better, I am seeing things for the first time.  One thing I see is that the effective use of analytical, intellectual reason is impossible in conditions of blocked energy flow.  There is such a thing as emotional logic, by which I mean that the figurative waters flow in the pathways that are most obvious, and most healthy.  It means you process all emotions, all experience, as it happens, and hold nothing back, lock nothing away.

When you look at someone like Barack Obama, you need to see someone who consists almost entirely of blockages.  He interacts with the world in an entirely emotionally detached way, but this is not the same as a rational way.  He claims to want to improve the world but damages it.  He no doubt believes that he is able to pursue his own self interest in a rational way, but he can't see what that self interest actually is, what would be best for him emotionally.

Blind to his own emotional needs, he has learned to care little or nothing for the needs of others.  Why is the Obamacare website such a failure?  Because even though he has always intended Obamacare just to be a short stopping point on the way to a complete government take-over of our lives in important ways, a person who liked people would have cared enough not to cause unnecessary hurt in the process.  Bill Clinton would have delivered something that worked, because whatever else he is, Bill Clinton is a people person.

Compare the sexuality of Bill Clinton and Obama.  As far as we can tell there is no sexual chemistry between Michelle and him, and if we are to believe the accounts of at least one homosexual man who claimed to have sex with him, there is or was little chemistry even in his homosexual relationships.  Obama has too many locked away traumas to be emotionally present for anyone for any reason.

In the Eastern model, we are presumed to be born for happiness, and only prevented from it by blindness.  Logically, they offer solutions to being blind.

In the West Positive Psychology is only in its infancy.  Until perhaps a decade or two ago, the focus was on treating human beings like animals, with a focus solely on curing illness, but not on providing meaning or direction for consciousness.  Small wonder there are so many confused people out there.

Multiple Orgasms

Here is what I would argue is a useful oversimplification (a term I just invented and like): the talent of men is suppressing experience, and that of women processing it.  Men are physically hard wired to more easily sequester experience, to lock it away.  This is helpful, as one example, in war, where the experiences are completely overwhelming.  I asked a Ranger acquaintance once how he dealt with the death of a man we both knew in an IED explosion, and he said: "I lock it away in a drawer and don't open it very often."

Women have vastly more connections between their hemispheres than men do.  This means their experience of life is more unified; they have a harder time not feeling things, not reacting to things.  This is a general statement, but my own observations bear this out.

But I would stipulate that because they are wired this way, women's potential richness of experience of life is vastly larger than that of most men who do not teach themselves to be integrated.  It is not enough to be fearless: one must feel fear and process it and transcend it into acceptance.

I recently became aware that women can have four kinds of orgasms.  Did you know this?  I have reached middle age and not known this.  They can have clitoral, G-Spot, anal, and squirting orgasms.  They can also have many of them.  One girl on a CD I watched claimed to have had 18 in one session.

I say this not because I am obsessed with these things, but because this is actually very interesting.  The potential richness of a woman's sexual experience is vastly greater than that of a man, who can have one (and if he is gay, or willing to allow anal sex, two) type, and typically is doing well if he can have two in one session, and great if he can do three.

This got me to wondering if in some ways God gave women more ways to process experience precisely because they have no choice.  My whole inner work right now is learning to open up internal energy flow, and I am wondering if women can get everything I am doing done simply through good sex.

I had more to say, but need to run.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Les Miserables

Finally watched this, and was very impressed.  GREAT MOVIE, wonderful acting.

I just hated the end.  It worked out to de facto Communist propaganda.  Communism is inspired by the French Revolution, and the word itself comes from the Paris Commune that if my math was right was roughly 20 years after the barricades in that movie, which would have been from about 1850.

We need to be clear that the Arc de Triomphe is a monument to wars following the French Revolution in which millions of people were killed.  Napoleon did not pay his troops: he allowed them to rape, loot and pillage.  Countless lives were damaged in addition to those lost outright.  As in Communist nations there was a great deal of horror and little to redeem or justify it.

The Eiffel Tower is a monument to the original French Revolution, one which led directly to the Committee of Public Safety (does this not sound a bit like Department of Homeland Security) and, I forget the number, at least tens of thousands of deaths in all sorts of awful ways. In addition to the guillotine I remember reading about people being chained and sunk on boats, and placed in front of cannons and blown to bits.

All of this was always insanity.  None of it ever led to anything that even remotely justified the suffering.  The French Revolution turned virtually the entire nation into Javerts.  If you didn't wear the right colors or were accused by someone of some crime simply out of spite, you could get summarily executed with nothing even APPROACHING justice. 

That stirring scene with Ann Hathaway, when she realizes all hopes of a better life are gone: this story was reenacted millions of times BECAUSE of the French Revolution.  What happened to the farm wife whose husband was murdered by French Nazis, and who was gang raped, and all her lifestock killed or stolen?  What happened to Russian peasants reduced to cannibalism to survive?  What happened to those who supported the Revolution because they wanted bread, and who like Jean Valjean wound up slaves because they had to steal to survive, because NOTHING worked economically in that Alice in Wonderland world with real axes and real blood?

Those young men, the "idealists", were weak. They wanted the world to be a certain way, and decided that they did not want to live if the world was not in fact that way.  This is delusional.  It is illness, pathology.

The world is the way it is, and if we want to improve it, we must start by understanding it.  All the wishing in the world will not only not accomplish anything, but if you mistake wishing for reality, it leads to death and suffering which was unnecessary and which would not have happened if you had not happened along with your bad ideas.

We all want passion in life, but I would submit that the modest ones pursued diligently across a life are infinitely more useful than grand ones pursued violently.  There are many ways to commit suicide.

Inner Innocent

I've never liked the term "inner child".  Children are irresponsible, they whine, and they are not serious.  None of this, of course, is their fault.  We all start as children, and there is no other way to do it.  But I think many people use this phrase as an excuse to act like children as adults.

But there is a part in all of us, I think, which is childlike in important positive ways.  The capacity for wonder arises from this part.  Spontaneous generosity and affection arise from this part.  Curiosity arises from this part.  Happiness and joy arise from this part.  Connection with others on a deep level comes from this part.

I therefore propose the term "Inner Innocent". Or perhaps "Inner Angel".  I will likely come up with more terms.

I will add that I recognize that I am an odd mix of tendencies.  One moment I am talking about global tyranny, and the next I am writing things like this.

I forget if it was Christ or one of his disciples that said it, but I have always like the advice to be as innocent as a dove and as cunning as a serpent.  They are not contradictory at all: they merely exist at different levels of a well integrated personality.

Not only is there no need to be stupid to be a good person, it is strongly contraindicated.  There is no value in stupidity or naivete.  People who mean well learn.  This is the sign they actually mean well, and conversely the failure to learn indicates a motivation other than decency.

People waking up

I read that roughly $1 billion is being wasted daily, diverted from alternative, better uses, in the name of stopping global warming.  This is crazy.

But look at the comments.  People are waking up.  It was not like this five years ago.  The Earth choosing not to indulge the fascists has been mighty inconvenient for them.

I will add that we spend roughly twice that on national defense.  I would like to see that number drop as well.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

A Coup

If we are becoming a banana republic, then we need to start thinking like one.  The rule is that one asshole seizes power, and then the Army overthrows him.  It worked quite well in Chile, which is why everyone still hates Pinochet so much.  He took power, ruled a while, then stepped down peacefully, which is something Hugo Chavez was never going to do.

Here, as long as the Constitution is more or less being respected--which is to say constantly trampled on, but never fully vitiated, and as long as  Congress continues to exert a strong policy influence--we should continue to work politically.  If at any point, though, the rule of law becomes subject to a dictator, if at any point our Constitutional Republic is brought to an end--if at any point Obama or a successor BREAKS THE LAW in patent and on-going ways even worse than what we are seeing today--I would submit that the proper role of our military is to take control, and return the power of the government to the people, and reinstitute a system of law based on the Constitution. Defending the Constitution is, after all, literally their sworn duty.

Being a land of laws is what has made us strong, and part of this premise is that NO ONE is above the law.

In my view, they should have contingency plans for this.

I would add that about the only way my "Capitalist Revolution" is going to happen is in such extreme circumstances.

Actually, I will add one more thing: Obama knows that most members of our military value freedom, and are strong patriots.  They will never willingly be made agents of tyranny.  This means that if he does plan to seize complete power, he will have to have an EXCUSE, one which will make reasonable people follow orders which they ordinarily would reject.  Presumably such an excuse would need to take the form of a false flag terrorist attack purportedly involving a wide conspiracy among precisely the Tea Party sorts Obama hates so much; or a generalized economic disaster, where there is widespread disorder in the streets.

Again, senior leaders need game plans for these situations.  Their JOB, their MISSION, is to protect freedom, not Obama.  Since it takes becoming a political animal to reach those positions, in general, many forget this.  They forget the mission.

Both scenarios, though, could easily be paid for with the tens of billions of dollars that disappeared from the "Stimulus".

Anti-LIberal

I think I may start using this as a synonym for "leftist" and Fascist.

It can be stated as a general rule that whatever word an anti-Liberal uses, the opposite is most likely the case.  The stated intent of Obamacare was to increase coverage and decrease costs, both for individuals and in terms of what the government was paying out.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Global Warming

This is a response to a non-debate with a silly person on the topic of Global Warming.  

The point I will underscore, repeated in the body of the response, is To the extent humanity still has problems, substantially ALL of them can be placed at the feet of Socialists, who like all deceivers go by many names.


This point is critical, and it is the first time, I think, that I have stated it so clearly.


Let's simplify this. The question at hand is if it worth passing economically disruptive regulations and installing in the process a global government in order to stop something that is not even clearly a danger.

Is it worth denying developing nations the benefits of cheap energy? Is it worth raising energy costs across the board in the United States and other nations, which will hurt the poor the most?

I don't believe anyone has shown clearly, much less beyond any reasonable doubt, that the warming we have seen since the Little Ice Age is anything but background variation. We have weather on a daily basis, and climate across decades, centuries, and millenia. There were no coal plants when CO2 levels were ten times what they are today.

I don't believe ANY of the climate models have yet predicted ANYTHING. Quite the contrary, they make guesses, and simply adjust the models to predicts in the past what actually happened. This does not inspire confidence, is absolutely inconsistent with a scientific model based upon falsifiable hypotheses, and CATEGORICALLY should not be used as the basis for invasive, disruptive, and costly government interventions.

And clearly many aspiring Fascists like Al Gore have seized on this issue as a means of generating global government with few democratic controls.

This is made quite clear in this article: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1588/article_detail.asp

Global Warming is nothing but a repackaging of the old Malthusian notion that prosperity was going to make all of us poor. It was expressed for a while in the claim that the Earth was going to get overpopulated. Some initial Fascist policies were put in place, like forced sterilizations and abortions, but none of the mass famines that were predicted have happened.

In the past half century, virtually all mass hunger has been the result of wars, usually wars involving Communists. To bring back Mr. Boomtown Rats, the famine in Ethiopia was the result of INSANE policies initiated at gunpoint by INSANE left wingers, who moved people from places where they could feed themselves to places where they could not.

To the extent humanity still has problems, substantially ALL of them can be placed at the feet of Socialists, who like all deceivers go by many names.

Global Warming--or Climate Change, which again is a lie--is simply one of those names.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Bon Mot

There is no problem so bad that it cannot be made worse by a specialist.

I may have read this somewhere, perhaps in one of those Murphy's Law books that used to be popular.  Still, I like it, and pass it along in the spirit of mild amusement, and perhaps a tad bit of wistfulness.  It is in fact quite true.  As one flaming example, Paul Krugman is a specialist.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Obamacare

Two points.  First, do you recall what Obamacare ALSO means?  It means the government take-over of the educational loan sector.  It means we are one step closer to Cuba, where education is "free" (even if even people with M.D.'s can barely make enough to eat, and the country as a whole is a squalid shithole ruled by two-bit Nazis).

Second, the rollout of these exchanges, and the lack of a reaction on the part of Reid or Obama, makes to my mind very clear they have NEVER cared if these things worked.  They were never the end game.  They were always just a step in the direction of full government control of the healthcare sector.  I think they quite literally thought that rhetorical work was sufficient, that no matter how bad these things stank, that because they had control of most of the propaganda apparatus of this country, nobody would notice.  If there were problems, they could blame them on Republicans, or just pretend they didn't exist.  That is how they deal with all other real problems, and the truth is it works pretty well.  You just need to be an amoral asshole to use such tactics.  Given that--and Obama and Reid and Pelosi clearly qualify--you can cover a lot of miles.  Hell, there are people who still believe in Global Warming.

But as I have said, real people trying to pay real bills cannot be swayed by abstract rhetoric.  All is well and good until the shit gets real, THEN people notice how much BS has been floating around.

I will repeat: if the Republicans never rise above their normal level of incompetence, they may still make this a stake to drive through the heart of the Democrat Party for a very, very long time.  It is an awful law.  It is like it was written by children based on the fairy tale proposition that details don't matter, and that everything always works out in the end for nice people. 

When it was passed, the ONLY concern was THAT it passed.  But now it is law--or likely to become law, assuming the usual cowardice on Capital Hill--and its many, many deficiencies will become clear to all.

Food Stamps

Granted, my belief that Obama is an aspiring totalitarian backed by huge amounts of cash--provided both by a shadowy but very wealthy cabal and misdirected and misreported Federal funds--to help him pull it off makes me paranoid, but it does not seem to me this food stamp debacle was an accident.

It seems more likely to have been a test.  Obama now KNOWS that he can more or less induce riots on demand, and make them stop whenever he wants.  Further, among those receiving food stamps, he has reinforced both by withholding, and by being excessively generous the primary role government--HIS government--plays in the lives of these people.

It has been obvious for some time that his efforts to increase the number of people receiving handouts, whether by putting record numbers of people on food stamps in the first place, giving them free phones, paying them to protest, and the like, have had as their purpose creating people who over time will be unable to conceive of life where they have to fend for themselves, and who thus can be reliably counted on to vote Democrat.

What we now also know is that they are a potential tool for the creation of the sort of chaos that normally precedes a coup.  Violence in the streets is a couple keystrokes away.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Obama and Blacks

In response to this article:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/11/tavis-smiley-black-people-will-have-lost-ground-every-single-economic#comment-1080442267.  I will point out as well that Smiley has always reliably toed the Obama line, and it is likely only actual compassion that is motivating him, for the moment, to speak an obvious truth.

The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category. On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.

Here is my question: if Democrats ACTUALLY cared about black people, if they actually wanted to put in place policies that make things better rather than worse, would this information not be useful to that cause?

The sad reality is that the truth is that they USE black Americans, but don't care about them. The patent failure of all their usual nostrums has been on abundant display for 30 years. The failure of Detroit merely made it so that anyone still claiming to care about the plight of blacks in this country and voting Democrat could with absolute certainty be viewed as either stupid, or on the gravy train. You have the saps,and the opportunists. There is no one in between.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Republicans versus Democrats

Res Publica versus Rule of the Demos.  With regard to the former, if my history is not mistaken, what amounted to the Constitution of the Roman Republic was literally written in stone.

I had not really thought about this very obvious point, but America--as many have taken pains to point out in recent years--is by design a Constitutional Republic, not a mobocracy, which is how the framers of our Constitution viewed the Athenian Democracy.

Thus, Republicans in the name itself are truer to our Constitution than those who foster the rule of the Demos, the People, the mob.

Keep in mind that the word Demagogue has the same root, demos.  Democracy and Demagogues go hand in hand.

And in reality, of course, the rule of the "people:" is almost always practically rule by an oligarchy which has simply duped enough people.  Thus the "People's Republic of China" is neither ruled by the People nor a Republic.

Klesha

Many people get confused by the first Buddhist precept, that of duhkha, which is normally translated as "suffering".  This is not really accurate, at least according to my understanding.

What Buddhists want to point out, at root, is that unlimited emotional space and expansion is possible, and that only varied forms of ignorance and emotional and cognitive dysfunction prevent us from realizing this fact.  I realize the name for these dysfunctions, which are categorized and placed in lists in various ways by different traditions, is Klesha.

Karma, to put it another way, is the outcome of the operation of Klesha.  Klesha is how and why you screw up, and Karma is the outcome.

But again, at root, the notion is that our natural state, the state God (the universe, the Law, or whatever name we want to use) intends for us, is one that is completely happy in ways which transcend the normal notion of happiness as something close to and not exceeding having all the things and love that we want.

Reaching previously unknown emotional states is strange, but fun.  I remember Annie Lennox singing about a "new emotion", and wondering how that was possible.  It would be like a new color.  They have all been catalogued.

But all of us are capable of feeling emotions that are new TO US.  And for that matter, there is no reason not to suppose all emotions are unique to people, times and places.

Think about this, actually: even at the best restaurant, is every meal EXACTLY the same?  Not if you pay attention to detail.  Think about the sky: does it ever repeat exactly?  No.  Is the lawn of this year the same as last year?  Of course not.

Even machines, I would argue, are not exact.  There is always room for randomness, for chaos.  Can I say God is a pirate, too?

Ah, ramblings of a confused soul.  Thank God I am confused.  I knew everything before.  With a nod to
Bob Dylan, I will say that I seem to be getting younger.

Karma and Klesha

I read a line from Tarthang Tulku, in which he said roughly "in the West you have psychology; in the East we have Karma and Klesha".  Karma, of course, is a word we are all familiar with, but I had to look up klesha.  Then, being me, I got to thinking.

Karma literally means action, to do.  It simply means "what you do".  Implicit within this notion, though, is the idea that actions have consequences.  If you are cruel, the problem is not that you offend God--God doesn't care, because he has given you an infinite number of lifetimes to get smart, and an infinite amount of joy when you do--but rather that you hurt YOURSELF.  This is essentially the claim I have made in my own ethical system is that the punishments for "sins"' are INHERENT within them.

Take a psychopathic serial killer.  They are scarcely human.  They live their daily lives filled with rage and fear, lusts they can only rarely satisfy, and completely disconnected from most or all of the world.  They are alone, even if they have partners.

Take a more subtle sin, like marital infidelity.  If you are psychologically normal, all of the positive moments will likely be balanced with anxiety, and disconnection both from your partner, and from that part of yourself that is capable of innocent joy.  You become little more than an animal in rut.

I would contrast the relatively lax Hindu/Buddhist approach with that of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In the first case, you exist in an infinite amount of space and time.  If you fail, get back up and try again.  You have as many chances as you need.  In the latter religions, though, there is an anthropomorphic deity conceived more or less as a father. 

In the case of the Jews, he intervenes actively DURING your life, to variously bless and curse you, not just according to your piety, but also sometimes simply by whim.  Your only recourse to get the best deal you can is to follow the Law very diligently, and to fear God.  There is in fact a saying, if I am not mistaken, that "the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom."

In Christianity, you nominally have a loving God, as "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."  Ponder this.  God controls everything.  He controls the movement of the stars, the tides, the seasons.

Yet we are to believe both that he only had ONE son, and that he needed that son to be killed in lieu of sacrificial goat, sheet and chickens so that he could assuage his own anger at the sins of his "people".  I do not think atheists are wrong to point to the fundamental craziness of this notion, even if in their case it is frequently a constitutional sadism that motivates them, and not a concern for truth.

Further, this God is quite content to condemn for ETERNITY people who violate his laws.  The role of grace in redemption, of course, has as a theological point no doubt gotten many people killed in many wars over the centuries, in what, also, can only be seen as craziness when located within a religions nominally devoted to love and non-violence.  But what kind God, given infinite freedom, would structure a universe in such a way?

I have said on a number of occasions that I don't think Christ himself would be a Christian, as the faith exists today.  I think that early on it was perverted for purely political, power-mongering purposes.  It is an interesting apparent fact that Christ's Mass began to be celebrated during the existing pagan Roman festivals, one of which was the Saturnalia, and the other of which I don't feel like looking up.  But December 25th, the exact date, was chosen because that was an important holy-day of the Mithraic cult.

In Islam, everything is absolutely black and white, right and wrong, and social conformity an absolute value.  It is an effort more or less to automate human society.  One could in fact see parallels between the industrial age, with our factory whistles and daily grinds, and the call to prayer for all men sounded five times a day.  This is the reason that Muslims have culturally been so uncreative.  Aside from some very interesting geometric patterns, they have contributed very little to any realm of human knowledge or art.  As I have pointed out, Israel, with roughly 1/100th the population, easily eclipses the number of patents generated by the entire Muslim world (or perhaps it was the Arab world, but the point is the same).

In the end, what I want to argue for is a merging of science and religion, to the benefit of the FORMER.  Religion knows things that "science" (and it is always dangerous to assume it to be a unified thing, rather than the collective output of millions of people of varying levels of talent and integrity; and much more dangerous to reify it and conflate it with "reality", as some poor thinkers do) does not.   Scientists, for their part, can help to make plain what is wheat and what is chaff in religion.  What beliefs appear to survive critical scrutiny, and which do not?  

It is my considered view that most of Buddhism is scientific in the formal sense that their claimed chains of cause and effect can in fact be observed and--to the extent it is possible with any subjective human state--measured.  This will be the path of actual human progress, and will depend entirely on not letting Fascists like Barack Obama and whoever backs him dominate the world.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

More conspiracy theory

From here: http://clashdaily.com/2013/10/bombshell-ex-cia-agent-claims-obama-killed-breitbart-clancy/#CvdAB6Z4s2AXZscf.01

Here is the meat of the thing: "Lastly, he revealed that Obama’s administration was made up of Marxist Muslims who all take their orders from Senior Adviser to the President, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett. Dr. Garrow said that it is well known to intelligence agencies all over the world that Obama is a foreign plant who was placed on the path to the presidency by ultra-rich Saudi nationals This is why, Garrow said, that all of Obama’s education records have been permanently sealed."

We have no way of knowing if this guy was actually an agent, or if he is just a nut, but we KNOW beyond any doubt that Valerie Jarrett is 1) Iranian; 2) the child of Communists; 3) privy to all our secrets; and 4) very important from a policy making perspective. I have said this before, and will say it again: there seems no doubt Eric Holder acted on Obama's orders in the Fast and Furious operation, and it seems clear that they KNEW beyond any reasonable doubt that their policy would get innocent people killed. Given that they were capable of doing it anyway, in the name of imposing gun control, what AREN'T they capable of? 


Also, can we explain the attempted war with Syria as other than something the Saudis wanted, for their own purposes?  Have you forgotten yet that even NOW Obama is arming people who cut the arms and legs off of little girls?

President Psycho?

Please read this: http://www.zimbio.com/Stanley+Ann+Dunham+Soetoro/articles/1QoEw1BV74X/President+Psycho

The formatting is terrible, but this is, I think, a pretty good guess at the truth. Things I did not know were that Obama's grandfather, who raised him from age ten through adulthood, had severe emotional trauma stemming from finding his mother dead from suicide, and then being abandoned by his father. I did not know that his "nanny" in Indonesia was a transvestite. I had not really thought through the psychological implications of his mother being named Stanley, after her father. I did know that he is likely a homosexual (there is a picture in here of him apparently holding hands with another man, who himself appears gay), that his mother posed nude for a black Communist photographer who is also likely his real father, and that most of his actual history has been scrubbed. I will point out again that beyond any doubt two gay men at his church, one of whom he was apparently quite close with, were killed "execution style", to use the police description, and no motive or suspects were ever uncovered. If you consider that it is at least possible that there are those around him willing to commit murder, you have to realize that the shut down is small potatoes compared to what he is willing to do to enact his radical agenda, and that his actual mind is a bag of cats.

Actually, I will add that if his mother is the Ann from Davis' memoir "Sex Rebel Black"--which seems very plausible, particularly since it seems clear beyond debate that it is her in the pornographic images Davis published in sex magazine--then she was having threesomes with a married couple when she was, if memory serves, 14.  We need to keep in mind that that is aberrant behavior TODAY, symptomatic of severe emotional disorders and a pathological need for love that is not present in the home.  In the early 1960's, before the sexual revolution, before interracial relationships became more common, this was SEVERELY aberrant.  This is the level of emotional disturbance that, given an only slightly different expression, gets people put into psych wards.

And this was Obama's mother, who abandoned him at the age of ten, more or less for the rest of his life, after which he was raised by her father, himself beset with apparently severe, unprocessed trauma, and who reintroduced Davis back into Obama's life as a formative influence, and figurative "Big Brother".

Consider the "shut down" in this context: Obama views Obamacare as just one step, one checkmark on a list that includes confiscating our guns, getting direct control of energy production, and eventually doing away with Congress.

There will be no better time to stop him than now.

Finally, consider that Obama has been in office five years, and even though I have studied his history as well as I can, I did not know some of these things.  What does that say about our press?

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Obama and the Daddy State

I have seen the view expressed that Obama is behaving like a child, throwing a temper tantrum, in shutting down all these parks.  I would submit that this is not the best analogy.

As I noted a week or something ago, an ineluctable feature of the concept of paternalism is the possibility of bad parenting.  What Obama is doing here is acting like a father, when asked why a given rule exists, saying "Because I told you so.  Now go to your room."  An opportunity for connection, for growth in the relationship, has been lost, due to arrogant narcissism.

Obama is not punishing the Republican Congress for thwarting his will: he is punishing the American PEOPLE, seemingly because he feels betrayed that his ideas even have to endure discussion, much less rejection.  In closing these parks, in taking away from the American people public land that it paid for through taxation, and which requires ZERO cost to keep open, Obama is playing the part of a bad parent who does not feel they need to explain themselves, even when they are acting abusively.  He is acting out, but from an assumed position of moral authority.

Obama has no moral authority.  He has not earned respect.  That is what makes this the behavior, quite literally, of an aspiring totalitarian, who views his subjects as children, to be disposed of as he sees fit.

Obviously, of course, Obama calculates that the craven, complicit media will cover him, and help him blame the Republicans.  But two factors work in the Republicans favor: 1) Obamacare is imploding as I write;  it is a failure, and a manifest one; 2) These park closings affect a lot of people, and they are indefensible.  I am already seeing scattered showers of semi-professional journalism that is almost approaching the top of the hill where they can see actual integrity on the next summit.

I will repeat that I think the longer this lasts, the more likely the Republicans are to turn this to their advantage, particularly if they make CRYSTAL CLEAR to anyone who will listen that the money has been appropriated for any number of programs that Harry Reid simply will not allow to a vote.  This will place Harry Reid in the position of shutting down programs that don't need to be shut down, purely to protect a program most Americans didn't want a year ago, and which they are finding out now they REALLY don't want, because it is a clusterfuck even before the business mandate kicks in.

This thing could really, really sour for the Democrats, really really fast.

I seriously think that if the Republicans play this right--and they almost never do, so it's hard to get hopes up--but if they don't screw up, we have a good shot at retaking the Senate in 2014, and putting an actual conservative in the White House in 2016.  

Delight

When was the last time you felt true delight?  With this word, I intend a combination of happiness, surprise, and excitement, an engagement with reality that is very pleasurable.

It's quite rare for me, but I do think that with my continuing Kum Nye practice, my experience of this emotion will increase.  I felt it yesterday, doing a very basic exercise.  It involves sitting, imagining two clocks in front of you, putting your right hand at 9, and your left at 3, then doing three very slow circles, first clockwise, then counterclockwise, while rotating your neck in the same direction.  You do 3, very slowly, sit for a couple minutes, then do 3 in the other direction, and sit for ten minutes or so to feel what happened.  (I describe the exercise, because I suspect I may have readers who think Kum Nye is "nothing but" Vipassana meditation.  It is much more.  It involves not just observing sensations, but actively stimulating them in constantly varying ways.)

While doing the circles, I contacted this extraordinarily rich energy, filled with life and vitality, and it felt like the first time I saw snowflakes.

All of our problems have solutions, including that of ennui.

Following Orders

Any casual student of history should know that the universal defense offered for Nazi atrocities at Nuremburg was "following orders".  Had there been a reckoning of the even larger number of crimes committed by Communists around the world, it seems quite likely that they, too, would have justified their willing and often enthusiastic participation in crimes against humanity by pointing to the fact that someone higher in the hierarchy told them to do it.

This defense did not work in Nuremburg, by and large.  We all know the basic difference between right and wrong.  We know it is wrong to kill innocent people, wrong to torture them by starvation or electrocution, or horrific living conditions.

But one can say this while also admitting that failure to follow orders in many of these regimes would have meant death or torture.  What one cannot say, in our present era, is that members of our law enforcement community face death or torture for failure to follow unethical orders.  The worst that can happen is they lose their jobs.

I often see people say that a totalitarian state could never be brought about in this country, as the enforcers would rebel.  Would they?  I wonder.

Consider this case.  You have harmless old ladies being tacitly threatened with guns.  You have conversations about what constitutes "recreating" that would be farcical, even comical, were the abuse of power not so blatant.

What is going through these Park Rangers minds?  Do they not understand that they are participants in a political theater that has as a large part of its aim the eradication of a fundamental American freedom, that of choosing how and when we buy health insurance? Are they stupid?  Unprincipled?

At what point do members of our military and LEO communities rebel?  Do they?  ARE THEY NAZIS?  Will they one day commit crimes because someone told them to?  I don't know, but it is discouraging how many are following orders to do things which are patently wrong, and almost certainly illegal.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Boehner's Opportunity

Thomas Sowell always has good insights.  I wish he would respond to my Blueprint for a Capitalist Revolution, but I am of course one of thousands that has opinions expressed repeatedly, and most of us are stupid.  I will say that I understand fully that my plan will cause economic chaos for six months or a year.  So, too, will our inevitable default.  There is no conceivable scenario by means of which we are able to pay Social Security and Medicaid at current rates 10 years from now.  We needed massive budget cuts, and increases in FICA taxes years ago.  And in any event, our system is unjust, immoral.  Most of us work to make a very few rich, without their having produced any real goods or services at all.

Be that as it may, this is a good sentence:
If the continued existence of mathematics depended on the ability of the Republicans to defend the proposition that two plus two equals four, that would probably mean the end of mathematics and of all the things that require mathematics.
We need to understand that the Democrats are vastly overplaying their hand.  Daily, now, Obamacare supporters are finding out that their premiums are going up DRAMATICALLY.  This is now not in the realm of rhetorical possibility.  It is not Us versus Them, our common sense versus their "experts".  It is reality.

Of course, my own premiums have roughly tripled since Obamacare passed, but there are many out there who seemingly have held out hope that these Exchanges would fix all that.  They are making it worse.

And we are seeing veterans ARRESTED for visiting public parks, parts which in theory belong to the Demos of the Democrats. We are seeing priests threatened with arrest for performing masses for FREE.  We are seeing Park Service personnel put in OVERTIME to shut down open air monuments to an American history which Obama not only does not own, but most of which he holds in disdain.

These are high explosive rhetorical rounds that can be brought to bear for a full broadside not just against Obama, not just against Democrats, but against the Leftist project outright.  We are at a point where the American people are PISSED off, and all that needs to happen is a clear message--LEADERSHIP--coming from Boehner and senior Republican leaders.

This is not about a budget negotiation.  This is about competing visions of the American future.  Do we want to live in a nation where the government thinks public parks belong to it, that we can only visit them when it deems fit?  Do we want to live in a nation where our leaders can openly lie about the outcome of laws, and get away with it?  Obama said premiums for most would stay the same or go down.  As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened for ANYONE.  How could it?  More service is being provided. More people are being covered, a great many at taxpayer expense.

Folks, the whole thing is simple: simple message, said by everyone, repeated often, that in our case happens also to have the salutary added benefit of being true.

Here are examples: Obama lied when he said your premiums would stay the same.  He lied when he said you could keep your doctor.  He lied when he said you could keep your plan.

Obamacare will make all our problems WORSE.  This is the simple message.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Reimagining America

I was allowing myself to daydream a bit, about what might be possible if the totalitarians fail, and we are able to implement something like what I have been calling a Capitalist Revolution, which would create both prosperity and leisure for all.

I travel a fair amount, and have commented more than once how homogeneous America is becoming.  I would suspect a Best Buys in Fairbanks, Alaska looks a lot like the one in Miami, Florida.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this: economies of scale make things available for purchase by more people.

At the same time, I got to dreaming about the other direction: what if we take the logic of internet niches and reapply them to physical locations?  What if internet virtual communities become actual communities?  What if groups become so insular that they redevelop their own languages, their own argots (more than has already happened virtually)?  What if every city is filled with dozens of unique enclaves that have a passionate interest in X, Y, or Z?  What if there are "family zones", complete with wonderful playgrounds--complete with monkey bars and merry-go-rounds because we are no longer pussies? (I will note that as a child we played tackle football on asphalt, back in the era when a nurse was on staff and one or the other of us saw her regularly, but never for anything more serious than a skinned knee; we also took turns seeing if our friends could throw us off the merry go round, and if we could knock our partner off the see-saw.  None of this would have been allowed today at most schools)

Can we not reimagine Home?  Can we not unleash creative potential through freedom to create culture, create belonging, create community spaces in new ways that satisfy our current emotional needs?

There are so many positive possibilities for the future, that it is really sad that so many people are so unimaginative, and so angry, and so self important, that they insist only doom and gloom stand before us, with tyranny a kindness by contrast.

No matter what their rhetoric says, Leftism IN PRINCIPLE levels interesting differences.  It levels curiosity.  It levels everything that makes life worth living.  It is a prison, not least for its most ardent advocates, who simply lack the emotional skill to see how stupid they are, how dull, how insipid, how denuded and empty.

Synchonicity

I was driving down the freeway the other day, feeling a strong emotional identification with knighthood and chivalry, and looked to my left and saw something I have never before seen: a roughly 25' box attached to the SIDE of a car, which was about 6" square at the base (in the back), and which tapered to about 3" square at the tip.  It looked for all the world like a lance, held on the right side of the car.

As usual, I will point out I understand confirmation biases and whatnot.  I just thought it interesting.

Attention/Presence

We fret about our children spending their days in front of TV's, but perhaps we should fret more about PARENTS doing the same.  A comedian commented that texting while driving is worse than drunk driving, because in the latter case a drunk is driving, but in the former case NO ONE is driving.

Who is parenting when the TV is on?  Who is parenting when the parent is emotionally absent?  Who is parenting when everyone hides in their rooms, often seemingly from a very early age?

I think many children nowadays crave, hunger, are desperate for, honest, genuine understanding and feedback.  The essence of love is attention and compassionate understanding.  Not getting it is what makes them angry, but they don't know why.  Yes, I think many parents are overly indulgent, but I think in many cases this overindulgence is the result of laziness and disconnection.  It is simply easier to let the kid do whatever he or she wants, even if it is not in their best long term interest.

This laziness, in turn, is taught by example to the children, who become less able to meet their own needs, less able to care for themselves.  In many cases they don't know what their needs ARE, since never having had them met, they are at a loss as to what the question is, and what an answer might feel like.  As I have said a number of times, it is hard to know something is missing when you have never experienced it.

This basic process of emotional disconnection, combined with being lost in mass media, is a principle factor in what I see as the loss of HOME for many Americans, a loss of a place where one unconditionally belongs.  This is why so many enter into and stay in fantasy worlds.  This is the basic process which underlies the premise (in my superficial understanding, having only scanned it) of "Reality is Broken".

I do not oppose video games in principle, but it does not seem to me that they teach kids how to be present in the present; how to be where they are, calmly.  They are simply better than lonely silences filled with the sound of emotional hunger.

All of these kids covered in tattoos, painful piercings, sad  or angry eyes: who raised them, if anyone?  Have many of them not been orphaned by mass media?

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Goodness

Pace my last post, I would to emphasize that I named my other website Goodness MOVEMENT because I view Goodness as a purposive movement, oriented around both personal growth, and general growth; between learning to live more happlly as what I will call a "monad", (after Leibniz, if not others), and taking happiness and satisfaction in helping others to do the same; to wish yourself and others well.

What Goodness is NOT is a fixed set of rules which must be slavishly conformed to in all circumstances, for example being nice, being non-violent, and being loving.  Love, as I have said often, is a primary value, but if taken to absolute extremes it becomes stupid.

I have seen from time to time pacifists ask themselves if they would  have killed Hitler or Lenin if they would have both known the evil they intended and had the chance to to so.  As I have commented from time to time this is fundamentally a selfish attitude.  They prefer avoiding the pain of guilt for killing one person to the guilt they only would not feel, for allowing the murder of hundreds of millions, through self deception.

Many people who call themselves Good, who claim to be pursuing a spiritual path are like this: they deceive themselves as to the TRUE consequences of their actions.  They are irresponsible children.  You cannot simultaneously genuinely grow and lie to yourself at the same time.  Your lies will bind you to an old order.

I am an asshole sometimes.  I am extremely generous sometimes.  But in all cases I do my best to be honest with myself.  I cannot of course know in this lifetime with complete certainly how honest I have been, but I can say that I have done my best to polish the glasses I look through.

Gentility

A cornerstone of the Fabian method is to accuse those who oppose their radical agenda of being IMPOLITE.  Given the Bernard Shaw and the Webbs were ardent advocates of totalitarianism, mass murder, the eradication of political and individual freedom, and were more less open cheerleaders not just for Lenin and Stalin, but also Hitler and Mussolini, the TRUTH of course is that THEY were the brutal ones.

But evil can have a genteel face--as the Rolling Stones put it, the Devil is a "man of wealth and taste"--and the task of the Good person, the genuinely good person, the person who has marshalled all of his or her resources to the task of ACTUALLY improving human life (which first and foremost includes creating more opportunities for people to improve their own lives and that of those around them) is to OPPOSE this evil as needed, where needed, and using whatever methods actually WORK.

From time to time I make contact with a warrior persona in me.  It is not pretty.  This man has scars on his face and body, is hard and cold--cruel even; you don't want him at a cocktail party because he will either offend the women or get in a fight with the men.  He is absolutely fearless, utterly determined, ruthless, and cunning.  When you want to fight a war, this is who you want to do it.  People like this are invaluable in that context, but they scare the crap out of people the rest of the time.  They are not human in the normal way.  They are not genteel.  It does not even occur to them to care about social niceties.

In some respects, I do not think it inappropriate to say we are fighting a war against the habit of being habitually NICE, of backing down whenever some de facto sociopath pretends to take umbrage at his latest seizure of a liberty, in the name of civility.

Civility is being used against us.  We can see this whenever Leftwing Sadeists claim that opposing them is opposing feeding hungry children or old people.  What we must REMEMBER is that it is THEIR policies which make children hungry, THEIR policies which make saving for old age difficult to impossible.  THEY are the ones who are actually doing all the things that they accuse conservatives of.

Never forget this.  I will put this simply: if you are incapable of saying FUCK YOU, then you are in my view constrained in your possible exercise of Goodness as I conceive it.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Further thought on "shutdown".

The leftwing Democrats claim that furloughing 13% of the massive Federal workforce is going to cause economic trouble.  This is not going to happen.  It did not happen following sequestration (which incidentally continues), and it won't happen now.

As far as people being laid off, though, it might be worth comparing how many people are losing their incomes in the short versus those in the private sector who will either be laid off outright, stuck with unaffordable health insurance bills (which unlike healthCARE bills they will likely be unable to make go away in bankruptcy), or permanently set at 29 hours. 

Consider the economic cost of the IMPLEMENTATION of Obamacare.  It will be far, far worse than anything that will happen, ever, if the "shutdown" is continued. 

And the long game works for the Republicans better, in my view.  People will get personally pissed at Obama for closing the National Park Service if the Republicans get their message out.  They will be pissed that he is not even TRYING to APPEAR like he is interested in anything approaching a compromise on a bill that was and remains something the vast bulk of Americans oppose, and which was passed on a strict party line vote, barely.

I say let this thing go on indefinitely.  We have been passing Continuing Resolutions periodically anyway, since asshole Harry Reid won't do his job.  We just keep funding everything but Obamacare.

I would add that these Exchanges are plainly a failure.  They are not only increasing premiums, but creating penalties where there were none before.  This is when they work correctly, which in a great many cases they plainly are not, despite the fact that Obama has had 3-4 years to get them set up.

The whole thing is a disaster, and the longer this goes on, the harder and harder it will be for the Matt Lauers of the world to keep the truth from getting out.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Trip down memory lane

Anybody remember 4 years ago when the passage of Obamacare was "urgent", a "crisis", that we had to something, anything to remedy the "situation" (which of course was never properly defined, making an intelligent solution within that world impossible)?

Now I am reading that the exchanges make you put your information in before quoting you anything, are offering up exorbitant, even extortionate pricing, then offering the unfortunate souls dumb or desperate enough to trust Obama the choice of paying that pricing, or facing a hefty fine for not paying it, which will be collected by the IRS with all the powers it has to collect any other tax, which include wage garnishment, involuntary bank withdrawals, and the seizure of property.

Many businesses are flat out saying they want out of providing health insurance as a benefit, and will be forcing people onto these exchanges, which will no doubt work out to net disposable income decreases.  This in turn will lead to drops in consumer spending outside the insurance arena, and negative economic outcomes.  And all of this money is wasted.  People are either being cheated (there is no doubt a lot of government pork in these numbers, too: somebody has to pay the salaries and benefit packages of the bureaucrats administering this plan, and unlike in a free market, there is no cost for failure) or buying what I have called "prepaid insurance", not true insurance.  My short, ten paragraph treatment of this topic is here: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/Notes--31--healthcare%20in%20ten%20paragraphs.pdf

While we're at it, does anyone remember that the "Stimulus" was also "urgent", that if we didn't pass it we would have unemployment rates pretty much like we have now?  I do.

Let me remind folks of Alberto Gonzalez, too.  We were told he did an awful thing to cover up some sort of crime they were sure would be outed soon enough.  That was a number of years ago.  Hillary is making noise about fulfilling her narcissistic fantasy of standing on a podium, convinced that the nation loves her.  She was one of the most vocal critics calling for Gonzalez's resignation.  Since he was the first Hispanic Attorney General, the normal rules would have been to protect him at all costs, like Obama has been protecting Eric Holder from what in my view should be "accomplice to murder" charges.  But Bush was the President, and anything they could do to weaken his public image was fair game.  They play to win elections; they don't play to improve the lives of anyone. Destroying people is just part of the system.  Hillary was an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, too.  If I'm not mistaken, I think she actually met him.

An essential assumption of propaganda is that people forget everything the media is not presently talking about.  This means, as one example, that both the North Koreans and the Boston bombing have disappeared.  I remain unconvinced that we actually know who all the actors were, and I suspect at least a handful of people got away, probably including Obama's Saudi buddy who only a few months later was a guest at the White House. Benghazi is only still out there because people are working hard to keep it out there.

The very abundance of news, the constant news feeds, the 24/7 coverage actually makes it much EASIER, not harder, to suppress stories.  I will reiterate that is why you need to periodically check in with alleged cranks like Alex Jones to see what he has dug up that is being ignored or forgotten.

Government "shut down"

I suspect I have some readers who are mainly political and roll their eyes at the confessional posts, and others who have to quickly scroll over my political stuff.  So be it.  I am a complex person, with a prodigious number of threads running through my mind at all times. I  feel strongly it makes me a better thinker.

Be that as it may. . .

First off, the government is not shut down.  Most of it, in my understanding, is still running.  Edit: the number I am seeing is that 87% of the government is still running, and still getting paid.  Obama is clearly, beyond any possible doubt, doing what he can to increase the pain associated with the 13% of government that actually is furloughed--as in shutting open air national monuments--but the reality is that the wheels of government are still churning through AT LEAST $100 billion a MONTH.  It would be easier to know the exact number if Harry Reid would do his CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY and pass a budget, but that would be too embarrassing, so he won't do it.  And that, to be clear, is the reason that the House has to keep passing these Continuing Resolutions every few months, and has since Obama took office.

Second, and this is the most interesting point I want to make, at least to me, is that this standoff is forcing Democrats in one of two ways: the headless ones have no choice but to unleash hatred and venom at the Republicans, because the alternative would be to think of us as human beings just like them, who care for the poor, the country, their own families, and who simply have a policy disagreement, and are not evil human beings.

Thus they have to choose between reclaiming their humanity and granting that people can disagree with them without being monsters; and putting on public display the full extent of their posthumanistic viciousness, as Harry Reid did in not even understanding why it would be wrong to callously say he didn't care about a kid dying of cancer, because after all OBAMACARE itself was at stake.  You know, everything important.

It's interesting to note, too, how they keep calling this awful law "healthcare", or the "healthcare law".  It is nothing of the sort.  Our hospitals, doctors offices, and other health provision services continue to operate just fine, and will if Obamacare disappears tomorrow.  In fact, the only net effect Obamacare will have will be to make the actual provision of healthCARE, as opposed to insurance, less efficient and/or more costly.  Rationing is very likely, because they will likely put price controls in place.

At the moment, though, only healthcare being denied is at the National Institute of Health, which Harry  Reid refuses to fund for purely partisan purposes.

When I said Fidel Castro did not care that children for whom he is ultimately responsible were being treated with expired aspirin, I was being quite literal.  Harry Reid has shown himself, clearly, to be cut from the same moral cloth.  This is Cultural Sadeism, which is the elimination of principle based behavior.  You do things not because they are right, but because they win you power.  Justice, or human rights, or alleviating poverty: these are all rhetorical ploys.  They don't want to help people.  If they did, they would feel BAD when they failed, and plainly they don't.  How many Detroit Democrats feel bad about their long term failure, about running the most prosperous city in the world into the ground?  None, I suspect, not really.

In any event, as the Democrats get increasingly flustered as Obamacare fails in practice, and as the public increasingly blames Obama for not even TRYING to negotiate, their inner ugliness will get harder and harder to hide.

I said a week or so ago that I though the shutdown was a bad thing.  I don't think it is, IF the House Republicans continue to pass resolutions funding military families and other people who are directly hurt. If the Democrats continue blocking them, they can only rationalize that for so long before people start getting really pissed at them.

Yes, of course Obama and the left wing own most of the complicit media, but in my own observation if you read the actual comments people leave on articles posted on websites where people of both political persuasions go, like Yahoo, there is a groundswell both of knowledge and anger at the direction our country is headed that is stronger than anything I have seen in my lifetime.

Obamacare is a fundamentally flawed law.  It will wreck things that are working, cost a fortune, and help very, very few people.  It was passed on a strictly partisan basis, using parliamentary chicanery, and rushed through so fast the people who voted on it did not know what was in it.  Given all this, asking that it be given a second look and modified to at least be less bad is not an unreasonable request.

Bill Clinton would have cut a deal with Republicans years ago, and is likely reminding Obama even now that he himself got to Yale on his own merits, and he had better listen to him.  Clinton may or may not be advising a deal, but he is too good a politician not to see the risks of not even attempting to APPEAR interested in a compromise, or even bipartisan dialogue Obama, for his part, likely does not even see his arrogance for what it is.

Why do we assume Obama can't compromise, can't rewrite at least some parts of the law?  Because he never has.  He has never compromised on anything that I can recall.  Not once.  He is hyperpartisan, and the results of that, unsurprisingly, have been hyperpartisanship.  What else can you do when the other side ignores you but knock them on the head with any means at your disposal?  Power only responds to power, and the House is using the one club short of impeachment that it has.