Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Being preachy

I have said this before, but one reaction to internal conflict is being preachy.  What you are implicitly doing is assuming a potential power position relative to others.  You speak, they listen.

As a general rule, the preacher appeals to abstractions, to "formulations of the good", to what everyone knows they ought to do, but often do not do.  Neither does the preacher, in a great many cases.  If they did, they would not feel the need to preach, and would find some more directly useful form of service, some more productive way of sharing what in an ideal case is an overabundance of positive energy and love.

The preacher in general seeks to be good, but also seeks to be SEEN to be good.

Me, I think what happens is I touch a place in myself which is tender, and immediately THIS--and I am preaching now--flows out.

How does one blend with a day, like a blade of grass in a field, and enjoy it humbly, like every other blade of grass, while not forgetting the principles of life, and the need for growth?  I think if you let it, it happens.  So much of life could be downhill, easy, if we let it.

Life is hard as a square wheel.

When I stop preaching, that will be when you can fully trust me.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Proud Satanist

I expect to see this as a bumper sticker within the next five years.

What I feel, and I am a diffuse, complicated, constantly shifting human being, but one in touch with the rhythms around me, is that most of the power elite culture is oriented around moving the trauma energy of the solar plexus down to the sexual centers.

What I feel as the converse, is using the sexual centers to raise solar plexus energy.  What I feel is that sexual rituals, sexual energy, can be used for BOTH good and evil.  Sex is as natural as drinking water.  I think Lenin said something close to that.  What is not natural is tying it to weird rituals which confine rather than elevate and enrich the human experience.

Tantra invites sex, but sex is a means to something else, something higher, something beyond sex.  To bring the human gestalt down to mere sex: ah, that is profane.

I watch and I feel. Every day it is like a continuous breeze blows through me, talking to me, telling me what it knows.  I feel these people, working for destruction, working for ruin.

They are mistaken to believe that this universe is large enough not to punish them. Hell is quite real, but you have to work hard to get there. and even harder to stay there.


I have gotten to where I go quite deep in my Kum Nye practice.  It is a very altered state.

And the contrast between that state, and workaday America is really quite astonishing.  We are all mad.  We really, truly are.  All we need to be happy is enough to meet our physical needs, shared beliefs systems--plural, as in many groups--some form of meaningful work, and a sense of belonging to a community.

The global elite know perfectly well what their monetary tinkering has done to the otherwise inevitable accumulation of generalized wealth, and I can only assume that they wanted America not to get too rich, because their academic gurus are already telling them--as they have for the past 150 years at least--that THIS TIME disaster is really just around the corner.

What this analysis misses is that TIME is the most important commodity in a morally wealthy people, and that TIME does not deplete resources, add CO2 to the atmosphere, or devastate the fish populations in the ocean.

Culturally, all that is needed is a conversion from the demand for more stuff to one for more time.  That, coupled with reasonable population control measures, if they seem prudent, is all that is needed for sustainability.

The entire issue is moral/cultural.  And it is precisely because they have rejected culture that the socialists seemingly pulling the strings cannot see this.

We do not need a global machine.  We need a global web of robust and nourishing interpersonal connections.

Getting censored

Posted here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html

It's been several minutes, and it says the comments are unmoderated. Comment won't upload, as usual. That's why I copied it.

The Daily Mail always gives me trouble.  So does Salon.  So too do DailyKos and HuffPo, Media Matters, and others I forget.  Being worth censoring has to be a good thing, right?  And feeling the need to censor is a reliable indication of anti-Liberal tendencies, is it not?  Fascistic tendencies?  That would be my argument.  Of course, I can't make it with them.  Daily Kos even has a lynching feature, which is just one of the many charms of that lovely site.

There can be no question both that explosives were planted in all three World Trade Center buildings (yes, 3: most people do not know about Tower 7 because the media made it disappear), and that the official government investigation did not follow standards investigative guidelines, and reached what in its own report it admitted were incomplete conclusions.  They did not preserve evidence, and did not test for explosives, despite many hundreds of reports of people hearing explosions.

Who did it remains a mystery, but the only people who had access to the inner core were working for an elevator company which has not been, but could still be, investigated.

Some 2,200 architects and engineers--including a number of high-rise architects, structural engineers, demolitions experts, and fire safety experts--have called for a new investigation.  You can read about them, and the problems with the official story, here: http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Edit: I checked back this morning, and this comment never appeared.  I had two comments disappear this morning from The Atlantic.

Everyone needs to remember that in a digital age, waging informational warfare is quite easy, and it is quite hard for non-experts to fight back.

By and large, no censorship is needed, because the herds they have had indoctrinational success with--which is 2/3rd's of the country--simply get their news from places which do not tell stories the power elite do not want told.

This point is missed by many.  At issue is not falsehoods told, but truths not told.  Even Fox ignores many major stories, like the farcical claim that Obama provided a valid birth certificate.  And I continue to wonder how so few are asking hard questions about our apparently on-going support for Islamic "rebels" in Syria with a long history of back stabbing us, and more importantly, what the fuck our actual national interest in Syria is.  Should we not back the Russians and Chinese fighting the psychopaths of ISIS?  If they want to risk their soldiers and their money, why shouldn't we let them?

And what sane person could not see the value of national energy independence, or relative independence?  None: the people opposing it, opposing things like the Keystone pipeline, are nuts.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Getting Weird



Both of these links, the first a video, the second textual, claim that Barbara Bush's mother gave birth to her eight months after an overseas trip in which she stayed in a house with Aleister Crowley while he was performing a sexual ritual that lasted some time.

I have to say, it is really hard to imagine a massive cover-up of 9/11 that did not involve George W. Bush.  And you take that step, it gets really deep, really fast.

Very rich people very often go more than a little bit crazy.  And the modern world is starving for precisely the sorts of stimuli--symbolic, ritual, mythic--that occultism is well positioned to supply.

On a semi-related note, I will make a post on something I noticed the other day, that there is now something called a "kink aware professional".  I thought it only related to psychotherapists, but look at this: https://ncsfreedom.org/resources/kink-aware-professionals-directory/kap-directory-homepage.html

What, one wonders, is the need for an Accountant who is sympathetic to BDSM?

Here is a link to kink friendly therapy: http://kinkfriendlytherapy.com/

Can any honest human being truly claim that the overall thrust of our shared cultural life as it exists today is towards greater emotional intimacy, connection, sense of purpose, and goodness?

I do what I can.  It is all I can do.  It is a large world, and it is my sense that everyone is born with the ability to save themselves. Some of us try to do more than save ourselves, but in the end free will must be present for moral growth to happen, and the possibility of back sliding and failure must be present for success and progress to mean anything.

To state the obvious, those who choose darkness, choose darkness.  They cannot blame anyone, even if others played a role.  All bad choices lead to knowledge, so even the lost will one day--perhaps a very long time from now--also be saved.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Projection screens

It felt to me today like some small wounded part of myself occupies itself projecting fears onto large screens, and/or feeding me intellectual leads which will push me into my head.  This is a useful and needed task, but like the Wizard behind the curtain it needs to be seen for what it is.

I'm really trying to get away from intellectualism and arguing.  Both arise from a felt sense of danger in the world.  The world can certainly be dangerous, but it isn't most of the time, in most places.  No, this sense is an echo from long, long ago.  Most of us have it to some degree or other, I suspect, even if mine is perhaps a bit more active--or MUCH more active--than most.


It seems to me it would be more useful to speak of archetypal RELATIONS than images. Take the Old Woman, perhaps the Hag, perhaps the voice of wisdom. Is it not her latent capacity to relate to us in one way or another, and not her vague and abstract idealization Out There which is of primary importance?

One must always differentiate between what psychologists find interesting to contemplate, and what is actually important in moral and spiritual growth, if we are to be useful.

Thursday, September 24, 2015


it occurs to me that the principal  problem with Buddhism as a concrete set of practices and beliefs followed by many people in many ways is that Buddhists are addicted to Buddhism. You have to both  enter into and regularly exit the meditative space and mode of being. You have to bring wrinkles with you, iron them out, then get all wrinkled again.

When you disappear, why then you are getting somewhere, and it matters much less where you are and what you are doing.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015


During my Kum Nye practice--I don't want to call it my meditation, because that really isn't what it is; it is in a category by itself as far as I am concerned--a few days ago it really hit me that the world is filled to the brim with addictions.

We speak of "bad" addictions, like alcoholism or heroin addiction, but what if the same relief that these things provide could be had with a little pill which was cheap, not physiologically addictive, and that you never missed work, or did anything unpredictable while under its influence.  It caused you no physical ailments, and in fact was GOOD for you.

If you took it every day, would this not still be an addiction of sorts, merely a socially, legally, and physically benign one?

I looked up the root of addiction: 1595-1605; Latin addicti┼Źn- (stem of addicti┼Źa giving over, surrender.

A giving over or surrender.  What are you giving over?  Your self.
I don't have time for a lengthy post tonight, but it hit me that the worship of God itself is an addiction.  God does not come into this world directly.  God is an emergent property of a system in motion whose full extent is FAR beyond our capacity for measurement or perception.  Do miracles happen?  I believe they do.  Do they happen on command, for good people, because they are good?  No, I don't think they do.

Buddhism wisely destroys everything.  They destroy matter.  They destroy time.  They destroy the self.  The task is to blow everything up into small, small pieces, then let them rebuild and reconfigure in constantly evolving new and interesting and useful ways.

And it struck me too that people think of Buddhism as giving up.  It is not that at all.  It is TRADING.  You trade one vision of reality for another, which in turn enables emotions and sensations that are better and higher than what you had.  You are not renouncing a self, but moving towards a a better and more honest one.


I did not really do this consciously, but it occurs to me I taught my kids to feel gratitude.  I have often pointed out things that were working.  We all love watching clouds, and unusual cloud formations and sunrises and sunsets.  We all enjoy the sound of dry leaves clattering in trees in the fall, and quality of the air.  We enjoy the flowers and tree buds in the spring.  We all thoroughly enjoy eating nice meals together, and feeling happy about it.

I have often told them this is a good place to be from, and that they can leave, but they can always come back.  We have discussed how their childhood was basically happy, even if it had some difficulties in it.  We talk about opportunities, and all the things one can do in life.

It's odd to contemplate, but it seems that for people like me part of parenting is doing for others what I wish had been done for me.  I do not get the full benefit, of course, but do get the pleasure of watching seeds I have planted blossom.

You have to live with courage, and live forward.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Trauma once, healing once

The first trauma is like a rupture, like a membrane of some sort--a protective barrier of some sort--has been penetrated.  Every trauma after that aggregates around it, but the same techniques--principally dissociation and continuous activity--which work to manage one trauma will work for all of them.  As I have said, I suspect many soldiers ENTER the military with PTSD.  It is one place where their hypervigilence and emotional disconnection become virtues.

You cannot retraumatize someone who has already been traumatized.  You can merely push them farther into their defenses.

But what I am realizing is that you only need to undergo the process of healing once as well.  Once you know the way out, you cannot be trapped again.

Healing is a very odd thing.  You must have the intrepidity to enter an unknown land alone.  No one can go with you, at least no one who has not traveled that exact road themselves, which is very few people.  Most traumas go unhealed.  Healing is not returning to a place previously known.  It is not a reset.  It is a transformation.  That is the only way forward.  You have to sacrifice everything you are to become who you are meant to be. It takes balls.

But God fucking dammit I am going to do it.  I am doing it.  Soon I will be able to say I have done it.

You cannot imagine what a sunrise or sunset looks like to a newly freed captive.

The last days of Sophie Scholl

Just watched this movie.  Expected it to be painful, but unexpectedly I found it amazingly inspirational.  I realized that the best kind of courage is exactly equal to calm, faith, trust, and acceptance.

She dies, of course, but she dies well.  It's worth the watch, in my view.


We need to be able to use these terms to describe both people and cultures.  They do not disappear when they are banned from public speech: they merely become disfigured, ugly and wrongly used.

Can we perhaps compare a man who works hard, is scrupulously honest, a wonderful father and husband, to a man who gets drunk every day, lies constantly, borrow money he never pays back, has a fondness for 12 year old boys, who beats prostitutes, and--to add something genuinely objectionable--calls Obama "that nigger".

If we cannot call one a better person than the other, then moral order is impossible.

My entire system is oriented around approximate orders, general orders, ones both subject to change, and recognized as in constant motion.

But the human mind works by creating distinctions.  If we do not create coherent ones, it will create incoherent ones.  Communists, for example, reject "bourgeois" morality, but substitute instead a morality based upon purely abstract and generally non-existent class distinctions.  Within their system, the latter man above would be vastly superior to the first man, if the drunk were labeled Proletarian, and the honest man bourgeois or Capitalist.  And in practice, many good people had their heads chopped off in the inauguration of the Communist era, the French Revolution, and many evil people made fortunes.

Ponder the smallness of the division now between those who commit microaggressions and those whose lives seemingly orient around punishing them.  This is an anti-morality, whose whole goal is to prevent honest speech, honest communication, honest CONNECTION between differing human beings.  No gap is bridged with histrionic shouting. Nothing is negotiated.  No empathic skills are actually learned.  No emotional intelligence is cultivated.

Ultimately, the core of morality is understanding. It is not external behavior, but what motivates that behavior.  This cannot be seen or reliably diagnosed.  Our drunk, above, may have secret virtues, and our saint may have secret lusts and angers and vices. These are both possibilities.  It is not appropriate to judge people as people.  But it is absolutely necessary to have ideals, and to recognize who is moving toward them and who away.  Some systems in motion are in fact inherently superior to others.  This must be admitted in principle, even if we choose not to spend time labeling people.

Morality and the OODA loop

I am increasingly inclined to make of my third virtue two levels.  Level 1 is simple curiosity.  Level 2 is the regular use of the OODA loop.

What is the enemy?  Stupidity and following ineffectiveness, or even unintentional damage.

Silent morality

We express our true moral beliefs not just through what we say and do, but in what we pass over in silence.  It is one thing to secretly abhor adultery, but not say anything to an adulterous friend, but another entirely to ignore massive horrors, such as those inflicted on the Dalits in India.  If there is a widespread campus campaign to alleviate these tortures, I have not seen it.  They seem preoccupied with the "horrors" of drunk sex without a contract, and minor social faux pas's, the extent of which they seemingly seek to extend daily.

Morality, per se, is not taught in colleges.  Moral reasoning is not taught.  Anger is taught.  That is all.

It is not necessary to share all of your beliefs with everyone.  That is annoying, and likely counter productive.  But it is necessary, to be a good person, to HAVE beliefs.

It is right and proper for someone, after engaging in thoughtless wrong-doing for a long time, to do some soul searching, to question one's conscience, to wonder about right and wrong.  But no one who permanently renounces the duty of moral choice can be said to be benefiting the world, and given that the world is in constant change, and entropy the tendency of all things, when unopposed, such people are actually contributing the downfall of everything good.

The Western world, after committing abuses of colonialism and war which were unexceptional by global historical standards, has somehow fallen into a miasma of extended self reproach, which helps no one.  It hurts.  It is hurting, and will continue to hurt, until everything genuinely good about our system has been ended by inferior cultural orders.

Otherwise decent people, who drink coffee, and like to go out to eat, and enjoy vacations skiing or at the beach, are contributing to our decline through the myopic focus on our small sins, while ignoring the massive ones occurring around the world, and which have occurred throughout history.

Wake up. 

Other Directed Morons


I read this, and wondered when or if he was going to render an opinion.  He never did.  He merely surveyed the landscape.

Here are some basic questions: Is slavery wrong?  We argue it is, we make movie after movie after movie showing how evil white America was for countenancing it, but we are unable to denounce it in Muslim and African nations.  Western Leftists are unable to denounce it in Communist nations, instead inventing a new word "chattel slavery" to differentiate the kind they are prepared to overlook from the kind they supposedly care about.

If slavery is not always wrong, then it is sometimes acceptable.  How and when, then, is it acceptable?  Practically, when denouncing it means renouncing Soviet era propaganda intended to undermine Western beliefs in their own Liberal system.  Practically, when it means turning the rejection of slavery into an absolute value. Practically, when it means acting and speaking in a morally coherent and defensibly consistent way.

Is beating and raping women wrong?  Is fucking 9 year old girls?  Not trying to give anybody trouble, but these things clearly happen, and they are clearly condoned in some cultures.  In other cultures, drunken consensual sex equates to rape, and we are told rape is wrong.  It is wrong here, but I remain unclear what the Left feels about the rape of boys and girls and infidel women by Muslims.  Is rape wrong in China when it is done by high Party officials and the police refuse to investigate, much less punish it?  This, too, happens.  It happens in Cuba and North Korea, guaranteed.

Here is the problem we have: nobody frames these questions with this degree of clarity.  They use weasel word, big words, ambiguous words, ultimately, meaningless words, useless words.

The task of improving human life is a practical one.  The task of spreading democracy is not that of spreading a system of government, but rather spreading Enlightened, better, values, and gradually building a more genuinely moral world, one which is ABLE to embrace and use democracy.  You cannot impose democracy on morally and intellectually inferior people, and for our part we cannot protect our democracy as moral and intellectual cretins.

But academics, particularly, need to ask themselves what they believe.  Do they REALLY oppose slavery?  Do they REALLY support the right of women to be equal in their status to men?  Do they REALLY support the right of children--both male and female--not to be raped?

If you support it through silence in some cases, and condemn it only when convenient, the proper word for that is unprincipled coward.  Ah, but you can dispute whether or not being brave is a universal value, too, no?  Yes, you can.  And I can call you a fucking pussy.  You and I live in different worlds.  Mine has right and wrong and the possibility of useful moral judgement.  Yours is that of a leaf blowing in the wind, if the leaf was also filled with self contempt, unexpressable and unquenchable anger, and an absolutely vapid and unstable sense of self, purpose, and place.

Monday, September 21, 2015

The question of our age:

Do we really believe that Liberal values are absolute?  Do we think free speech, and the freedom of conscience should be universal?  Most of our professors who call themselves Liberals do not believe this.  They want a coercive power to tell all of us what to do.

Freedom has been such a thirst for most of humanity for most of history.  We have it, and a great many of us do not value it.  We do not know what is worth, because we have not known anything else.

Me, I have experienced totalitarianism.  It is a tonic for the weak and the dead, but poison to anyone with a heart, with dreams, and with a conscience.


We see the claim made continually, implicitly and explicitly, that the failure to thrive of the majority of blacks in this country must relate to factors external to their own choices.  Specifically, "racism" is blamed, which in turn amounts to the claim that white people to this very day have the absolute power to make or break all blacks in this country by our acceptance or rejection. If we accept them en masse, the argument goes, they will thrive, and the fact that they haven't means we must not have accepted them sufficiently, that somehow this pernicious bugaboo "racism" must still be with us, even if we cannot find examples of it which would even remotely compare with, say, the racism of a Woodrow Wilson or FDR.

This is bullshit. If I were to take an Ideal Type of the typical black kid, I would find he or she was raised by a single mother who existed in large part on public assistance, who only got a high school education, if that, and whose father was largely if not entirely absent during the entirety of their childhood.  I would find that they were exposed often on the street to danger and violence, and that fear was their constant companion throughout their youth and adolescence.  I would find that they listen to loud, angry, violent music which extols the virtues of power and the ability to command sex. I would find that they more educated they seem or seek to become, the more contempt they feel directed at them by people barely able to speak the English language.

I would find, in short, a system virtually scientifically calculated to breed failure.  This is not racism.  Racism is what people outside the system think.  No, this is social incompetence, ineptitude.  This is a system whose failings are obvious to anyone with eyes to see, and which needs to be labeled such.

Until running away from your children is held in contempt--or failing to take precautions not to get pregnant, either through birth control or abstinence--blacks will suffer.

Until education is held in high esteem, blacks will suffer.

Until they get away from that infernal music, whose frequencies and content corrupt both the minds and bodies of those listening to it, blacks will suffer.

Would Einstein have listened to hip-hop while contemplating the mysteries of the universe?  How could he?   How is any higher thought possible when one is confined in the bass and base frequencies?  Look at this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16201210 

What bass sounds do is increase a sense of power and aggression, while diminishing the capacity for abstract reasoning.  To state the obvious, you need abstract reasoning in this society to get ahead.

To return to the point of this post, what I would assert based on data is that black kids who grow up in two parent households do as well as white kids, on balance.  Certainly, starting in the ghetto is not ideal, but the only people who stay there are those without a plan to get out.

Likewise, white kids raised in single parent homes fare as poorly as black kids do, on balance.  They are at higher risk for everything.

Being raised in a single parent home is inferior to being raised in a two parent home.  Thus, if I am to be accused of any -ism, let it be Parent-ism.  Race is an excuse, not an important factor.  Only those who want it to be make it so.  If a black kid isn't getting the job, it's because he comes slouching in with baggy pants unable to speak intelligible English.  The person who does not hire is likely making the right decision, because that kid was only going to do half the work that the black kid who came in dressed nicely using proper English does.

Is there any hope that common sense and common decency will ever return?  I wonder.  Nobody is being helped by the relentless race baiting, certainly not blacks.  They are hurt by it, because it confuses them as to the nature of their duty, which is to take care of themselves, and their families.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

What totalitarianism GIVES you

I lived in an affective cage as a child, where literally nothing I did was right.  If I misbehaved I was punished, and if I did nothing I was punished.  When dealing with a violent narcissist, the only thing you can do is watch and try and anticipate what it is you need to be doing this moment.  This is of course a root of my hypervigilence, itself a source of my constant reflections on my own inner world, and what is going on in the outer world. I need to know what is going on.

But it hit me yesterday, with absolute crystal clarity, that a totalitarian regime GIVES you a list, a short list to be sure, but a list, of what you CAN do.  If you are a Muslim, you can pray 5x a day.  You can give alms.  You can travel to Mecca.

If you had been a Nazi, you were free to inform on dissenters, free to fight for the Reich, free to speak patriotic rhetoric.

If you were or are a Communist, you are free to lie cheat and steal if it serves the cause. You are free to do what your handlers, the upper echelons of the Party, want you to do.  You are free to hate any and all class enemies.

All of these things are huge reliefs for some people.  It gives them clarity.  It gives them a path forward, and the feeling, paradoxically, of freedom. I  felt this.

My task is to create my own list, and steadily expand it.  I have lived for a very long time in a very gray world.

Morality of Experience

Some simplification of complex abstract ideas is necessary, and I would assert that the appropriate degree is at least to the point where decision making and following action is possible.  If nothing you say can be used to make an actual decision, then you are useless in all practical respects, outside of the entertainment value you provide those who tune to your channel.

With regard to morality, greatly simplifying, I would stipulate 4 moralities:

1) Be moral because God will punish you, and society will exile you.

2) Be moral because it is rational.

3) There is no such thing as morality.

4) Be moral because experience teaches this brings about both the most individual happiness, and the greatest overall social harmony and well being.

You do not have to justify the statement that "when I push button X, a horn toots".  It is a scientific claim, one which can be verified as often as anyone may care to.  You don't have to know WHY it works, merely that it does.

I will call this the Morality of Experience.

Trump and the Birth Certificate

First off, according to Islamic law, the religion--and the duty to uphold the religion--passes from father to son.  Obama was BORN a Muslim, by Islamic law (assuming his father actually was Barack Obama, Sr., which I very much doubt; I believe, as I have said, that the bulk of evidence points both to Frank Marshall Davis being the real father, and his name on the birth certificate being the real reason they won't release it), so he is EITHER an apostate or a Muslim, from the perspective of Islamic law.

This is FACT.  It is not disputed or disputable.

We further know that his religion was listed as Islam on his school records in Indonesia.  This is not disputed or disputable.

We live in this Bizarro-World universe where up is down and even allegedly conservative news networks (hint: we have none on TV) carry water for the most ludicrous, extravagant claims.

Obama's birth certificate consisted in 4-5 PDF layers which were CLEARLY, unambiguously, if-this-was-a conservative-it-would-have-been-damning, faked.  Signatures were faked.  Names were faked.

And to commit an act of treason to the notion that we must be compliant, stupid, see nothing/know nothing future drones and apparatchniks, let me point out that the original copy was never made available to anyone.

I reiterate: Obama could not have gotten a drivers license with that certificate or proved citizenship, or joined the military.

If fails the most BASIC tests, and yet somehow these deluded or complicit lunatics in the media want to continue to portray those who question it as unhinged somehow.

I get that Trump wants to protect his lead, but I would still like to see him trot out a series of digital document experts and go through in some detail WHY this document is faked and why America should be angry both at Obama and those around him, but especially the sycophantic, dick sucking, ass licking media.

It might help to get some judges, and former bureaucrats to go on record saying that document would be unacceptable anywhere.  This lie does not become less important because it is the President telling it, it becomes MORE.  How is this lunacy possible?

It truly is disgusting.  Almost nobody has the balls to do their job.

Edit: I would add: Mr. Trump, this is the Meat Grinder.  Any front-runner for the Republicans, particularly, can expect relentless traps, relentless attacks, and the creation of scandal where none exists.

These people are ghouls whose humanity has been trained out of them, who attack because they have been taught to hate, who lie because they have been taught it is the best method for "progress", and who feel neither remorse nor pity.  They are cruel savages, who will laugh at your downfall if they can engineer it, and celebrate the success of Hillary or Biden, knowing full well that there is no reason to expect any actual amelioration of the miseries of poverty, true racism, injustice, and pain of all sorts.  They will if anything increase them, because the little people will always be the little people to them.  Useful idiots, nothing more.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Simple Question

How many American kids do you think grow up with piggy banks?

Ponder for a moment what they actually symbolized when they were common.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Being Presidential

I don't watch the debates.  Why?  My opinion has no effect on who eventually gets inflicted on me as a choice.

I do keep hearing Donald Trump "isn't Presidential".  What the fuck can this even mean when we elected Barack Hussein Obama, a nothing from nowhere about whom we STILL know nothing, twice?

Obama's ACTS Presidential.  That is the word, ACT.  It has been credible alleged that his entire persona is a creation based upon a friend of his from Chicago: http://www.examiner.com/article/actor-harry-lennix-says-he-trained-obama-to-act-presidential

We have to come to grips with the fact that our political process has become theater, where the tide appears to go one way, then the other, but in reality it is going out, and all of us will be swept away with it, absent some sort of pattern interrupt.

The pundits have been preaching and talking now since at least the 1950's about Communist propaganda, declining moral values, and the importance of limited government.  But no matter who has occupied the White House--other than a brief hiatus under Clinton with a Republican Congress--government has done nothing but expand since the New Deal.  Barry Goldwater was talking about Republican sell-outs in 1960.

We can assume that if the Establishment is fine with a candidate, if there is no hooting and howling, if they are talking about what a "fine conservative" they are, how they are "electable", "Presidential", then that means they will simply continue the decline of America.  They may slow it, but they will not alter the end destination.

Trump's ENTIRE appeal is that he is a loose cannon, or at least appears to be.  He has a huge ego, but that makes it harder to keep him in line.  What if he DOES just go ape-shit and start cutting expenses and programs?  What if he does raise taxes at the same time, and achieve a balanced budget?  Fiscal sanity was at one time unobjectionable on both sides of the aisle.  Even Democrats at one time thought a balanced budget was a good thing.  They just wanted more spending and more taxes.

We live in a strange world, so much of it abstract.  We are forced, by the nature of our system, to take an interest in, and try to form opinions about, people we will never meet, and likely never even see in person.  We forced to try and decipher how honest they are, what they might actually do, and to do so through a prism of repeated disappointment and failure.

And as I am realizing, it is important for mental health not to obsess too much about things far away and beyond any hope of control or management.  I think I personally look out when I don't want to look in.  I also think that conflict makes me feel at home.  I have been in some form of war, I think, since the moment I first looked into my mothers eyes and she realized I was not the girl she assumed I must be.

The thing about the traumatized, I think, is that you seek out pain and conflict and danger, because otherwise you spend all your time anticipating it.  Once its there, you no longer need fear its emergence.  It is the pregnant silences which are perhaps most terrifying.

I am feeling less and less inclined to post here.  It seems I should spend more time with the fall leaves, and economically productive work.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Motivation and Goals

I used to consume a lot of self help books back in the day, particularly when I started in Sales. Tony Robbins, and Zig Ziglar are the two I remember.  I particularly liked Zig Ziglar.

Just today I was looking at a list of goals I made 15 years ago about all the stuff I wanted, and all the experiences I wanted to have.  Many more came true than I would have guessed then, but many did not.

And I got to thinking about it: there isn't a thing on there about work.  About a job.  To be sure, I had goals, but my mental focus was not there.  The process and the outcome were not emotionally connected.

They tell you do dream big, but here is the core truth, as I now realize: the way you get all the stuff, and all the experiences, is that you figure out how to LOVE the most basic tasks of your chosen field, and learn to love the process of learning to do them even better.  You have to fall in love with your craft.  And if you do that, then success is inevitable over some time horizon.

You have to start with the beginning, in the present moment, and the next task.  And they have to matter to you, and bring you some comfort and satisfaction when done well and consistently.  Everything else will take care of itself.

I feel stupid for not seeing this before.  To be sure, what I do for a living aligns well with my talents only to the extent that I have lots of free time to do the things I am good at, but if you are going to do a thing, why not extend the hand of friendship and affection to it, and bring it into your confidence and family?

Every excellence is a reward.  Mark that a bon mot.

Edit: the logical corollary to this is that the visualization that matters is visualizing work well done, and with pleasure.  Do this, and everything else happens, provided a very simple plan.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


I woke up this morning thinking that if success is "progressively inventing new and better errors"--as I defined it somewhere--then repeated mistakes represent not failures of understanding, but prima facie evidence of compulsion.  They are psychological, not cognitive, or intuitive.

Our errors define us, do they not, in the same way our way of moving in the world does?

Sunday, September 13, 2015


The point of forgiveness is to build resilient personal and social systems which are capable of learning and adapting in positive and beneficial ways.  If you only get to make one mistake, then you do your best to make NO mistakes, which makes learning impossible.  You have to make mistakes.  You have to be able to make mistakes.

My "Moral Code" revolves essentially around the development of emotional skill and self knowledge.  If someone were to plug some sort of brain controller in to you, and force you to do "the right thing" all day long, would that make you a better person?  Is being forced by social coercion and the threat of ostracism really that different?

I don't even think one needs to posit that humans are "innately" good.  What I would posit is that a free individual or social system in motion will find their points of equilibrium and balance in ways of being which are  "good" as I define them.  Chaos rarely is.  Orders are simply hidden, and they are particularly hidden when free motion is encumbered or even prevented.

And the converse applies: confinement and restriction breed meanness and feed what is always potentially bad in human behavior.

Whatever the message Jesus taught, I think it was perverted by the emerging Church to help ensure the financial and political power of the elites.

What makes sense to me is that he taught that God is not a fucking imbecile, and of course you get multiple second chances.  And I think notions of eternal Hell were entirely absent, even if relative hells were present.  In point of fact, I believe those exist.

But think this through.  Animal sacrifices were commanded by the Torah, and were to be done at the Temple of Jerusalem.  That Temple was destroyed.  This would have represented an existential thread to Judaism outright.

Christianity found almost all its early adherents in Jews, and they seem by and large to have preserved at least for a 100 years or so many Jewish practices.

Animal sacrifice is for the expiation of sin.  Sins, after the destruction of the Temple, could not be atoned.  So why not, one can see someone reasoning, make of Jesus the FINAL sacrifice?

But if there is only one sacrifice, there can only be one expiation, and that logically implies that a choice has to be made with permanent consequences, which in turn implies that you go one way or the other, your sins are expiated or they are not.  If not, you don't get another chance, which means that if you don't go to Heaven, then you go to Hell, and if you go to Hell, and you don't get another chance, then that sentence is eternal.

This is logical, even if wrong and even stupid to the point of being abusive.  Certainly it could not have been better calculated to allow the inculcation of fear which could be harnessed to the cultivation of quite worldly ambitions.

Latest iteration of Econ letter

I have developed what I think is a unique perspective on our financial system and am soliciting feedback from credentialed economists. If it would make a difference, I would be willing to make a donation to a charity of your choice in exchange for a substantive response, if only a short one. My concern is with my children's future, and social justice.

The logic of my idea is quite simple: anyone who creates money creates nothing of intrinsic value, but is still able to make a claim on our actual, material wealth, and even though we are long accustomed to it, it is quite appropriate to call this legal theft.

If I am negotiating with a barista for a cup of coffee, and they are willing to sell it to me for $1, but someone comes along that has $2 that was created from scratch--and this is more or less literally what has happened in the housing markets of many nations--and are willing to pay that much, then I either go without the coffee, or fork over a higher proportion of my income to compensate for the now-higher price. Had that money not been created, then my coffee would still be $1, and my housing affordable.

I will readily grant that assenting to this claim requires viewing old institutions with new eyes.

I would contrast this with what I would call true Capitalism, in which the only way to make money is to provide a good or service people want and are able to afford. As we all know, per capita productivity has been increasing for some time, but wages have not. This requires an answer, which I think relates to the system as a whole.

In making loans banks create money which had not existed. This places more money into circulation, with a resulting decline in the overall value of existing money. We call this inflation, and expect some amount of it every year, since deflation is feared.

Deflation is feared because in conditions of widespread debt the amount of money to be repaid--the labor hours required to satisfy it--rises steadily, resulting in higher rates of default, and thus higher rates of banking insolvency, which propagated enough, generate economic troubles.

However, if there were no public or private debt, then a steady increase in the value of money would be a good thing. A true Capitalism would be self financing. People would save their money, as in the old days, and pay cash for everything. Bank financing--which is to say allowing banks to "loan" money that didn't exist until that moment--is faster, but it is also a cancer that in the long term is like slaking thirst with salt water.

We see many people asking why wages have been stagnant or even declining for the past 15 years or so. My view is that the purchasing power of money has been transferred via monetary inflation from workers and corporations to bankers and governments. The sheer quantity of money in existence, at least in America, has increased HUGELY since 1981 or so (M2 at least five-fold), as has the wealth controlled by the worlds largest financial institutions. The two are obviously related.

I propose that in the coming economic collapse--it appears overwhelmingly likely both that US debt will soon be downgraded, and that this will have vast rippling effects throughout the global economy--a plan be proposed somewhat similar to the Chicago Plan of the 1930's, with some significant differences.

Now, I do not know the specifics of the Bank of England--and particularly the full nature of its relationship with the European Central Bank-- but in theory the following plan, developed for the United States, might apply there.

The key point is to grasp both that money is not real, and that those who create it have become fabulously wealthy without creating anything of intrinsic economic benefit, which adds a moral element to this argument. They are the true elite.

Specifically, I propose that the Fed (or in your case the Bank of England) be brought in-house and made an accountable and controllable instrument of government. I propose that it then use its power to create money to pay off ALL debts in the United States, public and private. All mortgages, all cars, all credit cards, the national debt, County debt, municipal debt. Everything. This will transfer wealth from the banks to the people.

In the short term this will of course be hugely inflationary, but I think things would settle down within a month or two; and at that, far quicker and with much, much less suffering than would be the case with a prolonged Depression.

Then we end the Fed (or Bank of England), require all banks to be 100% reserve (they would make money by loaning the investor's principle, by offering check cashing and account services for a fee, and by warehousing money and other valuables), and never alter the quantity of money in circulation again.

This should then, with productivity increases, gradually cause an increase in the purchasing power of the dollar. This, in turn, will enable self financing of new business, and completely eradicate business cycles.

My view is that in a just, properly ordered financial system people should be able to make a good living on 20 hours of work a week. Health care, retirement, unemployment: all will quickly cease to be problems.

I have a longer treatment of this topic posted on the internet, but I think the factors involved are quite simple. Self evidently, this is a radical plan, but in my view we are facing desperate straits at some point in the next 15 years or so, if not sooner.

Please let me know what you think. If you don't have time to respond, I would be happy to hear from a graduate student, or anyone who might be able to render a knowledgeable opinion. Thanks for your time!!!


P.S. As you might imagine, nobody replies to these. I doubt most even open them. The reason I continue is that this is an enormously important topic. If you have any feedback as to how I might more productively solicit feedback or discussion, please let me know. There is no ulterior motive other than a general amelioration of the human condition, and the advancement of true fairness. This confuses nearly everyone.

P.P.S It remains unclear to me how Marxism is relatively unobjectionable in many circles, despite its history, when the predatory nature of money creation is completely ignored. How can any critique of "Capitalism" fail to take into account the primary reality of the conjuring into reality of "Capital" ex nihilo by empowered elites? It is not and long has not been a question first and foremost of accumulation, but rather creation and first access to that creation.

The emergence of the middle class falsified Marxist notions of class warfare, as did generally rising levels of abundance and well being. What remains to explain is huge differentials in wealth, and my perspective--this heuristic--does that easily.

My ideas, in my view, are both simple and obvious, even though I seem to be the only one advancing them. My hope, of course, is for company in my quest.

Pointless War

I was dreaming last night that I was a member of a Boy Scout troop, or church, or some social group of some kind, and we were going to enact a battle for "fun", but that we were going to use real weapons and real ammunition.  We were going to storm a church or theater or something like that, which was defended as a sort of fortress by the other side.

I initially demurred, and found myself near the back of the pack rushing the fences.  I couldn't help but thinking "you are joking, right?" (as a side note, I normally know when I am in a dream, and have a fair amount of control--I choose where to go, and what to do, and can usually levitate, use psychokinesis, and sometimes even walk through walls--but have learned it seems to be best if I just watch things go and try and learn whatever lesson it is trying to teach me.)

But they weren't.  In this "game" people on both sides were killed.  I participated on "my side", those charging the defenses, but decided after a time to "recycle" the game, and it started again.  I was supposed to lead the charge for my detachment, while banging a cowbell.  I lost my gun, so I again demurred, but then decided I was being a coward, and jumped to the front, and directly confronted the "enemy" commander, who threw down a knife, initiating conflict again.

We fought for a while, and my side lost.  I retreated, and had to rerun my retreat--I have a rewind button in my dreams, sometimes--a couple times, but I got away.

Several thoughts occurred on waking.  One, that this reminds me a lot of the frequent internecine warfare between the Romans.  In one battle in modern Hungary, some 56,000 legionaries died on the same day.  You would have identically clad and armored and trained men who spoke the same language--albeit sometimes as a second or third language--killing one another in support of their man's side in a dynastic dispute.

It is natural to run and hide from conflict.  It was only training, and particularly tying a conditioned response to the word "coward", which allowed such senseless slaughters, among men who should have been brothers. For their part, the "barbarians" also prized courage, and they had often the added motivation of fighting for their lands, although of course the frequent cause of conflict is that they, too, had stolen other peoples stuff and raped and enslaved them, and the Romans were just protecting a part of their Empire.

And I thought of the religious conflicts between the Homoousians and the Arians, the vapidity of the difference between their creeds, and the knives that were stabbed in the necks and hearts and livers of at least thousands of men, woman, and likely even children over this ridiculously, obscenely small difference.  It would be no different than separating out a Boy Scout pack and waging war over the exact way to tie a particular knot, or the exact requirements to be an Eagle Scout. Surely it is a bad joke.  But it happened.

Then of course in terms of deep psychodynamics I am realizing that both the actively conscious part of me, and my defended side are on the same side.  There is no need to push it, contend with it, or do anything but welcome it.  It FEELS like a problem, because it has caused me a lot of grief and pain.  But on the other side, no it hasn't: it has done its best, in its childlike but very watchful way, to protect me from existential assaults.  It is to be befriended.

In some important respects, it is likely best never to be overly angry with ourselves, even when we "screw up" badly.  That screw up happened because we never learned to relax and to interact with the world in an orderly way.  You can suppress screw ups through discipline, but that way you never learn what they had to teach you.  You kill off an important part of yourself.

Most of us fail to learn all the lessons we could have learned.  We all fail.  It is inevitable, and even if it isn't, it should be treated that way.  Because if you insist on learning ALL the lessons you can, you will learn less than if you took a patient, welcoming, kind approach, and let those timid sensations and feelings gradually crawl and flitter out into the light.  When things organically expand, it has NOTHING to do with will, except in its absence.


It occurred to me last night that the word "ego" has very much the same ontological content as "balance".  Nobody who watches gag reels, or high level gymnastics can doubt that the word balance refers to something, that there is a referent.

At the same time, balance is a dynamic concept.  There are types of balances, and the EXACT way you need to balance will always vary moment to moment, and people that are clumsy will fail to do it.

We all need an ego.  We need healthy self respect.  We need to have some sense of who we are, what we are capable of.  We need to have a history and at least a plan for the future.  We need to be located in time and space in some respect, even if not ROOTED in time and space.

I see so much silliness going on in the name of egolessness.  Most often, it seems to be used to avoid personal responsibility, to avoid hard decisions, as a support for the basic idea that we are all just happy brothers and sisters on this pastoral and peaceful Earth, and that only people who feel the need to defend themselves from the predations of others cause actual violence.  For example: such people gladly suffer the comforting lie that Communism was something other than a creed advanced by violence and subterfuge which appealed to and attracted the most mentally ill and power mongering wherever it went, and that it had and has as a goal the complete enslavement of the human race in a permanent regime of terror, despair, loneliness, cultural destruction, and impoverishment.

Look at history.  You don't need to go more than 50 years back.  1965 Cuban terrorists were shooting in the head or locking in little cages for months people who refused to cooperate.  Vietnamese Communists were strapping explosives to the backs of 10 year old girls and sending them as suicide bombs on bicycles to kill other children on the playground.  They were mortaring nightly civilian areas, and assassinating every person in a position of any influence.  In 1968 the Soviets invaded Czechoslavakia.  In the mid-1970's millions of Cambodian children, many under the age of 18, were strapping people who had been caught with a book or wearing glasses to tables, and torturing them to death with electrodes, and doing this multiple times a day.  Perhaps a third of the overall population was killed, all for nothing.  That was 40 years ago.

To THIS VERY DAY you can be locked in one of those soft torture cells in Cuba for dissidence, or killed.  TO THIS VERY DAY Islamists are decapitating Christians simply for being Christians, raping and enslaving their women and children, and continuing a path of conquest perfectly congruent with the original military conquests of the "great" Muhammad, who, too, loved treasure, sex slaves, the murder of innocents, and the destruction of entire civilizations.

What seems to be my task, and it is a difficult and unpleasant, but necessary task, is to square being open hearted and relaxed, with a very deep awareness of the human capacity for evil.  I need to both be clear eyed and forgetful.  Every moment I am not molested or hurt, or anyone I care about, I should relish and be grateful and enjoy myself.  But I need to recall without fear what sort of world this is.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Mother of the Believers

Read this, and ponder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

As I have said, there is great evil in the Christian doctrine of absolute and permanent damnation.  Islam takes all the worst elements of Christianity and makes them worse and unchanging.

Trauma is on all sides.  Your parents beat submission into you, because to do otherwise is to risk eternal damnation.  As an adult, you are expected to exercise no freedom of individual conscience.  There is no "exploring" in the creed whose very name comes from submission.  You can expect violence if you do not do as others around you do.

And within such an environment, no moral growth is possible.  You have to be free to explore, to be curious, to understand for yourself how and why moral codes come about.  All of this is sternly rejected and punished (in theory: as I have said before, the only good Muslims are bad Muslims).

And in the relationship between the sexes, it is force, trauma, rape and violence.  At age 50 or so Muhammad "married" Aisha.  At age 53 or so he fucked her.  This was almost certainly before puberty.  He was fucking a child who in this country would have been in third grade, would have been reading "Ramona the Pest" and watching the Cartoon Network or Disney. Edit: I read farther down in that link that he, the Great Prophet, loved to watch his 9 year old bride, with whom he was sexually active, play with dolls.

Ponder that.  Not all religions are created equal.  There is no basis in historical fact or philosophy to assume this is the case, other than a sophistry very congenial to those who believe nothing is worth fighting for.

And this is at the CORE of their doctrine.  I read within the past year about a Yemeni man marrying a 9 year old and causing so much internal bleeding from fucking her that she died from blood loss.  No doubt, his heartstrings being so sensitive, and his love so deep, he was profoundly wounded by his loss, and his next marriage was to an eleven year old.

The root problem with pedophilia is that it inherently represents a failure of emotional development.  The children you are attracted to are at roughly the age where you yourself lost your battle with trauma.  In Muhammad's case, that was apparently before age 10.  Perhaps it was precisely that trauma--my guess would be getting sodomized by an older man, as indeed still happens in Afghanistan as an open part of their culture to this very day--which led him to the mountains.  Whatever he brought back, it was anything but the creed of a loving, caring, welcoming, just God.

Islam asks of the modern world a very basic question: what do you believe?  What is worth fighting for?  Are ANY of your developments in the realm of political freedom, freedom of conscience, equal justice before the law worth anything?  Are any of your cultural creations worth a pile of spit?  How would anyone know, when you persist in shitting on them?  Are your women worth defending?  Your children?  How openly can we spit in your faces and expect you to forgive us, not knowing that we meant it fully?  How easily can a vastly more powerful economic and military world be undermined from within, and at that virtually openly?

How fucking stupid and decadent are you?

It's an open question.  We all need challenges in life.  Islam is a challenge to the world.  In its pristine form, it is absolutely incompatible with peace and anything like human decency, especially where women and children are concerned, but even where adult dissenters are concerned.  Fear can be the only prevailing emotion among those who believe that their only choices are submission and eternal hell.

The only comforts are those of sacrifice and sadism, particularly in the de facto human sacrifice of unbelievers, who like animals of old are decapitated in public as spectacle and for religious edification.  Or perhaps they are hung from trees like the Nordic captives of old, without the solace of having their suffering cut short through strangulation.  They are denied even that infinitesimal kindness.


The essence of healing trauma is slowly, by and by, kneading relaxation into the deep personality structure, all in small doses, all gradually, and with kindness.

I have confessed this to a practitioner of this work, but it feels to me like the Holotropic Breathwork I did, while useful in some respects, as a system works to retraumatize people.  In trauma work, you don't want to, as powerlifters and throwers say, "go big or go home".  Low and slow and steady needs to be the motto.

The whole thing is potentially very useful, but only once it loses the drug culture machismo.  Hunter S. Thompson's motto may as well have been "go big or go home", but what concrete good did it do him?  He was on various drugs and large quantities of booze and cigarettes his whole life, and he killed himself long before he reached the terminal stage of anything.

I woke up in the middle of last night and was really feeling that the whole of human history is defined by unresolved trauma.  Religious sacrifice is related to trauma.  Religious war--a related phenomenon--is as well.  Everywhere you go in history, every where you look, you see--at least I see--unresolved trauma.  The best parents, with the best of intentions, can traumatize their children.

I was in a comic book store the other day, selling the remainder of my collection (less Nick Fury #1, Warlock #1, and Avengers King-Size Annual #7, which has always resonated with me on a deep level, since I have long identified with Warlock, who "dies" and is reunited with his people in that issue) and it hit me that what I was seeing on all the walls was not all that different in intent and use than what one would have seen on display in a Roman or Greek, or Chinese or Japanese temple.

Comics always gave me this feeling I could not quite define. It was a sort of escape, certainly, but also a certain empowerment through visualization.  I could imagine some psychological part of me was more like, say, Captain Marvel, than me.  I could access, in other words, feelings imaginatively that were utterly denied me in the real world.  I could access power.  The essence of surviving and transcending trauma and learned helplessness is resurrecting a sense of power.

And what did suppliants at altars do in the ancient worlds?  They asked for favors.  They asked for blessings.  And sometimes, they would feel powerfully that they got them.

Then I got to wondering about an experience I got getting invited last week to watch football at someone's house. I don't get invited to those sorts of things often, because I don't really belong.  I understand football better, I think, than most, simply because I am intelligent, and have watched enough of it.  I don't know the players and coaches that well, although it does seem obvious Nick Sabin belongs in the pantheon--see what I did there--with Bear Bryant.

And I was watching them yell at the television, as if they had the power to get that runner that extra yard, as if they had the power to make that receiver hold on to the ball, or the ball to make it through the uprights.  And it occurred to me that this was a sacred setting in some places, one where the ritual space enabled and even encouraged the expression of emotions, of excitement, elation, despair and defeat, that were not allowed at other places and times, at least for men in groups.

It met, in other words, an emotional need, a very real one, one which is otherwise poorly met in our modern world.  It is RATIONAL for grown men to yell at the TV and paint their faces, just like the Picts did of old, and for the same reasons.

And I feel this deep, deep solitude sometimes.  This is not my world.  I don't have a world that I have found yet.  I like watching football, and I like cheering for my team, but it cannot be sacred for me in that way.

And I felt that in this vast void of human experience, there needs to be a spark thrown farther into the darkness than any other, to illuminate and explore it.  There needs to be someone on this planet, here, watching, who can simultaneously look at it from the outside and the inside, and  figure out how we move forward from here.

The question is this: how can humankind as a whole learn to process and harness trauma in ways which increase emotional well-being, cultural wealth, social connection, and ultimately enable us to move farther and farther away from our animal natures, into the realm of a different type of experience, a different type of emotion and sensation, and towards the light which hides within all existence?  Towards God, in other words?

This, at root, is the question of my existence.  My intent is to build concrete ideas, expressed through specific people in groups, and to evolve them through experimentation so as to solve these problems, heal these wounds, and enable a human future, where such a thing at present appears doubtful.

This of course is ridiculously ambitious.  But my logic is sound.  The work needs to be done, and I can do some of it, at least.  You cannot but begin where you are with what you have, and do it as soon as it makes sense to begin.   The councils of prudence do not demand all projects begin immediately, but rather in the seasons when they makes sense.  That time is soon.  I am preparing.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Battling addiction

There is no such thing as addiction, in view, outside of the very manageable physiological aspects. What there is, is a juggling between an effective means of battling emotional pain and the social, health and legal costs of that method.


And so it happened
one day
the Joker looked in the mirror and washed away his face paint
and tinted his hair brown
     He went out to eat and had a steak au poivre
and pommes frite
with a nice Cabernet

Batman pondered his rage and his disguise
   and burned both

They passed one another the next day on the street
and smiled and kept walking.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Embrace Trump; Embrace your decline, full post

Most of the text disappeared for some reason. I am trying to be post-paranoid and blame technology and not Google.  Still, here it is, in full.

In 2008 I wrote:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.

Has anything changed?

Calvin Coolidge was the last actual conservative we had in the White House.  Barry Goldwater was the last conservative who got the Republican nomination.  That was 1964.  That was 51 years ago. I should not need to say this, but Reagan massively expanded the government: not just Defense, but all the other bureaucratic features of the welfare state that Tip O'Neil pushed through, and he allowed.

Who does not see what half a century or more of Communist propaganda has bought us?  It has brought apathy and complacency in all the things that matter, and an entirely inappropriate obsession with things that do not matter, like mentally ill cross dressers, and mentally ill millenials who made odd clothing choices and think nudity and sexual provocativeness are somehow profound.

It has brought pervasive ignorance as to BASIC facts about the world, such as how our government operates, what is unique about our Constitutional Republic and history, the nature of economic prosperity, and the difference between Iraq and Iran.

Psychosocially it has led to a cultural decline in the ability to set and maintain personal and national boundaries.  Our southern boundary is perhaps the most obvious, most literal symbol of this.

Trump asked "do we have a nation or not? Do we have a border or not?"

Do you think you as a person have the right to exist as your own unique person?  Do you understand that this extends beyond what is on your I-tunes, and what kind of car you choose to drive?  Do you understand that freedom has to do with your religion, your sense of right and wrong, your sense of what is true in this world, and your right to pass your values on to your children, unmolested, unbroken, whole, intact?

Donald Trump is a Big City Machine Democrat, a guy who talks about the Little Guy in part because it is popular, but I think he does really have a basic, atavistic, fondness for the America of yore, an America where you could openly speak your opinion at the local barber shop, where there was nothing wrong with patriotic pride, where you could go root for the Mets or the Yankees, and not worry that your neighbor was secretly trying to overthrow the government, or that our government, having been covertly overthrown, was trying to ruin our nation economically and trample our Constitutional freedom.  That it was building refugee camps in the midst of everything, and that those sworn to protect us were buying mass quantities of ammunition and weaponry that could ONLY be useful in a long term mass uprising.

He has the sense and sensibilities of another age, an age where it was not necessary to debate whether or not a boy who said he felt like a girl could go watch girls shower;  where courage meant taking business risks, or opposing violence with peace, or risking your life in the defense of others, or holding on to decency in the midst of chaos and rot.  It was not indulging in some sexual fantasy rooted in unprocessed trauma in public.

Donald Trump can win a General Election, because as I keep saying Democrats and Republicans alike are tired of watching the rot, the death of Common Sense, the destruction of decency in the name of an ill-named and empty "compassion" or "tolerance", which is anything but.

No, he's not a conservative, but unless you think Rand Paul can win--he is the only one in the field as far as I am concerned, and he is opposed by literally everyone but his base--then we need someone who can alter the course of our national dialogue, reestablish the space needed to speak needed truths, and to literally recreate and defend our collective boundaries.


2 crushed ice cubes on the bottom of a tall glass
2 jiggers Southern Comfort
1 jigger lemon juice
half jigger agave nectar
top with champagne.

That is an E=MC squared.  It's what I'm drinking.  Here is the recipe in Italian: http://www.cocktailmania.it/ricette-cocktail-esotici/376/E%3Dmc2.html

And I'm sitting here listening to Al Stewart, and it occurs to me that if black is defined as a "color" which absorbs all light, then black lettering on a white background--white being all colors the human eye can detect--is technically read by inference.  Letters like you are reading now are spaces--like stencils--formed in an otherwise uniform pattern of radiance. They are actually gaps, when we assume they have positive existence.

There is something interesting in here somewhere, but at a certain point I have to stop posting.  I don't always--but I should, and usually do.

Seriously: I don't surf porn.  I don't play video games.  I don't watch TV.  I work, I drink, I write, I stare for long periods at the wall lost in thought, and love smoking cigars.  I suppose one could question if I am a 'Murican at all.

Oh, I think one could say that what is most special about this country is one is free to love it in any way one pleases.

Wittgenstein and the moral aphasics

I will be sane very soon.  I can feel a light breeze and a light blowing through me already.  And I am increasingly able and inclined to contemplate with satisfaction some of my accomplishments, while also granting a great deal of work still needs to be done.

Tonight I am thinking specifically of Wittgenstein's famous dictum that "whereof we cannot speak, must we pass over in silence."  Now, I am by both inclination and history a very amateur philosopher, in the sense of reading people who describe themselves as "philosophers", but my understanding, based on having read something like Wittgenstein for Dummies (I'm not joking: it was a serious comic book) and Wittgenstein's Poker, is that we can only speak intelligently about things which exist empirically.  This does not mean everything else is constructed, but that we cannot speak about it.  It does not mean God does not exist, but that it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about something which is not tangible.

In my understanding, morality, too falls in this category.  For a very long time we were told by philosophers and the keepers of religions, that moral law was God's Law, that it was woven into the very fabric of Being.  We were taught moral ontology.

Then we were taught that all the rules of morality could be had through Reason, and reason alone.

Then we were taught that we were basically highly evolved animals with no inherent purpose in life, and that "morality", whatever it was, was in all cases used by those in power to keep power; that believing in the "existence" of morality was tantamount to being played for a chump.  This claim, too, of course, constitutes a morality, a bad one.

My rules are that the task of human life is learn to become happier by oneself, and to learn to take greater pleasure in the happiness of others, in a progressive and theoretically unlimited way.

My system for judgement is simple.  I assert that people who are capable of moral judgments are on balance better able to defend their sense of self, but that people who only judge are on balance unhappy people who are stepping over the bounds set by others.  Some judging is good, but too much is bad.

Proper moral judgments are necessary, local, and imperfect.

Necessary because the sense of self of one or more people is involved and some sort of emotional resolution is required, which may involve an empathy based negotiation with someone else.

Local in the sense that the "rule" is not understood to exist permanently, in an unchanging way in all places, but that where it may not be possible to speak of A rule, one can speak of endless rules, endless possibilities, endless permutations of valuation.

Imperfect, because if you say perfection is possible, you again lapse into useless arguments about pedantic minutiae.  There is only relatively better, and relatively worse.  This would, for example, allow me to say it is relatively better to have drunk sex, and relatively worse to gang rape a sex slave.  This might appear a general principle, and likely it is, but I am not stipulating it is, merely that comparisons become possible.

Ultimately, I am arguing you CAN speak about morality as something tangible and empirical, and which properly exists within the broad domain of what we can call science.  We can speak to the effects on the metrics we care about--happiness--of varying courses of action, varying moralities, varying decision patterns.

It might be the case--I would argue it IS the case--that allowing people to struggle with difficulty for long periods of time is ultimately the only way for them to build self respect and happiness.

It may be the case--I believe it is the case--that using violence to suppress honest public dialogue in the long run hurts the social fabric, the levels of trust, the ability of people with differing views to interact harmoniously, and overall levels of satisfaction with life.

It is always possible to mortgage the long term for the short term, and always possible to help one group at the expense of another.  But people concerned with the general welfare, with all of human kind, in decreasing bands of loyalty, must work to build as much happiness as possible.  I do not help you by sacrificing myself, and if you are good, you do not ask me to.

We can do so much better.


it occurs to me that my formulation of Goodness is functionally exactly equivalent to emotional and mental health. If you are well, you are good, and vice versa.

That which builds mental health, then, builds Goodness.

It seems obvious to me that the lessons being learned, the knowledge being gained, by psychologists is entirely disconnected from academic politics. Even though most psychologists tend to be Sybaritic Leftists, one would think they would have more to say about our public discourse, other than blaming conservatives.

It does occur to me though that if we posit unrecognized and unprocessed trauma as the root of emotional and mental dysfunction, and further recollect that trauma science remains in its infancy, we might safely assume that most psychologists are as fucked up as everyone, and positioned to indulge in the delusion that leftist rhetoric can be squared without violence to the truth with their actions.

I read Openness is one indicator of mental health. Can it be called such if it leads to delusion? The very concept of mental health is nurtured within a set of cultural assumptions; no Humanities student of the past forty years has not had this pounded in their head.

So I need my own definition. Turns out I already have it. How convenient and inevitable.