Monday, February 29, 2016

This blog

I am going to go on a mild hiatus again, as I do from time to time.  I have realized that this blog is a way for me to externalize feelings by intellectualizing and "projecting" them out into space, rather than circling them back in and processing them.

An intellectual is someone who collects thoughts, the way a stamp collector might collect stamps.  The important thing about thoughts is that they become emotionally transformative, and if they fail in that, they are developmentally useless.  Certainly, they may allow you to build outer things--which indeed cannot be built without them--but never inside.

As collectors, intellectuals are neither the engineers nor prophets they both aspire and claim to be.   They are a sort of vocal virus, preying upon the insipidity and neediness of human beings, and sharing only, in the end, their inability to create, to process, to transform, and ultimately to be.

Even though I have many thoughts flowing through me which I could share, I am going to circle them back in, with I think the accurate hope that once I am complete, what needs to flow out will do so as needed, accurately and spontaneously.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Politically Inconvenient

Orwell was of course quite right that in an ostensibly Liberal--in the true sense of the word--society, the abuse of language always precedes the abuse of people and their rights.  It is quite unacceptable to pull John Smith off the street because you don't like him, but we are getting to where it will be OK if you first call him a racist or "Climate Change Denier".  The charges need not be truthful, obviously, as has been seen in every previous iteration of fascist mind control by deletion.

Like many, I am reading now that Twitter has gone overtly partisan, which is to say post-bipartisan, which is to say they have evolved beyond the willingness to pretend they are not congenitally intolerant, small-minded, bigoted, and very, very angry.  We see the claim they are protecting Political Correctness.

But why not call it what it is?  Politically inconvenient.  Political Correctness, as much as we might vilify it, still has the word correct in it, just as "progressive" still sounds good.  You will not hear me use the word progressive, and as of this moment, I am going to call partisans of PC either anti-free speech zealots, or people attempting to suppress the politically inconvenient.

The whole point of free speech is that it becomes possible for good ideas, in a large mass of competing ideas, to achieve ascendancy because they are superior.  This does not always happen, obviously, but typically the principle obstacles are not human stupidity and obstinacy, but the suppression of competing ideas.  So-called conservative ideas--which I would argue are the actually Progressive, Liberal, ones, which work to build actual Social Justice--are better than those of the Left.  This is why they suppress them.  No sane person can long defend the abuses of the past, those of the present, and those clearly planned for the future.  You cannot defend them morally, politically, socially, philosophically, or practically.  Everything they touch, speaking nearly generally, they darken, worsen, stain, and degrade.

Me, I have taken pains over long periods of time to enter into these worlds, to interact with these people, to debate them, to compare world views, to compete with them intellectually.  And it always ends in my getting banned, censored, banished, suppressed, silenced.  Some of these people would no doubt be gratified to hear I had been dragged off and shot.  I am evil because I disagree with them, and they have self appointed themselves the Apostles of Everything Good.

So: PC no more. It is regrettable, but I cannot use Twitter less.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Somehow I fell into the 9/11 rabbit hole again this morning.

I will say for the umpteenth time: no sane investigator, who honestly seeks truth, can fail to conclude that this conspiracy was much bigger than a bunch of Saudis being directed by Bin Laden.  Clearly, top officials at the Federal Government failed flamboyantly to ask and answer basic questions, and this failure continues.

The smoking guns, I assume, are largely gone, but the FACT of the cover-up and conspiracy continues to be obvious, and can and should be addressed by those who claim to value America, American freedom and well being, and common decency.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Being reborn

I died several times this week.  Not really, obviously, but I was pushed past limits I was trying to hold on to.  What I find is on the other side is what I might call hopelessness, but it is a different sort of hopelessness.  It is the resignation that recognizes that you can expostulate, shout, scream, worry, fret, get angry etc. about how the world is, and in the end, your opinion, my opinion, really don't matter that much.  This is not to say we should not try to change things for the better, but that we need to be clear that all worthwhile change takes time, and that if you tie your peace of mind to ridiculous, hopeless fantasies, you will be unhappy, and you will miss what opportunities for happiness DO come your way.  Above all, you will be ineffective.

Me, I fight this world.  I do not accept it as it is.  But I have to also accept it as it is.  You have to carry both ideas at the same time.

Particularly in the present day, it seems that a great many college students are shocked that the fantasy world they have imagined has not yet come into being.  They dream of a world which has never been, then get frustrated that it is not already here.  This is infantile.

I say the present day.  Were not the projects of the Communists similar?  Did they not dream of worlds that had never been, social orders that have never existed, then commit acts of mass murder, torture, mass imprisonment, and put countless secret police on the corners to coerce this new world?

Without altering its fundamental nature, can you make a tomato plant grow in one tenth of the time?  Can you make human infants become adults in two years?  Nature has its schedule.  Human social change is the same.  Impatience is not only not a virtue, it is in general responsible for failure, which is what the "War on Poverty" has been, which is what the efforts to integrate blacks have been, which is what the war on drugs has been, and which in large measure is what the War on Terror has been .  There was no ISIS when Bush invaded Iraq.  That happened under the watch of someone whose election was in large measure engineered in opposition to that war; someone who seems to view the legitimate national security interests of the United States as inherently wrong, and who seemingly views our enemies as white hatted cavalry, for the simple reason that they oppose us.

Returning to my point, I was thinking about the phoenix.  It is reborn young.  All legitimate deaths result in new births, and renewed youth.  This is my operative hypothesis.


It hit me that sentimentality, which appears to be an overabundance of emotion, is really a lack.  It is to honest and mature emotionality what so-called ADD/ADHD is to healthy attention. Why do they give uppers to kids who are already bouncing off the walls?  Because their excessive activity is related to the inability to focus, which is related, effectively, to inner dullness and lack of energy.  You put them on speed, and they become normal.  They have to be accelerated to get there, not slowed down.

Likewise sentimentality, which surrounds us, is a lack of substance.  When I see something like "love is all you need", or whatever they spelled out at the Superbowl, I see vapidity.  I see cotton candy.

We have become a nation which loves to have its emotions manipulated.  It has perhaps always been so.  I don't know.  I haven't lived in any other time, that I can remember, but as just one example I just watched "Slumdog Millionaire", and it could not have been a more American ending.  Yes, it was set in India, but it was sugar coated.  Their movies may well be like that too--everybody loves a happy ending--but it seems to me the task of a genuinely Liberal culture is meeting and understanding life on its own terms.

For every hero there are many losers.  I cannot look at the poverty in India and not think that from 1948, when they got their independence (thereabouts) until 1990 or so, they pursued socialist programs to elevate the poor. These efforts were miserable failures.  About 1990, they got the government out from the middle of everything, and implemented free market reforms.  As they said in that movie Bombay became Mumbai.

China pursued a Communist agenda over roughly the same time frame.  They pursued it much more vigorously.  Far, far more people died, were tortured, were imprisoned for political crimes, and were forced to live lives of abject fear, and in the end, they had to implement some free market reforms.  China now is much more akin to a Fascist economy than that of Communism.  They retain, of course, a disdain for Fascists, because truth, common sense, the OBVIOUS, are all punished very vigorously.  This is how the mediocre protect their infantile egos, and of course their police-backed claims on absolute tyrannical power, which is used against the People, and contrary to most of their interests.

But Socialism appeals to sentiment.  Wouldn't it be NICE if. . . .

Mature people deal with the world as it is.  Fools hyperventilate about how it should be, act as if it were the way they think it should be, and are stupid and craven enough to be surprised when water, again, flows downhill.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Corn subsidies

It hit me in the shower tonight: who benefits most from corn subsidies?  Farmers?  No: soda manufacturers.  High fructose corn syrup prices are artificially lowered as a matter of government policy, so why would these very powerful, very vocal, very well organized special interests not squash at the outset all whiffs of doing away with these antique and useless subsidies?

Here is a table on corn subsidies:

Here is an article on corn subsidies:

In the US, sugar tariffs and quotas keep imported sugar at up to twice the global price since 1797,[25][26] while subsidies to corn growers cheapen the primary ingredient in HFCS, corn. Industrial users looking for cheaper replacements rapidly adopted HFCS in the 1970s.[27][28]HFCS is easier to handle than granulated sucrose, although some sucrose is transported as solution. Unlike sucrose, HFCS cannot be hydrolyzed, but the free fructose in HFCS may produce Hydroxymethylfurfural when stored at high temperatures; these differences are most prominent in acidic beverages.[29] Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi use sugar in other nations, but switched to HFCS in the U.S. in 1984.[30] Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midlandlobby for the continuation of government corn subsidies.[31]

I had not been aware of the sugar tariffs either.  In the grand scheme of things this is not all that important, but it is consistently stunning to me that the Left is not better able to pick targets which are actually guilty of colluding with the government, and forming a genuine common cause with conservatives.  Most of that problem is that they do not grant us the status of being human.  They project their own failings onto us, and everyone else unlike them who happens to wander into one of their caves. 

The next Supreme Court Justice

As with most things, I am seeing rank imbecility on all sides, but mostly the Left, on this issue.

The Constitution contains many checks and balances, and more or less compels the necessity for the negotiated settlement of differences.  It is not a winner takes all system.  It is a system which by design makes it hard for aspiring tyrants to make much progress unobstructed by their opponents, which is the principle reason why aspiring tyrants--the Left produces nothing else--see it as passe.  The dislike it for precisely the traits which make it invaluable.

The President nominates Supreme Court Justices.  The Senate confirms them.  Nothing is preventing Obama from nominating whomever he likes, and nothing is preventing Republicans from using their control of the Senate to block his nominations until after the next President is inaugurated.  There is no timetable given in the Constitution of which I am aware.  The only impediment to being completely obstructionist is the likelihood that at some point the same tricks will be played on those serving as obstacles.  Given how blatantly Obama has abused the law, one wonders what anyone can say when a conservative does the same things.  They certainly cannot say there is no precedent.  Obama governs as if there will be no after, as if Democrats will rule forever, and the hens never come home to roost.  Given how patently imbecilic much of this nation is, he may be right.  But of course, it is quite possible he is wrong, too.  Trump appears to me the favorite in both the Primary and General Elections.  Too many people are too pissed off about too many things.

This is the rough and tumble of political systems which attempt to reconcile differing agendas and positions peacefully.  The alternative is violence in the streets, or the use and abuse of the police and military to suppress dissent, both of which of course have been common throughout history.

Trump and Scalia

I saw an interview with Norman Lear where he was saying Donald Trump is the middle finger directed at the media elites, and the PC fascists, but that he had no staying power.

Why?  Where does the anger of 40 years or more of being ridiculed for speaking common sense go?  How long can you shit on anyone and expect them to take it with equanimity?  How rationally can you expect them to adopt your positions when your only argument is shouting them down and insulting them?

The vicious tactics of the Left can and have achieved silence among many, but they have not bought agreement.  They don't debate. They don't negotiate.  So the only persuasive force they can wield is getting physical power over their opponents, and beating them with it, in the same manner cavemen once beat each other with cudgels.  The essence of their strategy appears to be getting Political Correctness the force of law.

And can we not see something like a Cultural Revolution on the horizon?  Are todays students really that different than those of Maoist China?  Are they reflective?  Inner directed?  Capable of exercising independence of conscience?  No, they are none of these things.  They are completely unable to recognize that genuine compassion and viciousness are incompatible, and that the only ones capable of reconciling them are those who are interacting with ideas and not actual human beings; who are using an ideology to form a tribe based upon Other-directed violence, which is the oldest game in the human biological playbook.  It is atavistic, and should be recognized as such, but of course that would require a return to reason.

So we see everyone on the Left saying vicious things about Scalia, in a demonstrable COMPLETE lack of understanding as to why decent people defend the Constitution.  They conflate civil rights with the expansion of an omnipotent and omnipresent government, when in fact virtues like respect, peaceful disagreement and coexistence, and the like, are negotiated not by the government, but by people, and that to the extent the government gets in the middle, it delays the process.

You can always point guns at peoples heads.  Violence works for a time.  But it has a shelf life, and violence breeds violence.  Trump is the electoral expression of a vast rage which dim-witted narcissists cannot comprehend because they are not capable of even the rudiments of empathy, despite their obsession with "helping people".  We are breeding vicious children, packs of wild dogs, controlled by the whistles of propaganda and situational conformity, and as Malcolm McDowell recently said, we are not all that far from a Clockwork Orange.  Such pride the children of the "Love" generation must take in their accomplishments.

John Birchers

Can we say now that it was crazy to see a "communist conspiracy" to dumb down America, alter her educational and news establishments, and begin a gradual process of indoctrinating and then dominating her people?  Exhibit One: the election, not once, but twice, of an unvetted man about whom we know almost nothing who on his own admission has been surrounded by Communists--in the case of Frank Marshall Davis, one with a literal CPUSA card number--all his life, in infancy, in childhood, and by his own choice as an adult.  How many Americans even now know the name Valerie Jarrett?  Most Americans think they are doing well if they can come up with the name of the Vice President.

Can this execrable ignorance be anything but the result of long term, conscious policy?  Of course not.

Harvard now tells us that water fluoridation does next to nothing to prevent dental caries--those have been reduced by affluence, and the following access to dental care, better hygiene, and greater awareness of the importance of caring for the teeth--and seems to make us dumber:

In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. 
Is this paranoia?  Well, it IS Harvard, and we are not talking about the economics department, or any of their lunatics in the Humanities.  This is the word of THE MAN.  This is the center of the mainstream.

And I was watching a video about how sugar alters consciousness on Victor Zammit's weekly report, and it occurred to me that the government has been underwriting in the form of corn subsidies the very addition of high fructose corn syrup to our food that he claims alters and clouds our minds.  Why do these subsidies, so damaging to the public health, continue?  I mean this over and above the question as to why taxpayers are being used to give money to people who are otherwise engaged in for profit businesses?  If they need the subsidies to survive, then they are not producing something valuable at a price people are willing to pay.  Failure is the price of success in "Capitalism" (I never allow myself to call leftists Liberals, but I will grant Marx his use of the term Capitalism from time to time.  Like "Descendants of the refugees from the war of 1948", being more precise is cumbersome).  You cannot have the latter without the possibility of the former, in a free system.

And did Truman and Eisenhower allow China to "go red"  Clearly.  Could we have reinvaded North Korea and then China--when it was lucky to put shoes on the feet of its soldiers, and a gun in every other hand--and prevented countless millions of deaths?  Clearly.  That would have been a humane policy--even if we had used nukes, and killed hundreds of thousands or even millions--as could have been foreseen then (as indeed Churchill foresaw in 1918 in calling for massive support for the Whites), and as is obvious now.  We could have avoided the famines in China, the famines in North Korea, the Vietnam War (in all likelihood), the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, and countless billions of ordinary lives lived in misery and poverty under the hands of oppressive tyrants.

This is common sense.  This is common decency.  It is precisely the refusal of the Left to accept the outcomes of its policies, of its refusal to learn, and to apply the concept of universal human rights honestly and sincerely to all, which forces it into positions of truculency, anger, obfuscation, propagandizing, sloppiness, laziness, and ubiquitous fear of discovery.  It forces the cultivation of all the qualities that all civilized societies the world over have considered odious.

By and large, the John Birchers were right.  If they saw a Communist conspiracy under every tree, we know now they were largely right.  The Soviets spent 4 rubles undermining values and attacking cultural institutions for every dollar they spent on the KGB and all its frolics.  They told us this, just as the North Vietnamese tell us that the support of people like Jane Fonda--who they name by name--was critical to them hanging on in the face of massive and humiliating battlefield losses, and ultimately winning only as a result of our craven and disgusting retreat after having achieved tactical victory at the cost of 56,000 or so American lives.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Creation is the pearl of war

Listen to this, because:

It is interesting to me to contemplate that all this pacific music which to most contemporary ears is foreign and boring, was a creative reaction to the virtually incessant warfare in Europe since time immemorial.  You can say the Romans pacified it, but only parts of Europe, and there was always continual warfare on the boundaries, always "Scythians", or Vandals, or Franks, or Germans, or Lombards, or Burgundians, or others causing mass violence.  Most of the cities in Europe have been sacked at some point, their inhabitants sold into slavery, and their goods stolen, then in a great many cases been stolen back, or stolen a second time by someone else.

I will reiterate that one learns something about the human condition listening to Gibbon.  Even the graduates of our allegedly best schools--I can't honestly say "best educated"--know very little of history.  They cannot place our current era of peace, judicial impartiality, human rights, freedom, and economic prosperity, into anything approaching a sane context.  They repeat stupid things said by stupid people.  Every time they open their mouths they subtract from the sum total of human knowledge (I borrowed that from an early 20th century Republican, whose name escapes me).

But listen.  There is solace in war, refuge in conflict.  There is a place for churches, or something like them.  They have no ready substitute, certainly not arenas of political theater, which can only be satisfied with violence.  There is nothing new in that.  It is the oldest story we know.  Perhaps there was a time before violence, but that was before people felt the need to record the deeds of war, which is more or less what history is.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016


I am feeling that in order to feel genuine hope, you have to be capable of despair.  One of the mistakes people make, which I have made, is thinking that if they allow a "negative" emotion to gain traction that it will suck them in and devour them.

This probably does happen sometimes.  But if you develop emotional agility, which is the practice of feeling, of anchoring emotions in prior sensations which you can tell are mutable, then you need not become stuck.  You can allow deep shadows to infect you, and then pass over you.  They have no claim on you.

What prompts this post specifically was a meme stating in effect that the problem is not Hillary or Bernie, but that Americans are willing to vote for someone promising free stuff to everyone, and someone who lies nearly as often as she talks, and who by all credible accounts belongs in the same jail cell any senior member of the military would have found themselves in had they done a fraction of what she did.  Her crimes are many times more egregious than those of David Petraeus, and he is still paying for them.

This meme, of course, reminded me of my email that got attributed to Vaclav Klaus, in which in 2008 I said the same thing.

Maybe we are past the point of no return. This possibility has to be considered.  We are stupid as a people, and propaganda has made open inroads in all our universities--most strongly in our allegedly best universities such as Harvard and Yale--making future growth of effective propaganda likely.

Then I read that technology is decreasing the social skills and particularly the capacity for empathy among our young, which makes them crave propaganda like they crave media, and that odd state between connection and isolation which never really changes or risks anything important.

Maybe all the work I have done, or thought I did, has been for naught.  Maybe I have wasted my time.  Maybe our destiny is nuclear war, or pestilence, or the triumph of the fascist globalists.  Maybe I will end my days in a concentration camp, or worse.  Maybe one day the unthinkable will happen, and we will all get pits in our stomachs as we wait for the missiles to hit, or the fall out from a nuclear attack 200 miles away to hit us, changing all of our lives irrevocably.

We will all die.  This is a certainty.  The Transhumanists do not understand the human part of their equation.  They do not and never will reduce life to a mechanical process.

You have to have courage in life, and courage is the proper response to despair, to an honest appraisal of the situation.  You have to look out there, see life as it is, realize that bad things have always happened and may well continue to happen, but still, with all this in mind, put on an honest smile and thank God for a good fight.  What else can we ask for?

I continue my healing process.  I think I've kicked my drinking habit, and of course some of the things I was hiding from with it are coming up, and I am having to face them.  But I am doing it.  It is working.  It is not just that I am no longer regularly drinking to excess, but that I don't feel that compulsion any more.  That is huge.

You cannot read history like I do and realize that complacency tends to result in failure, in defeat, in outcomes which are unpleasant, and often irreversible.  You cannot fail to realize that falls, when they come, are often rapid, and unexpected by the masses, even if there have been many Cassandras crying to the winds, who did not listen.

For my part, I have felt as much fear as I think it is possible for a human being to fear.  Picture your worst fear--spiders, heights, psycho killers, confined spaces--then distill it to an essence, a black oozing essence, then inject it into your arm, or better yet your heart.  This is what I have felt night after night for a very long time.

And what I have realized is that we instinctively keep fear at arms length.  We don't want it.  We recoil from it.  Certainly I did.  It was out there, coming at me, infecting me, seeping through my pores, infiltrating every breath.

But there comes a point where you stop pushing it away.  It is too tiring, and it always wins anyway.  And when you let it come close, you realize it is not uniform.  It has textures.  It has a pulse.  It ebbs and flows.  It has an intelligence which can be communicated with.  It is a sort of living thing, with which it is possible to develop a symbiotic relationship.

I don't ever want to be without fear.  It is my friend. It warns me when something isn't safe.  I would no more want to be without fear than to be one of these unfortunate souls who cannot feel heat, and who not infrequently burn themselves accidentally.  Nothing warns them.

And when you accept it, it can flow through you, but what I am increasingly realizing is that this is the root of courage as well.  Fear and courage are not opposites.  They are brothers.  Courage is the result of no longer pushing fear away.  If you do not push it away, you accept it, and in accepting it it loses its power.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

A Fall precedes Pride


I was contemplating the difference between a circle, and, say, a preacher and his or her congregation.  In the one case you have a flow; and in the other, a Here and a There, a going out and a coming back in; a right and a response.

Then I was imagining a world without bowing, where everyone was equal, a true social egalitarianism, one uncoerced by psychpaths.  There would be no need to bow, no need to acknowledge inferiority and superiority (which have always obviously continued to exist in Communist societies, which merely make class permanent by lying about the existence of class distinctions).

Then I thought that no truly advanced person needs recognition.  They don't need validation to buttress their egos.  The only real purpose of a true spiritual teacher in asking others to bow to them is to teach them to respect themselves, through the process of respecting someone else.

And in my own ridiculous way, it occurred to me that an interesting and counter-intuitive way of expressing respect might be spitting on people, by means of which you convey your understanding that they are beyond pettiness and vanity, and hence superior.

And I was thinking that our psyches are better organized as circles. Jung, I think it was, noted that mandalas contains selves, senses of self.

In contradistinction to this would be the inner stentorian voice, coercing through fear compliance with rules which the organism, the relaxed sense of self which is caged, can never understand.  They are the result of varying degrees of operant conditioning, which are the result of varying sorts of psychological and physical torture.  Such beings never come into existence in this life-time, and for this reason I think we need to see beyond the lecturings of people who in all too many cases seek a pulpit in lieu of actual personal growth. 


I sometimes talk out loud on this blog, and not everything I say makes sense.  Always keep that in mind, my reader or two.

Hunger and the Fear of Falling

If hunger is the engine of this Earth, then servants of it are the fear of falling, and the fear of loud noises, both of which most humans seem to be born with.  Both serve the cause of survival, of which hunger itself--and of course the sexual instinct--are servants, in our biological selves.

For myself, I often imagine jumping into an unsupported vortex, a world of energy without solid ground, and I feel a fear of falling, a vertigo. But I do it anyway.  And it occurs to me this is an energy--a primal instinctual fear--which we must also master.  This is the root of the idea that jumping out of perfectly good airplanes is somehow a part of a Life Well Lived.

But Falling in Love.  Falling into Bad Habits.  Fallen by the Wayside.  Raising yourself up.  Etc.

I woke up dizzy this morning.  I didn't got to bed drunk, I don't think I have an ear infection.  I have to wonder if it has something to do with these blinding headaches, and blurred vision.

Just kidding, that would gratify some.

No, it may be an ear infection, but what I think it is is the externalization of anxiety as a sort of psychological hysteria, where emotional symptoms become manifested physically.  And in the same sense that negatives coming into consciousness constitute in my view a sort of release--their mooring have been undone, and they have been condemned to the current--so too, I think, is a release of hysterical (I am using this term in the clinical sense of Freud's time, and in which he used it before his cowardice and ambition got the better of him) energy.  That is good.

If this body is an engine, we have to learn to engage with and master its energies, which are primarily hunger, sexuality, and fear of falling.  That is my view at the moment.  I am typing this rapidly on the way somewhere to someone who will be annoyed with the delay.  C'est la vie.  C'est la guerre.

There are guerillas.  Are there Guerissimos? I want to be one of those.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Bernie Sanders

I woke up this morning and it occurred to me Bernie Sanders is the equivalent of that well known American phenomenon: the impulse buy.  He is the equivalent of someone with maxed out credit cards coming under stress and deciding that a new purse, or shoes, or gun, or boat is going to make it all alright.

We are borrowing $1 trillion a year NOW.  We have a $19 trillion national debt NOW, and interest alone on that debt will within a few short years exceed the Defense expenditures leftists love to target as discretionary.  Well, the interest on the national debt will not be discretionary.

Nor will the massive increases in the annual amounts due to our seniors be discretionary.  That is what is defined as non-discretionary.  Members of both parties, but obviously most cravenly and consistently the Democrats, have consistently raised Medicare and Social Security benefits to where they far exceed what was paid in, and even much of what was paid in was long ago spent on the salaries and benefits, and buildings and business conferences of the 100,000 or more bureaucrats who administer these programs.

Social Security is a coerced program of negative investment, where you are lucky to get back 25% of what you paid in, and where the difference is made up on the backs of the working poor--who in all cases cannot avoid this 15% tax on their paychecks--and the young, who pay into programs their whole lives, without it being likely they can make back what they paid in, at least without major reforms.

Returning to my main point, we have some $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities TODAY.  Edit: that seemed low.  Here is one from two years ago:  $127 trillion is the number they use.

And is it not INTERESTING that virtually no one is talking about it today?  Rand and Ron Paul talked about it, but it's not a major issue with anyone else, that I can tell.  When I Google it, why is such an existential threat the virtual hit equivalent of Googling Belorussian UFO's?

We are lunatics.  In past times there was an excuse.  It was much easier to hide information.  Now, if you look, it is there, with very little work.  You do not even have to go to the library and search card catalogs or pull microfiche, which some of us remember doing.

Consider, honestly, these claims being made.

Bernie says he can reform instantly a system of higher education which has been getting more and more ridiculously expensive because the Federal government makes and backs student loans, but offers no way to dismiss them in bankruptcy.  He says he can make education "free", which is to say he thinks he can get taxpayers to foot 100% of the bill of an overbloated, ineffective system, and do it in a short 4-8 years.

Bernie says he can make healthcare "free", which is to say he thinks he can raise taxes enough, and redistribute them through a system of healthcare which has been evolving over many decades, and do it in such a way that everyone performs better at lower costs.

This is someone with $20,000 in credit card debts--which incidentally were incurred by a long term repetition of the same psychological malady--thinking that if they could only get $5,000 more, everything will be OK.

People who want to vote for Bernie are like 800 pound bed ridden losers who think one more package of Oreos will solve everything.

It is the solution of fools, of the deluded, of the imbecilic, of the childish.

Government is not supposed to give you everything: it is supposed to protect your right to go out there and get it.  If you don't want to do that work, then you are no longer a responsible human being, and your useful term on Earth is at an end.  There is no learning in sloth and dependency.  It is necessary for infants, but no later than that.  Socialism is the creed of the decadent.  The decadent become weak, and as Eric Ritter argued, weakness becomes hate becomes cruelty, and that is what I call Cultural Sadeism.

If you want to be good, you have to learn to interact with the world's pain, to feel it, and to become an organizing agent, a worker, a rebel in the face of a world of hunger.  You cannot grant it final ascendancy, as those who simply want a full belly, an empty mind, and endless circuses and games do.

John Cleese makes a number of excellent points

He quotes a British psychiatrist who said that "when you cannot control your own emotions you begin to need to control other people's behavior."

Think of the HELPLESSNESS, the childishness, implied by needing to be protected from disagreement, PARTICULARLY when you are spouting, but unable to defend, utterly inane, nonsensical, lunatic ideas.

Friday, February 5, 2016


It seems obvious to me that the nature of delusion is that it feels correct.  It is invisible to the "practitioner".  For anyone actually committed to getting things right, this observation makes humility mathematically necessary.  No one is immune from this disease, and those who think themselves most immune are the most likely to be carriers, and to be profoundly infectious.

Witness the Global Warming folks, who are unwilling to grant even that their need to rename it is a major mark against the whole idea.  One can obviously grant that increased heat will cause unpredictable weather, but one must also grant that the increased heat is an ineluctable element in the whole equation, without which one is simply discussing weather itself, a definitional complex system.

Here is the point I wanted to make, though: I am often chased by zombies in my dreams, by fanatics who find it absolutely necessary to inflict their disease on me, such that I become happily one of them.  They of course use violence to do it.  They do not of course know they are zombies.  They merely see that I am not one of them.

Now, I do think this connects to the physical world, the observable world.  I do think my paranoia has merits, that it refers to actually existing processes and people which should rightly be feared.  I think this intellectually, while reserving doubt that I could be completely wrong.  Kipling and all that.

But paranoia can also of course be an outcome of primitive developmental wounds, and likely is in my own case, so these dreams are showing me something within myself.  As such, this is great.  It is not great that I have extended dreams of conflict, evasion, hiding and escape.  But it is great that I can see it.

What I seem to see, to realize, is that anything you can embrace you can unplug.  My moving into this energy consciously, in a relaxed way, I can diffuse it.

Yesterday I felt very clearly in my Kum Nye practice like I had become a sort of primal silence and darkness, and that the whole world focused on an emotional knot I had projected into space.  If you give them space, all knots loosen.  And what I saw was that they loosen, and become threads, and that thread becomes pure energy.  And pure energy is all there is.  This is the basic use, in my view, of the Buddhist Shunyata.  No thing "is".  All one can see are energy patterns, with intelligence, with purpose, but also without purpose, depending on your level of magnification.

Rumi said "The dark thoughts, the shame, the malice: meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.  Be grateful for whoever comes because each has been sent as a guide from beyond."  That is good advice.

Keep government local

Why is it that the "Keep Austin/Portland/etc. Weird" people are reliably Democrats?  Why do they value diversity in brew pubs and clothing stores and book stores, but somehow think a global monolithic government delivering "one size fits all" solutions to all problems of human existence will not quickly become unweird, bureaucratic, and just an overall drag on life?

It often seems to me that the schooling I got, which taught us to value intellectual coherence, principled reasoning, and a concern for actually accomplishing stated ends, was anachronistic, and that carefully disguised lunatics and unfunny clowns have infiltrated our halls of education, and created a primrose path, decked in flowers and balloons--and with a parade to boot--to hell.

The author in the previous post--I need to memorize his name, but not in the middle of the night, or first thing in the morning after that night--argues for some form of elitism.  I take the opposite path: I think our goal should be a genuine democratization of virtue.  A good society is a stable, robust, prosperous society, and my idea of government is simple: push power out to the fringes as far as it will go, to the cities, even communities, even blocks.  Decent people possessed of common sense can work out differences peacefully, which reduces greatly the need for laws.

Only mediocre people create bad societies.  It is a conservative truism that people are not perfectable, that they cannot be improved, that some depravity is inherent. I reject this argument.  I simply do not believe that the government--as a simple linear system, and as such profoundly DISordered and truly chaotic--is the proper agent.  I feel that the intersection of moral values and principles can be integrated into a Hayekian Extended Order, as indeed has happened in America for much of her history, through the social utility of a generalized Christianity and following behavioral norms among most of the populace.

Indeed, it is only by a cultivated and calculated abuse of Christian charity and an innate cultural generosity that Soviet propaganda has become so powerful in this country.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse

I have heard of this book, but am only now actually reading it.  This man's views are nearly identical to my own, at least with regard to his diagnosis of the cultural cancer of Leftism.  Much of what he has said thus far is virtually identical to conclusions I reached on my own.

Consider this quote: 

Fear implies a feeling of being inferior to another person (or to a situation): Hatred is possible only if one feels helpless in the face of a person considered to be stronger or more powerful. A feeble and cowardly slave can fear and hate his master; his master in return will not hate, but will have mere contempt for the slave. Haters all through history have committed horrible acts of cruelty (which is the inferior's revenge),5 whereas contempt -always coupled with a feeling of superiority-has rarely produced cruelty. In order to avoid that fear, that feeling of inferiority, the demand for equality and identity arises. Nobody is better, nobody superior, all can relax, all can be at ease, nobody feels challenged, everybody is "safe." And if identity, if sameness has been achieved, then the other person's actions and reactions can be forecast. No (disagreeable) surprise can be expected, everybody can read thoughts and feelings in everybody else's face. And thus a warm herd feeling of brotherhood will emerge. These sentiments, these emotions, this rejection of quality (which can never be the same with everybody!) explain much of the spirit of the mass movements of the last 200 years.
Is this not more or less precisely what animates the hate-filled faces of brainwashed college students who wage violence in the name of peace, and who do and say profoundly ugly things in the name of compassion and understanding, without the slightest shred of self awareness or desire for cognitive consistency?

With regard to National Socialism, he makes a good analogy by saying that Nazism and Communism were not enemies: they were competitors.  Both sought absolute authoritarian states, both sought absolute conformity among their people, but they could not both exist in the same spaces.  As he says, Company A, which sells shoes, may be a competitor to Company B, but both believe in the value of shoes.  They are in the same basic business, even if their approaches to marketing may differ, their precise product focus may differ, and their management styles may differ.

Here is another great quote:

The second aspect of envy lies in the superiority of another person in an important respect. The mere suspicion that the other person feels superior on account of looks, of brain-power, of brawn, of cash, etc., can create a burning feeling of envy. The only way to find a compensation lies in a successful search for inferior qualities in the person who figures as the object of envy. "He is rich, but he is evil," "He is successful, but he has a miserable family life," "He is well born and well connected, but, oh, so stupid." Sometimes these shortcomings of an envied person serve as a consolation: sometimes they also serve as a "moral" excuse for an attack, especially if the object of real or imagined envy has moral shortcomings. In the last 200 years the exploitation of envy, its mobilization among the masses, coupled with the denigration of individuals, but more frequently of classes, races, nations or religious communities has been the very key to political success. The history of the Western World since the end of the eighteenth century cannot be written without this fact constantly in mind. All leftist "isms" harp on this theme, i. e. , on the privilege of groups, minority groups, to be sure, who are objects of envy and at the same time subjects of intellectual-moral inferiorities. They have no right to their exalted positions. They ought to conform to the rest, become identical with "the people," renounce their privileges, conform. If they speak another language, they ought to drop it and talk the lingo of the majority. If they are wealthy their riches should be taxed away or confiscated. If they adhere to an unpopular ideology, they ought to forget it

You can download the whole thing for free here:

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

The purpose of judging

The great thing about having your own blog is that from time to time you get to channel Calvin.  No, no, Calvin and Hobbes, and neither John nor Thomas.

So my home was invaded by space monsters, pillaged, burnt down, and I was cast out and raised among tentacled strangers.

This causes you to ask questions about homes, fire, and strangers.

And I have been contemplating the role of judgement.  What is its proper use?  Is it to punish myself for infractions against a rule I either don't understand, have not internalized, or secretly resent?

Is it to serve as a tool to elevate my sense of self worth relative to others?

Or is it simply the process of decision making itself, which resets in every moment of new decision?  Does it not help to have heuristics in making decisions?  Whether you eat beef or not, it serves as a guide to what you buy at the grocery store.

I am increasingly realizing that judgement is mainly a way of gaining a feeling of power over others, a feeling of superiority, which if you can get enough people to share it, becomes an actual way of making someone else feel like and in many cases accept being treated like, an inferior.  It becomes an ACTUAL source of physical power to coerce and control.

Self evidently, judgement is the tool without which there is not social coercion.  Judgement is a political tool, therefore, inherently.

And I keep thinking to myself about my seeming need to help people.  That is laudable on some levels, I think.  I can and have spent hours listening to people.  I can and have done things I thought would help.  But as often as not, I seem to make things worse.  I am clumsy.  And I wonder if some part of me secretly feels that if I can get someone to be weak in front of me, that it makes me feel stronger by comparison.  I wonder if I don't take some comfort from an abysmal sense of relative better-ness.

Lao Tzu wrote "Renounce Sainthood: it will be a thousand times better for everyone".  I really believe that.  As I come to know myself, I see that almost every positive impulse I have had a shadow to it, and I feel strongly that this is a generalized problem.  It is me, but it is not just me.

There is another side.  I am not being pessimistic.  On the contrary, whenever I can find something awful about myself, well hell, that means it's on its way out.  The fucking thing was hiding, and I found it.  And I found it, because I was looking.  And I was looking because good enough isn't.  This life is an amazingly interesting adventure, and I intend to do what I can to learn as much as possible, even when it hurts like hell.  
But I think most of that is done.  I think it will be increasingly a matter of skillful navigation, of detecting subtle changes, and moving as needed to stay in the current.

How Bernie is right

Self evidently, I consider Socialism to be a literally and figuratively bankrupt system of thought and practice, as seen practically, theoretically, and morally.  It has nothing as an ideology to recommend it, and its only virtue is comprised entirely in the word "charity", which no conservative rejects as desirable, and which it delivers more poorly than private and personally directed charity.

Having said that, what Bernie seems to be tapping into is a sense that America should be more prosperous, that our parents and grandparents worked less than we did, and enjoyed considerably more economic security.  In my view, this is unquestionably true.

On a superficial level, of course, we have much more stuff.  We have mePhones, larger houses, bigger cars, take more vacations, eat out more, etc.  On a slightly deeper level, we see that the average debt for most Americans has exploded since the inflation (caused by the Fed) of the late 70's.  What was once fiscal prudence becomes stupidity when money is steadily losing its value.

But to ultimately solve this problem, that of individual economic productivity per capita skyrocketing, while actual purchasing power remains stagnant or even declines, one must reference the devaluation of our currency.  The overall money supply has increased roughly 5-fold since the Fed got rid of the last fetters limiting its freedom of action around 1980.

Can any sane human being question the connection?  If more proof were needed, look at the increase in the holdings of the world's largest banks:

In the time I am allocating to this, this is the best link I can find, but it seems obvious that pari passu with the increase of M2 I think we will find an increase in the net holdings of the world's banks.

I have tried to explain this many different ways, but I continue to fail.  It seems both horribly obvious, and extraordinarily significant, but I am surrounded by imbeciles.  Yes, that was a minor concession to self pity.

I will keep on keeping on.  It's what I do.

It's funny: I did my own astrological chart some time ago, and somewhere in there--obviously in different parts of the chart--I was compared both to Leonidas, and to Cassandra. I feel that.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Being a warrior

As calm begins to penetrate deep within me, I see how insane it is to want to be a warrior.  To be a warrior is to be a worrier.  It is to be constantly vigilant.  It is to be constantly thinking about the tricks your enemies can play, and how to play tricks on them.  Courage in the face of superior intelligence is wasted.  The life of a true warrior is the life of the mind, of thought.  This applies from the level of strategy to the decision whether to thrust left or right, flank left or right, in individual combat. Intuition does play a role, but only after all other cards have been played.

In life we mostly do not get what we want.  To be a warrior is better than to live in helpless fear, or in the complacency of willed ignorance.

There is something beyond this distinction.  That is what I am presently looking for.