Tuesday, May 31, 2016

"Finding yourself"

If one could "find" oneself, what then?  There you are.  No doubt about it.  Right there.

It seems to me what one can do is enter into a light, a dance, a movement, and call it home, knowing that its walls and floors are prone to disappearing, and everything known evolving into something else, somehow.

But if you are the opposite of a shadow, this is your natural condition.

It is possible to describe the tango, but can one truly capture the feeling of dancing, what dancing is?  It is that.  One can say, properly, no more.

Sunday, May 29, 2016


1. It occurs to me that the root of self sabotage is that by creating problems in the outer world, you avoid the peace and calm which cause the problems in your inner world from appearing in your consciousness and demanding resolution.

I don't think I have said this in quite this way before.

2. It occurs to me that worry, fear and anger are inimical to empathy.  It is easy enough to feel what someone else is feeling if it happens to coincide with what we are feeling, but the task is to see what's there, not to resonate solely with like-minded people.  This teaches nothing.  You learn nothing.

And if you are worried about anything, your emotional vision is clouded.  If you fear, if you are angry, likewise.  If you are sad.

The best place from which to see honestly?  Happiness, if you are capable of also touching everything else.


is a political system in which the government can legally require public obedience to bad ideas and worse people.

Socialism always leads to authoritarianism.  Let me expand on this.  We live in an age where it is hard to know what is worth doing.  Our historical culture and its ideals have been attacked effectively, and confusion fomented.  This makes maturing harder, which is to say it makes true psychological individuation harder.  This leads to a default condition of physically adult humans who feel and act as children.  They do not want to take responsibility for their lives.

Socialists, for their part, are happy to assume the codependent and utterly unhealthy role of parents.  They promise to provide for their "children" in exchange for their obedience.  Since they start out kind and decent, this deal is easily made.  Has been made in Europe.  Was made in Venezuela.

But if you allow others to do for you, to do for you what you could and should have done for yourself, you become both weak, and dependent.  You grow quickly to NEED the parents.

Any rudimentary study of history will show that over some time period power aggregated WILL be abused.  That is the whole point of our Constitution: to prevent a concentration of power.  Once you let the government provide your health care, your education, and God forbid your very job, they have you by the short hairs, don't they?  If you decide you don't like them, well fuck you, you stupid son of a bitch.  It's too fucking late now.

Every Fascist of the 20th century promised to make the trains run on time and to be more efficient that a legislative system.  They fixed some things, but overall made the people their thralls.

Fascism is a socialism which focuses on war, and war emblems, and national identity, while protecting relative economic liberty for a handful of large corporations run by people who cooperate with the government.  It is opposed to truly free markets, since the government reserves the right to interfere at will and for any reason in all economic activity, and property rights do not exist except at the sufferance of the political class.

Communism is a socialism which takes the bad ideas and bad people to the next level by not only rejecting property rights, but rejecting the right to property outright, and rejecting the idea of a private domain.

When Obama shook the hand of and sort of bowed to the Vietnamese dictator--his name doesn't matter, since his kind are a dime a dozen, but let's call him Ho, Jr.--what I think people need to grasp is that in all likelihood he is the sort of hypersensitive kid you knew in high school who was upset about everything, always resenting someone, who didn't know how to tell a joke, and who didn't like people or fun.  If you take that person, that nerd, that loser, and put them in charge of a country, and give them the power of life and death, the right to torture and imprison anyone at will, you have a snapshot of what Communism is.

It is a sickening creed, palatable only to disgusting people.  It's sheer ugliness outweighs the worse abuses of Capitalism so much as to rank them by comparison no crimes at all.

Me personally I can't get the image out of my mind of the millions of people who were locked in tiny boxes for long periods of time for crimes as small as reporting government corruption.  This is what these foolish children need to see, who think themselves clever for having learned to repeat Communist propaganda.

This whole world is insane.  Truth is rare, and hard to find.  I grew up in a home where lies were the stuff of the day, the currency of mutual coexistence, and I will grant that comforting delusions are hard to give up.  But there is no other good way to life.  A life of lies is a half life: no, it is no life at all.  It is a death.

Imagine a nation of such living dead, as imagined in Wrinkle in Time, or the Ministry under Voldemort, or the rule of Sauron.  Such are the Cubans, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the North Koreans.  Horror on horror, called truth, called salvation, called honor, called anything but what it is.

Here is a good article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262988/obama-and-ho-chi-minh-embracing-evil-daniel-greenfield

Obama's trip to Vietnam is not a mere strategic journey, but yet another opportunity for him to remind us that the left has not repented or recanted of its solidarity and support of Communist terror, whether in Cuba, Vietnam, or anywhere else.  It still sees every Communist dictator as a role model worth emulating, and every Communist mass grave as the price that must be paid for a better world.

This is batshit insane.  There is no moral excuse for it, and grotesque psychopathology can be the only explanation.  Our worst people embrace this doctrine, and produce the predictable results. 

Saturday, May 28, 2016

The Left's Shadow

It seems to me what the Left sees in the Right--what it fears--is precisely what it fears in itself, not what is actually there.

I have been told regularly--many times daily, or as often as I dipped my foot in these polluted streams--that I am a racist, a hater, a bigot, an apologist for rich, an apologist for the power elite, a dupe, a sap, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, a transphobe, a light bulb.  Maybe not that last one. Those shed light.

These are projections, in a clearly, purely, and unambiguously psychodynamic sense.  They see in others what they fear in themselves.  How do they deal with these?  They say that conservatives see in others what they fear in themselves.

Well, how many of us have you attempted to talk to in a rational, civil, human way?  My experience is that if they have attempted to interact with any conservatives, it was to yell, cajole, insult, and denigrate them.  To understate things, this is not a path well suited to building mutual understanding.

They don't want understanding.  As I have said, true understanding would deprive them of their enemies, and thus their raison d'etre.  They fear this latent existential crisis, and this drives them deeper into the expression of outwardly directed fear and hate.

And I will add that it puzzles me how many psychotherapists fail to see this.  I guess they swim in such small and shallow waters that they forget the horizon exists, and that people live there too.

More likely: in developing the habit of expressing compassion, which people like, and in avoiding judging--which people dislike--they have forgotten that the spiritual path consists not only in being nice, but also in being right.  There are countless congenial lies, comforting to our souls, easily told among like-minded people, which work to make life worse for most if not all.

An obvious example would be the lie that the Islamic people--many of whom are not refugees at all, but opportunists where they are not outright agitators and aspiring terrorists--who are flooding into Europe will not work over the next 30 years to devolve all the humane institutions they have developed at great cost and over time, into relics of a primitive past.  The same people who agitate for the rights of women or gays will in the next moment agitate for the rights of "refugees".  This is stupid.  And this stupidity, again, is the result of unprocessed emotions, of unfinished psychological work.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Donald Trump's Hair

It hit me today that the deal with Trump's hair, other than that it makes him very distinctive, is that it causes people to underestimate him.  In any conflict or competitive situation, at issue is not how competent you appear, but how competent you ARE.  He won the Republican nomination, in spite of the opposition of virtually every media figure with a pen and pulpit.  People look at him, at his hair, and think he's easily dismissed.  He knows this.  He counts on it.

And I will add too that as a "reality star"--and to be clear he has had a talent for being in the news since the 1980's, but didn't have his own show--his job was to find and reward the most competent teams who were given specific tasks with measurable outcomes.  His job, was to identify talent, and get rid of dead weight.

Is that not what we need?

He may disappoint me.  No one can say they truly know what he will do, not least because I don't think HE knows exactly what he will do.  But he will make decisions, quite likely large ones, and very likely ones which will benefit our country for a generation.  Making our national pension and socialized medicine systems--Social Security and Medicare/medicaid--sane is certainly possible.  Moving past Obamacare is certainly possible.  Stopping illegal immigration is likely.  At a rock bottom minimum, he will tell ICE to do their jobs, when Obama is telling them now, and Hillary will tell them then, not to do anything but look the other way, and release whoever stumbles over their feet.

And with regard to trade, at issue is not that we need to enact huge trade tariff's.  The economics are clear that free trade on balance helps everyone.  At issue is that China and most of Asia put tariffs and restrictions on our products, which makes it harder to sell there.  We don't want to tariff their stuff so much as stop them from preventing our entry into those markets.  That is my understanding.

But negotiating will require some gamesmanship.  At this point, China needs us more than we need her.  There is no reason to push things all the way to the brink, but they have been screwing us for a very long time, and they know it.


do you spend more time thinking about what you enjoy, or fearing what you don't want? Do you spend more time in the pursuit of worthy pleasures--learning, mastery, communion with others--or running from what you fear, hiding from pain?

The universe is an open place. You can do as you please.

How's this for a motto: "Do what thou wilt, but know thyself"?

Anton Lavey/Socrates double team.


It occurs to me that true transgenderism--the belief that you are an X trapped in a Y body, or a Y trapped in an X body (note what I did there)--is a form of advanced and highly pathological self loathing.  You don't loathe yourself because you cross dress, or want to be the opposite gender: you loathe who you ARE, at the core of being, at the very root of your sense of self.  Nothing can be more primal than gender.  It is the most basic analogue distinction, even more important than race or religion.  And you can't be anything else.  Every cell in your body is marked.

And even if this could be changed, it is the LOATHING which is pathological, not the state of feeling like a gender other than you are.  Anorexics hate themselves for being too big.  Obsessive bodybuilders hate themselves for being too small.  And Transgenders hate themselves for having been born who they were.  It is all of a piece; all one cloth. All one problem: deep unhappiness completely unrelated to the symptomatic presentation.

Nearly always--and I can at present think of no exceptions--the task is to deal with the root, not the flower.  That is merely what we see.  There is no virtue in being stupid.  None I have ever found.  And to the extent lying supports stupidity, it too can never be virtuous.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Altered States

I think a healthy process of life is going often from normal to altered states and back again.  We do it continually without realizing it.  For many, driving is an altered state. Doing the dishes, when you enjoy it.  Hobbies.  Watching sports.  Working with focus. Perhaps the need to pursue altered states with drugs and alcohol relates to an insufficient ability to access them in healthy ways, due to trauma, which causes an inability to be submerged in the moment.

I feel that compulsive thoughts are like a tendril from something alive, living under the water, which produces a form when it breaks the surface, when it passes from the realm of feeling and sensation to our conscious awareness.  What is interesting is to live with thoughts before they are thoughts, to feel them, touch them, get to know them.

You can look at them and say "this will be a thought of worry".  "This will be a thought of disgust and fear".  "This will be a happy thought".  And of course, I am thinking here.  Thoughts can in turn be used to look into the water.  This, too, is normal.

We are sensate beings, which means who we are is what we feel.  The effort to live solely in the mind is an effort to distance ones true self from this truth.

I am thinking aloud.  Here is an interesting way to choose to alter your consciousness: get a lacrosse ball, and a foam roller, and a timer. I like Gymboss.  Set the timer to 3:03 minutes, and follow this routine.  Put on some music which is pleasant for you.

Roll your traps--the tension muscles, which everyone instinctively massages first--with the ball by putting it on the space between your neck and shoulders and leaning against a wall, about the level of your chest.  Roll one side for 3 minutes.  Move it around, forward and back, side to side.  Lean in hard, at times, then move our head gently to the left and right.  You will feel a stretch, in all likelihood (although of course I am very tight since my traps are huge).  Do the other side.

Spend another 3 minutes massaging both of your shoulders with the ball, without forgetting the front.

Spend 3 minutes massaging your chest, again with the ball.

Roll your lats on the foam roller, by laying on it with your lats on the surface, and slowly moving forward and back, and side to side.

Lie on the roller, and massage your upper and lower back.  If you are tight or have a high pain tolerance, put the ball on first one side of your spine, work down, then the other.

Roll your hip flexors on the roller, one at a time.  Roll your hips and the top of your butt.  Roll the sides of your legs.  This usually hurts.

Sit on the lacrosse ball, and find areas of restricted movement and tension in your ass muscles.  Put it under your hamstrings at the top and root around.

Stand on the lacrosse ball and massage your feet.

For tight muscles, find a stretch and hold it three minutes.  Take your range of motion to where it is restricted, and focus on feeling those muscles.  Slowly move back and forth at the range where is restricted.  No pain, but opening, asking, inviting, persistently.

What will likely happen if you do this--and I don't expect anyone to, but who knows?--is that you will feel emotions coming up, particularly when you find a tender spot.  Moments from the past will pop instantaneously into your awareness.  Go into those feelings too.

This is an interesting process.  I do it most days.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016


I was contemplating, as I do too often, all the ugliness in the world, and thought that Plato's cave is really an escape, in a sense.  It gave him the hope that there is a world without ugliness.  The faith, I probably should say.

If there is no world without ugliness, one must either learn to accept ugliness, or go mad. And to be clear, failing to see the world as it is is a form of madness.  In my own view, and only slightly oversimplifying the issue, most of what passes for higher wisdom in our universities consists in a combination of the two.  They no longer have any room anywhere for any other world.

This is a pity.  It remains open to them, and the best empirical explanations we have of who we are and how we got here, and what we are supposed to do can be grounded in learnings which are accessible to all, but pursued by few.

These questions really are too important to attempt to answer from a position of sloppiness, unwarranted assumption, arrogance, and emotional need.  Failure, obviously, is inevitable.  Certainly, it has been.

But this need not continue.  No evil must proceed indefinitely.

Part of this comes from watching the disappointingly disjointed movie "Children of Men".  I certainly got the sense when the crowd walked by shouting Allahu Akbar that it might have gotten some aspects of the future of Britain and Europe correct.

But I could not help thinking of all the poets and writers who killed themselves thinking the future was hopeless.  Games are played to the end, because the ending is sometimes a surprise.  I am making my own peace with my death at some point.  We may as well.  It comes whether we want it or not.

But for the time being,  life is interesting.  There is much to see and learn.

I had a feeling, too, watching this movie which I have never had before.  I felt that even though the movie was gloomy and oppressive--and inaccurate in that the surveillance state in 2027 will be perfect--that it was the product of human minds, human creativity.  That even the worst, most pessimistic movies still represent the human spirit in some sense.  Perhaps they are using art to wrestle demons.  Whether they win or lose, this is an eminently human and thus beautiful act.

This will prove a helpful insight, I feel.

Global Warming

This is reasonable: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-truth-warming-alarmists-dont-want-you-to-know-about-the-climate-models/

There are many, many flaws with this whole notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, but one of the most obvious is that the hypotheses--the models--are treated as DATA.  That is a circle.  That is not how science works.

The only reason this whole farce has been able to be continued--admittedly at great cost and considerable effort--is because the time horizons in play prevent the immediate and incontrovertible empirical refutation of their models. They have been, and continue to be, wrong, but they keep telling us, decade after decade, that the final tweak is just around the corner.  There is no historical basis either to believer this now, or to trust them in the slightest at any point in the future, absent actual corroboration of their models.  They lie.  That's what liars do.

Thing of beauty

Well, this conservative never thought I’d be quoting a rapper but Azealia Banks is one smart cookie. Even though she has tweeted insults about Donald Trump she now tweets that she will vote for him because Hillary "talks to black people as if we’re children or pets." She also tweeted that, "Right, black folk having been voting democrat for the last 70 years and we don't have s**t to show for it." 

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a black man, accused the Democratic Party of "bigotry" because their programs have "decimated the black family." On a Fox News program he responded to a question about Hillary Clinton’s statement that a Trump presidency would put "more kids at risk of violence and bigotry." "If black kids are at risk from anybody, it's from other black kids in black-on-black crime. The bigotry that she's talking about stems from her party that has decimated the black family. It has kids shackled — black kids shackled — to failing K-12 public schools in urban centers. And it's where black men in these urban centers can't find meaningful work."
Why aren’t the leaders in the black community ranting about how the Obama Administration is spending millions to find summer jobs for refugees? Obama’s brought thousands of immigrants here who will take away the jobs from Americans of all colors. The racial hucksters have fomented race riots with lies like the ones in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore that destroyed black neighborhoods and plunged them into further residential despair. Facts were ignored by a complicit media that did whatever it could to continue the blatant false reports that made victims out of the unworthy.
When will the black community recognize that their biggest enemies are the ones who treat it like Ms. Banks asserts-like children and pets?
This November, it’s time for the Black community and the whole country to grow up.
I will add that I got the chance to listen last night to a short talk from a man I'll call the Anti-Sharpton--the Anti-Jackson, if you prefer--named Christopher 2X.  He was wearing a t-shirt saying "We all we got", which is a beautiful motto.  Whenever some young black kid gets killed, he is one of the first people who gets called.  He comforts the mothers and grandmothers--please note, this seems to be the reality--not with vapid soporifics and platitudes, but by saying "this will hurt the rest of your life, but if you help me work to try and prevent the next one you will be able to manage the pain, possibly.  I am here for you, whatever you need." He offers, as he said, strength.

That is hard, ballsy work.  His goal is to teach young kids that there are better ways, alternatives to crime and violence.  The goal is not to give up your self, not to stop caring, not to stop having balls and principles, but to direct them more productively.

And I was sitting there wondering how much energy, how much drive it must take to confront the endemic hopelessness, sense of uselessness, that he faces every day.  He is clearly doing it the right way, but it is a hard way.  He tells young kids they matter, that they were born for a purpose, and he has found that if he can convince themselves of that, that they care more, do more, become more.

His message needs to be amplified.  Blacks have been told by self interested and self satisfied Democrats--the overwhelming majority of whom live in mansions and send their kids to private schools, like Obama, like Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson Jr.--that their way out is the voting booth.  This is a lie congenial to their ambitions, and apparently not insufferable to their absent or dormant consciences.

I live alone.  It is rare that I interact with people.  I am not incapable of social interaction--I'm actually quite good at it.  What I have difficulty with is trust and openness.  I probably should have talked with him, but I chose not to.  I am working my way back into the world, slowly.

Be that as it may, I am glad to see good people out there, doing tough work in the face of considerable resistance.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016



This is worth the read.

I will add my two cents.

Each of us, in every moment, has a choice to try and improve the world, or to allow sloth and apathy to dominate us, to simply drift.

Often, improving the world involves improving ourselves.  We can be more contemplative.  Alternatively, we can be more active.  Always, what we do, though, flows from who we are and what we value.

When we improve the world, we put something into it.  It might be the energy to help a little old lady across the street.  It might be having done the inner work to be able to relate honestly to others, to understand them, to support them where they live, and to thereby help build happiness and trust where it was not present.  This is important work.

With regard to Trump the question is this: do I vote for someone who I dislike simply because he is less bad than the alternative, or do I privilege my VANITY over that choice, and pretend that I become better, or the world becomes better, when I refuse to make a decision in an important issue, simply because my vanity rejects the necessity of that choice?

Obviously, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice (thanks Neal Peart).

Do you help Killary get one step closer, or push her one step farther from the White House?  This should be a simple decision, and frankly I am disgusted at the intellectual incoherence, moral imbecility, and tacit admission of Leftist sympathies--or at least vulnerability to Leftist propaganda--which is exhibited by any person claiming to be conservative for whom this requires a more than 5 second deliberation.

You people believe nothing, if your vanity is more important than exercising what power you have for what good you can do.

Do what you can, with what you have, and do it now, as Teddy R. put it.  And if you refuse, you are a whiny little bitch.  That is how I see it.  And I don't like whiny little bitches.  It saddens me to see that you are the people who claim to be on my team.  I don't want you.

And perhaps this whole conservative thing has just been a phase, like cross dressing.  If you want to get back to the roots of your core indoctrination, have at it.  With tepid friends, who the fuck needs enemies?

Monday, May 23, 2016

This should be a uniquely interesting and truthful election cycle

Because of Donald Trump.  ONLY because of Donald Trump.

“I’ve talked to most of the women,” Goldberg stated. “You can’t talk to them all, life’s not long enough. But the women that became public reached out to me because of my involvement with the Lewinsky affair.”
I asked whether she found Clinton’s accusers and mistresses to be credible.
She replied:
To a woman, they were class acts. They were lovely women. They came from good backgrounds. They were ladies. These were not barflies that he picked up, although I’m sure there were plenty of those. These were lovely, lovely women.
You can tell when someone is lying to you, and especially about something really serious. And I believed every one of these women. Women don’t talk about something that intimate and make it up. There was nothing in it for then.  I mean, they weren’t selling books that would make them millions of dollars, or making movies, or going on lecture tours. They were telling you the truth.
Referring to Donald Trump’s willingness to discuss the issue of Bill’s accusers and Hillary Clinton’s alleged role in silencing the women, Goldberg predicted, “This is going to be a highly sexed, with a lower case ‘s,’ highly sexed campaign.”
“Because as I say, Trump will say everything,” she added.

Sunday, May 22, 2016


The other day I did the flurry of posts--shit, was it yesterday?--I meant to mention that the conscious cultivation of happiness is the last stage of personal growth, and can only happen once your psyche is relatively in one piece.  Otherwise, the darkness is always just outside your door.

I think of the Lemony Snickets movie, which begins happily enough, then cuts to the real story.  I think people who have unprocessed grief and terror are always waiting for the real movie to begin, the other shoe to drop.

It has often seemed to me that much of the New Age movement consists in the desire to say and do and live happy things, without admitting knowledge of the darkness without.  Yes, they give lip service to the "shadow", but they overvalue niceness much too much to truly fool anyone.

And I will comment too that hypervigilance is only ONE possible outcome of trauma.  HypOvigilance--too little vigilance and too much trust--is the other possibility.  These are the broken people who stand up for nothing, trust everyone.  They are the doormats.  Yes, they get angry, but rarely appropriately, at the right people, at the right times, for the right reasons.

I think it is safe to say the Europeans are quite hypovigilant at the moment, as are a distressingly large number of Americans.  I wish life were easy, sometimes, but the fact is that it demands we stay awake.  That is the rule of the game.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Political survival of the fittest

Resistance breeds response.  The need for adaptation breeds selection.

In our current political climate, one in which dispassionate evaluation of important topics in public by high minded and serious people is made impossible by leftist propaganda, the only possible selection can be in the direction of survival of people, not ideas.  In an ideal world, one not suffused by angry nonsense, the best IDEAS would win out, consistently.  This is the premise behind free speech: it is more efficient, over and above the moral value we subscribe to it.

John McCain and Mitt Romney were "selected" as the "candidates who can win".  Republican voters gave up on that idea in this election cycle, because, obviously, they were NOT candidates who can win.  They were saps, who failed to articulate clear goals, to stand firm on principle, and who may as well have been Democrats, such was their quite actual "moderation".  What sane person would elect the architect of Romneycare to undo the damage of Obamacare?

No, the person selected has to be able to deal with a mean environment, continual manufactured controversy, and the sense on the part of many Americans that our dreams and ideals are being slowly strangled by virtually everyone, D and R alike.

Leftists created this environment.  They have no right to complain that the system is operating properly.

The Narcissistic Mother

I just read about mirror neurons for the first time.  They seem to be a part of our social brain that fires in response to interactions with other beings, which of course evolutionarily would mainly be people, but today could be animals, cartoons, pictures or anything else we connect with.

Empathy is an emergent property of the proper functioning of these neurons.  We instinctively feel what the other person is feeling.  Logically, there can be different sorts of relations.  One person can be feeling something strongly and the other person mainly reacting to it. There can be a loop, in which Feeling 1 generates Feeling 2, which is reacted to by generating Feeling 3, or a stronger 1, etc.

What narcissists would seem to react to is others mirroring them.  What interests them is them.

The mother looking at the baby is a paradigmatic image.  We assume that mothers mother, but why?  Many mothers, particularly young mothers, bring an enormous range of emotional problems to the table.  If they are emotionally needy, the neediness of the child will trigger them in unpredictable ways.  Babies being babies might anger them, or provoke sadness, over and above, all the naturally irritating things like crying, pooping, and needing to be fed regularly.

And I wonder specifically at the relation where a mother is looking in her childs eyes wanting to see herself, who rewards herself when she sees it, and ignores everything else.

And I wonder what connection will eventually be found between the operation of the mirror neurons and narcissism.  I need to learn more before I speculate further, but it is an interesting question.

That we are in some respects machines I do not question.  I simply do not share the belief that that is a complete, fully accurate, or even reasonable--based on the totality of evidence, much of which never makes it into university labs and classrooms--conclusion.

I see no reason to discard brain science or evolutionary theory, even if I think some of the underlying assumptions are clearly faulty.

Addiction, further thoughts

It has been remarked by many people in what gets called the Recovery field that there is something spiritual in it.  I am listening to William James "Varieties of Religious Experience", and he described in 1904 experiences of the sort that led some 30 years later to AA.  He talks about alcoholics having major religious experiences, of warmth and light, of God.

I would of course like to have such an experience, but my path is a slow one, a long one, but also one where I can take notes, find waymarkers, map out the route.  I can say "I have been there.  I have felt, I think, what you are feeling.  I understand terror, sleep disturbances, addiction, loneliness and isolation.  I have been there, and I have walked through it."

And it occurs to me that most of human life is characterized by addictions--lies which conceal the whole truth--and that this is the essence of what the Buddha taught.  Tanha--craving--is what submerges us in unwholesome loops which make us unhappy.  As I have commented on occasion Duhkha--suffering--is best understood as anything less than complete contentment and happiness.

And at root, it is the insight that almost all of what we are taught to value arises as mutually reinforcing tanha.  To be different, you have to see differently.  To get out of the swamp, you have to see it is a swamp.

And addicts are well positioned to see, having known all-pervading craving, to see how common it is, how universal it is, and in giving up one addiction, giving up the rest of them, if they have stopped running.


Well, I gave in to the fear impulse that came on me the other night.  I lived with that emotional energy for a time, then decided to do an experiment.  It's not so much that I lost the battle, as I decided not to even try and fight it.  I drank a 32 ounce beer, and 95% of a 750 of tequila.  I slept 8 hours, woke up a tad fuzzy, had a couple cups of coffee, and an hour later I was 100%: fully lucid, no shakes, no headache, nothing.  My tolerance is undiminished.

But I had an extremely important insight, a critical insight, driving to work: all addiction is based on a self deception. It is based on the idea that whatever it is WORKS, that you can in fact avoid the pain, that you can in fact avoid the struggle, that it is an answer.  It is a shelter from the storm, it is a place you can run to and get warm.

This is a lie.  There will always be that brief moment where truth appears, and is then submerged in a web of deceit and oblivion.  And the truth is that the addict wants to run, but they don't know where to run to.  It rests in a primal fear which cannot be resisted or avoided finally, but about which lies can be told; which can be redirected into rationalizations which can last a lifetime, particularly when supported by altered states which diminish consciousness.  Sex, for the sex addict, is an altered state.  Work, for the workaholic, is an altered state--one of focused and sustained attention on ANYTHING but what they are avoiding.  Gambling is an altered state.  And booze and drugs, of course, that is what they do.

So what is the solution?  An alternative.  What alternative?  An endogenous positive state.  The ability to generate feelings of pleasure and warmth and connection without feeling the need to run away.

People like me, we are constantly forced to choose from among many bad options.  Alcohol does not particularly make me feel good, so much as stop me from feeling bad by muting all my emotions, when taken in sufficient quantity.  It is a narcotizing agent.  It dulls pain.  It is a depressant, formally.  Nothing in it is intended to induce feelings of euphoria.  Those are different drugs, and even those drugs--I have in mind cocaine and Ecstacy--force most people into a crash landing when they are done.  They wind up feeling worse than when they started.

Kum Nye numbers the exercises, and Kum Nye 5, which I am presently working on, has you find in your memory, or create in your imagination, or find in your body somewhere, a positive feeling.  You then focus on this feeling, amplify it, and try to expand it.  I call this sort of work "extending the thread".  You have this coil of compacted and largely useless energy, and you untangle it--or allow it to untangle and extend itself--and something becomes more free, more expansive, and more comfortable.  Over time--shorter times for the non-traumatized, perhaps very long times for those with knots--this becomes a refuge of sorts.

The logic is obvious, even if not often stated: if you want positive states, why not PRACTICE them?  If you want a better free throw, you shoot free throws, and/or imagine shooting perfect free throws.  And from what we know of mental imagery, if you can't visualize perfection, you will have a very hard time doing it for real.  Logically, then, you develop stable sources of positive energy in the quiet of your home, then over time learn to bring it into the world.

Yesterday I went to a bar and had one beer.  I wanted to see how I reacted to it.  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  That drug won't work for me any more.  My addiction is done.  I'm going to continue for the time being not drinking at all, since it is an expensive habit even recreationally, and I would like a bit more practice, but I think I am now the person who can regularly do one and done.  The craving is gone.  The self deception is gone.

And I was thinking too of Dean Martin's line "I pity people who don't drink: when they wake up in the morning that is as good as they are going to feel."  This made sense to me for a very long time.  I thought the booze was making me feel better.  I thought I was missing out.  But all I have to do is picture Dean slurring his words, offering incoherent thoughts, tripping on his way to the bathroom, and the mirage disappears.  No: my feeling good will be health, and a disciplined pursuit of endogenous pleasurable feelings.

One other thing: I was thinking about AA.  They have a 95% failure rate, and I think I can now guess why.  When people come to them they are usually in despair.  They drink so much that their personal lives are suffering: their relationships, their health, their job.  They get handed the Blue Book, and buddied up, and invited to future meetings.  They get told they are helpless, and to let a higher power--as embodied in a concrete group of like-habited people--take over.

Put another way, they are given somewhere else to run to.  Alcoholics are enthusiasts because there is an enormous well of emotional energy that underlies the need to run.  They are not calm people.  They are not dispassionate people.  Quite the opposite: they are driven people.  There is a devil at their heels and their life is spent trying to avoid and outrun it.

So they jump into AA, if they are going to, with both feet.  They become AA enthusiasts.  But at the end of the day, the devil never disappeared.  He is still waiting in the darkness and they know it.  The urge and need to run never disappeared.  The fear never disappeared.

AA creates a sort of magical circle of light, where they feel relatively safe, if the thing is going to work.  And even if only 5% make it, I suspect strongly that number is not evenly dispersed.  There are probably groups where half or more of the people make it. And there are probably groups where virtually no one makes it.  I know for a fact that there are groups where half the people are still alcoholics, who drink on the way to and from the meetings, but keep going because they like it, or it is court ordered, or it's a good place to hook up and indulge a side sex addiction.  My local group is like that. I've been twice, and felt no common bond at all.  Everyone who had actually quit drinking lamented the loss of a friend, seemingly, and the fact that they were forced into giving up the friend because he was killing them.

There is even a word for people who give up drinking, but not their passion for it: dry drunks.  Dry drunks are typically irritable, edgy, moody.  They have not "done their work", as they say.

But what I would say is the opposite of the first Step: you are NOT helpless.  God is not going to save you.  What you are is someone who has had the shit beat out of you by life, who has been chewed up and spit out alone.  You are someone for whom drinking is a logical, if ultimately unhelpful, solution to a real problem.  The problem does exist.  People forget this, in acting like drinking is somehow something one is born with a genetic predisposition to, or some nonsense like that.

It is simply the case that we don't have the diagnostic apparatus to recognize many traumas, particularly of the developmental variety.  But really, how many people have the emotional wherewithal and strength to recognize narcissism in their parents?  It is a subtle malady, but one with absolutely devastating consequences.  I know, well, since both of mine are.  We seem to have a sort of dysfunctional psychic connection, since our intervals of long silence are typically punctuated at the very moment when I undergo some major surge in personal growth.  I accept it as emotional weight training.  If I have to tow a car behind me everywhere I go, when I let that fucking thing loose, I will be the Hulk with reason.

But I would like to emphasize this phrase Endogenously generated positive emotion.  In my view, this is the future of effective addiction treatment.  You have to have a place to call home, and it has to be pleasant, desirable, and, to state the obvious, not terrifying, which is where most addicts live in some part of their consciousness.  It is ideally complemented with social connection, but for those of us for whom trust comes slowly and is lost quickly, having something in us, which is controlled by us, is the most secure foundation from which to proceed outward.  If it is in me, it cannot be lost.  That is very important.  If growth is seen as a series of circles, each larger than the last, the center one is the individual sitting alone, feeling good.

I feel I could call this my Sobriety Day, but alcohol was never the monster.  Alcohol was my ally in hiding under the covers and pretending the monster couldn't see me.  Where I am now, I see the monster IS me, too.  I see my own evil, my own violence.  I feel like there are countless threads radiating from me, and I can see now that some of them are dark, and they are my own.  They are no one elses.

And there is something beautiful in all this.  Coming home is realizing I have always been my own enemy, but that I don't need to be any more.  I can embrace my evil.  Our minds do so well creating inner/outer, here/there dichotomies, but our selves are never that simple.  They are made of cloth with many different strings.

The word Tantra seems to be related to this concept.  I am in that sense a Tantric.  It is all connected.   I will do my best to lie no more.

Friday, May 20, 2016


Never get too far away from the spirit of children playing.


The essence of propaganda is reducing conversation, consideration, reflection to an absolute minimum, and ideally eradicating it entirely.  As Jacques Ellul framed it, there are really two types: agitation propaganda, and integration propaganda.

In the first, you want to get people upset.  All the nonsense about North Carolina passing a law saying the boys use the boys room and the girls use the girls room was agitation propaganda.  "They are evil."  "They must be stopped."  "This will not stand."  "This is an outrage."  Etc.  They want to get people upset and to take action of some sort, such as a boycott.

That this whole thing consisted entirely in propaganda is evidenced clearly by the fact that none of the States with similar laws were targeted, and none of the nations where homosexuality is a capital offense were even mentioned.  I think all thinking people should be able to look at this and see pervasive and incontrovertible evidence of a conditioned response that has been inserted into large masses of our population.  If you say "Jump" in the right way, they give it all they got.  They don't bother asking how high.  If there is any question. they rightly assume they can just look at those around them.

The other sort is integration propaganda, which is intended to calm people down, and deter them from action.  This would be the sort of thing which says that NSA spying is perfectly OK, that it doesn't matter where Obama was born or who his real father was.  It says "you are one of us now, and we will do the thinking.  What a relief that will be, right?  We are lightening the load of life.  We are your friends, and fellow soldiers, your family.  Everything will be fine, because we say it will."

Which of course reminds me of the final scene in Fight Club, where somebody is saying how everything will be fine while we are watching buildings collapsing in the background.

But to get to my point--and I know this is something I say often, so this is somewhat redundant, but this is how I explore, by saying similar things in slightly different ways--we have reached a condition which was the end goal of this long term purpose specific propaganda, which is a large mass of people in this country who can be relied on never to think for themselves, to hate on command, and who value enormously their membership in this social grouping.

Who fights these people?  Can it be a limp wristed pussy?  Whoever it is can reliably assume they will be called every name in the book, some names that never occurred to them (like conserveretard toon, as I was called by a Vanderbilt professor who likely therein reached the acme of his potential and talent), and vilified on a 24/7 basis by nearly every alleged "information" outlet around the world.  You have to be able to take that, laugh at it, and dish it back.  Donald Trump does that.  We can ask no more, in this fallen world.

A New Sheriff in Town

I think this metaphor, which is very deeply embedded in the American psyche, best expresses the hopes of those of us who support Trump.  We don't know if he will let us down, but my sense is that his need for applause, his love of approval, will work reliably to cause him to do most of the things he says he will do; and what appears to be a common sense morality and sense of fairness, the rest.

Such is the hope.  We have had a clown for a sheriff for too long, who has been actively conspiring with the men in black, from several different gangs.

And I will comment, too, how ODD it is that the Left really seems not to GET why people get mad at them.  When they call us racists and bigots, somehow they fail to grasp that we find it offensive because we, too, hate bigots and racists, but are completely innocent of the charge.

Somehow they don't get that 8 years of relentless insults and name-calling are being remembered in this election cycle, that the silence they bought in some small measure through aggressive bullying has never been consent to their reckless schemes, relentless lying, and thirst for blood and destruction.

Trump and Authoritarianism

In the spirit of yesterday's post, and my current attempt to find new sources of pleasure in my world, new consolations, new directions, I am going to say that I find the mental illness--as I see it--which seemingly pervades our modern world INTERESTING.  What we find interesting we neither reject nor get angry at.  Those are both desirable outcomes.

Here is an essay which seeks depth without even a rudimentary attempt at empathy: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

It seeks to find the consoling harmony of pattern in something which the author is plainly at a loss to understand.  I get the sense that this started as a letter to the beloved uncle in the Screwtape Letters, trying to fathom just why the days propaganda was somehow found unacceptable, as if lies were somehow objectionable, as if embracing national decline were somehow something to be rejected.

And it occurred to me that it very much feels like we are at war, because we are.  A well organized army of cultural subversives works each and every day to indoctrinate our students, to pollute our media, to confuse our political leaders.  Their goal is to undermine every shred of historical connection to our past identity, to past mores, to common sense ways of doing things, to fondness for what our ancestors did, to the capacity for the exercise of principle based reason.

The emotional basis of so-called Progressivism--what I tend to call Regressivism, as it is the more accurate term--is that we must change daily whatever was.  We do not need to do it intelligently, or collectively--and in fact it is better if the government forces it on us.  The daily goal is something other than what is, and what was.  The daily goal is to cease being who you were, and to mutate into something else on command.  Your very essence is to become mutable.  You must be whatever the Party or Cause, or Moment needs you to be.

Such a creed, such a practice, eliminates the possibility of a stable sense of self.

And the more I think about it, the most important virtue which Cultural Sadeism undermines is loyalty.  When I say loyalty, do not the words "old fashioned" come to mind,. as in "old fashioned virtues"?  You stick to you and yours, come thick or thin.  You adhere to your tribe, to your people.

And why is this virtue old fashioned?  Because it is NOT mutable.  Because it cannot be made to change on a dime, the way pseudo-virtues like compassion and tolerance--both very trendy--can.

But here is the thing: loyalty is absolutely essential for us as social beings.  We need to know somebody has our back, come what may, no matter what.  If we don't, we languish.  We feel alienated, alone, uncertain, abandoned.  So what Leftist propaganda does is eliminate personal relationships--more correctly, it makes them contingent on circumstance and whim--and ask people to place their faith in a system of belief and practice which cannot feel anything for them because it is monolithic, regimented, and bureaucratic.

People love Bernie Sanders because for the first time in a long time, they feel like he cares about them.  But their nominee will be Hillary, because that is what the mass of unaccountable people we call the System wants.  Their loyalty is to a system that doesn't give a shit if they live or die.  This is what systems do, of course, which is why personal loyalty is so important.

We have literally reached a point--in fact, we reached it some time ago--where Americans in large masses are simultaneously ignorant of their own history and that of the world, and have been conditioned to view with contempt all the very real, historically unique innovations of our forefathers.  They loathe themselves, and loathe all the rest of us who refuse to join them.

Persons of common sense, common decency, and possessed of a sense of responsibility are bewildered where all this self contempt comes from.  They read history, and understand that we are historically unique, that much of the world has ALWAYS looked up at us, and that even if like all other nations we have committed crimes, that our crimes pale in comparison to those committed everywhere else in the world and in history, and that virtually all criticisms of our nation stem directly from Soviet propaganda, which is to say from intentional misrepresentations, distortions, lies, and malice.

This is where Donald Trump comes in.  In a war you need a wartime leader, and in a war, the tendency to aggregate power is strong.  After all, there is existential risk.  It is never certain the nation will endure, and if it does, it is because of a collective effort.  This is hard-wired in all of us.

Thus, to make a long story long, the Left has itself to blame for Donald Trump.  If they want to wage a long term war against humanity, sooner or later the remaining humans are going to declare war back, and it will not be pretty.  People like me enjoy it when he speaks obvious truths in the face of congenital and habitual liars.  We enjoy the prospect of someone taking seriously not just the invasion of the United States by Mexicans--who are fleeing the wreckage of the nation they destroyed--but the concept of the nation state itself.  Someone who says: we are Americans, and that is something to be proud of.  America is worth defending.  Obama has been saying the opposite for 8 long years now; he has been waging war on our past, and us by proxy, for both terms.  Sooner or later, somebody has to tell the sons of bitches to stop, and that is why Donald Trump will be our next President.

He is no saint, but I don't think he is the pick of the elite, and he has always seemed to me to have working class sensibilities, regardless of his actual past.  We need people who want to build.  We have had far too much of those who want to tear down, and call the rubble progress.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Humility and whatnot

It occurs to me that the pretension of humility is nearly always vanity.  True humility is not an active presence, but a passive absence.  It is a space, an unfilled space.  Vanity stands above a space it doesn't know at all, and claims it is empty.

People are interesting.  Life is interesting.

I was confronted with a problem yesterday, and surprised myself in approaching it with interest, with curiosity.  If what I fear may materialize actually does, it will be a shitload of work for me.  But there is a beauty in not giving a fuck.  I touched that beauty, and appreciated it.


I'm not saying I'm an alcoholic, but I know where every liquor store within 5 miles of me is, and when they close.  I have not had a drink in two months, and have not WANTED to have a drink in two months, and tonight I got this little feeling infestation on me.  Having done Kum Nye a long time, I have many "feelings" which don't have words or forms.  These things disappear instantly if you try to name them or define them or ask them to integrate lines.

I felt this thing.  It was a confusion, and a turning, and caused me to view the world in a strange way.  And THEN, I felt like having a drink.

And it hit me that for all addicts this is likely the process.  The feeling hits, and so fast they can't see it happen they say: I need drink, or a hit, or a fuck, or whatever their thing is.  Nobody craves being high, I don't think.   They simply know from long experience that the anticipation of it, and the experience of it, is sufficient to silence whatever that initial, infinitesimally small, micro-feeling was, which of course is the root of the whole thing.  That is where it starts.  I felt this clearly tonight.  I certainly have within my consciousness the Buddhist notion of causal chains.

And yesterday, driving to a job site, I also felt an odd feeling.  It was fear, but it was wandering, uncertain, primal, primary.  It was a child seeking a breast.  It was a tentacle seeking something to grab.

And then some worry popped in my head, and the whole feeling vanished and was replaced by the thought.  And it hit me that thoughts, when they are not relevant, not needed for the task at hand, are really the crystalizations of sensory impressions which seek resolution.  These feelings don't want to wander: they want to land, and the way they land is in a thought.

I felt all this.  I saw all this.  And it was instantly obvious to me that the people who meditate trying not to think, to let thoughts be, or to drive them from their minds, are existing at a level a layer or two abstracted from true reality, which is in the body.  If you want to stop thinking, then calm  the body, calm the sensations.  They are all children: let them rest, let them sleep.  And when they sleep, you know peace.

Do less and do more.  This has always been true, but I am seeing it with my own eyes, feeling it with my own heart.

Donald Trump is right about Clinton


Bill Clinton appears to be a serial woman abuser, a rapist, and a sex addict.  Based on his apparently close relationship with Mark Epstein, who liked underage girls, he is likely a pedophile, of the 13-14 year old sort, again not something uncommon among addicts.

Here is the thing: there is room for disagreement among people of good will about what is true and false.  But where the Clintons are concerned, there really isn't.  Bill is an abuser of women, and Hillary is an accomplice, and not uncommonly his enforcer.  She abuses the women Bill has abused.  They are awful human beings, even if Bill--like many sociopaths I have known--has a talent for seeming likeable.  He has a goofy smile, a seemingly affable manner, courtesy, charm: all can be perfectly consistent with being a sick human being.  And nobody disagree that he is very, very smart in a formal analytical sense.

When one contemplates the erasure of his and her past, which has been executed with such diligence by a leftist press which in another circumstance would have these stories on the front page 24/7 until the ideological non-compliant was driven from the public sphere, one is FORCED to admit once again that the Left believes NOTHING.  All crimes are justified by the rhetoric used to defend them.  If it is "for the people", "for the future", "to oppose the evil Republicans", then no crime is too far.  And if it is committed by the other side, no crime, and no lie to make it seem worse, is too small.

This is not ethical principled behavior, to state the blindingly obvious.  Jeff Bezos--whose Amazon I am going to boycott for his patent political advocacy in the Washington Post--seems to think he is doing some sort of good, but no one at any level, with regard to any topic, can claim to value the good who does not habitually treat lies as lies, and truth as truth.  Bezos fails on both scores, badly, and nearly daily.

How can it be that the Left says we are to "believe the woman", but fails to listen to a score or more of Clinton women?   Granted, evidence has to be weighed in the balance, but the preponderance of evidence--not least the admission of receiving blow jobs in the Oval office and lying about it--implicates both Bill and Hillary in a web of deceit and wrong-doing which is frankly disgusting, and contrary to every genuine spirit of Liberalism.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016


I was thinking today that part of the reason--a LARGE part of the reason--our modern world is batshit insane is that most of our power elite are atheists.  They believe that when they die, that's it.  The lights go out, forever.  Everything they were, everything they had become, vanishes.  We are all animals, nothing more, and die like animals.

The only immortality in such a world would be changes you left in the world, marks you left in the world, and the only comfort during life they could provide would be anticipating them continuing after your chemical decomposition and decay (I wonder: if death is the end, and we are merely machines made of meat, was there ever really "life" on this analysis to begin with?   A self sustaining reaction, perhaps.  A complex, higher order evolutionary expression, perhaps.  But could we be said to be any more alive than a robot?  And if not, is it any wonder that so many otherwise intelligent people want to merge with robots?).

Thus, the only immortality on this reading--absent a "singularity" which in my considered view is empirically quite impossible--lies in SOCIAL deeds.  It might lie in art.  It might lie in a family.  But do you see that the logical systemic impetus is to place the locus of morality in the social order, which does survive the individual, even though societies cannot be moral?  Can you see that this emotional NEED for immortality could and frankly has lead to the creation of "problems" which did not need fixing, and for which the aspiring immortal proposes he or she be the leading fixer?

All deep, coherent social order begins with individual order.  But if we deny the possibility of sustainable individual order, we almost necessarily create an irresistible impulse towards imposed social order as an ersatz immortality and morality.

I continue to believe that HONEST research, conducted by honest professionals (this should be redundant, not an oxymoron), will find that the evidence favoring the survival hypothesis is overwhelming.  But that research has not yet been done by people both honest, and sufficiently entrenched to demand an impartial hearing.

And as I think about it, this introduction of the concept of personal immortality as something worthy of including as a factor in your life, in how you live, in what you value, was the singular merit of Christianity for the West.  Heaven and hell of course messed up a lot of people's minds, and continue to do so.  But the notion of an individual relationship to God, of inner work, of inner focus, of personal development as a key purpose of life: all came about with Christianity.  Love is a way of relating to the world and to people.  Before that was the Law, which is another way entirely, and the way replicated by the Muslims.

And the Greeks and Latins lived on through fame, through their names, through their families.  They had vague ideas of an after-world, but rarely thought about or talked about it.  After all, they couldn't see it.  Their focus was sacrificial fire and incense, courage and honor, and the glory of their state and country.

Edit: it further occurs to me that if individual morality is sacrificed on the altar of "the future", aka personal immortality, then no crime in the pursuit of that future need be weighed in any moral balance.  It is not wrong, if it furthers that one task, that of personal immortality as embodied in the "greater good".  That lies are told about all this virtually continuously, is of course a profound inconvenience, and no doubt a considerable source, over and above propagandistic necessity, for the hate directed at those who retain some belief in the concept of personal goodness and personal immortality.


I read this morning that a massive war in the eastern Mediteranean around 1200 B.C. may have ended several empires. My thought is that if it involves mutually destructive reckless behavior, it probably happened. That sort of thing is more or less what CONSTITUTES history.

Here is what popped in my head: Capitalism, so called, is the best system ever devised by the mind of man for directing aggressive energies in creative, productive, and PEACEFUL directions. Can and should we criticize the IMF for allowing the figurative rape of nations? Yes. It was created by Communists and does little but help keep the fiction alive that our banking system is just and acceptable, when it is plainly neither.

But the historical alternative is not peace and justice. Capitalism, so called, is not an historically aberrant intrusion into an unbroken history of peaceful and cooperative coexistence.  It is s vastly less bad alternative to breaking down people's doors and taking what they have built by force. On the one side of it we have conquest and rapine as universal facts. On the other, we have Socialism as a state sponsored version of the same theft and rapine. It simply adds hypocrisy and self deception to the list of crimes.

I would quibble with many things Ayn Rand said, but her defense of Capitalism as a uniquely advantageous form of peaceful and productive coexistence, without the diminution of life energy, is right on the money.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Blazing Saddles

Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB1E0oAAc-w

I find it amusing.  Most people do, including I suspect many black people.  It's just funny.

Blazing Saddles came out in 1974.  In that period, 42 years ago, it was quite reasonable for most people to assume that the fortunes of black people in this country were on the rise.  Mel Brooks was saying, in his frequent use of the N- word "look, I can't stop ignorant people from saying that, but between you and me we know they are stupid and ignorant and ridiculous.  Me, as a Jew, I know a little something about bigotry."

Nobody who was an actual racist would find that movie funny.  EVEN THEN most white people knew genuine racism was reactionary, ridiculous, unnecessary, unfair, and wrong.  Not all, of course.  From what I hear racism in most big cities, particularly Union cities like Chicago and New York, is still alive and well. 

But most people in this country are happy to give everyone a chance. They were then, and are now.

But 42 years, and all that has changed is that movie could not be made today.  It would be attended by protests, with fury, with outrage.  And for what?  That movie did not cost anyone their life, and has generated millions of laughs.

What has happened--ALL that has happened--is that fascist speech police have gradually made it more and more difficult to talk about the lack of black thriving, to talk about the real problems besetting black communities. 

If people had been allowed to sort out their differences gradually, in person, at their own pace, the pervasive decency of the American people over time would have eradicated the functional lines between blacks and whites.  We would not have black ghettos.  Most of them would be middle class, would value education, and would not feel helpless and angry.

What intercepted and prevented this natural organic growth was the Democrats, who developed a codependent, enabling relationship with the black community, by promising them the moon and the stars, by making promises they knew they could never keep, and which would have been damaging even if they could keep them, because you never help anyone permanently by doing for them what they can and should be doing for themselves (as William Boettker put it around 100 years ago).

So today, the outrage when one sees that bigoted old woman say "Up yours, Nigger" can be seen for what it is: useless. It helps no one.  No black child missing his father gets to see him more.  No jobs are created for people who barely graduated high school.  No crime is prevented.  It is all for show.

Mel Brooks was and is a genuine humanitarian, who works to improve the world through comedy.  None of the PC fascists are anything but unreflective and unhelpful haters.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

So much for them


As I have said repeatedly, Cesar Chavez hated illegal aliens. 

The perceptual flaw of all bigots--and I have in mind here the habitually aggrieved, and not Chavez, who I think we can all agree did not hate Mexicans--is that they think all people of any given group think alike, and that they are homogeneous: functionally, that they are fucking stupid, and that only through the intervention of "educated" leftists can their own actual self interest be made plain to them; or in traditional bigotry, that they deserve to be treated in the same way, regardless of personal difference.  In terms of the willed ignorance implied in both cases, they are functionally identical.

But think about it like a human being.  You may need to temporarily slough off some of your counter-intelligent indoctrination.  If you are standing in a line, and you watch somebody walk to the front and cut in, what is your emotional reaction?  If you are on the highway, and it merges, and one of those fucking Mercedes--it always seems to be a higher end car, with some rich prick in it--comes along and merges at the last second, again cutting in line.

It pisses you off, doesn't it?

Pretty much everybody that is here legally can expect over some time frame to get the rest of their family here.  That tends to be how our system works.  But if we legalize millions of people who have simply slipped across the border, the whole line system goes to hell in a handbag.  It gets screwed up.  Who knows how long, now, it will take to get your grandfather or niece over here legally?  Do you want to trust them to coyotes, who may get them killed or arrested?

Donald Trump is not saying, and has never said "No Mexicans".  All he has said is wait your turn, and if you have jumped in line, you go to the back, like any normal person would expect. It is fair.

But "fair", of course, is not a word Leftists use except as a club, one invariably wielded with the intent to terminate with extreme hypocrisy.

I would add that the most racist thing I can say honestly is that it continues to amaze me that blacks are too fucking stupid to figure out, even now, the game being played on them.

Friday, May 13, 2016

The great fear of the Left

is that one day they will be unable to continue the delusion that those they hate are other than ordinary human beings, who feel ordinary emotions, who reach reasonable conclusions based on the data they are given.  They fear that they will be forced to finally admit we are not monsters, we are not demons, we are not bigots, racists, haters, misogynists, and liars.  We are NONE of the things they claim we are, and THEY are the ones practicing the bigotry.

This would be a double loss.  First, they would lose their friend, hate, and their very simple, very clear, very black and white world will dissolve into a million unfamiliar colors.  Second, they will lose their self image as righteous, as superhuman fighters for all that is good in this world.  They will fall into the profoundly de-energizing state of having to admit they are like everyone else, that they make mistakes, that they use their weaknesses to spur them into emotional crusades that distract them without healing or even strengthening them.  They will be forced to admit they are JUST LIKE US.

And they are, of course.  They are just much more fucked up, much angrier, and much farther into self delusion than most people are willing to go absent gross individual psychopathology.  Social psychopathology can manifest in many people, and remain relatively hidden.  That is what we have today, and it is fed, of course, by many individual psychopaths, and the magical boxes in all homes.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Political Correctness

H.L. Mencken famously defined Puritanism as--you with me, man, say with me like we are at a Garth Brooks concert: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

The same might be said of Social Justice Warriors (I need to think of a better term, but that for another day), who are both themselves without humor and that levity which makes life among people bearable, but also extremely concerned that everyone everywhere be on guard continuously, lest they fall short of the glory of Marx, who offers no redemption at all.

The feeling is one of continuous strain, of effort simply at existing.  There is no relaxation: only eternal vigilance.

And what is interesting about all this, one thing any way, is that by and large both the crimes and the victims are abstract.  If I call a gay man a "fag"--if I'm not friends with him and we both think it is funny--then something has happened between us which might be considered rude, which might warrant an apology, and/or a permanent sense on his part that I am an asshole, of the sort you don't fuck.

But if I speak of "fags" in a group of heterosexuals, no one there can be considered the recipient of the insult.  No one there has a legitimate claim to grievance.  But this is precisely what most PC consists in: not an effort to improve manners, but to subject speech to rigid codes.  The crime is not that I have offended someone, nor even that I COULD have offended someone. The crime is WrongSpeak.  If Orwell didn't coin that term--and I don't think he did--then I just did.  Anti-Free Speech Nazis--I do like that better than SJW, although development will continue--feel free to appropriate it with your bullhorns, bullwhips, jackbooks, and torches.

Thus the crimes involved have all the concreteness, all the reality, of the sins of the Bible, of unbelief in a God I have never seen or spoken to.  The people punishing the crimes are quite real, but the crimes themselves rarely are.

And in point of fact, true reconciliation, which is what genuine Liberals want, is achieved person to person, not across a moat of reflective hate, reactive anger and defensiveness, and shouting.  Above all shouting.

Look at yourself.  Feel your body.  Is there a place in you which can say "Fuck it, just let people do whatever they want to do."?  If not, you are likely what you hate, whatever that may be.

Psychological "roots"

I have been trying to spend more quiet time than even I normally do.  For a long time, of course, I would end my day at a bar, then the end of my end was getting drunk at home.  I don't do that any more.

And I watch/feel my body, and can see warning lights blinking, particularly in my gut area.

And it occurred to me yesterday that persistent thoughts like "I have to", or "I'm worried about X", or anything that regularly intrudes, STARTS as a sensation in your body.  I feel the connection.

And it occurs to me that without rejecting the importance and primacy of reason as a means of mediating difference, we must also embrace the body, and its exultations and rages and needs, if we are to live happily, both as individuals and as social creatures.  This of course is an old dichotomy, between "reason" and Dionysius, to hearken back to Nietzche.

And I feel that the roots of the authoritarian temperament are found in the gut, too.  It is found in the sense that the world is dangerous, and that it needs to be placed in a cage.  The authoritarian seeks their own security, first and foremost, even if, of course, they often die violently.

But this sense is preverbal.  It is largely unconscious.  But it exists as a quality of holding, of tension, in identifiable places science will one day track down and isolate.

For my own purposes, I follow the Kum Nye schema, which says that that holding is both nervous system energy, but also subtle energy.

One other thing I will mention: if the primal sense of the sacred was something uncontrolled, something dangerous, something both fearful and alluring, then that role is played by televisions today, which show us scenes of carnage, fill us with rage and fear, give us an unlimited number of "car accidents"--figuratively and occasionally literally--from which we can neither tear our eyes, nor forgive ourselves for the interest.

The TV is a literally, clinically, sacred object, seen from this perspective, which is why it occupies the place of honor in most homes, where one might otherwise put a shrine.

To be clear, I feel spirituality BEGINS with a deep, deep relaxation.  I feel all goodness begins with deep, deep relaxation.  You BEGIN with peace.  You do not end there.  But reaching the beginning, of course, is a psychological, not a spiritual matter.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016


 I was thinking about this the other day: why does Mexico have a wall with Guatamala, and why does it prosecute illegals so severely?  Then it hit me: they want a monopoly on illegal access to America.  And I had to ponder: why are the Mexican Presidents so eager for us to allow their people to leave?

Why did Vicente Fox give Donald Trump the finger (is this what class looks like MSNBC)?

Think about this: the people who run Mexico are mad at us for not allowing their people to abandon their country in sufficient numbers.  Practically, of course, they send money back which helps the Mexican economy, which is why they need this, but how fucking stupid do you have to be to conflate patriotism with supporting people leaving your stinking pile of shit country for greener pastures you couldn't figure out how to bring into being?

If Donald Trump wins--when he wins--would I take it as a patriotic affront if Canada refused to take all the people leaving?  Why would I give a shit?  I have a country already.  The people leaving have nothing to do with me, other than that I will be glad to see many of them leave.

Everywhere you look, on nearly every topic, it is infused with stupidity, short-sightedness, incapacity of thought, emotional infantilism, rampant ego, outright lies, unwarranted assumptions, etc.

The saner I get, the weirder the world looks.

Obama's Third Term

I read that Brad Thor and PJ O'Rourke came out against Trump today.  I will likely address their points in depth at some point, but for now I wanted to frame this simply: in what respect can anyone argue that Hillary, if elected, will not simply continue the bulk of Obama's policies?  She was his Secretary of State.  She supported Obamacare.  Her foreign policy WAS the Obama foreign policy for a time.  There is no reason to think she will not continue to abuse executive privilege, and her daughter has SAID that working for gun confiscation via the Supreme Court is one of her goals.

Where would the daylight between them be?  She is even using identity politics to get elected.

Conversely, can anyone SERIOUSLY claim that they expect Donald Trump do follow Barack Obama's footsteps?  He has already signaled a new peace through strength and not fucking with other countries unless we have to policy.  He wants to rationalize taxes.  He wants to deal in some fashion with the Mexican invasion.  He wants better trade deals (not protectionism, but at least some sense that American interests qua American interests should play a role, and that we can do better).

How fucking stupid do you have to be to support Hillary relative to Trump?  We hear he is a "loose cannon".  Think this through: who among the candidates has sat through more adversarial negotiations?  Trump has been in conflict with people almost as a rule for most of his life.  He is not a loose cannon at all.  He is a savvy negotiator who provides as few details as possible, acts like he is out of control, but who at the end of the day has a plan, and NEVER actually flies off the handle.  HILLARY, on the other hand, DOES seem to lose her temper often.

Do you want someone who has sat at hundreds of negotiating tables, or someone who couldn't make it out of the first round in a local charity poker tournament?

I am puzzled at the thoughts and actions of people I thought had intelligence.

I like good rants

Here's one: https://youtu.be/GjYLWadz5Ychttps://youtu.be/GjYLWadz5Yc

Further thought

It occurs to me that with the decline of principle as an aspect of human discourse, with the decline of the inner directed individual, in favor of that tribal and animalistic spirit that gets called Other Directedness, that the importance of outer form increases correspondingly.

You are in the tribe, if you observe the ritual and protocol.  The ritual and protocol with regard to Political Correctness is that you say and do what you are told to say and do, and never the contrary.

Thus someone who is acting out a Politically Correct scene which has been choreographed for them, might seem to be able to enter into a discussion with someone acting out of principles arising from underneath his feet, but this is an illusion.  There is never any connection.  There is never any possibility of connection.  The intellectually deviant PC acolyte has nothing to say, and the atavistic man, activating 19th century principles--an anachronism in the modern world--cannot be heard.  His words exist at a frequency far beyond that of the hearing of the PC puppet.

I feel like I am walking along, and periodically attacked by birds, with considerable fury, but no sense, no resting place, no purpose, other than attack.  It is like a force in the air, inhuman--or to be more specific: anti-Humanistic, and congenitally opposed to Life itself.

The necessity of being an A-hole

One obvious way of looking at Donald Trump is that he is the creature made necessary by left wing propaganda tactics.  The only possible answer to crudeness and rudeness masquerading as truth and justice, is ACTUAL crudeness and rudeness, REPRESENTING truth and justice.

The essence of the Fabian strategy, still quite alive and well, is that no matter how outrageous a demand--such as that men be allowed openly to use women's restrooms, effectively vitiating the concept of gender difference entirely--that it be formatted as decency, as courtesy, as self evident, as something, opposing which, one becomes a bad person.

George Bernard Shaw, a clever psychopath, clearly saw that people are socialized for politeness, and that if one never forsakes their idiom, one can do ANYTHING, if one is sufficiently patient about it.  Formalism, crassness, and gradualness might be their motto.  If you only put a bit of shit in the soup, and insist that it would be impolite to insult the cook--who after all is a hard working Negro woman who is resiliently happy, singing in the kitchen, and so such a warm soul--then you get people to eat it.  Having eaten it, they justify it as having not just been necessary, but GOOD.  This makes the addition of more shit something they might even welcome.

Certainly large numbers people in our own world have been trained to welcome Islamic rapists, aspiring mass murderers, and homophobic misogynists, when they have simultaneously been taught to oppose ALL those traits in their own.  Shit soup.  That is what it is.

Logically, if the social situation has been set up such that opposing the left wing idea of the day is bad form, is bad manners, then one MUST be an asshole--or at least understand one will be called that--in order to speak ANY useful truth.  We HAVE to have someone willing to be crass.  There is no other choice, if we want needed truths to see the light of the day.

And it is the Left which has made this mathematically necessary.  Of course, I am not speaking to them.  One would do as well speaking to rocks, or Moonies.  Most of them are gone, never to return.

No: I speak to the non-lunatics among us, as we are many.  None of what has gone before need continue.  It is not too late to turn the ship around.  


I saw the theory proposed today that the intent of 9/11 was the creation of the Patriot Act.  Now, many overlapping stories can occur.  It may be that the Saudis played a role because they wanted Iraq dealt with, since Iraq had already threatened them in the past.  It may be that Dick Cheney and his 1% doctrine (if there is a 1% chance we will be hit by a WMD we have to treat it as 100%, or something close to that) thought that only with mass surveillance could we stop the inevitable nuclear attack on America.

But both of these agendas, obviously, dovetail to perfection with the notion of creating an Orwellian surveillance state, which is what we live in today.  This blog post is being downloaded and recorded by the NSA.  Unless they see some reason to think it important enough to read, it will simply be saved for future reference, and filed under my name, which they obviously know.  They know everything about me: where I live, my phone number, my work history, my tax record, who at least my on-line friends are, my political views, a rough or perhaps very specific psychological profile, etc.

How did this come to be?  Well, Oklahoma City, which has at least the fingerprints of a government cover-up all over it, even if it may not have been planned by the government.  Here is my treatment from some years ago: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2014/05/oklahoma-city-was-cover-up.html

And then of course 9/11, which I have covered in a number of posts.  The standard story is a lie.  Not possibly, not probably: CERTAINLY, beyond any possible doubt.  An impartial court would find this 100 times out of 100.

To transfer great power to the government--and in particular to unelected functionaries whose names by and large are top secret--one must have great fear.  9/11 created great fear.

If we survive this era with our freedoms intact, future historians will be utterly unable to understand how so many of us were so fucking stupid.

Trump and other stuff

It seems obvious to me that Trump, as someone who cannot be campaign managed, who cannot be relied upon to stay upon ANY script, cannot be someone the globalists would possibly pick.  They want Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's, who will say whatever they are told to say, propose whatever they are told to propose, and never do or say anything that has not been discussed in advance.

People mock Trump for his ignorance of national debt.  But what happened?  It got put on the table both as a problem, and as one the solution to which it is possible to have conversations.  This is not something they want.  A small handful of people control our economy and could crash it tomorrow if they wanted.  Think about this: people whose names we largely don't know--other than figureheads like Janet Yellen--could drop America into a severe depression without warning, without authorization, and largely without traces of their interfering.  Is that not a power to be checked?  Is any system of checks and balances which relies entirely on the continuing and continuous good will and fidelity of the people running it a system of checks and balances AT ALL?  We DON"T KNOW what the Fed does in full, so it can't possibly be overseen, and even if it were, we have no means of telling them to do anything.

This ludicrous situation exists in plain sight, and people are too fucking stupid to see it, largely because they have been taught to believe that if it isn't in the media, it doesn't exist.  That has never been true, and gets less true every year.

The other point I wanted to make was that if Bill Clinton was the first black President, Trump will be the first Jewish one.  I know, of course, that he isn't Jewish, but you'll find his picture right next to chutzpah in the dictionary.

There is another actual Jew in the race, but if Hillary has to personally rip his heart out with her teeth to get the nomination, she will.  The meaning of her entire life, everything she has done, all the lies she has told, and all the lives she has ruined, comes down to the next six months.  If being Queen means never having to say you are sorry, she wants with every fiber of her being to be Queen.

Another Snippet

Let me offer a simple principle: if the government is getting bigger, you are getting less free. And any time it is offering anything for "free", "guaranteeing" anything, or wanting to save you from something, there is a virtual certainty it is getting bigger. And once any government power is granted, it is very, very, very hard to reverse it. The loss of freedom, absent vigorous and organized opposition, is usually permanent. I understand that many people vote Democrat because they think it is a means by which the government "helps" people, but those same people, like me, resent continual intrusions into what should be personal choices. I will comment, again, that if the government is "helping", it is controlling. What will unify all of us, be removing the areas of contention as problems, is a sound monetary policy. But I seem to be the only one thinking about this as THE core problem.