Saturday, July 30, 2016

Election Fraud

I watched a video in the past day or so with an interview with a computer programmer who claims to have written a program to rig elections.  This seems like an obvious evolution for the Democrats.  It is a more efficient "vote early, vote often", which has always been their stock in trade, at least in big cities.

I read the Virginia Governor has more or less declared himself dictator, and that even though the Courts have told him it is illegal, he wants to restore voting rights to enough people to possibly swing Virginia.

I read ICE is busing illegals all around the country.  Why around the country?  Well, it would seem obvious to me that Democrats draw maps and demographics, and do the math about where they are just a little bit short.  Why wouldn't they be busing illegals to places where they want to swing the vote?  Why wouldn't they be precise?

The whole thing is a giant game to them.  It is not an effort to use the power of ideas to improve human life.  It is a set of practical problems, to which Machiavellian solutions are used often.  Lying, cheating and stealing are their stock in trade.  True or not as to whether he actually said it, the attitude attributed to James Carville is plainly accurate:

Ideologies aren't all that important. What's important is psychology.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don't have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn't have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you're smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That's why I'm a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to."
Unbelievably, the Democrats just nominated someone who has plainly committed more crimes than Richard Nixon.  Unbelievably, the DNC chair had to step down for gross ethical violations--and voter fraud, in important respects--and was immediately put on the payroll of the Hillary campaign, which she chaired in 2008.

Here is the point of this post: Trump needs to fight HARD to ensure a fair election.  He needs to demand paper ballots which can be recounted.  He needs an army of observers, particularly in places like Philadelphia.  He needs to demand that the votes of felons in Virginia not be counted.  He needs to demand that reasonable protections be in place to ensure illegal immigrants are not voting.  He needs to watch these amoral assholes like a hawk, and FIGHT them wherever there is the slightest appearance of impropriety.

I said in Facebook post the other day that this election is going to be a knife fight in a phone booth.  You need a brawler for that, somebody not afraid of some bare knuckles boxing, not afraid to get dirty.  You need someone who likes combat, and who thrives on it.  That is Trump.  That is why he is and always was the ONLY logical nominee.

Even if I had been able to get Rand Paul, he never would have stood a chance.  He doesn't have the Big Money, and never would have gotten it, since it comes with a price tag he would not have been willing to pay.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Firing Line

https://youtu.be/Y021WAdUlW8

Here is the Firing Line segment again.

As I watch this all the way through, I realize how thoroughly the Left has dominated the American political narrative for the past 50 years.  It is ASTONISHING to me to see that Sowell had solid solutions, based upon a non-patronizing view of blacks, based on a sense of black potential arising from his own experience and how ARROGANT and racist this left wing woman is, who focuses relentlessly on the idea that uneducated black parents can't be trusted with educational choices because they are too fucking stupid to pick correctly.

This is where we remain today, except that blacks have had another 35 years of shitty schools and following substandard opportunities and lives because the fucking Democrats and their teachers union backers have prevented sanity and decency on this issue.

Economically, Sowell deals effectively with virtually every Leftist talking point.

The precipice

One of the wonderful things about having trauma in ones past is it creates a continual sense of watchfulness, of fear, of mistrust and doubt.

Now, by and large this is harmful.  It creates problems where none exist.  At the same time, of all of the things one figures out one can fear, some of them are real.  As they said in the 60's, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

I read yesterday that Google--the most powerful, effective, successful search engine in the world by a large margin--was returning for the search result "Presidential candidates" (or something close to that), the names of Hillary, Bernie, and the Green candidate.  Maybe even Gary Johnson.  But it was not returning Trump's name.  They said this was a "technical glitch".  I won't even attempt sarcasm: if you believe that, you are a fucking idiot.

Today I read that Twitter is flushing Trump's fundraising Tweets down the Memory Hole.  It is "disappearing" them the way people disappear in Fascist regimes of the leftist and rightist variety.

Many years ago I recall reading that a San Francisco newspaper was covertly hiding conservative commentators, but in such a way that the poster could see his or her own post, but nobody else could.  They didn't know they were being censored.

Many years ago, when many more people valued principle, honesty, and true civic engagement, debates might happen in the editorial pages of papers everyone read.  They might happen on Public Access TV, as in Firing Line.  Watch as much of this, for example, as you have time for:https://youtu.be/Y021WAdUlW8
They are trying to do it right, to ask hard questions, and trying to find answers.

Our public dialogue in the past 20 years has been channeled into digital form, and into ideological ghettos. It is quite possible to receive an education up to the Doctoral level and NEVER encounter in a pristine form true Conservatism, to never understand economics from a conservative perspective, to never really GET the point of the Constitution, and for that matter, to EVER truly understand the real problems besetting blacks in this country.  You read about people who speak on their behalf, or claim to, and who in most cases benefit politically from so doing. 

As far as the Left is concerned. every conservative website could drop of the face of the Earth tomorrow, and it would take them some time to notice, and then they would be HAPPY.

Here is the thing: bigotry is assuming the worst of people who are different than you.  Our educational and media system have evolved to present a wall of noise demonizing conservatives without ever explaining them, without ever understanding them.  Our educational system and media--virtually all of them--are HIGHLY bigoted, highly prejudiced, highly colored by hatred and mistrust of people do not think like them.

As a cultural form, Leftism removes people from their historical cultural context, one of whose features is a GENUINE Liberalism, of the sort seen on the Firing Line.  Buckley grants a voice to dissent, in order to further understanding.  When we engage in dialogue, we humanize one another.

Where we have arrived at--and this has been the entirety of the intent of the moral pessimism and more or less overt practical nihilism which I have called Cultural Sadeism--is that a large section of our country has been separated from its history, and been reintroduced into a de facto cult.  They are told daily that they are moral ones, the honest ones, the good ones, and everyone else evil.

And we are seeing practically what this has made possible in recent days.  The DNC Chair is forced to step down for gross ethical violations, and immediately put back on the payroll of the woman on whose behalf she was cheating, and the media accepts this.  Many Democrats accept this.  Indeed, they have accepted as their candidate a woman who is clearly corrupt.

Logically, then, if Hillary wins, why would she not break the law to get Drudge off the internet?  Infowars, Breitbart, Front Page Magazine.  We are already seeing private corporations using their power to silence people solely on the basis of their opinions.  All that has to happen for mass censorship--the consequence of which will of course be an open path to tyranny and the final vitiation of our Constitution, and everything good about our noble experiment--is to label non-conforming sites "hateful", and to make "hate speech" a crime.

I really believe that if Hillary wins, the last wall will fall.  She will appoint activist left wing judges who will rubber stamp her tyranny, believing themselves principled and moral in the process, and that result will be immediately supported by all the information outlets who are presently doing so much to erode free speech on their own.

I do wonder how Google justifies such behavior.  How Twitter does it.  How all the complicit media do it.

Leftism is a mental illness which seeks in its early stages, rhetorically, the rectification of wrongs, but which in the process eradicates all capacity for true moral reasoning.

As they say on the Firing Line, Sowell's research, published 35 years ago, was greeted with universal hostility by the Left, even though it should have been empowering.  It said to blacks: you can fix this situation.  It is in your control.  That was not what their white handlers wanted to hear.  That is not what racial demogogues like Jesse Jackson wanted to hear.

Whatever else Donald Trump is, he is not a part of this process.  He is not someone who is going to shut down public debate.  He is not someone who is going to impose tyranny on the American people.  As a general rule, and this certainly applies here, you can easily see what the Left plans by what they accuse genuine Liberals of wanting.

We are on a precipice.  Liberty, historically, is always abolished.  There are always greedy, hateful, lying, power mongers who destroy it.

To vote for anyone but Trump in this election is, in my view, lunacy, even for those who think they will benefit in the short term from Hillary.  Tyrants cannot be loyal to all.  Heads always roll, usually for not thinking exactly like you are told to think, which most people cannot do.

Hunger Games

I was over at a friends house the other day for a dinner party, and we got to talking about how few people realize how good we have it in this country.  I had watched a movie at the Air Force Museum in Dayton a few weeks back showing the rescue in Haiti, and remembered how people live in much of the world.  I've been to the bad parts of Tijuana. I've seen the corrugated roofs and the dirt floors, and the gas stoves.  Water from a public tap or even a well.

And it hit me that we are the Capital in the Hunger Games.  The metaphor does not extend to the fact that we took anything from anyone (which of course is the core argument the Left wants to make for why our society and cultural order should be destroyed), and we do in fact work hard to help other nations develop, but the fact remains that even ordinary people in this country live like kings compared to most of the world.

We have roofs that don't leak.  Astonishingly, we have machines to heat and cool our homes.  We have clean running water.  We have indoor plumbing and reliable sewers (in much of the world they shit in the street or in holes somewhere without toilet paper, which can cause disease).  If we have insect or rodent infestations, we can call somebody to get them out.

We have shoes.  Most of us have multiple pairs of shoes, and socks.  We have clothes, many clothes, and miraculous machines to clean them.

A great many of us have cars, and in cities there are buses and trains for those who don't.

Our world is safe, by and large.  There are no marauding gangs shooting and killing people.

Our grocery stores are FILLED with food.  We worry a great deal about eating too much, and hardly at all about too little.  You have to be pretty stupid and lazy to go hungry in this country.

Anyone born in this country has already won the lottery of life.  Even if they are born poor, they can work hard and become wealthy.  This is still true.

It is astonishing how the Democrats have been able to brainwash so many people into thinking they have it hard, when half the world lives in huts, surrounded by shit, at the mercy of the heat and cold, and is forced to drink bad water, and endure hunger and disease.

Whining is undignified in all cases, and entirely inappropriate in the face of all the misery in this world.

Brazililan shantytown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXDg-ejjFBI

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo

Start at 22 minutes, although it is all good.

This guy (Larry Elder)--who happens to be black, but who more importantly is very articulate and intelligent--is awesome.


Monday, July 25, 2016

Cutting

Is something people do who know something is wrong, but can't name it, and have no idea how to get to it.  It concretizes experience.  They become real, for a moment, in the process.

Here is the thing: dissociation numbs pain.  This is good. But it also numbs pleasure and positive connection.  The two come from the same place: heartache and terror; and a healthy connection with life and the emotions and sensations that attend it.

So pain connects people with the place where pain is felt, which is also the place where pleasure is felt.  This is confusing to some.  You must first REMEMBER that some other place exists before you can hope to live in a happy place which exists as one possibility in that universe.

I get so many people I see walking around, and stopping in bars and drinking.  My gut tells me I need to try again my "church".  Something will likely be forthcoming soon.

re: Gary Johnson

Politics is the art of the possible.  The art of the impossible--of the idealist--is that of the irrelevant.

Great thoughts are great thoughts.  But they don't matter any more than great works of art hanging in galleries.  Until they affect and infect people in a position to make a difference, they are inanimate and useless practically.

We have a great infection within our Body Politic, a cancer of sorts.  That is a body composed at full strength of 9 people, who collectively have been allowed to wield more power than the Executive and Legislative Branches put together.  Their JOB is supposedly to protect the Constitution.  It was in the name of this outwardly noble cause that they were allowed to usurp the power of Judicial Review, which is nowhere contained in the Constitution.

But power, once assumed, is never relinquished, and always eventually abused.  The Four Horsemen held off a complete fascistic take-over--and that is the correct word--under FDR, but they were unable to hold off massive corruptions of our national life in the form of patently unConstitutional abuses and enlargements of Federal authority.

At the present moment, we are at the edge of a deep precipice.  If Hillary is elected, the final corruption of the Court is inevitable.  All reasonable, all legal, all principled blocks on the final arrogation of ultimate power by the Federal government will be removed, likely in short order, and that under the most corrupt human being ever to stand in striking distance of the White House, at least as far as I can recall.  Regardless of his countless abuses of power, FDR at least thought he was trying to help people. Hillary is and always has been solely concerned with herself.

We cannot risk Hillary's victory.  Even if we game this out, and even if we privilege feeling as an acceptable motive for a given strategy, it is in my view impossible to overlook the FACT that whatever momentary feelings may be gratified by voting for "the best man", the allegedly honest man, the one who at least understands the importance of Constitutionality, that bad feelings will follow soon enough in the continuing encroachment of an unimaginably large, impossibly powerful leviathan, which like all such monsters kills freedom simply by its existence, even when not directed to do so by power mongering lunatics, which is who we put into the White House with Hillary.

Look at what they did to the DNC.  Imagine what is possible with an activist left wing Court.

Trump is the only possible vote for sane people.  I see no possible valid counter-argument to this position.

Abstraction

Neurologically, and energetically, it seems to me that abstractions perform for many people the role of social connection.  They connect gut energy with head energy, which connects the head and the body, but without incorporating the heart.  Music, perhaps, includes the heart too.

Intellectualism is thus a very congenial solution, at least for the intelligent, to the problem of trauma.  It creates an illusion of life--the "life of the mind"--without forcing awareness of what lies hidden.  What lies hidden must always lie hidden.

And it seems to me too--what I am seeing in myself--is that psychological defenses become internal aggressors as I grow and change.  Your "core self"--which in fact is highly mutable, and usually observable in pieces--interacts with "defenses" for some time in tandem, to keep at bay emotional charges which are painful and which cannot be processed by that person at that time.

This alliance can last a lifetime.  What becomes clear to the contemplative, though, is that the defenses, themselves, exist to keep one in a condition of stupidity, of ignorance, of a lack of awareness.  The exist to prevent expansion, and are thus simultaneously prisons.  And as I grow, as one grows, their walls become apparent as anxieties, as a desire to return to the status quo, as an energy that in one moment is homey and calm and comfortable fires in the living room; and in the next as strident attacks on you as a traitor and betrayer.

Growing isn't easy.

One last thing: I notice in myself that work often makes me much more anxious than it ought to.  And I think what I do is overemphasize the relative difficulty and importance of each piece, because my dissociative tendencies tend to want to make me deemphasize everything.  I have, in other words, to more or less yell at myself to get anything done.  Otherwise, I tend to "dope" out.  I get stupid.

And this blogging has historically been a form of such stupidity, which may seem ironic.  But that is changing.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Another nice quote, from the article cited two posts previous

Ever since humans have been inflicting violence on other humans, they have been devising techniques to deal with its aftereffects. The French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty writes of “the lived body”—the body as a receptacle of past experiences, of a knowing that bypasses knowledge. Think of a culture as a collective lived body, the scars of its experiences accumulated over generations and fixed into rituals and mores. A less elegant way of putting this is in the language of therapy: culture as coping mechanism.
I would speak of culture as metapsychological support.  I don't think that is stupid, and I hope it is intelligent.  There must be a mediating intelligence not just between a person and his friends, but between him and the "crowd".  This is what we call culture, and what has been under attack for some time, arguably due to unprocessed trauma.

I look at the European intellectual scene in Post World War Europe--both of them, as you may recall I trace perhaps some of the collective breakdown as having first been expressed by the Dadaists while the first world war was still being fought--and think they might profitably be viewed as sustained cultural efforts to DISSOCIATE, through intellectualism, from the horrors that just happened. 

Sartre, my favorite target, was clearly severely dissociated, as was de Beauvoir.  It would be interesting to analyzie the Existential movement and their ideas through the prison--I meant to say prism, but will leave my slip as also appropriate--of clinical trauma. 

The unrealistic and largely useless idea of radical freedom, for example, might easily be seen as a counter-reaction (in psychology, most all strong expressed sentiments seem to come from the converse) to a sense of helplessness, of hypo-agency.

The Others

I am listening on audiobook to Ray Bradbury's excellent "The Illustrated Man".  I may have more to say on that, and I may not, but many of his stories are best and most easily seen as metaphors.  Thus, I am primed for metaphors.

And it hit me this morning that the movie "The Others" is an interesting metaphor for trauma.  It is like there is a completely separate, parallel, disconnected world moving in a timeless space next to the outward one.

Connecting them is is the key, and until then, ghosts live among us.

Europe idea, an addition

https://newrepublic.com/article/120144/trauma-genetic-scientists-say-parents-are-passing-ptsd-kids

Trauma resides in genes, too.  It is easy to focus on the survivors of labor camps, but ordinary civilians enduring bombing and shelling quite easily get it too.  Here, they say nearly 15% percent of Cambodians nationally seem to have it.

One good quote:

The children of the traumatized have always carried their parents’ suffering under their skin. “For years it lay in an iron box buried so deep inside me that I was never sure just what it was,” is how Helen Epstein, the American daughter of survivors of Auschwitz and Theresienstadt, began her book Children of the Holocaust, which launched something of a children-of-survivors movement when it came out in 1979. “I knew I carried slippery, combustible things more secret than sex and more dangerous than any shadow or ghost.”
More:

Traditionally, psychiatrists have cited family dynamics to explain the vicarious traumatization of the second generation. Children may absorb parents’ psychic burdens as much by osmosis as from stories. They infer unspeakable abuse and losses from parental anxiety or harshness of tone or clinginess—parents whose own families have been destroyed may be unwilling to let their children grow up and leave them. Parents may tell children that their problems amount to nothing compared with what they went through, which has a certain truth to it, but is crushing nonetheless. “Transgenerational transmission is when an older person unconsciously externalizes his traumatized self onto a developing child’s personality,” in the words of psychiatrist and psychohistorian Vamik Volkan. “A child then becomes a reservoir for the unwanted, troublesome parts of an older generation.” This, for decades, was the classic psychoanalytic formulation of the child-of-survivors syndrome.

But researchers are increasingly painting a picture of a psychopathology so fundamental, so, well, biological, that efforts to talk it away can seem like trying to shoot guns into a continent, in Joseph Conrad’s unforgettable image from Heart of Darkness. By far the most remarkable recent finding about this transmogrification of the body is that some proportion of it can be reproduced in the next generation. The children of survivors—a surprising number of them, anyway—may be born less able to metabolize stress. They may be born more susceptible to PTSD, a vulnerability expressed in their molecules, neurons, cells, and genes.

After a century of brutalization and slaughter of millions, the corporeal dimension of trauma gives a startling twist to the maxim that history repeats itself.
I am well read, but I am not aware of any theorist dealing in depth with the idea of traumatized societies, and what effects may linger.  That does not mean they don't exist--the questions, for example, are obviously being raised here, without taking the to me now obvious step of looking back at our own history, extended beyond Holocaust survivors--but this seems like a very potentially productive avenue of inquiry.

And as I have noted before, the issue of Islamic child rearing, which does likely have at least some commonalities across cultures, might for many be an intrinsically traumatizing process.  It may be that male children never bond properly with their mothers.  It may be that the fathers beat their sons so much that they enter the world already disembodied in some ways.  I don't know.

I was reading about Bataclan.  What was not reported at the time was that a number of people were taken to the second floor while the police were organizing a response, tortured, and presumably the tortures filmed and sent off on the internet, as recruiting propaganda.  Eyes were gouged out, male testicles were cut off and placed in the victims mouths, females were stabbed repeatedly in the vagina.

The psychopathic dissociation necessary for this sort of thing, especially in people raised in Western civilization, in France, even if my Muslim parents, can in my view only come from trauma of some sort.  Perhaps I am naive: perhaps indoctrination is sufficient to develop psycho killers.

Certainly, I think that when we spontaneously call such people "animals" that is quite accurate.  Lions, in killing and eating raw zebras on the savannah, feel no moral compunction.  They do not have internalized senses of the zebra other than that it is food for them.  They are not human, and we do not expect them to be human.  They worship no God, and make no vows before that God.

Likewise, those capable of such crimes worship no God, and make no claims before that God.  They act from utterly inhuman, primitive, atavistic instincts far behind the capacities we have developed for moral reasoning, and basic empathy.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Europe: a conjecture

The World Wars were fought long ago.  But it is worth thinking about the fact that many of the folks who fought in World War 1 came back severely traumatized.  We knew nothing about the physiology and psychology of trauma back then, other than that some people went into "shell shock".  What is obvious now is that there were countless cases of subclinical PTSD, people who did not go into collapse, but who were not well, and were broken by their experiences.  These people raised children, in France and in Germany and elsewhere.

If you were 20 in 1918, and had kids at 21, then they were 21 in 1940.  Traumatized fathers (and mothers, since the war was hard on the home front too) raised kids who were likewise traumatized.  Such fathers do not process emotions correctly.  They fly into rages over the smallest things.  They are often emotionally absent.  The one thing they are not, in most cases, is nurturing.  The collective trauma in Germany--and I mean clinical trauma--was likely a key factor in the rise of Nazism. 

Totalitarianism is a system well suited to people unable to form an independent sense of agency, of personal control.

And post World War 2 everybody emerged from the aftermath, from the bombings the atrocities, the famines, the mass death, with MORE trauma.  Germany did not recover emotionally overnight.  France did not recover emotionally overnight.

And these people had children, and these are the people now running Europe.  Angela Merkel was born in 1954, as was Francois Hollande.  They were born into a world which had recently been filled with smoke, the smell of gunpowder, screams, terror, death and ruin.  Everywhere ruin.

Trauma tends to push people into one of two directions: absolute slavishness and obsessive compliance, or into hypervigilence and continual fear and bouts of rage.

Here is my conjecture (I am not sure how to elevate it to an hypothesis): Europe, as a result of its scars, has become hypovigilent.  They are not scared enough.  They have not retained a healthy sense of boundaries, of national sanctity.  They are complacent.  This is perhaps the root psychology behind what I have termed Sybaritic Leftism.

It is an odd thing: nations go to war, but how do the members of those nations heal their wounds? I am increasingly persuaded that while personal healing is obviously extremely important, there is a meta-level in which nations, or groupings which are culturally uniform enough to be bonded together somehow, also need to process shared grief and shame and rage, and horror.

We are old enough as a species to begin speaking intelligently about these things, to begin acting in healthy and non-compulsive ways.  We do not need to simply watch the Iranians build ballistic missiles with only one possible purpose.  We do not need to pretend that "radical" Islam is always the exception, and pretend that the masses of military aged men that have been allowed in do not present an existential threat to the congenial ways of life the Europeans have evolved after millenia of development.

The Baseball Game test

I liked this article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/donald_trump_a_working_stiff_in_a_brioni_suit.html

Now, I don't have a mancrush on Trump.  It remains to be seen how he will govern.  But I think it is POSSIBLE he will consistently do the right things.  I did not feel that about McCain or Romney, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the others (except Rand Paul, who never really had a chance).

Here is a, to me, interesting heuristic: put different candidates in Yankee Stadium, surrounded by working class schlubs.  Look at Hillary, saying to her advisor "What do I SAY to these people?  Do I shake hands?  How does one act"?

Look at Ted Cruz.  He is gaming in his mind.  He is calculating.  He is trying to figure out what angle he needs to hit to get their votes.

Bernie Sanders belongs there.  I will grant him that.  But even he is sitting there, thinking: "I can save all these people from their Capitalistic enslavement."

George W. Bush is in a private booth, coming out from time to time to wave to everyone.  He has no real interest in sitting with working class folks.

Obama is sitting there, acting like he belongs, but he and everyone else there knows he doesn't.  He is socially clumsy.  His persona is a facade.  He is deeply uncomfortable, even as he tries to mimic their dialect.

Trump is having the time of his life.  He's the center of attention.  There is beer (which he doesn't drink, as I believe he doesn't drink at all), there are hot dogs, it's a good game.  Did you see that hit?  WOW, what a catch!!!  Man, check out the knockers on her--nudge, nudge, don't tell Melania I said that. He belongs there.  He is the only one.

Edit: I can't resist adding to this.  John Kerry won't touch the idea at all.  No interest.

Al Gore soon finds himself sitting alone.  Nobody likes him.  He is wooden, disingenuous, and belongs in a library somewhere reading something dull and useless.

George H.W. Bush largely makes no impact.  It is obvious he likes the game, but he is only a hit with the aging veterans.  Everybody else acknowledges he is there, and focuses on the game.  He doesn't stand out in any way.

Reagan, of course is a big hit.  He has everybody laughing almost continually.

Clinton belongs. He is not really working class, and not really a good human being--in my considered view he is awful and nasty--but he is a world class actor, and knows his part extremely well.  This is the big difference between him, and Obama and Hillary.  Honesty is the difference between him, and Trump and Reagan.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Jonathan Haidt

I used to have my doubts about Jonathan Haidt--it seemed to me he was using his pulpit more or less to demonize conservatives by damning them with faint praise--but ever since he integrated the disgust findings into his work, it has grown on me.

I have been pondering his six foundations of moral reasoning, as I think he calls them.  They are Liberty, Authority, Sanctity, Loyalty, Fairness and Care.  The more I think about it, the more I think these are NEEDS, what we might call meta-psychological needs.  A good society contains all of them, in a healthy balance, but of course societies do not exist.  Hence meta-psychological.

You can build Fascism out of Authority, Loyalty (Meine Ehre heisst Treue) and Sanctity.  The German nation needed to be purified.  Mother Russia needed to be purified.

In evaluating our border problem, Democrats bring to bear only concern for the well being of Mexicans, and a sense that they deserve their shot too.  Republicans--while not ignoring these concerns, in that none of us are calling for a stop or even change in our current immigration numbers, which are about 1.5 million immigration visas annually--add to this Sanctity (we love our nation, and want to keep it clean from unwanted infestations of crime, disease, and chronic dependents), and Loyalty (we want to look out for American workers first).

If we view these six as NEEDS, and not emotional factors in decision making, we must see them as we see animal instincts.  We are very skillful animals, in some respects, very competent animals. If they are instincts, then they will ALWAYS find ways to expression.  If you hate all political leaders, you will still find a guru in a book.  You will still have a code.

And it is an interesting game that people who value only Care and Fairness--Sybaritic Leftists--have to play.  They have to allow, for example, a latent need for Authority to creep in under another banner.  Their loyalty is to an ideology, but they don't call it an ideology: they call it truth.  Their calls to eradicate racism are an appeal to Sanctity.  Etc.

It is always best to reject sainthood, and realize that if want to live a life free of emotion, you are only going to make the emotions negative, violent, and unconscious.  You make them worse.

To my mind, the classical Liberal mindset balances all six needs, and does so consciously and diligently.  Out of that balance, success: strong, stable, long lasting success, of the sort we have seen in our own nation, and have led other nations to as well.

Arrogance

I felt yesterday that arrogance is in part a disconnection with the body, a lack of groundedness.  I felt it when it diminished.  It is hard to see ones flaws until they begin to dissolve.  They are simply who you are, who you have always been, and they feel natural and normal.  And they begin moving, and you realize life is much easier without them.  Arrogance has been a burden to me, sucking up energy I could have preserved or used in other ways.

Within Kum Nye there are three levels of relaxation.  I've likely mentioned this. The first is superficial (but still quite nourishing), where you just calm down.  It is what you feel after a good massage or a long bath.

The second is Kun Zhi, which if memory serves means in Tibetan "solid ground".  This term makes sense to me now.  In your practice, it is like you are drifting slowly down in the water, and you reach bottom, and you stay there a long time.  It feels like the bottom.  It feels solid.  Then one day it dissolves and you keep going, and as it dissolves, you feel all the bad stuff, all the ego, all the darkness, all the evil, the hidden rages, the compulsions, the shit.

And of course they don't disappear, but their work depends almost entirely on subterfuge, on hiding, on not being seen, on operating under the radar.  Once you can see them, you can name them, and you can dissolve them as they arise.  This capacity is, itself, the beginning of the capacity for conscious growth, for learning.

This is the third level, the one at which within this particular practice "meditation", per se--concentration--becomes possible.  It is pointless until then, or largely so.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

"The world"

It seems to me that many people, coming of age in the middle of this extraordinary economic and military success, quite naturally assume the world is good, and evil a problem which does not confront them. Evil is an error, easily corrected and erased.

At some point the fatuousness of this world view becomes clear. They run into barriers, are forced to traverse obstacles, and their view gradually changes to a sense that the world is evil. Go look at the poster in Spencer's to see what today's kids are thinking about, or play some video games.

I would compare and contrast this with William James very interesting distinction between once-born and twice-born Christians. The first, in my terms, are naive. They think God will literally supply their wants and keep evil at bay. Evil does not concern them.

The twice-born, in contrast, have both a somewhat fatalistic world view which is quite accurate in terms of recognizing how fragile we and everything in our lives is; and a peace which comes from acceptance, from squaring what is, with Gods will. This belief is redemptive and absolutely safe, because it excludes nothing.

The issue today is that we have in the public domain no good redemptive practices and beliefs. Suffering has no meaning. A victim is permanently marked. It is not a transitional condition, but a part of public mythology.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Racial injustice is the gateway drug

The band Mofro has a song "Everything good is bad/and everything bad is good".  That refrain--those are the only words I remember--has been going through my head all day.

I have obviously written extensively about the intellectual perversions which must precede moral perversions.  You get good kids feeling guilty about real crimes, but you neglect to mention that very few people committed most of the crimes, and you also neglect to mention that such crimes have been committed by all peoples against all peoples since, presumably, long before the beginning of recorded history, which itself began (in the West at least) with an account of a war, of slaves, of mass violence, of death, and of atrocities (although I don't know how much was recorded).

I have, likely inappropriately, chosen to comment on some threads on Facebook posted by some very leftish friends of mine I have met at what I call my "hippy things" whenever discussing them with my kids, since Breathwork is certainly a bit out there.

And in this process it occurred to me that if we look at the issue strictly from a psychological perspective, if we bring in the idea of healthy emotionality, it is extremely UNhealthy to want to or feel the need to take responsibility for crimes you did not commit, could not have prevented, and cannot correct now even with apologies and grotesquely masochistic behavior.

I do not think it could be healthy to ask anyone else to act in an unhealthy way.  It seems a reasonable standard and goal that we all be happy coexisting.  The word for a compulsion to see others suffer for any reason is sadism.

The past is the past.  It is done.  It is in the present that ALL of us must live and make decisions.  I am not sure what the word is, but the compulsion to pretend as if the past is present, and can be expiated in the present, is certainly delusional and sick.  No healthy person would or could ask you to be sick with them.

Problems certainly need to be solved.  But if we reference specifically the problem of blacks in this country, they create most of their own problems, expecting white people to come along and fix them.  It remains my belief that if we stop treating them like children, stop allowing them to act like children, they will mature as a community, and bring forth their full contribution.

If we don't give all the jobs to fucking robots.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Turkish Coup

Guess what motherfucker is making U.S. intelligence assets available to Erdogan?

I'll give you a hint: it's the same motherfucker who won't let our bombers target ISIS oil tanker convoys headed for the Turkish border.

Amen

War on Islamic Terror

It seems to me that these attacks will continue and perhaps get worse until the mass of Muslims becomes disgusted and outspoken about the murders originating from within their faith--murders of the innocent, of children, of babies.

And it seems to me this will not happen until we put moral pressure on Muslims in general by NAMING them at the highest level, by asking their leaders at the highest level how and why they can accept and advocate the murder of innocents anywhere for any reason.

It is disgusting to me that people are so brainwashed that they can somehow reactively, reflexively, worry more about Muslims--many of whom are quite guilty--being blamed for this attack than feel rage at the crushed bodies of infants and their toys.

Until people recover their moral compass, we can't ask any more of the Muslims themselves.  If we are confused, why should not they be?  And it is likely they are less confused: their faith readily commends the murder of anyone who is not a Muslim.  Our faith--Liberalism--abhors the murder of the innocent.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Too good not to share





Here is the thing: notions of collective guilt--and superiority--are inherently bigoted, and bigotry is the overarching rubric under which racism specifically falls.

ANY narrative which starts EITHER "white people are. . .", OR "black people are. .  ." should be objectionable to anyone concerned with avoiding bigotry.

Self evidently, the entirety of leftist propaganda and practice DEPENDS on bigotry, on prejudice, on anger and hatred visited on groups rather than individuals, but this fact is unclear to most of them.  They are mentally ill.  The land they live in can only be occupied by the sick and demented.

It is a land very much like that of the Inquisition, in which the only way you can be acquitted of guilt is to admit it, and ask to be punished.

To be clear, I reject bigotry, and I am painting "the Left" with a broad brush, but the thing about ideology and ideologues is they choose what they believe.  They choose to join the group.  It is not inappropriate to make general statements about members of the KKK.  And it is not inappropriate to make general statements about the lunatics who keep telling us they want to save us, who can't balance their checkbooks or do a single honest days work.

 

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

My Sufi Story

I can sometimes be heard talking in my sleep saying "Don't wake me.  Don't wake me."

Light, dark, the liminal and paranoia

I have long enjoyed sky-watching.  I like sunrises, sunsets, great cloud formations, the moon in all its phases, and the way winds waft across the landscape and enrich the experience.

Looking at the sunrise this morning, I was struck by the beauty of some shadow patterns in the clouds, the shadow of one cloud on another.

And it struck me that the only possible variation in darkness requires the presence of light.  Pure darkness is pure formlessness.  Any form requires a contrast.

In the Harry Potter books, Voldemort feels the need to observe the outer form of a duel when he attacks Dumbledore in the 5th book.  And I have long seen how evil needs the contrast with goodness, with culture, to support itself.  The Devil, we are told, is an impeccable gentleman.

Darkness, then, is the movement away from form, and Light the movement towards it.  But in our world we need both.  As Lao Tzu said, light requires heavy and up requires down.

That was the first thing I wanted to say.

Secondly, it seems to me that the process of healing trauma is that of imagining in the gut a completely new world, a new sort of experience, unlike any other.  This applies at least to those of us unable to remember a world in which we did not feel constant fear.

And there is a homology with this in genuine religion.  To take seriously the presence of God, and the necessity of service for optimal well-being is, in our present society, liminal, insane, out of bounds.

It is tempting to hope that emotional and spiritual growth can happen steadily and gradually.  It can do so over long periods of time, but there are periodic qualitative gaps which can only be crossed with faith and imagination.

This is the role, I think, that crazy ideas like those mentioned in the previous post play, for me.  And rationally, I still do mean everything I said.

Craziness

I am an odd mix of conservative and hippy.  I'm not even the pot smoking conservative type.  Those usually call themselves Libertarian.

But as I calm down and begin to work in a more consistent way I am seeing with greater clarity how crazy our lives are.  Yes, of course the conservative arguments that free markets and property law are effective at generating prosperity are accurate; and those of the socialists that a centralized State, granted vast powers, can or should alleviate human problems of alienation and disconnection are invalid.  Manifestly, large governments and Socialist States are vehicles of disenchantment, moral and social alienation, and social decay.  Truth and connection must be found locally, among people--self evidently--you know.

I spent two hours watching a video "Packing for Mars" the other day.  While I did not find most of the more sensational claims credible--such as that we have and have long had bases on Mars--the underlying theme that there is an elite, that there are people with access to power and technologies unknown to the rest of us, resonated with me.

I do believe we have underground cities.  I have seen them in my dreams, and building them would be perfectly congruent with the many fears which must visit all thinking people of global pandemics, an EMF attack, nuclear war, environmental decay, etc.  The money is there, and the will must likely also be there among a power elite not to risk their own futures on the vagaries of present policy and chance.

Both Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Defense Minister, and former Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell have gone on record as saying that the US government has vast amounts of data making it unambiguously clear that aliens have been and continue to visit our planet, and that this fact has been concealed not just from the American people, but possibly top leaders.  In my own opinion, one the reasons Trump is feared by the elites of both parties--by what we might term the Superparty, which exists in an unannounced collusion to ensure the victory of one of their candidates in every election--is that he is unpredictable, and that given access to State secrets may choose to reveal them.  He wanted the release of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Report made a part of the Republican platform, but he was shot down.

And as I have said often, given a sane financial system, most of us would only need to work a fraction of what we do.  We are driven around the treadmill by seeming psychopaths, whose thirst for power--whose inability to find inner satisfaction with life and their present human condition--drives them to an obsessive lust for money they don't need and can't hope to spend.

It is an odd thing looking at this world, looking at the gaps between what is possible and what is being expressed, between what sane people want, and what we are being given.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Brainwashing

The fact that the North Koreans were able to torture and manipulate people into accepting their lunatic creed is well known. The essential feat was seemingly convincing people to mean it when they affirmed that a 4" stick was the same length as a 6" one. This symbol serves well for their fanatical belief system in general.

I got to wondering in what conservstive--really, Liberal--brainwashing would consist. And it seems to me it would need consist solely in effective psychotherapy, in the building of mental and emotional health.

That is the difference.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

A police state

It should go without saying that a Police State worthy of the name has to have the police on board.  They need to feel comfortable abrogating peoples rights--ideally, of course, those rights have already been disappeared legally--and with invoking fear in the public.

It would seem an obvious step in the seasoning process for this would be first invoking fear in the police themselves, making them feel under assault, in danger, and prime them for overreactions, violence, and a feeling of contempt and disgust for most of the public, for most of the people they supposedly exist to protect.

I am not a sufficient conspiracy theorist to think the Dallas shooter was part of a conspiracy, that he was brainwashed or selected like in the  Parallax View, then killed to cover it up (although I can't rule it out, of course, any more than I can rule out the allegations by a former Canadian Defense Minister that our government is currently working with several species of aliens; the world is a vast and strange place). What seems vastly more likely is that the people who fund and control what has become a Communist front group--Black Lives Matter--KNEW that sooner or later somebody or multiple somebodies would take to heart the relentless violent rhetoric against police.  They talk about killing cops continually, and our PRESIDENT, our fucking PRESIDENT supports them in this.  Given millions of angry people, and hundreds of millions of guns, why wouldn't something like Dallas happen sooner or later?

And this is a dual bonus: one, they make cops paranoid, and more prone to overreactions, but two, they get to point to guns, as Obama did immediately, the asshole, and push gun control yet again.  Both are needed for a police state.

I would like to expand on all this a bit, and take it in a slightly different direction.

Like all bureaucratic organisms, police departments exist to perform a job, in theory.  Police of course do a very public job and in most places do it reasonably well.  In this they differ from many bureaucracies.

But like bureaucracies they are prone to losing sight of the end goal.  The end goal is public safety.  Safe streets.  Freedom from violence and theft.  It is a very subtle evolution, though, from those laudable goals, to a demand for respect and fear.  "Fear me", they say, "and I may leave you alone.".  It is a short step from law and order to the use and abuse of power for its own sake.

When we look at the Stanford Prisoner Experiment--which I now realize is very relevant to the issue of police/public relations generally--what we see is that it is virtually impossible not to become adjusted to, and to some extent addicted to, the exercise of power.

And psychologically normal people cannot but react to this in a variety of ways, which include all the possibilities in any situation of predator/prey interactions.

They can stand up for themselves without panicking, using mature psychological defenses, frame the situation in a way which is not existentially threatening, and emerge with few or no scars.

More commonly, people likely go into some mild or severe form of fight or flight or freeze.  In the case of being arrested, it is a literal confinement, a textbook case of being mobilized to run or fight without the ability to do either.  This leaves scars in many people.  I think most black people particularly in this country walk around with mild to severe trauma as a result of their dealings with the police.  For my part, I don't doubt for a moment that blacks get treated differently.  Proportionately, they empirically commit a lot more crimes, visibly do a lot more stupid things, but there is a circle, I think, in that by getting arrested more, they get traumatized more, and this creates more crimes and more arrests.  Once they are familiar with the prison system, they are conditioned to a known evil, and they do not fear it as much, which creates fewer fears of being punished for committing crimes.  In some places, doing time is, I think, a bit of a status symbol.  That is the opposite of the effect we want.

I'm not sure where to go with this.  Here is another idea: utilizing volunteer police officers the same way we use volunteer fire fighters.  We put cameras on them that cannot easily be dislodged, provide them basic training, and rotate them often.  We make blacks the police of their own neighborhoods.  What I think would happen is that arrests would happen a lot less.  A lot more things would be talked through.  A lot more patience and tolerance would be shown by people who do not see the same shit year after year, and who have not undergone the conditioning which inevitably follows the power they are granted.

This idea is a bit far out, I know, but shit aren't most of my ideas?  I'm OK with that.  I actually think it has a lot of merit, not least the political merit of decentralizing power, and the use of power, and the relative empowerment of the people.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Expectations

In a free country, you are innocent until proven guilty, and free until there is some compelling reason you should not be free.

I see people say "well, if Eric Garner had cooperated, he wouldn't be dead".  That is likely true.  It is CERTAINLY true that if those 5 cops had not decided he needed to go to jail for selling cigarettes he would be alive.

In my own view, we need a whole lot less things you go to jail for.  In particular, I think we need to legalize substantially all drugs.  A great deal of petty crime--like petty theft, and robbery--is related to drugs.  Make the drugs easier to get, and you reduce the crime.  Have an intelligent long term vision, such as helping addicts heal their emotional wounds, as Portugal did, and you get even better returns on investment.

I really think we need to move beyond simple moralisms, where if you stay on one side of a line you are "good", and if you cross to the other you are "bad".  Who you ARE is what you think and feel most of the time, most of the day, and particularly what you choose to feed and what you choose to starve.

There are many awful human beings who have never broken or even contemplated breaking a law their entire lives.  Heinrich Himmler, as one example, was very scrupulous about everything.  He kept the receipts for his hair cuts.  I don't know why I remember that, but it was the sort of detail that reveals the man.

And many people who break the law--even major laws, such as those prohibiting car theft and robbery and even murder--are actually good people who exercised bad judgement over a very short period of time.

I am not arguing for moral relativism.  Some things are clearly wrong, but the public policy question, the practical question, is how we build a better society.  We cannot assume that punishment, per se, works to do that. In fact, I think it manifestly does not.  We cannot and should not assume that visiting hatred and pain and humiliation on people who enter the world traumatized does anything but reinforce all their worst existing impulses.  We can of course jail such people for life, but it is expensive, and it is a waste of life.  It is unnecessary, if in at least some cases those people might have contributed to society, rather than being forced by a court of law to spend their lives taking from society.

People operate according to knowable psychological principles.  They have reasons for what they do, and most of the time those reasons are ex post facto justifications for feelings which preceded them.  Those feelings, in turn, arise from primitive sufferings which they do not know how to bring to awareness, and whose existence they don't even suspect.

I would stipulate, for example, that the feeling of shame causes behavior which justifies it.

And it is a truism that cops are psychologically very similar to the criminals they jail, just as most fire-fighters have more than a little in common with arsonists.  Among other things, they like breaking stuff.

My point is that if we are to survive, we all need to be more psychologically sophisticated.  We need to bring what we know about human mental health into the public domain.  This does not mean going easy on psychopathic killers and rapists, but it does mean asking basic questions about motivation, figuring out who people are and why they do what they do, and making intelligent decisions on that basis.  Sometimes, that decision might be a course of psychological treatment, of a sort that can over some period of time prove itself effective, something which must be continually measured, and changes made regularly.  In my own view, virtually everything starts with trauma, and the fact that most therapies have not address trauma is the reason most of them fucking suck.

Black Lives Matter

Can one blame cops for getting shot?  Of course not.  Can one blame them for creating an atmosphere in which people WANT to shoot them?  Yes.  Clearly.

I keep saying this in many ways.  This one is slightly different.

The MINDSET they teach cops in the Academy, the one they enter their professional lives with, is control.  They teach them that they have to establish and maintain from the outset an absolute sense of dominance which is clear to both sides.  They are, in other words, to make every person with whom they come in contact, who they suspect may have committed a crime, feel inferior.  They want you to feel like shit.  They want you to feel shame and fear.  These are the emotions their training implicitly teaches them to invoke.

From a militaristic perspective, this makes sense.  You establish relative dominance, which you support with the clear display of weapons coupled with the  relatively unchecked power to put handcuffs on you and lock you in a cage, and you teach people to feel the fear of animals confronted with a superior predator.  Their fear makes them compliant.  This is not in principle different from a tiger showing its fangs.

The cops like it because they are the Alphas on the block, and they have a lot of other Alphas to share their Alpha-hood with. And in general their methods work.  People with something to lose fear losing it, and they keep their mouths shut, by and large, and their hands visible.

But when this mindset backfires, it backfires badly.  I think a lot of Officer Involved Shootings would not happen if the people concerned were treated with more respect, if they were treated as human beings, if they were not treated as a possible lunch for a hungry predator.

In most healthy people there is a desire to push back when someone pushes you.  In traumatized people, in the sorts of people who populate our jails and commit most of our crimes, this urge can be extraordinary.  It can reach the point--often does reach the point--where they DON'T CARE about the consequences.  This guy in Dallas planned to die.  He knew it was the only likely ending.  That price was obviously worth it to put fear back into the cops, to show them he too was a human being, he too had feelings, and his people had the right to demand to be treated fairly and with respect.

And obviously how can we expect cops to react?  They will do more of what created this problem in the first place.  They will be even more abusive, even less trusting, even more militaristic, as if the war being waged was ON the American people, and not on their behalf, which is supposedly the mission.  They exist as Public Safety Officers.  They exist not to victimize us, but to protect us.

But the mindset they develop is that of hunters, who enjoy the chase.  They are not looking for reasons not to arrest people--most cops on most nights--but reasons TO arrest them.  And again, this is the good cops.  The guys who make the most arrests are viewed with respect.  They are supposed to make the streets that much safer, but given how unsafe many streets are where the most arrests are made, one wonders.

And how do we put a cost to all the lost creation, all the lost labor, of the vast numbers of blacks who enter a revolving door relationship with our jail system?  They go in for something stupid, like petty theft, committed because nobody ever taught them right from wrong, or how to get ahead honestly, or who imbued them with the slightest hint of self respect, and they quickly learn they don't matter.  Their lives don't matter.  They are human shit.  They know this, because they have to put up being treated like shit, over and over, by men with guns and nightsticks.

How does any good come out of this?

I understand and have participated in the defense of the police. I have pointed out often that more whites are killed by cops than blacks, and that most blacks who are killed are killed by other blacks.  I have pointed out that a lot of COPS are black, as for example were half the cops charged in Baltimore, who if they are guilty of anything it is surely not racism.

But what I would add to this is that there has been no national self reflection, no asking of hard questions, no asking why our policing is done the way it is.  I get that if Obama calls for something most sane people will immediately feel the need to do the opposite.  He is a disgustingly disingenuous, hateful, divisive and opportunistic human being.  He disgraces our highest office.  But it is the American people's disgrace, since we put him there.

At the same time, though, these questions do need to be asked.  I have seen 6-8 videos in the last year where excessive force was clearly used.  Shoot first and ask questions later no doubt works to keep cops alive.  If I could be certain I would never be held accountable for bad decisions, then it might be my policy too, if I were lacking in a sense of honor and decency and professional integrity.

But that policy does not work to keep people alive who have committed no capital offense, and who in most cases are reacting the same way that dogs react when you keep yanking their leashes.  "Yanking your chain" is in fact a common police saying, or used to be.  If you deal with people like dirt, sometimes that alone is going to cause a reaction which results in one or both parties getting shot.  Since they are the ones who took the oath, and since they are the ones who are the supposed professionals, police need to accept a much larger share of the responsibility and the blame when things go south.

https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/videos/10154304212146800/

As Trevor Noah points out, in what I thought was a reasonably balanced piece, saying you are against cops killing innocent--or at least people not guilty of a capital offense who could and should have been dealt with with more skill--people is not "anti-cop".

One immediate change people might consider is the automatic use of handcuffs.  The sting of being arrested is, I think, made much worse by the use of handcuffs.  Some people clearly need to be cuffed for the safety of the officers.  But most people don't.  Most people, if you tell them you will face a lot of jail time if you act up, will behave fine.  Every time you put cuffs on someone you assume they are violent.  But most people are not violent.  Most people were not going to attack the cops.

You could do something as simple as say "if I don't cuff you, can I trust you?" and even though in some cases the cop may regret it, I think on balance there would be a lot less fear of, and hatred of, cops.

And we need to be clear that even though cops make noise about public service, and even though many of them would be willing to risk their lives to protect people, most of them are addicted to their jobs.  The cops in small towns are bored.  And the risk cops are not in general willing to take is the risk of being shot in order to keep some suspect alive.

Personally, I view the main difference between a cop getting shot by a criminal, and a cop who is made a criminal by the act of shooting an innocent person (like the drunk guy in Mesa who had no gun at all) is the size of the funeral, and the number of attendees.  They are not usually the heroes we make them out to be.  They like their jobs.  Most of them are highly cynical, detest most of the public, and keep mainly to their own.  Cops almost always hang out with other cops.

We need them, to be clear.  The choice is not cops/no cops.  At issue is how they do their jobs, the authority they have, the training they receive, and the expectations we place on them. Specifically, if they do something stupid, they need at a minimum to lose their jobs.  This would seem common sense.  It would help public relations, and in the long run likely get a lot fewer people killed--on both sides, I am inclined to honestly say, even though we are all theoretically on the same side.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Fighting

https://aeon.co/essays/how-bad-experiences-in-childhood-lead-to-adult-illness

I am very close to feeling calm, and I was recalling today a study I read some years ago that 100% of people who had exceptionally poor relationships with both parents had serious illnesses in their 40's.  When I read that, of course I was a bit worried, since for all intents and purposes I am an orphan with two living parents with whom it is simply impossible to communicate at more than a superficial level.  I Googled, something, and the study above came up.  This quote is relevant to my own experience:

Imagine for a moment that your body receives its stress hormones and chemicals through an IV drip that’s turned on high when needed and, when the crisis passes, it’s switched off again. You might think of kids whose brains have undergone epigenetic changes because of early adversity as having an inflammation-promoting drip of fight-or-flight hormones turned on every day – it’s as if there is no off switch.
I have not been sick.  Other than a minor surgery to fix a muscular injury, which really doesn't count, I have been 100% free of physical ailments, even though I'm sure my ACE score is 3 or above.  I don't really want to know.  I have had more than one therapist look at me in wonderment at my relative stability, given my history.

And here is why I think I have not gotten sick: I chose, at age 16, to fucking FIGHT for sanity.  I didn't know what to do.  I did not know where to go.  I had no idea what was wrong with me, but I knew something was, that I did not process the world like most other people.  My entire adult life has been oriented around the task of gathering wisdom and learning, on the deepest level I could reach.  This has been everything to me.

And I really think that has made the difference.  You can see my battles here.  What do I have, 3,000 posts or more?  This, even though I'm not really sure more than one or two people read it, and I'm not sure even they read it regularly.   This blog is the fight, or part of it.  This blog is a part of the not giving in, the telling my unconscious that I will continue, I will fight on, I will never quit.

No one can heal me.  The scars are much too deep, and in any event it is unfair to ask anyone else to carry your cross.  I am the one who needs to do it, and I am DOING it.  It is not theoretical.  I am feeling better every day. One day soon I will greet the sunrise without fear.

The feeling precedes the explanation

Where chronic feelings are concerned, like anger and anxiety, the feeling precedes the explanation.  People who are angry will find things to be angry about.  People who are anxious will find things to be anxious about. 

But both functions are intended as tools to help build a better, freer life, not dictators to diminish life and make it compulsive.  This point is important.

Jesus on Judgement Day

I had this image come to me, which I may have read somewhere.  I can't remember any more than anyone else everything I've read and heard.

I was thinking of these self righteous assholes who run communities, and who think it's quite OK to send an 18 year kid to jail for 20 years for a car theft committed in a moment of rage and immaturity.

He dies, and he's standing outside the door marked "Room of Judgement" at the head of the line.  He just found himself there, and figures it makes sense.  A poor woman missing her teeth is standing behind him, and says she's scared and worried.  She did meth and was a prostitute for many years, but she did her best to be kind all her life, but she just had too much to deal with.  Her father and uncle molested her, she ran away when she was 14, and it never got any easier.  She did take care of her sister when she was dying, got off drugs finally, and took up Buddhist meditation which finally brought her some measure of peace.

Our hero says: Buddhism?  Unless you have been born again in the blood of Jesus, eternal Hell is your punishment.  And he surely will not look kindly on your many years of sin, ESPECIALLY since you have not sought his forgiveness.  You must surely be damned.

And Jesus, of course, appears in his true form, and says "as ye judge, so shall ye be judged" and condemns the man to the Pit.

Within my own metaphysics, of course, I don't think these stories about eternal damnation and salvation are true.  I think people more or less find the level of their measure.  They rise or sink according to their actually dominant spiritual and emotional habits.  But even within this model, the prostitute would be at a much higher level than this man, who is cruel, lacking in understanding and sympathy, and utterly self righteous.

Robin Hood, the Police and Dallas

It occurred to me this morning that the metaphor of Robin Hood, if we apply it to our current era, would be armed bands breaking into police stations to take back what was taken in Civil Asset Forfeiture--a highly abused process which is certainly antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution--and also stealing money from the IRS as it convoyed the money taken in taxes--taken, to be clear, at the point of a figurative and sometimes literal gun--from the public.

Leftism could not exist without effective lies, without effective propaganda, without long term and carefully directed and orchestrated misdirection.  Indeed, so deep is the malaise that in the 1960's they found it necessary to attack the process of rational--goal based--thinking entirely.

If you look at all the enormous government buildings, what you need to see is King John.  What you need to see is a bloated organism that takes a third of everything we make, uses it to fund lavish salaries, expensive buildings, and a continual thirst for more bureaucracy because it means more taxes, which they depend in the end on the police--in some form--to collect.

The power granted the government must be taken with great responsibility. With regard to the police, I have been saying for some time that if the police do not start policing their own, if they do not start sending abusive cops to jail, or at least firing them, as should have happened in the Eric Garner case, then people are going to start shooting back.  It is inevitable.  If people lose faith in the system, and have little to lose, then why not shoot back at a system that is already shooting at you?

I know a lot of people who have been arrested for one thing or another.  Cops do not treat prisoners like people.  Even if they are superficially polite, they are not thinking of you as a human being even at a traffic stop.  They are thinking how they will kill you if they need to.

I think most of the people who go into law enforcement like this emotional superficiality.  They are able to leave unprocessed all sorts of negative emotions, which certainly include rage and some degree of sadism.  And if they don't start that way, it happens soon enough.  You cannot lock people up every day for any length of time and not develop a latent sadism and sense of relative empowerment.  As I have said, I think this process becomes addictive for most.

I have proposed as one solution not allowing cops to be cops more than 5 years, except in the case of jobs where a lot of experience is needed, such as homicide and some other types of investigations.  Perhaps 5 years is too long.  Perhaps 1-2 years.

Another idea would be to make a lot less things illegal, and the need to arrest people much lower.  There is something traumatizing, I think, about having handcuffs placed on you, and being locked in a cage.  That most black people endure this often cannot but have an effect, that of increasing both rage and relative sense of helplessness and disenfranchisement.

I do think Black Lives Matter is being used as a front for the usual fucking psychotics who want death and destruction for us all--the George Soros's of the world.  But I do also think it has or had a potentially useful purpose, which is providing a non-violent--or mostly non-violent--outlet for pent up energies.

When you hold people down, when you suppress them daily for decades, when they get arrested for having a little weed, or an open can of King Cobra,  or even for just loitering in the wrong place at the wrong time and giving the cop some attitude (cops are intensely sensitive creatures, who learn they can get away with not tolerating the slightest back talk, and who quite gleefully punish it), then some combination of rage and helplessness builds.  The despair shows up in drug and alcohol abuse.  The rage in violence.

By and large black violence has been held within their communities, by the police, and by habit.  But it has long been my opinion that sooner or later they are going to start shooting cops, utterly without regard to the consequences to themselves, simply because they have nothing else to live for, no good, creative outlets for their life energy, and because some of these assholes--you have seen the videos, so don't play innocent--deserve it.

I worked in a police department for 2 years where I interfaced with cops on a daily basis.  Every department has bad apples, and everybody knows who they are, but they cover for them.  This is the point I am making: people need to stop covering for them.  I don't give a shit what the "culture" is.  Those people are going to start getting everyone else killed.

It could be that every cop killed in Dallas was a wonderful human being.  More likely, they were average human beings who were decent at home, responsible in their private lives, but who dehumanized people on a daily basis, and viewed it as their job.  To some extent it is their job, but even after factoring in guns I think there is a reason there are so many more cops and civilians killed in their interactions in this country than anywhere else.  It is cultural factors, and most specifically, in my opinion, the habit of treating people objects.

I will add too that I think jail for most is a stupid punishment.  Most of the people who get arrested are already emotionally disturbed.  They acted out impulsively.  They did something without thinking it through, they got too angry too quickly.  I was talking to a kid the other day who had somebody steal a bunch of money from him, so he went over to this persons house and stole a bunch of stuff of his, including a car.  He was looking at 10-20 years.  This, for an hour or two's bad decisions based on rational anger.

And who foots the bill for that?  We do.  And these fucking for-profit jails no doubt have lobbyists hard at work making the penalties stiffer for everything, using an appeal to moralism and the need for public order.

Does this make any sense at all?  Not that I can see.  What these people need is emotional counseling, some way of learning impulse control, some way of processing deep traumas, some way of becoming useful rather than caged citizens.

I think the reaction to crime--we might start by using this word rather than punishment--ought to be oriented around the maintenance and improvement of social order.  Some people are psychopaths and will never be fit to exist in civil society.  I think these people--and I have said this before--should be locked up for life.  Their jails should be comfortable, reasonable, but permanent.  They cannot be rehabilitated, and they will always be dangerous in a free society.

But a lot of people just made a stupid mistake, or continue making stupid mistakes because they don't know any better.  Nobody is teaching them anything, and what jail teaches them is they don't want to be in jail, but if they know it and are familiar with it, fuck it, if I get caught I can deal with it.

What we need is a system to at least try and figure out who is who.  Who are the psychopaths, and who are the people who are just very confused and angry and impulsive?

Now, the devil is in the detail.  The war is won with logistics.  Most therapies suck.  They are stupid.  I don't doubt there are groups of men sitting around in groups where somebody is telling them to talk about feelings.  They comply superficially, and wonder all the time at the gullibility and stupidity of everyone involved.

But anyone who is not functional is hurting inside.  On some deep, likely unconscious level, they want to heal, but it seems impossible.  This is the task for intelligent therapists, to figure how to TRULY help people who genuinely want to heal.

I have to run, but these are a few ideas.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

The FBI

I think we need to all collectively recognize that the FBI has been completely politicized and that a major house-cleaning is in order.

Yesterday, I spent an hour watching this video series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4VaRGqJZ_I (it is an hour, broken into roughly ten minute segments).

In it, among other things, they note the public testimony given to the Senate that a senior NTSB official caught the FBI destroying evidence in the middle of the night. The topic is the coverup of the destruction of a commercial Boeing 747 airliner off the coast of Long Island by what were almost certainly two surface to air missiles.

The relevance to the Clintons is clear.  They were involved in the cover up from the get-go:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/hillary_gorelick_and_the_corruption_of_the_twa_800_case.html

I don't think it would be too much to call this Benghazi 1.0, although I am likely being overly generous in calling it the first cover up.

As I have shared, the Oklahoma City bombing also appears to have involved a much wider conspiracy, one also with the FBI in the middle.  Without taking too much time, I will simply share the letter a retired Air Force General who was an expert in the relevant field--that of damage assessment--to Senator Trent Lott: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm

I will note that one police officer involved in the case appears to have been assassinated, and at least one suspect tortured to death, almost certainly by the FBI.  No one was punished.  The truth was never told.

It is an odd thing to me to observe Democrats who fear their government when Republicans are in charge ceding to their fellow Democrats such enormous trust.  If the government can be abused by one party, why not both?  

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

To the Never Trumpers

We saw yesterday what kind of monster we are unleashing if we put Hillary in the White House.  She broke many laws--she lied to Congress, she lied to the FBI, she broke numerous regulations concerning classified data--and SHE GOT AWAY WITH IT.  In full daylight.  Everyone knew and knows what she did, and they said WE DON'T CARE.

The FBI has shown itself to the world to be a corrupt, filthy, disgusting travesty.  They follow the IRS in this.

Hillary has a long history of backroom deals.  She was selling contracts to the Russians.  She is taking huge sums from the Saudis right now.  She is venal.  She is for sale, and ethics is something she vaguely recalls reading about in one of her mandatory college classes many years ago.

I read today she likely played a major role in covering up a major attack in Long Island: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/hillary_gorelick_and_the_corruption_of_the_twa_800_case.html

She got an American Ambassador killed, along with 3 good Americans, then LIED ABOUT IT to all of us.

The woman is a fucking psycho.  She is a walking list of mental health problems, and power seems to be her sole consolation.  And power is not power until it is abused, and abusing it is clearly what she expects to do, and what any sane human being must expect her to do.  Why not?  Morality is off the table.  Common decency is something she has never known or had any reason to practice.  Fear of the law is off the table.  Obama has shown our Congress has been neutered, and now the FBI has shown itself to be her lap dog, as indeed it did for Bill in the 90's.

And I read Gary Johnson thinks everything Hillary did is OK: http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/07/03/gary-johnson-gives-hillary-pass/

Johnson seems to prefer the Democrats to the GOP these days. In addition to giving Hillary a pass on her email scandal, he said that President Obama is "a good guy" and Hillary was "a wonderful public servant."
Gary Johnson can't win, but he is the only alternative to Hillary and Trump, and anyone who could vote for Trump and instead votes for Johnson is voting for Hillary.

How fucking hard is this call to make for anyone claiming to be sane, and to value the future of our country?  If you are on the gravy train, sure, I get a vote for Hillary; and if you aspire to be on the gravy train, likewise, I assume that like all Machiavellian gangsters she rewards loyal service; but for anyone else, voting for Hillary is a vote to continue our national suicide. 

Monday, July 4, 2016

Activated Islam

Being something of a student of Islamic history--Gibbons treatment of it, by the way, in Decline and Fall, is excellent--I have never liked the term "Radical Islam".  This implies that something has gone wrong with normal Islam, that it has been taken beyond the boundaries.

The truth is that most Muslims, in most Muslim countries, have gone torpid.  They have become drowsy with respect to their faith.  They have allowed their innate humanity to overpower the innate inhumanity of the Islamic creed.  They have privileged sloth and common decency above dogma and ideology.

Islam in its primitive form is ascetic (except for sex), violent, inflexible, and aggressively expansive.  Iran under the Shah was not Islamic.  Women were free to dress as they chose, there were many bars, men did not have beards, many people did not pray the right number of times or at all, etc.

As I have said often, the best Muslims are the worst Muslims.  Conversely, the worst human beings are the best Muslims.

Therefore the term "Activated Islam", to me, better conveys the sense that the violence was always potential, it was always possible, just not yet present.  The task of the radicals, so called, is merely to activate it, to make Muslims read their own Koran and try to live by it.

And in the West we make it easier to recruit because of our fundamental decadence.  You cannot offer an alternative if you believe nothing.  Humans are believing creatures.  We are tribal creatures.  We need to belong, both socially and intellectually, to some larger group.

Nobody who watches Europe can say the are humanists any more, or that they believe in the promises of the Enlightenment.  They are superficial, egotistical hedonists who are not having children because they don't want the responsibility of creating a world they will not cringe to pass on to their progeny.  This leaves a gap Islamists are only too happy to fill.

And so we are presented with the prospect of a continent which invented democracy, virtually every major scientific discovery of the modern era, the philosophy of Liberalism and universal human rights, returning to an atavistic stage of cultural evolution firmly rooted in the 7th century.  That this is absurd, does not mean it is impossible, or even improbable.

Thoughts

I am seeing some interesting things.

It seems to me that a key element in developing self acceptance (in quieting the fight or flight responses I will discuss momentarily) is realizing that EVERYTHING you do has a reason.  You may hate yourself for always winding up with the same sort of romantic partner, or for oversleeping, or for being a workaholic, or for abusing drugs and alcohol and sex, or whatever.  EVERYTHING you do has a reason.  It is emotionally logical.  It is intended to save you pain, even if of course in the long or even short run it increases it.  You are substituting a conscious pain to avoid dealing with an unconscious one.

And what is interesting to me is that as I slow down, I am realizing that every day, countless times a day, people go through sequences which have a middle part that they are unaware of.  You see a person, and a series of events trigger in your brain, and a reaction issues forth.

Let me reframe that a bit.  Emotionally healthy people are likely aware of why they do things, but most people are not emotionally healthy, not by a long shot.  You find yourself saying "I don't know why I said or did or felt that".  There is an answer, but the part of you which ACTUALLY made the decision did so in a split second, in an altered state of consciousness that may have endured no more than a tenth of a second.

Healing, become healthy, consists in being able to touch this place, to speak with it, to give it room to express itself, to feel it, to make contact with it.  Invariably, it is where things are hidden which make you uncomfortable at best--and invoke deep feelings of horror and violation at worst--which is why they are hidden.  Some part of you is protecting you from things it can't make go away, and doesn't yet know how to process.  Suppression enables you to function, even if suboptimally.  This is a truism of course, but old truths are sometimes worth saying again with new words.

What I realized this morning is that I cycle between fight and flight.  If you pin a bird to a board with a nail, it will alternate fighting and passivity.  But if you look at this metaphor--and it is a bit gruesome, but suitable for my purpose since it evokes the actual feelings involved--the fighting and flighting are the same motion.  The feeling of wanting to escape and wanting to attack are quite similar.

There are two cycles involved in people dealing with trauma.  There is a cycle between depersonalization--passivity--and fight and flight.  And there is a cycle between fight and flight.  Fight is when the traumatized person gets enraged and angry in an inappropriate proportion.  Flight is when they become lost in daydreams.  It is not the same as numbness.  It has motion to it.

And what I saw this morning is that fight and flight cycle back and forth, but they go through a dark zone which evokes fear, but which is really the latent possibility of calm and peace, of relaxation.  The traumatized person fears relaxation, because it feels like it increases risk.  Certainly, I do, on some level.

There is a lot to ponder and feel here.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Emotional Neglect

When you interact with another human being, and they fail to be fully present, this on some level, if you fail to perceive it, works to distance you from your own emotions.  What I am seeing is that other people, and to the main point here, parents, can say all the words you need to say but that if they don't mean it, it hurts, on balance.

They can say "I love you".  They can say "I am there for you".  They can say "I am proud of you".

But if they are narcissists, if they are watching TV while they say it, if they are heading out the  door, then that bond is not formed, that connection is not made.  And in point of fact, you are being trained in superficiality.

To look a child in the eye and say something you don't know how to mean, or are unwilling to take the time to mean, is emotional neglect.  And what is interesting about this is that this neglect will not be easily perceived by either party.  The child will think "they said they love me, so this must be what love is".  The parent will say "I said I love you, what else can I do?"

So often I think that in this and now other countries, media fills the gap where emotional honesty should have been.  People are hurt, do not know they are hurt, do not know they are missing something, and use constant distraction as a means of managing it without ever becoming consciously aware of it.

This is a fragile system.  In the past, absent these distractions, something would have given.  Some truth would have been told.  The delusion would have collapsed.  But in our modern world, delusion can survive a very, very long time, and it is buttressed by sentimentalism as a pseudo-moral creed.

I am consciously directing most of my thinking to my diary, but I felt this needed to be said publicly.

Things are going well for me.  I will have crossed the ocean soon.

Edit: could we not say that what we might term the Age of Divided Attention is the Age of Ineffective Love?