Friday, September 30, 2016


I've graduated to Harvey Wallbangers.  That's a good drink.

I was pondering today in what nuance consists.  We lack it, clearly, in mainstream contemporary dialogue.  Academics "do" nuance, but often to the point where they say and believe nothing substantive or actionable, or even coherent.

It feels to me like it arises in feeling.  The "brain" likely is a difference maker, a black/white, A not-A creator.  Edward de Bono has this interesting ideas of catchment areas.  When rain falls on one side of a mountain or another, 2 drops might fall within a couple feet of one another, but that water wind up in two different rivers, many, many miles apart.  How do we bridge the crest of the mountain?  Indeed, how might we invert the mountain, to create reverse catchment areas, where agreement flows naturally?

That would likely be simple: eliminate all alternative inputs.  Given how patently indefensible Leftists positions are on their own issues--social justice, poverty remediation, reducing the role of power elites, working for global peace--they can only be sustained in a vacuum.

But that was not what I meant to say.

Nuance is a feeling.  It is the feeling you get when you chew something slowly, or sip your wine mindfully.  There are textures that emerge with time.  There are small difference, small feelings, small sensations that arise.

Cognitively, it feels like to me tense thinking leads to either/or thinking.  When the limbic system is activated--as it is in chronically tense, fearful people--then all ideas acquire a "glow" of either good or bad.  Academics who routinely preach the evils of "essentializing" will in a heartbeat essentialize Donald Trump, Republicans, the Religious Right, and any other sorts of people with whom they have no personal familiarity, since they don't tend to choose academic habitations.

They do, in other words, what they preach against.  Why?  They lack emotional skill.  They lack flexibility.  They lack self reflectiveness.  They lack, frankly, a better moral code, making their worn patchwork quilt their only option if they want to stay warm in a cold world.

Feeling rules the world.  Only those who cannot touch their own feelings deny this, and those people are ruled by feelings most of all, even if they passionately defend the primacy of logic.

My world, what I see daily, is both comical and tragic.  It is tragic when I feel what could be.  It is comical when I'm drunk.

See: that right there made me laugh.

I don't know who reads this, but I enjoy writing it.  I was thinking today that I have never been in a chat room.  I don't know what most people do on the internet, but for me, this is pretty much it.  I read, and I write.  It's my thing, and everybody needs a thing or two.


So I'm sitting in a bar watching Washington embarrass Stanford, wondering: is graceful the opposite of disgraceful? Inquiring minds want to know.


What was the purpose of the KKK? It was the use by one group of people of violence and the threat of violence to keep another class in fear, such that they could be controlled politically.

In what meaningful respect do the bullying tactics of the Left differ in means or aim, other than that, in this country, they haven't yet killed anyone in the name of Political Correctness?

I don't see it. I am trying to engage with someone who was s friend from Breathwork, and it is literally like s form of mental illness, a fever, a counter-Liberal madness has fallen on her. Snd there are many millions like her.

She thinks she means well. She loves puppies no doubt, and babies, and first fall of snow. But certain basic logical thought processes based on the Golden Rule have become impossible. There is one set of rules for the Left and snother for the right. This fact cannot be questioned, and this policy need not be defended, since it has the ontological supremacy as the Trinity in Catholic theology.

It is a very, very odd thing to see. I have seen it countless times but it continues to amaze me.

And the KKK for its part was protecting s way of life, as they saw it. Everything Leftists do is oriented around the destruction of everything good, noble, and beautiful in this world.

Virtue Signalling

It occurs to me that the perfection of "morality" in the Leftist cult, at least until one graduates to the Luciferian core, is feeling exactly what is supposed to feel, when one is supposed to feel it. The best connected feel the Zeitgeist, the needs of the Party, but the Party is merciful. Dear Leader in one form or other--in this country at present, Obsma and the media lapdogs licking his heels and ass--comes on and explains patiently exactly how good people should feel. The people who are going to make it in this system immediately admit and recognize their error, if they were not quick enough, and cheer enthusiastically at Dear Leaders wisdom, in contrast to their own stupidity.

This, PARTICULARLY when Dear Leader is articulating views that contradict what He said yesterday.

Watch this video:

Hillary (and Bill) were articulating basically the same policy aims 20 years ago that Trump is today. But the "conscious liberals" all KNOW he is a racist, and her policies then were the essence of common sense.

You cannot buy into this lunacy without being superficial: intellectually, emotionally, and in your loyalties. You are expected to betray your very fsmily if they feel the wrong things.

Life is only rich when it is deep. Leftism impoverished everything and everyone it touches on that score.


Would any readers I may have be interested in a podcast?  It's been, I think at least 8-10 years since this idea was rolled out, so I think it might be OK  for me now to get as current as I'm going to get.

I am in many respects a grumpy old bear living in a cave, but I would consider building a fire if you want to visit my world from time to time.

Self evidently, I have a large stack of words.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Black agency and the Left

If a sense of agency is necessary for individual mental health and if we can posit communities of shared interest sufficient to speak of communal agency, the propagandistic notion that something should be done about or with--rather than by--the lack community is INHERENTLY on assault on their long term empowerment and following mental health.

Trumpian non-violence

watch this video:

This guy is not being violent, but is allowing himself--perhaps because he misjudged the situation--to become a means of eliciting the hate and violence of those around him. This is more or less what MLK Jr. and Gandhi did. They both KNEW they would provoke reactions, even if they couldn't know how bad it might get. Certainly they knew it was always possible it could cost them their lives.

How ironic that we find the defense of common decency, common sense, and sanity requiring such measures. Unexpected: no; but unquestionably ironic. It is easy to know who the oppressors are: the ones who cannot tolerate dissent.

Cultural Gaslighting

it occurs to me that Leftism as it exists today in America--,an historically Liberal order unique in world history in its efforts to pursue the good, to protect the rights of all, to administer impartial justice, to speak freely of its mistakes, to facilitate equality of opportunity, etc.--as cultural Gaslighting. Her is a link: https://en.

Why is Donald Trump likely to win this election? Precisely because lunatics in large masses, led by Obama, are going around calling sane, good people crazy. They are calling racists, when they are not. They are calling them haters when they are not. They are calling people who question the wisdom of importing large numbers a of people who have they want to kill us into the country "fearful".

Gaslighting. That is the word. And the reaction of healthy people is self assertion and detachment from the people and narratives in question, which we are already seeing. The media have been attacking Trump relentlessly. Hillary has spent $200 million on attack ads to very little effect. The issue is not that Trumps supporters are dumb. Quite the opposite: they are reacting healthily to efforts to drive them mad with Double-Think and Big Lies.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016


The phenomenon of self loathing is really quite odd, isn't it?  One part of you is disliking another.  Presumably the part that is doing the disliking considers itself wonderful.  Only from such a position could it judge another part to be lacking or defective.

And consider the phenomenon of inconsistency.  You determine to get up at 5am and exercise, and within a day, a week, or a month, you stop.  You determine to count calories, or to only eat certain foods, and within a short period of time, you stop.  What is this about?

Given psychological integration, you would WANT to do the things that are good for you.  But the fact for most of us is that different parts of ourselves define "good" differently.

All of us encounter force in some form in our childhoods.  Somebody--usually a parent, and usually teachers, at least--compel us to do things we don't want to do.  We comply, but only because of fear.  We are not taught WHY we are doing X, Y, or Z.

For some of us, fear was almost all we felt.  Everything was forced.  Everything was compelled.  In such a situation, it is natural that the part of ourselves responsible for protecting our identities, our sense of self, our AGENCY, to use the modish word, goes into hiding, but does not disappear.  For it to fully disappear, you have to become psychotic.

In my own case, it feels like I have retained this habit of trying to force everything, and since this force originates within me, it encounters continually another part of me--the more honest part--which resists it.  That part was not consulted.  That part knows this is a parental voice pushing me continually, always in the direction at least of anxiety.

For many of us, feeling low grade anxiety and not screwing up are more or less the same thing.  Even if I'm not doing something, if I'm worried about it, that is tantamount to doing the needed work.  That this is highly neurotic does not change the fact.

I am not a Buddhist philosophical historian, but I suspect they never said "No Self" was an absolute doctrine.  In the sutras I have read they tended to say "X neither is, nor is not".  The self neither is, nor is not.

And if you think about it, in cases of internal conflict and ineffectiveness, which is the real self?  Who is talking?

It seems to me if  we were to use a word, the true self is more or less congruent with the sense of personal agency.  But this itself comes and goes.  We are driven by many forces, some habitual, some instinctual, some environmental.

The Self, then, comes and goes.  It is neither accurate to say it doesn't exist, nor accurate to view it as something with being, as a sort of thing.  And practically, Buddha taught people at their level.  It seems obvious to me that for everyone, what they think of as their real self is just a pale shadow of what is possible, and so like a shell in a growing lobster it has to be cast off.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016


I would like to comment simultaneously on three stories:

1) Michael Savage had his radio broadcast hijacked yesterday when he started talking about the many doctors who are publicly opining that Hillary most likely has advanced stage Parkinson's disease, and like everything else, has lied about it and concealed it:  Story on interruption.  Doctor explaining why he thinks Parkinson's is the most likely candidate for what is REALLY wrong with her.

2) Air Force drone pilots have their bank accounts and credit cards frozen in response to whistle-blowing on drone strikes, which they feel create 2 new terrorists for every one killed.  They talk about how kids are called "fun sized terrorists."  They have not been charged with any crime.

3) Aaron Russo: he talks about a conversation with one of the Rockefellers, who allegedly told him a year or more in advance about 9/11, and who told him the end goal is to have everyone fitted with an RFID chip that has all their money, and if they protest, they get turned off.

I was pondering today that everything electronic can be deleted or blocked.  If police kick in your front door and arrest you, even if you have time, you can't post it to Facebook.  Your friends, if they find out about it, can't post it either.  If I might paraphrase the hippies and radicals of the 60's who in the main are the ones spearheading this, the final repression will not be televised.

Everything digital can be made to disappear with a few keystrokes.  All the pictures of you on your computer or on the internet.  All your bank records.  All your tax records.  Your social security record, your drivers license record.  If your assets are also seized, your very existence can easily be made to disappear, and this will become more and more true as people trust clouds and not physical records.

Whenever cars become self driving, you can be driven anywhere they want.  They won't even need to come get you: you will come to them.

But short of that, anyone completely and fully cut off from digital communication is largely cut off from the mainstream of political life in this country as it has evolved.

All of this is possible today.  Savage's experience may have been merely a trial, to see what is possible, and to see how people react.

And as far as tracking people, they likely realized ten years ago they don't need chips: the phones serve the purpose for 99% of the population.  These phones can be disabled remotely so you can't make calls.  They can obviously be cut off from the internet, and conversely as Snowden and others have shown, they can be real time microphones that record you snoring at night, cussing at the video game you are playing, and know what music you are listening to on the radio.

I don't get what drives most of these people, and I definitely think they exist.  It is a form of grotesque psychopathology.  Global human happiness is possible, but that is not the aim.  Global warming is not real, and no serious person believes in it, even when they are peddling it to the ignorant masses.  The desire for control is primary, and I don't know what drives this.  Perhaps one day we will know.  Perhaps we won't.

But I continue to believe that if we are foolish enough to elect Hillary, the end game is within her first four years; and for his part, Trump could well break some large scale treasons wide open.

Classic economics asserting itself in the face of Keynesian lunacy.

Aka "Supply Side" economics.

I watched the debate.  I watched it highly biased in favor of Trump, who I truly believe will ACTUALLY implement the policies he has advocated, if he can get in the White House. He talked like a working class joe, which he more or less is, even if his work is at a much higher level, and in contrast to Hillary sounded both much less erudite and much less smug.

As he more or less noted, most of our problems have been created by allegedly erudite, smug assholes with degrees from prestigious universities and ZERO experience solving actual problems in the real world.  That is something Trump has done his whole life.  He figures the situation out, develops a plan, executes it, and reaps a profit.  When his plan doesn't work, he recognizes it, develops an exit strategy, and executes that.

A meme circulating among the left is that if Trump had just invested the money he inherited, he would be much richer.  This may be true, but he would also be vastly less experienced as a human being.  His business experience is infinitely larger than that of Hillary, who has been in politics her whole life.  She doesn't get "little people".  They are an abstraction to her she practices appealing to rhetorically, but for which she has no practical use, and no interest in, outside the election season.

To my main point: somebody needs to do the fucking job of defending traditional economics.  Supply side is already propaganda.  Historically, the policy of government was to just let economic fires burn themselves out.  And it WORKED.  You know the Great Depression of the early 1920's?  Neither do I.  It didn't happen.

Not until you get to aggressive government activism--to Keynesian policy--which was started by Hoover, and put on steroids by FDR, do you get massive, long term failures.

It is worth recollecting that Keynes was a fascist.  Mussolini called his policies "pure fascism", and he speaks at the end of his "General Theory" about using his methods for the government to get de facto if not pure control of all the means of production.  He had room in his world for compliant massive global corporations, as indeed do all Democrats, but not for a forest of thriving independent small businesses.

The core idea behind tax cuts is that it frees up money for investment.  You cut personal and corporate taxes, you lose money for a year or two, then because the overall economy has expanded, you get more money at lower tax rates.  Win/win: the people get jobs and better paying jobs, and the government can stay the same size without borrowing money.  In a yet better world, the government would shrink, which would allow even fewer taxes to be needed, and more economic prosperity.

This fact is hidden by the clever and completely cynical ploy of tying government spending to overall GDP.  Why?  Do we need more government the bigger we are?  No, of course not.  What this trick actually does is convince ignorant and stupid people that the destiny of government is to grow forever.

None of these things are controversial among non-lunatics.

There is an excellent chart somewhere on the internet which shows that in both the case of Reagan and Bush overall revenues went up after the tax cuts, but I can't find it.  That is the sort of thing the left wing pukes at Google like to hide.  Why, I don't know. It shows their ideas about tax policy are wrong, and why they want to be wrong, I don't know.  Vanity and habit I suppose, the twin goblins that hover continually around all mediocrity.

This covers the Bush years.  The cuts really took effect about 2003 or so.  The government took in 2.2 billion or so that year.  Next year, slightly more.  2005 we took in 2.5, 2006 2.7, 2007 2.8, and 2008 2.7 again, but recall a recession hit that year, one brought on by the collapse of the housing bubble that was largely the work of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Had the bubble not had the de facto underwriting of the government, sane loans would have needed to be made, and the bubble never would have emerged. The high risk lending never would have happened.  Government--specifically, BAD government--created that crash..

But as far as lower taxes creating more tax revenue as a result of economic growth: THIS IS WHAT THE THEORY PREDICTS AND IT IS WHAT HAPPENED.  Again, you can do the same experiment with Reagan.

"Supply side" economics is simply economics.  It works.  And I watch people like Hillary repeat these childlike mantras about the supposed failures of these policies, and I am forced to recall most people are fucking idiots when it comes to economics, and have been brainwashed into believing things that are completely batshit insane.

Sunday, September 25, 2016


Darkness is quiet for the eyes.

Relaxation is quiet for the body.

And most of us don't use our taste or smell very well anyway, do we?  In any event, continual noise is not a large problem.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Soviets and the Pharaohs

In what meaningful respect was the Soviet Union--and particularly that ideal of the Soviet Union, as a "dictatorship of the proletariat", where everyone but a small elite was the proletariat--different morally from Pharaoahonic Egypt?  Lenin was in fact preserved in a major public monument in a prominent public space.  He was embalmed using 20th century technology, and placed on display in a pyramid of sorts.

In both cases you have masses of slaves operating as cogs in a massive centrally planned economic machine.  You have reminders everywhere of the power of the rulers.  In Egypt they are carved into stone, and in the Soviet Union they are posted on walls, broadcast on the radio, and yes, shown in  public monuments.  Pictures of the ruler are everywhere in the Soviet Union, and he is more or less worshipped.  Failure to do courts arrest, torture, and/or death and/or exile.

I would stipulate that high/low is a primitive construct, one rooted in ancient biology, and made vastly worse by the capacity for abstraction unique to humans.

It is circles we should seek.  A church has a high/low, and a front/back.  There is an authority implied by the masses facing one way, and a ceremonial superior facing back, from an elevated place, where they claim to act as God's agent.

Egalitarianism uses the circle rhetorically, but intends the church.

I think most of us can accept the myth--and I intend here a deep symbolic reality which I lack the historical knowledge to tie certainly to known physical realities--of primitive tribes around the world sitting in circles and talking.  Perhaps there is a Chief, and perhaps he sits in a place of honor, but he is in the same circle.  Once there is a Lord, and he faces outward, then primitive simplicity has been lost.

The circle is my own vision for the future.  If you think about it, the internet is in some respects an endless series of circles.

Victim is the new black.

Friday, September 23, 2016


There is a profound difference between "I have a path", and "you must follow my path."

I might say we all wonder through the woods in our own way.  We cross the endless eddies and currents of the sea in our own way.  A path is an evolving thing.  You can feel it being created, but you are not exactly the one doing it.  That is why, while you have influence, it is more like it is being made for you.

It seems to me that the universe is an endless concatenation of Rube Goldberg devices, where many critical junctures are Schroedinger's Cat sorts of indeterminacies, that only come into being once a decision is made.

And it seems to me that the path of wisdom, and the fundamental method for dealing with and embracing change, which is our main task in this life, is treating this universe as interesting.  How UNEXPECTED.  I did not see that coming.  Well, this is interesting.  Where is the opportunity?  How can I surf this wave and enjoy it?

People who need you to do what they are doing have not, at root, found their OWN path.  They have not connected experientially with the ebbs and flows of life, and learned to interact with them in creative ways.  The compulsion to push others should likely, at the end of the day, be seen as a covert method of pushing oneself into something you don't want either.  It is a way of pushing away fear.

I find myself speculating on this with difficulty, because I have never felt, as far as I can recall, any need to force my views on anyone else.  I persuade continually--indeed I argued continually about everything for many years, and still do sometimes--but I certainly don't want to be copied.

Les Deplorables

It occurs to me Trump is having fun in this campaign.  Like most people, I instinctively like and tend to trust to a certain point people who know how to have fun.  It implies at a minimum they are not OCD ideologues, and at best a generosity of spirit and outlook, that I think does genuinely characterize Trump.

Obama comes across as a sour-faced scold, does he not?  Whatever the words he is given, he always turns them into a lecture about how bad you are and how good he is.  Trump is more like "life's great!!!  Come join me on the podium."


I was pondering today that final healing from the sorts of wounds that get expressed as addictions requires understanding the part of you that pushed you into those behaviors.  It is not mental understanding.  It is not describing what happened.

What it is is finding a qualitative gestalt within yourself, an array of sensations and feelings and thoughts, all conjured together in a sort of knot in your nervous system, contacting this gestalt, and doing Kum Nye with it: you contact the whole thing, enter into it, merge it with the breath, and expand it.

What I felt tonight doing my practice is that this part is inherently something that has had internal violence done to it, over and above the violence that created the initial traumatization.

Think about it: when something horrible happens, especially when you are a kid, and especially when it was done by cold and thoughtless, or even intentionally cruel parents or other people supposed to protect you, you still have to function.  You still have to show up to life, even though it terrifies you.  You have to go to school.  You have to be a good boy or girl, and continue to do what you are told.

How do you do this?  Push the pain back in the hole.  This is violence.  This is a separation made necessary by the need to survive.

You know what?  That is exactly what Tom Waits is talking about here:

The Devil: he has a string in all of us that can be plucked, and it is a long time before it stops vibrating. For some, it never does.

Healing, then, is done with compassion.  It involves communicating to this part that as imperfect as your psychological command and control structure is, as imperfect as agency necessarily is when dissociation is present, that you will do your best never to act out in anger to this part, and to include it in your thoughts and prayers, to take it with you wherever you go, and to spend time with it, talking.

I am in the final stages of this healing, and I'm trying to figure out how to approach it.  This is what makes the most sense to me at the moment, and I thought I would share.  I hope it does someone some good.


It seems to me that tolerance is a mid-point between enmity and understanding.  You don't speak of tolerating people you love.  There is a continuum between close friend and enemy.  Somewhere in the middle a modus vivendi can be crafted by the wise.

And as I ponder it, it seems to me what the word is INTENDED to connote is a situation in which the behavior of someone is mildly or greatly bothering you, but you choose to tolerate it, to put up with it, to let it be and let it go, because it is either not worth making the fuss, or because on a level of principle you have decided not to allow your own feelings about something to cause you to react with social or physical violence.  Putting up with flag burners as a matter of principle would be an example.

Here is the key point: if there is no internal friction, that is not tolerance.  And in this regard I would differentiate psychologically mature tolerance from the childlike and irresponsible version on full view in Europe and large segments of America.

Tolerance is "I have feelings and habits, and you have different feelings and habits, but we can still get along in peace."  This is mature.  This is Liberal.

What the Left--what paid and professional agitators funded by that demonic wart George Soros and his ilk--do, is they say "you don't get any feelings.  If you object, we will shout at you, insult you, attempt to marginalize you, and throw hate at you."

Anyone who accepts this proposal is displaying a profound lack of psychological boundaries, of mature defenses, of personal agency, of moral discipline. You have submitted your own ego to the control of mutable Others.  This, again, is what happens with the headless ones, as I call them.  It does not lead to genuine tolerance, real peace, or any form of meaningful happiness.

Today's thoughts

OCD is anxiety with a terminus. It is a way of regularly grounding the Lightning.

Could we call leftists Hydrophobes?  They are afraid of the concept of purity, and of deep feeling, and it is a synonym for rabid.

I was listening to The Doors the other day and noticing Jim Mortison talked about freedom a lot. Most of the counterculture did back then. They don't now. Rather than doing their own thing, they all do the same thing and feel entitled to demand the same if he rest of us.

If I were President, I would schedule a low key, informal meeting of the worlds leaders, and see if we couldn't figure out some map to a future all of us would want to live in. The people "planning" our future don't like most of us. I like America, but see no reason to pick fights. How can we all get along together? How can world leaders build effective and real friendships?

Thursday, September 22, 2016


I am increasingly realizing that pendulating my own trauma is quite necessary--in and out, in and out--but that dealing with other peoples emotions requires some complex, intuitive coming in and out too.

There is benefit to sympathy, to feeling what others feel. But we also live in a world where something is tugging on this sense continually, every day, and most moments of that day.  If you look, you can find, as you choose, something to gratify, horrify, sadden, or gladden you, each and every day.

To my mind it is superficial to focus ONLY on the positive.  And it is masochistic to focus only on the negative.  It is possible to process both, without a large distance, but with some distance.  You see it, you acknowledge it, but you are not compelled to feel the obvious feelings.  Your feelings are your own.  My feelings are my own.

Maturity--boundary protecting--in this world requires the ability to recognize, to see, to process, to not overlook, what other people are feeling, without also getting caught up in it.

I saw this clearly today.


Math represents a static order. Nothing is in motion. No spontaneous evolution is possible.

Complexity represents order in motion. It is inherently robust and resilient as an order.

Imposed orders are inherently unresilient and weak. That is why on going coercion is necessary.

Many intellectuals--this is indeed perhaps the defining attribute of their cognitive depravities--want to use the mathematical model, the static model, in order to understand systems in motion. Such is the Marxian Dialectic Materialism. Such is the concept of "structural" white privilege. No such thing "exists". It is posited as a static trait of moving objects.

I would assert that any system you can understand fully is not complex.

Given that the vanity of these emotion driven talking heads is that THEY can understand the world, the tendency is virtually irresistible to want to hack the world into simpler pieces, to satisfy weak egos driven by anxiety ridden minds and in general weak and clumsy bodies.

I value strength. Very little good comes from weakness, whereas much good comes with disciplined strength.

Complexity, moral decline and the Left

It occurs to me that the fundamental project of all authoritarians--and variants of the Leftist pathology are recorded early on in Chinese history, where they had de facto Communo-fascists ( to be clear, the rulers are never equal to the people in any authoritarian system by definition, so a devout dictatorship is equal to the results Communists always achieve in reality, if not in rhetoric, which is to say propaganda)--is to decrease systemic complexity.  Reducing the number of people empowered as individual agents inherently makes the system less complex, less robust, less interesting.

Early on, all aspiring tyrants learn they have to pander to the people until they get the weapons of the government under their control, and directed at a disarmed populace (guns, it occurs, to me, add complexity as well: to the extent they are distributed evenly they equate in some respects to distributed physical power).

Socialists of course appeal directly to greed: everybody wants more of everything, with less work.  They appeal latently to people's sense of envy and resentment.  But of course this always fails.  Other peoples money runs out.  The promises can't be kept, even if an echo chamber can be created between the government, community "leaders", and the media, saying "everything is great, everything is wonderful."

But what can be enlisted in their service, which has no practical limit?  Self pity.  Grievance.  The sense that the world owes you something, and that this is a moral claim, and that you can and should feel righteous anger at everyone who is not like you.  This justifies failure. It justifies lack of effort.  It nurtures the latent narcissism in weak people, and grants them a sense of self esteem which feels like the real thing, but which hasn't been earned in any way.  It mobilizes anger, and makes it politically useful.  Because after all, the people proclaiming your victimhood MUST have your best interests at heart, right?  Right?

Of course not, jackasses.  Don't be so fucking stupid.

It seems as well to me that a primary spiritual goal in most religions is inner peace; finding tranquility in an unfair, often hostile, unreliable and difficult world.  We read most these days about "fulfillment" and "meaning", since these are needs, too, which seemingly are more important than peace, since for most of us life is, if anything, too easy, certainly in comparison with the lives of most of those 100 years ago and on back into prehistory.

But as far as peace, in what does it consist?  Systematically reducing the number of things which "trigger" you.  If someone offers you anger, offer them peace.  If someone wrongs you, deal with it without resentment.  Much of Christianity is about not being triggered, and using that as a path to deep, soul level relaxation.

So logically, if building inner peace consists in reducing your triggers, then the opposite would both be increasing the number of things that trigger you, and systematically seeking not to learn how to deal with it, but to change the outer world to reflect your inner disharmony and weakness.

Virtue, as I see it, is nothing but a reflection of psychological laws which exist at the level of instinct, body, and spiritual awareness.  It is not a set of rules for what you "must" do--I have in mind here both old notions of an ontologically rooted morality, and the more modern "angels on the head of a needle" versions of streetcars and quests for "perfect" moral decisions in complex perceptual environments--so much as rules of the game if you want to win at life.

Have a simple code.  Live by it.  Understand some failures are likely if not inevitable.

My own:

Reject self pity


Be Curious.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016


It seems to me that the answer to nearly all political and social questions is "more complexity".  "More freedom" is implied, but complexity is the point of freedom.

I had a relevant experience today, but without sharing it, I will ask: would you want to live in a world completely, utterly, systematically, deprived of apparent randomness?  Do you want to live in a world where nothing unexpected ever happens?

Me: fuck, fuck no.  Whatever happened to me--and in a nutshell something unexpected happened and I reacted as an asshole, because that is my default--I interrogated, and asked: what was that about?  And I got an interesting and unexpected answer.  This could not have happened, if something unexpected had not happened.

Most of Taoism can be summarized as a plea from the 6th century BC for complexity, and Hayekian Extended Orders.  Perfect morality is inherently flawed.  We have prisms through which this makes complete sense.  Fuck: observation will do.

Monday, September 19, 2016


Would it not make more sense to speak of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Islam, than "radical" Islam?  All the so-called radicals do is read the Koran and take it literally.

The Ultra-Orthodox would be those who carry out killings in the name of Islam, and the Orthodox those who cannot find it within themselves to say it is wrong.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Jerry Maguire

Nobody can complete you.  But they can give you permission to complete yourself, and many people wait all their lives for that permission, which they mistakenly think they need.

The play of relation

I used to spend a lot of time in bars.  I still do sometimes.  A bar is a place where you can go to numb your pain with alcohol, and usually be surrounded by people who feel the same need, who you can frequently talk to.  I took a while off from bars--I did give up drinking for a while, but it does still seem to have some role to play in my life--but went to two yesterday.

This morning I woke up feeling something was different yesterday, and it hit me: I was more emotionally present than I used to be.  Most people, everywhere, in all circumstances, approach other people with some sort of need.  They might need to feel understood, or validated, or sexually desirable.  They might want to use someone for something--for short term companionship, for sex, for money, for a favor of some sort.  Many people are simply in the habit of being around people and being with nearly anyone makes the feeling of solitude--the one that calls up a host of unwanted and "exiled" emotions--go away.

So two people start talking.  Both have latent agendas, even if they don't process it that way.  Both know that to talk you have to listen, but their listening becomes a hiatus in their talking.  They are secretly focusing on that one cool story or point that they just have to make in response.

Most people, when they are interacting, are doing so selfishly.  I don't say this as an intrinsically bad thing.  It is inevitable in some respects.

In past posts I have spoken to our animal nature, our instinctual similarities to primates.  What I want to be clear is that we are not BOUND by our past, and our present biology.  What we need to recognize is what is THERE, so we can grow beyond it.  We are not chimpanzees.  They lack the ability to grow beyond their own nature, at least as a matter of conscious planning born in abstract thought.  We have this ability, especially over time.

Who are two people who approach a relationship of any length playfully, without an agenda?  They are cocreators of something new and interesting.  Rather than think of what you want, or even what the other person wants, you just see what happens.

It seems to me that both need and compassion--if compassion is a need, as I have argued it can be and often is, where people NEED to be needed--make us blind.  We do not SEE the person in front of this.  At a deep level, I have in mind Martin Bubers I and Thou, "Ich und du".

It seems to me that many of us are habituated to approaching others with some sort of purpose in mind, with some sort of pulling or pushing in mind.  But what if you are two balloons who touch in the wind?

Saturday, September 17, 2016


First off, those last two posts (which I just deleted) were me drinking. I still do that.  I make no apologies: it remains a needed tonic.

I have gotten through and reached the primal texture of my pain.  I am not depressed, or anxious. I am in pain.  It is the pain of a decisive disconnection from my mother and the possibility of nurturance that happened many years ago.

This is the sequence: intellectualism, then behind that numbness (which can and does lead periodically to depression), then behind that anxiety and anger (with the expression of anger an excellent way to disperse anxiety, with of course many negatives in train), then behind that the main show: pain.

Being able to confront and feel this pain is a major step.  It is the only way to dissolve it.

The point I wanted to make though is that I think the capacity for nuance is the most important marker of social and emotional health.  Either/or is driven by a primitive part of the brain.  Our social brains are capable of so much more.

And specifically I was contemplating a notion I will call "social distance", which is the idea that your human relations, the people you know, should exist on a continuum for you, consciously.  Immediate family should be closest, followed by close friends, followed by long term acquaintances, followed by people who think and act like you, followed by your community,  followed by your fellow countrymen and women, followed by everyone else.

And within all these categories degrees of connection are possible.

The point I would make is that if all social connections must first be run through an abstract filter of political correctness, then the possibility of spontaneous and open intimacy is lost or greatly reduced.  It is affected, certainly.  And the original political correctness was Christianity itself, which classified everyone into saved and sinner.

The Germans kept Du and Sie.  The French, tu and vous.  The English did not.  They use the formal You for everyone.

To a great extent, I think human beings are wired for chimpanzee like social connections, with instinctual capacities for understanding relations on an extended basis: family, friends, rival clans, etc.

The singular contribution of the English (I am no student of philosophical history, nor do I want to be, but I have in mind the English Parliamentary system and Locke's "life, liberty and property")  was to make human beings abstractions, and to grant them all the same rights in principle.  This is logical, and I think salutary, but I think it also is a root of that academic condition they like to call modernity.

I look out my window and I see homes and apartments with TV's, with nuclear families, with nothing like the connection to extended family that most humans have experiences for most of our history.  There are many exceptions of course, but most American families are very split up: husband and wife, and children and parents and grandparents.

I think abstraction has conquered the landscape.  The ostensible rallying cries are freedom and economic prosperity, but I wonder what we have lost.  I say this as someone who often feels lonely, but who carries the maddening burden of being unable to imagine connection the way other people do.  This is something I will figure out--AM figuring out--with my body, with my instincts, with what arises naturally and spontaneously, but I cannot resist the comfort of framing it intellectually.

Again, this is a sort of pendulation for me.  Now, time to go back into silence.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016


Best line: "Despite her unshakable reputation for being dishonest and untrustworthy. . ."

Monday, September 12, 2016


Ten thousand things come before I.

Sunday, September 11, 2016


Remembering in my own way, I am going to relink the recent article published in the journal of the European Physical Society, which is the professional society for working physicists, which argues that there is no possible way that all three buildings were brought down in the manner claimed. One building collapsed at near free fall velocity despite not being hit by a plane at all.

Their concluding thoughts: 

"the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities."

I will comment that over the years, many military professionals, architects, firefighters, pilots, and others have come forward and called bullshit on the dominant narrative.

Here, for example, is Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

Here is Military Officers for 9/11 Truth:

Comments from 34 year Air Force veteran who retired as a full Colonel:

"In my first position paper, titled The Precautionary Principle, [see below] written shortly after the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon, I cautioned readers against a rush to judgment, although the immediate evidence suggested the crime had been an inside job. As the years went by, a virtual mountain of physical evidence was collected by hundreds of highly qualified investigators -- evidence sufficient to convince any dedicated Grand Jury that the horrendous events of 9/11 were clearly an inside job. The Precautionary Principle no longer applies. It is time to positively conclude that a well-orchestrated and obviously pre-planned cover-up of the worst mass murder in our country's history began immediately following the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. Nearly nine years later [this was written in 2010] the criminal cover-up continues. Fortunately for our country, our judicial system provides no statute of limitations for treason, first degree murder, and terrorism."

Reverse Gerrymandering

If you think about it, the current apparent policy of Obama in not just allowing illegal immigration, but seemingly facilitating and directing it, could be seen as reverse gerrymandering.  Instead of redrawing lines to include the groups you want, you take the groups you want--and illegals are happy to land anywhere--to the places where you need votes.

As a general rule, Latin American countries have chosen for most of their history, since they've had the vote, to try and vote themselves other people's money.  This never works, so strongmen have been a part of the landscape off and on in most countries for most of the past 100-150 years.

Mexicans who come here illegally can be assumed to favor the same policies which destroyed their own country.  And those policies are those espoused by the Democrats.

I agree with many observers that if this policy is ratified by law--and supported by a newly Left-wing stacked Supreme Court--the rule of law in this country will have been dealt a final blow.

And we need to be clear, clever Fascists--and Hillary and those around her are definitely clever--keep a surface sanity, and an outward appearance of fairness and gentility.  But people start getting arrested, and the media does not report on it.  Judges start sentencing people for fictitious crimes, and it all appears legitimate.

Even in Nazi Germany, even in fascistic Communist nations, trials were still held.  The outward appearances of justice were maintained.  All crimes were justified in the complicit, prostrate press.

Take something as simple as Hitler's invasion of Poland.  He had a number of prisoners executed, dressed in Polish Army uniforms, and dropped on the German side of the border.  He then claimed the Polish had attacked Germany.

This is a dangerous time.  It is foolish to deny it. I am going to start volunteering for the Trump campaign this week, and donating what money I have.

Friday, September 9, 2016


It occurred to me this morning that obsession is order without complexity.  It is an order based necessarily on exact repetition.  If the repetition is not exact, then the order, and sense of belonging in that order, is lost.

As animals, we are meant to live in relatively stable worlds where something new sometimes intrudes.  Healthy people both welcome novelty and appreciate sameness and continuity.

But it is hard to overstate both the shock of going from a state of believing in God, and God's messengers and representatives, to that of hating or disbelieving in God, and being therefore cast from the previous order.  It is a form of trauma.

And if we take as exemplars the nihilists of the French Revolution, or the actual Nihilists, who give us that name, whose progeny facilitated the Bolshevik Coup, what we see is that their eyes were dulled by "not-belonging" and that destruction became their obsession.

The goal of the Soviets, and the French before them, and frankly since, has been to first attack belief in God and church, then family, then community, then nation, then culture.  It has been to deny humans--who are connection-seeking creatures by nature, from finding anything available to attach to, at least once they have been indoctrinated.

Necessarily, on a biological level, this leads to obsession as an ersatz-order, and specifically a Leftist obsession.  By design, it is all that is left, and because it is not a natural order,because the people inhabiting it are not emotionally or socially present--trauma is in the very DNA of the disease--there is nothing real to cling to.  And so compulsion enters, and specifically the compulsion to repeat.

And it is not a compulsion to repeat the same things.  When a Catholic says the Hail Mary, he or she typically finds comfort in it.  It is a long tradition.  They are thereby connected to the past and presumably the future, and a very wide present which extends over much of the world.

But Leftist compulsion is oriented, daily, around the expression of tribal solidarity through hatred.  As I say, it is a simple order lacking in complexity.

To be clear, a modern factory has as its goal zero defects, no mistakes.  But all factories are still formally complex systems, into which the new and strange can and does still intrude.  So too with human life, but to the very great extent that the factory is the model for modern social life, with perfect safety, perfect replication, perfect reliability in all systems the goal, then we have to understand that the obsession of the Left is with banishing all inconsistency, all intrusions of the truly complex, into their maniacal world.

From this basic process, one can derive Soviet Russia, and Jacobin France, Pol Pot, and the artificial famine of Mao.  One can derive the Daily Cause, and the corruption of people like Arianna Huffington who once likely with justice considered themselves Liberals.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The shadow

I've been making some solid progress in integrating myself in recent days.  We are meant to be meshed together, the threads which compose us a unitary whole, even while separate.  Many of us are ripped apart, and conversations and understandings needed between our parts.

Today during my Kum Nye practice I had that scene come up from The Shining, where the beautiful naked woman becomes a twisted and sickening hag.  I felt the feelings of disgust and revulsion that came up, and I kept the two images in my mind, and asked: who were you before?

And it hit me I had a before too, that I have evil in me too, but that every psychopath on this planet has a before.  Being good is natural, and it is pain that pushes us in other directions.

And it hit me that it is not our ego which suppresses our dark side.  It is commonly supposed that our vanity keeps us from self knowledge.  It isn't: it is pain.  You cannot know who you are without feeling how you became that way, and if it was overwhelming and happened when you were very young and vulnerable, these feelings are awful.  I use booze to deal with them, but that is changing.  I can feel, now, the part I am feeding with my drinking, which NEEDS it.

I don't think most people who do not have horror in their lives realize how life saving the ability to sedate oneself reliably is or can be.

But something is changing in me.  I can feel it.  I am beginning to get back on the positive side of the ledger.

Soviet style propaganda

Read through this article.  It is AgitProp, designed to fuel hatred and anger towards Republican, and reward with a sense of moral sanctity those who adhere to the Democrat brand and ideology.

There are a couple of jewels in here.

Until the GOP ban, Michigan offered voters a bubble on their ballots allowing a straight-party vote without checking off all the individual candidates, which is favored by many black voters. Without that one-and-done option, black voters would take longer to vote and create long lines in precincts already plagued by long lines. 
Translated, blacks can't read so good, and all those options confused them.  Now they can just vote the Democrat ticket again without all those nasty words and names to plow through.

The GOP must be panicking now that the federal court judges who once backed voter-ID laws are getting wise to the GOP shenanigans. Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District says his vote upholding the Indiana law was wrong; he realizes that photo-ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.” Boom! 
Translated: the smart kids buy this bullshit, and you should too.  Boom!

The GOP has a sinister Plan B in North Carolina.  

Translated: GOP evil.  But you have a friend in Jesus and the Democrats, which are practically the same things.

It’s crazy that the modern Republican Party calls itself the “Party of Lincoln” and Trump has called the Democratic Party is the “Party of Slavery.”

Crazy, because undeniably true.  True is bad.

Don’t be fooled by this historical amnesia. The two parties switched sides for good when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson rammed the Civil Right Act and Voting Rights Act through Congress. The Republican Party is now the Party of the New Jim Crow Voter Suppression.
Proportionately, more Republicans voted for those acts than Democrats.  LBJ had to ram these bills through in the face of relentless Democrat opposition, as for example that of Robert Byrd, ex-KKK leader, and on her own account a "mentor" to Hillary.

This is the sort of shit filling the airwaves, saturating the internet.  This is the sort of shit that makes actual progress almost impossible, because it makes honest, probing discussion of real problems and following real solutions impossible.

It is not accurate to call it imbecilic.  It has a purpose--that of rallying the usual troops around the usual metaphors and inaccurate assumptions--and it serves that purpose.

It is accurate to call it willfully wrong.  As such, it constitutes a crime against humanity, literally.

And I will note Yahoo put it on its main news page, and that it has comments disabled.  I would boycott these assholes, but it is assholes all up and down.  Lunacy reigns.  I can't get away from it.  But I will continue to write about it.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016


Note the day.  You won't find me with a nice word to say about the Gray Whore very often.  They have done far too much to justify mass death and widespread horror, social failures at home, and to make the American people comfortable with the Big Lie.

I would call your attention too to how the issue gets treated as a public health problem, as a demographic issue, as if the fact that people are lonely is not reason enough to care about them, as if we weren't all in this shit storm together, as if loyalty and caring were not innate human traits which do not need to be justified.

Does all of life need to wind up on a medical chart or government survey?  No.  Is this a sort of ersatz meaning system for socialists?  Yes, I think it is.  They have rejected what comes naturally.  They have rejected who they are: human beings.  And yet, they are not something new: they are something very, very old.

Connectual frustration

I have had sex with a lot of women--as best I can recall, the number is around 40--because I used to be pretty good looking, and I have never been shy.

And what I have learned is that sex doesn't really solve anything.  The main lasting positive is the pride in the conquest. It is good for self esteem.

But in my own case, and I suspect that of a great many men, I consistently found myself unable to respond to women emotionally, on their level, in a connected way.  For the more attentive women--and I can count 3 very attractive intelligent women without batting an eye--this failure on the front end prevented the seduction in the first place.  They could see I wasn't there.

My last relationship with a woman she was OK with me just coming over every Tuesday night for sex, and asked nothing more of me.  But even though this is about as congenial an arrangement for a man as could be imagined, even then--before all this work and learning I've done in the past few years--I could feel something wasn't right.  I didn't know what.  I couldn't name it, but I ended the relationship some years ago.

It is said that women use sex to get love and men use "love" to get sex.  I think this is wrong.  Both sexes need to feel understood, appreciated, loved.  Men are merely more stupid about the whole thing, in general.  Our culture, of course, is vulgar.  We are fueled by sexual fantasies driven by increasingly disturbed pornography, that cannot ever lastingly satisfy anyone, because their real need is social.  They need connection, understanding.  Everything else moves them away from their real needs, their real wants, and makes them more and more angry, frustrated, and alone.

Since I read regular sexual expression helps prevent prostate cancer, and since I am concerned with my health, I express myself most days.  I pretty much never look at pornography of any sort, since I have a very vivid imagination, and I find most of it gross.

What I have in recent months started doing is including the emotional component.  I am trying to develop the ability to be in the room where the sex is, to be present emotionally.  I will literally start with meeting a woman, going on a couple dates, then go all the way through, then at the end imagine the pillow talk, her leaving, and what comes after, and how I feel.  To my mind, this is much more mature and less cartoonish than what you can see on porn sites.  And it is mental rehearsal for whenever I do decide it's time to head back out into the dating world.

I don't like passing up opportunities to bash Freud or the professional left, and won't here: we are living with the legacy of bad ideas in the sexual--the connection--realm, and it is hurting us culturally, which is to say almost universally as individuals.  Married men feel like they are missing out, single men view sex as an acceptable end,  women feel like being used is OK, or that they won't find a man who can connect with them emotionally.

All of our instincts for compassion, for intimacy, for caring, for love are suppressed.  I called this Qualitative repression some years ago, and continue to feel that a useful term.  College students are fed ideas which were bad when they were rolled out a hundred years ago--that sexual "repression" is unhealthy, that the sexual instinct is more important than the connection instinct, and that people are disposable.  We are all disposable.  This is the net teaching at most universities.

I'll leave it there.  This is more autobiographical than I like to get, but it may be useful for someone.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Voter ID: an alternative

First, I will reiterate that NO recount is possible without paper ballots. Period.  Full stop. There is no other correct answer I can see.  Any computer system can be compromised, and the errors never teased out.

Secondly, though, it occurred to me that if we are going to assume for the sake of political argument that black people are inherently and generally inferior to white and Asian people to such an extent that it is unreasonable--the word used is racist, but of course assuming they are that fucking stupid is itself the actual racism--to ask them to provide the same documentation required to drive, cash checks, buy booze, and board airplanes, then we may as well make it is simple as fucking possible to verify their identities: we photograph and fingerprint the voters who vote but do not produce ID.  That way you can avoid having hundreds or thousands of people traveling from voting booth to voting booth pretending to be different, and sometimes dead, people.  We could scan and cross-index fingerprints, and as needed compare pictures.

This would not prevent people both voting for themselves, then voting for someone else in another district who is dead or was not going to vote, but it would make the whole thing harder.  And it might piss off enough people for all of us to admit that assuming the worst of blacks is vastly the more racist policy.

Now, I assume, perhaps erroneously, that the rolls will be checked to make sure all registered voters are in fact citizens, but if we have fingerprints, and particularly if we set out long jail terms for voter fraud, we might get some goddamned common sense back.

I often feel I am living among lunatics.  They repeat as their own ideas imbecilities they have simply heard repeated, and consider themselves intelligent for having done so.  Oi.  And Oi usually means I'm drinking, but I'm not.


if you think about it, the primary job of politicians is convincing the electorate, and their fellow politicians, of their sincerity. Self evidently, everyone promises to fix something, but practically, since the systems in play in complex topics like economics are so recondite to average people, the REAL task, particularly for Democrats, is rationalizing failure in such a way that they continue to seem interested in solutions to the problems--like the failure to flourish among many blacks in this country---they claim as their own core concerns.

And a particularly insidious loop, on that particular issue, is that the very failure of the policies is argued as evidence for why Democrats are indispensable. "You are poor", they say. "How could you possibly survive without us?" In that circumstance, and as long as they remain believable, the generalized amelioration of black poverty would be an unmitigated disaster.

This might well be labelled a moral hazard.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Sensory diversity

how many textures does the average person encounter in an average day? How many smells? How many unexpected sounds?

It seems to me modern life, where everything is smooth, predictable, electronic and sanitized, cannot but deaden our senses and the intelligence--the intuitive, instinctive, natural intelligence--which regular and open connections to those sensations enable.

There is something to be said for walking barefoot, feeling the textures of trees, smelling nature, listening to wind in the grass and the flow of water.

Simple truth

Any time the government gets bigger, the potential for abuse gets bigger.  And the more power and privileges government employees have, the more incentive they have to protect and expand them at the expense of the people.  This is simple human logic.


I was thinking about "dark matter/dark energy": there is nothing dark anywhere in this universe: there are merely perceptual limitations.  In pitch blackness, at the bottom of a mile deep cave, everything is bombarded continuously with neutrinos and other radiation which, for its part, does not "see" the visible, "solid" universe.

Thought as pendulation

If you think about it, thinking about emotions is a type of pendulation away from them.  It is the opposite of processing them.  It is sometimes necessary to use symbols--words--to perform logical operations, but it can never be inherently therapeutic.

Single parents

If it is true that adult resilience can be largely predicted by how lovable mothers think their children are when they are two, then it should be fairly obvious why single parent homes do so poorly.  Children feel everything their mother feels, and if she is feeling anxious, lonely, angry, sad, she is not loving that child: specifically, she is not making it feel lovable.

It may or may not be the case that "there needs to be a man in the house", but there definitely needs to be love, safety, and attention.  Who is a teenage mother living in poverty in a dangerous neighborhood?  Well, she is a saint if she is fully available emotionally, particularly when her own mother never modeled the behaviors she now needs to be showing her own child.

Humanity is not clay.  Our DNA, the hard wiring of our brains, our entire instinctual complex, is not something that can be molded like clay.  It cannot be overthrown overnight through any amount of violence generated by emotionally retarded, petty, arrogant, and blind intellectuals.

We have to work with who we ARE, not who it is preferable to believe we are.  Public policy has to be grounded in sanity, and the assumption that most people will pursue their own self interest, if they can perceive it, and that living productive, creative, engaged lives is and should be the goal.


So let me get this straight: you feel the need to feel offended on behalf of people who are not here, because they MIGHT be offended?  If you feel both the right and duty to feel the feelings of others, why not express all the possibilities? They may just have found that joke fucking FUNNY, so you need to laugh on their behalf.  It might have reminded them of their mother that just passed away, so you need to feel sad.  They might not have even heard what I just said because they were thinking about their mid-terms, so you should feel nothing.

Or perhaps, you could just mind your own business, and stop being such a judgmental, rigid asshole.

If you think about it, there is a fair amount of prejudice/racism inherent in the idea that it is possible to predict with absolute confidence how "they" would react.

The ESSENCE of the Leftist project--and I am speaking her of ideas, not people--is reducing the world to homogeneous "theys". That is all class theory is: the elimination of intra-group diversity at the level of principle, combined with fright and anger whenever someone behaves inappropriately, with "false consciousness".  Ponder how fucking arrogant and out of touch that is.  And yes, I am again thinking of Sartre and his fellow frogs.  Their work lives on today.

They used "middle class" (bourgeois: in Alinsky-speak "have a little, want more") as an INSULT.  Ponder that.

I will wonder out loud as well why nobody has pointed out yet how fond Hillary was of Alinsky.  Granted, nobody seems to have cared that Obama considered him his most important political influence--a Communist who dedicated his main book to Lucifer--but it could be something put in the public domain.  Certainly lying is something he recommended.

Friday, September 2, 2016

A Post Moral order

It seems to me the principle engine for individual and social progress is curiosity, which is ideally combined with patience and kindness.

When we speak of "Morality" in our current climate, we are usually speaking of behavioral standards which, if violated, occasion the violence of censure.  This censure can be internal, expressed as guilt, or external, as expressed in shaming and/or imprisonment.

It is interesting to think that the word "order" can mean both something arranged in a coherent fashion intelligible to our minds and/or senses; as well as a demand that we do something, as in "the officer ordered me to . . .".

Implicit in historical social orders is that some violence was needed to maintain harmony, i.e. order.  Ideosyncratic understandings--particularly in Judeo-Christian-Islamic orders--were met quite often with death and imprisonment.

What I would propose is that healthy morality is an outgrowth of play, which itself is an outgrowth of generalized mental and emotional health, which itself cannot come into being except through freedom, acceptance of diverse behaviors and ideas, and self knowledge on the part of every individual within that order.

Morality, so called, in other words, is not a rigid system for judging others, but a spontaneous effect of healthy social relations, as the Taoists argued long ago. The very existence of morality as a field of study indicates its essence, the truth within it, has been lost.

Might I say "where there are words, there is darkness"?

Anthony Weiner

I knew a guy many years ago whose wife left him for another woman.  It fucked with his head badly for a really long time.  It would be difficult to imagine a more decisive blow to a man's sense of masculinity.

What if the rumors about Hillary and Huma are true?  Would that not go a long way to explaining his bizarre behavior?  


From birth to roughly age 5 you are who you are. From 5 to 12 or so you are who you think you're supposed to be. After that you are some combination of those two and who you choose to be. It is not possible to choose who you want to be if you can't remember who you are.


I feel that shame is EXACTLY equal to social disconnection.

Now, we speak of shaming people.  We speak of shame-based cultures.  Implicit in this word, as used there, is that an act has been committed which has caused a reaction in others such that they are socially excluded.

But in Developmental Trauma Disorder, the issue is that person was never properly socialized to begin with.  They never entered human society with a fundamental trust in, and sense of safety with, other people. Their--my--first impulse is to say NO to everything.  To say yes you need trust.  That trust is not there, because the sense of safety was never established at a primitive level.

To the point, though, I think if you could take physiological and neurological snapshots of someone feeling shame for having been banished from their group, and someone who never entered the group in the first place, they would be very similar.  The speed with which a shamed person might reenter the group, if atonement is performed, is of course vastly faster, since there is a history upon which to draw.

For myself, I feel there is some part of me which responds to my every effort at personal growth and doing the "right things" (diet, exercise, etc.) with BULLSHIT.  Some part of me feels another part of me is a bad salesman with a cheap tie and a fake smile.  It is maddening to feel, but gratifying to see.  You cannot correct problems you cannot see.  So realizing how bad you are fucking up is major progress.

And this is not really fucking up.  It is trying to deal consciously and patiently and systematically with problems I did not create and could not have prevented in any way, given my birth conditions and birth parents.

But I propose this condition, which also fosters self defeating behaviors, since our organism is likely organized to respond to social shaming with attempts at atonement, much in the way you will see dogs apologize for screwing up, be called psychic snow.  It is cold.  It surrounds you.  And it must be thawed.

I may come up with something better, but I think much of time you need new words to think new thoughts.  We need never be limited by language, because we can always make up new words.  Never doubt your perception because you have not seen what you feel described.  Perception precedes and vastly exceeds description. 

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Trump is going to lose HUGEEEEE!

Just kidding.  I think he will win big.  Hillary cannot do anything to win back the people she has alienated, but he can.  And at the end of the day she is a conniving, cold hearted bitch who has likely had a lot of people killed, and who will start eradicating fundamental rights on day one through fiat and a complicit system.

But look at this:

What do you see?  NO COMMENTS.  Yahoo particularly keeps posting these Trump hit pieces, where no comments are allowed.

It is easy enough to understand the methods of aspiring totalitarians, but much harder to understand the motives.  What do they want?  What do they think they want?  What unacknowledged emotional needs and pains are driving them?

In the modern world we have a pretty good understanding of Developmental Trauma Disorder.  Bill and Hillary likely both have very severe cases of it, and both may actually be clinical psychopaths.  Their fucked-up-ness is explained: their mothers did not love them effectively.

But who supports them?  Who says "Global Fascism?  Sounds good to me.  How can we lie, cheat and steal in the pursuit of it?"

And to the point here, who are the people defending the indefensible?  Is it just sheer stubbornness?  Emotionally driven perceptual blindness?

After all we know about Hillary, who still feels a compelling need to lie, cheat and steal in the service of her agenda?  The venal?  Surely their numbers cannot be that large.

Whatever the specific answer, it is clearly a mass psychopathology which is moving away from general societal happiness and well being, and towards violence, injustice, cruelty, and mass social and economic failure.


once a mind has embraced its own logical dissolution, how can it be recovered? This is a practical and immediate problem. To be persuaded by logic, one would first have to value it, to consider it "dispositive of normative values", in a world where tribalism and grotesque, violent emotionality is the norm.

You have to recreate the mind in order to address it, which brings us back to those I call the headless ones.


Somebody needs to get a picture of Hillary that says " I am not a crook."

Large irony she worked on the Watergate panel and was herself accused of gross ethical violations, including compulsive lying.

Word of the day

Well, Trump has delivered a major speech and the complicit media realized a long time ago that a synchronized, simplistic, code word oriented counter-offensive works best in preventing outbreaks of rational thought among the sheeple who occupy so much of our country.

My guess is the word is truculent. Bellicose would work too.

We will be told that asking people to immigrate legally, that enforcing the same standards Bill Clinton called for in the mid-90's, is morally equal to calls for mass murder and concentration camps. Why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING GET AWAY WITH IT. It's that simple. Big lies can be told in public and repeated by the usual pundits because we never hold them to a higher, morally acceptable standard.

Edit: looks like the Cause and Huff and Pout are sticking to darkness. That was a good meeting they said. Great mess engine they said (I had messaging but mess engine works too). So even though Hillary is not going to make any campaign appearances for s month, after credible--now MORE CREDIBLE-- rumors about her health, despite the fact that campaigning is normally how you demonstrate fitness for the job--she is staying home in bed, and letting her accomplices chant "Donald Dark Trump and his Darkening Darkness."