Tuesday, June 27, 2017


All lives are wasted, but all lives are precious.

I speak abstractly.  I feel this, but I cannot see it yet.

Where are the pathways in the dark no one sees, and how do we find them?  Having found them, do they matter for more than a moment?  These are mysteries.

Monday, June 26, 2017


Whuman does Murller still have a job. We know the Russisn story was concocted and that there was never any evidence for it. Other than investigate Seth Rich's murder, which the FBI should have done anyway, what can he do but dig for dirt?

Here is the thing: EVERYBODY has something to hide. All of us do things were not proud of. All of us benefit from some privacy.

This is why the saying, most recently heard on Harry Potter, that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is so insidious.  If you dig long enough on virtually anyone you will find mistakes, weak moments, neurotic habits, latent psychopathologies, and risks taken in the confidence of secrecy.

It is thus no sin and no shame to simply say "my business is my business". Period. ALL Mueller could have in mind is sifting through Trumps trash to find something, anything, to damage him with.

This is ludicrous, given that the only evidence that has ever existed is the investigation itself, and a dossier created by an anti-Republican dirty tricks squad.

Mueller should be fired tomorrow. He never should have been appointed in the first place. Trump simply needs to say "there is nothing to investigate. Obamas people confirmed it,"

Sunday, June 25, 2017


I recently checked out some Hercules Poirot mysteries from my library, and am immensely enjoying them.  I have never been much into the mystery genre, but it seems to me that on a mythic level it engages our innate sense that life is a mystery, and that a conscious life is one in which patterns are assembled from clues which are often small.

It continues to baffle me that Joanne Rowling is a de facto Leftist, because she was and is a very good psychologist, one able to work at a mythic level.  This is the underlying reason for her phenomenal success.  It would not be overstating the case much to say that she created a secular religion.  Not infrequently, I see the Deathly Hallows on cars in the place a Christian fish or cross might have been.

One aspect I would invoke is that Harry got many clues from Dumbledore, but he was never told how to assemble them, or how to find those that were still missing.  So much of life is like that.  We have the sense that there is something in front of us we should be understanding, something we should be seeing, but quite often progress consists in simply taking swings in the dark and hoping for the best.  And the best is sometimes what we get when we do.

And it seems to me that mysteries exist on many levels.  There are mysteries within mysteries.  Perhaps spiritual growth comes in graduating to higher and higher levels of incomprehension.

Reeeee brigades


This article is great.  Please read it, and ponder it.

The soil has been prepared for mass death and destruction.  One sees this clearly in the abuse of words by the Left--I will note, perhaps unnecessarily, that Orwell pointed out that the abuse of language always precedes tyranny-- and their physical and emotional abuse of all who dare challenge them on even the most ludicrous claims.

Large segments of our country--indeed the world--lives in this swampy miasma of bad ideas, continual rage, radical intolerance, self congratulation, and deep, deep, deep ignorance.

We all need to speak the truth to as many people as we can.  I think I am going to start responding consistently to my left wing Facebook friends until they unfriend me.  It is not worth buying the peace when so much is at stake.

What, indeed, could any competent psychologist make of people who see "fascists" everywhere, under every bush, behind every tree, but refuse to speak to them, refuse to engage with them, refuse to understand them, and who counsel violence as the only course?  What is the consistent element?  Their own minds, and their own fabrications and projections.

The "Red Menace" was quite real.  Evidence of this is seen, obviously, in the intellectual acid planted a half century by Communists and now filling the veins of our academics, our media, and far too much of the political class.

If there is a "Paranoid Style" in American politics, it is in the Fascists wearing masks and attacking Trump supporters in the streets.

The point of heaven

You know, I often find myself weeping.  I weep for myself, for the weak, for the suffering in the world.  I welcome it, in general.  It means emotions are flowing, that I am alive.  I cried at Wonder Woman, at her quest to change the world for the better.  This is my own quest, too, and it seems so daunting.  There is so much fire and death, so much hatred, reflexive, willful, and willed ignorance, so many species of disgust and rejection, even of the better angels within us all.

And I have flows of energy hit me sometimes.  One did today, and I was trying to ride it to an answer to the question of why we should pursue heaven, despite all our pain.  Pain is so addictive.  Look in your own heart: you will see it to be true, or so I suppose.

What would it be like to live for thousands of years on the Wonder Woman isle (I did not quite catch the name), a place where "nothing ever happens"?  David Byrne, with his usual neurotic cynicism, captures the problem: would it not be BORING?  You know everyone.  You are perfectly safe.  You eat the same food, do the same things.

I have not read extensively on it, but in my limited understanding L. Ron Hubbard preached that all of us are spirits who once lived in perfect harmony and who got bored, so we created problems, we created hell, we created conflict and difficulty, knowing it would all sort itself out across eternity.

What is Duhkha, really?  A deep understanding of it, and Nirvana, go hand in hand.  You cannot separate the one from the other.  You can stipulate Duhkha, you can believe in Duhkha and the Path out of it, but you cannot REALLY "grok" it until you pass beyond it, and look at it from the outside.

So much of life depends on so much faith.  We must climb hills which we hope have been honest in their promises, but we can never know anything but that climbing makes us better climbers, and that if the truth lies on high, whatever we do searching for it conditions us to eventually find it.

I have been holding a post on Socrates, and the Western intellectual tradition, and will do so some more.  It doesn't feel right posting it yet.  But I will note that after a lifetime of searching Socrates took with him to the grave, apparently with some satisfaction, the truth that he knew nothing at all.

Fire destroys.  But it also purifies, does it not?  Is anything in the world just what it is, and not also something else too?

The metaphor which presently works best for me is life as dance, living as dancing, as moving gracefully, as both leading and reacting, as interacting and separating, one within a whole, a whole within one, the universe as a self similar dance floor, filled with light, and the possibility for the benighted ones to see and feel something else.

Being wrong

You know, this blog often serves as my scratch pad.  I've posted drunk on here more times than I could hope to count, and not infrequently I have said stupid things.  I am not writing for money.  This is simply a hobby place, where I think out loud, and hope somebody reads it, and when I actually do have something useful or interesting to say, I hope I have an effect.

I went to bed last night--and I was not drunk last night by the way--and realized it was Gadot.  The Godot pun likely would have worked nonetheless, but ah, I myself have to groan at my poor attempts at humor.  I have always liked puns, and I read they are usually a sign of psychological health, so I will admit I do throw them out there a lot.  Most of the time they go over people's heads.  It's not something most people are waiting or looking for, so they exist mainly for my pleasure, but do also kind of serve as a test to see who's awake.  I will occasionally watch a slow light dawn in people's faces as they realize what I did.  My attempts at wit are sometimes rewarded with a smile.

On a related topic, and serving once again to demonstrate that there is no topic I cannot politicize--something which drives my children crazy--I wanted to mention that I watched the film adaptation of Tristram Shandy the other day with Steve Coogan.  I have nearly read this novel several times, but never quite gotten around to it.

Part of my learning difficulty, as I contemplate it a bit, is that everything I do, I do a bit obsessively.  When I read a book, I obsess about it.  On the positive side, I tend to have excellent recall of books I read many years ago.  I remember a very high percentage of what I read, and try to only read important books, so that is useful.

The down side is that whatever film or book I am currently consuming gets seared into my brain's retina.  I see this now, although I have never said this, or perhaps even felt this consciously, although I have always known that any movie I watch will play in my mind and in my sleep for days, and so too do fictional novels.  I will often dream about the characters I am reading about, feel their conflicts, feel their pain.

So, making a circuitous route around what is a very simple premise--as I tend to do, but which is apparently richly warranted in this particular case--I read that Tristram Shandy is both the "first postmodern novel", and a, on its own account, "Cock and Bull Story".  Logically, why not make this a persistent and obvious connection for ALL Postmodernism?

Why could we not call the willful pursuit of incoherence of thought and language for its own sake what it is: BULLSHIT?  It might be entertaining bullshit, a sort of faux intellectual Ludetic system, but endless recursive circles will never make a line.

And the HABIT of consuming and enjoying the consumption of bullshit can only act as fertilizer for imbecility, uselessness, and--where that person chooses to still form strong opinions about the physical world and how it works--harmful.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Gal Godot

Gal Godot gives me hope, because I could see a happy relationship with her.  Now, that line stands at about, oh, 25 million, all after her husband.   I, too, am waiting for Godot. (I would probably benefit from an editor to say DEAR GOD NO at some of my jokes.  To which I would reply: No, Dear God OT.  See what I mean?)

She does seem to have some honest depth.  If there is one nation on Earth that knows about war, it is Israel.  If there is one nation that knows about pointless destruction and endless hatred, it is Israel, which suffers it, to be clear, and would gladly grant considerable concession, if their enemies could be trusted in any way at all, which they can't.

Just to overshare as I tend to do, I was rereading my EEG today, and apparently I have "learning difficulties".  Today.  The EEG was taken a couple weeks ago.  So I am presently performing at some lesser fraction of what I would be capable of if my brain were not in continual turmoil.

It is like there is this huge seed within me which is slowly growing out of the shell of who I had to become to survive.  It is much, much larger than what I have been.  I have been in many respects a mediocrity and I admit it.  I can and will soon do so much better. I am doing the work. I am quite capable of making decisions and suffering for long periods consciously and willingly in the pursuit of inner knowledge.  No one picks me up when I fall, but nothing has killed me so far, and if I am not dead, I am getting back up.

For some reason I feel I may never marry again, but I do think there will be loves, and lifelong intimacies.  I just have to get this weight off my back.

Trump versus Obama

Trump says substantial things in an insubstantial way. He appears to be a con man, but he isn't.

With Obama the converse applies. He uses a faux gravitas--what I have called being a soap opera President-- to cover an insubstantial tempersment and mind, and is the worst con man we ever elected bar none.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Leftism as fast food

Most people who grow up in Christian homes, at least, are exposed to traditional values, like family, hard work, honesty, diligence, civic mindedness and the like.

But many, when they get to college, or even high school, are exposed to much easier ideas, ones which taste good going down, which are addictive, but which are not ultimately nourishing, a fact which is concealed in the mania of consuming more and more of them.

People know in their guts that there is no sustainable path forward, collectively, other than all of us tending our own gardens, as Voltaire put it.  If everyone manages their own affairs, there is no need for any of what the Left peddles to the poor and stupid.

They teach, though, that everything is easy, that life is supposed to be easy, and that if there is a problem, all that is needed is more government.  If there are conflicts between cultures, all that is needed is to BE NICE.  And having been taught that being nice is the main virtue in life, they learn to let other people walk all over them, continually, because it makes them feel VIRTUOUS.

We might indeed call apologists for Islamic Supremacism practitioners of "Doormat virtue".

The solution is REMEMBERING, for most of us, REMEMBERING all those truths we were taught that did not taste as good as the candy they were giving away at school, at the universities, on the news media, in the newspapers.

I will sometimes walk through the frozen food section, and marvel at all the tasty foods found there, all the things I grew up eating, the TV dinners you warm up in the microwave.  God, I had forgotten about those.  We had those folding mini-tables you use to set up your food in front of the TV.  TV trays.  That's what they were called.  I had until this moment managed to erase those from my mind.  I have not owned a microwave in 15 years, and never will again.  There is nothing the stove top and oven cannot do better, if only slightly slower.

It seems to me that the 1950's was the last time there was any true civic mindedness, and real connection with the real realities of life, on the part of the Left.  That was when LSD and other drugs were used by honest intellectuals like Alduous Huxley.  The 60's was just Fruit Loops and meals fit for imbeciles and invalids, suitable for regurgitation, but not the maintenance of anything approaching an honest life.

There is no poetry in conformity, and the Left has nothing else, in the end, to offer.  As with Muslims, the only good Leftists are bad Leftists.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Obamacare replacement

It is more than a bit comical, even farcical, that the party of "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" is protesting the Republican secrecy.  They locked Republicans out--perhaps literally in some cases--from all the key meetings, used the dodgy method of reconciliation to avoid full debate and discovery, and are now wondering why so many Americans hold them in contempt.  Obamacare did not do what it was advertised as doing, almost certainly because those who passed it never intended it to.  It was a lie based on lies from its inception.

And obviously some people might lose coverage, but many people have already lost coverage BECAUSE of Obamacare.  If we need to take care of anyone, it is the people who do all the working and tax paying in this country.  There is obviously a place for compassion, but that place is not in a world wrecked by legislative incompetence.  Other people's money always runs out.

My two cents on the proposal: there needs to be something in there about preexisting conditions, but it needs to be confined to a VERY SHORT window, something like 2 months, and certainly something which expires long, long before the mid-term elections.  That is the only way to keep a temporary measure from becoming perennial, like all government tends to do unless undone aggressively and decisively.

As I've said many times, requiring insurers to cover the healthcare costs of people who are already sick is not insurance at all, but mandated charity, one which is financed by the healthy and prudent in the form of vastly higher insurance premiums than they would otherwise pay.  It is nothing more or less than a sneaky tax.  I would rather see this turned over to Medicaid or Medicare--which are at least obviously taxpayer funded programs--than the charade maintained in the private sector.

Neurofeedback and Creativity

I might mention that my EEG turned up that clinically, from a neurological perspective, I have ADD.  Clinically, focusing on anything is much harder for me than for most people.  I have clear hyperarousal in the places you look when looking for trauma residue, and calming that down is my present task.

And of course I have always felt this.  Doing ordinary, simple, daily tasks like doing the dishes or cooking a meal requires effort and focus.  Everything I do from the moment I get up until I go to bed, or get drunk prior to passing out and going to bed is a struggle, and always has been.

But there are two positives to this.  One, if everything requires effort, you get good at applying effort.  I am really good, I think, at breaking down large topics and saying intelligent things about them, and the reason for this is that when I apply myself, I have POWER.  If everything hurts all the time, if everything is frightening all the time, then doing "hard" things is not really that much harder than doing "easy" things.  It amounts to the same for me, and always has.  If I have courage, it comes from having accustomed myself to being afraid and doing what needed to be done anyway.  I do it every day, and have since childhood.

And secondly, I always have images whirring around in my mind.  Everything is in motion all the time.  But this means that I have access to more flexibility than many people, and access to vastly greater content.  Ideas and phrases and images are popping in and out continually.  It gives me a lot to select from.

And of course I like being creative, as I think I am well warranted in believing I am.  And I could not help but conjure Rilke's often repeated comment about the prospect of psychoanalysis that if he loses his demons he might lose his angels too.

And it seems to me that there are three main motivations for creation: 1) for survival; 2) in the service of others, which can include figuring out how to fix oneself, which is my present task, since screwed up people are invariably on balance at least partially a burden to others; and 3) the sheer joy of it.

None of these tasks are in danger.  I feel Rilke, without reading more about him or that comment (which by the way I have not verified was actually said by him), feared losing his status as a creative poet.  This is ignoble in my opinion.  Being admired by others is not a suitable aim for creation.  It is a de facto omission of actual impotence in some aspect of ones emotional life.

I am told 60 sessions is a good goal.  I have done 5, but I am already getting top scores, because I can maintain focus in the face of pain and fear.  I do feel good things are on the way.  Everything I have done has been done dragging a 100 pound weight behind me.  I can't imagine what it will feel like to let that weight go, but I am quite sure I can get used to it!!!   I read 10-15 point jumps in IQ are not uncommon.  That would be fun.

My inspirational speech for today

Be a lion in a wolves world.


Edward de Bono coined the term "Po", which is partly a nonsense word, but which he rationalized as "Provocative Operation".  It is the ideas of putting crazy ideas out, to see where they lead.  In the initial days of the debates on the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton proposed electing the President for life, like a king--which was rejected quickly and thoroughly--but prior to that proposal everyone was thinking very short terms, like a year or so.  His idea, by stretching minds, enabled the four year Presidency.  Think how clever, by the way, it is that we have 2 year terms in the House, 4 for the President, and 6 for the Senate, which was to be the home of the "grays", the senior statesmen, the wisest among us, collected en masse.

Po: What if governments had to compete for our tax business?

This leads then to the following obvious question: how much of what governments do could be privatized?  There is competition among trash collectors.  Competition for mail service developed.  What about police?  What about environmental regulation and enforcement, something like a stronger Underwriters Laboratories?  It does seem obvious we should get rid of the FDA.

What if we had not A military, but militaries?  If you go to any Civil War battlefield, you will see that the soldiers on both sides fought as States, and units within those States.  A professional soldier is already inherently a mercenary--even if ideally a highly motivated and patriotic one--so could we have private militaries?  Or what if we returned the locus of the military to the States, under a central Federal command?  Obviously, there are upsides and potential downsides to that idea, but I am simply talking out loud.

What if traffic enforcement were made a completely separate item from ordinary policing?  What if you had multiple options for 911 when you had an emergency, all of which you paid for as as service, and if you did not pay the fee, nobody came?  Adults are capable of making rational decisions and accepting even negative consequences they bring on themselves.  Same with fire fighting.

What if "government" were broken down into a long series of a la carte service, with people paying for what they want?

If you look at Social Security, as I have, it is abundantly obvious that it really only benefits the government, and politicians who use to get elected despite having otherwise idiotic ideas about everything.  Well, them, and those who got into the Ponzi scheme early enough that they got paid out a LOT more than they put in.

As a rational investment, though, as a means of saving for retirement, it is asinine.  It is a negative return investment.  If you put your FICA into gold coins and buried them you would have a better return than sending money to the government which is immediately paid back out to support current recipients.

Chile privatized retirement accounts, and it worked very well.  This is one of the reasons Communists still hate Chile, and Pinochet, who merely did what the Communists would have done in creating their dictatorship, and after he did it, held the elections the Communists never would have held, and stepped aside voluntarily to watch Chile jump ahead of the rest of Latin America.

Few thoughts.  So many people benefit from the groveling before government which its current size and power make necessary for the mass of people for whose benefit it supposedly exists.

"Progress" does not and never has consisted in increasing the size and power of those who seek to control us.  True progress can ONLY come in moral and spiritual elevation.  There is no other kind.  "Progressivism" is a lie, inherently, and all the way to its core.  It conceals this lie by making society the measure of morality, which inherently is reifying an abstraction, and once the words of abstractions have replaced concrete experience and individual judgement, no true benchmark remains.  This is how societies and nations are destroyed in the names of "Justice" and "Compassion".

Taxes and musings

I would like to introduce a radical thought: taxes are a fee we pay for services rendered, and are not different in principle from any other purchase, other than that we cannot opt out, and we cannot choose another service provider.

The service provided is the service of government, which includes protecting our nation, providing regulations which in theory protect the peace and prosperity of the American people, and punishing people who are violent, foreign and domestic.

In practice, though, the feedback loop between what the people actually want and believe they will benefit from, and what government actually provides, is quite long, and highly distorted by the fact that some people can use government to benefit themselves at the expense of others.  People who pay no taxes are still allowed to vote for people who promise them the money of the people who DO pay taxes.  Corporations are able to create government run monopolies of various sorts, and various differential treatments that give them big advantages, which they then use to make sure the politicians who help them stay in office.  Self evidently, this is not the business of government, but given sufficient power granted to the government, such abuses are nearly inevitable.

In an orthodox education, it is easy to imbibe the assumption in the air that government exists for itself, that there is no alternative to massive government, and that the steady metastasis of government year after year, decade after decade, century after century, is inevitable, and constitutes "progress".

I will assert, again, that the proper alternative to government is moral education.  People who are naturally respectful of others do not need restraint, and do not need hordes of laws telling them what to do, and do not need to pay for hordes of bureaucrats and police to enforce those laws.  Only bad people need laws.

Globally, free markets and liberal governments work to remedy all the causes of violence between nations.  They enrich everyone, enable feedback from the people to the governments, and allow people freedom to live as they see fit.

Only mentally ill people seek power over others, for any reason. Globally, if we were to focus on moral and psychological health, we could and would live in peace.

I am presently undertaking a course of Neurofeedback, and am increasingly inclined to believe that it constitutes something close to a scientific approach to mental health, at least within broad limits.  What if it were made accessible universally?  Assuming I get the results which seem likely, I am going to get the gadgets and start offering it for free to addicts and others.  My sense is that in tandem with Kum Nye--a sophisticated method for achieving very deep calm and relaxation--it would be a fantastic combination for all of humanity.

I believe it was the philosopher Donald Trump who said "I like thinking big. If you're going to be thinking anything, you might as well think big."

Monday, June 19, 2017


Science is a method, not a conclusion.

Sunday, June 18, 2017


If you live in a small place everything gets larger. If in a large place, then everything gets smaller.

This can be read on many levels.


I feel that one reliable marker that one has reached the deepest, most difficult inner content to process is that one feels an immediate need for universal compassion, and to save the world.

I will use my Hoffman rules and use I here.  What I have found, for myself, is that those of us blessed and cursed with a lot of emotional baggage, with unprocessed grief and trauma, confusion about what love is and how one finds it, who early in life start reading self help and psychology, and spiritual and even religious texts obsessively, quite often realize at a certain point that we have learned more catch phrases, bits of psychological "insight", and the outer trappings of wisdom, that we can get away with lecturing others.

More: we--I--being gifted with a high degree of intelligence, developed the ability to seem wise, even while the concrete details of my life--financial, social, romantic--went poorly maintained or even completely unattended.

In my own case, I think I have been able to continue past this realm of self delusion, and am now confronting the facts, the actual facts, of who I really am.  And it is hard.

It is far easier to put on a benevolent face, and be the voice in people's lives that "get" them.  It is far easier to use what in most cases really is at least some real insight, to offer "compassion".

Here is the thing, though: for a great many people "compassion" is really an aggression.  As even Rousseau recognized, in adding this word--to our great detriment, in aggregate and over time--to our political lexicon, compassion is inherently a claim of moral superiority.  It is pity, more or less, and we only pity the helpless and our inferiors.  And in pitying them, we unconsciously allow the expression of a latent sense of superiority, which in comforting conflicted egoes creates a sort of salve that makes life easier.

It is, in other words, easy to get addicted to compassion.  It is an easy drug.

But what this does is distract from the continuation of honest inner work.  An addiction to compassion per se is not my personal issue, but the idea of saving the world IS a problem for me.  Me against the world.  Heroic struggles, and uncomprehending masses.  It is romantic and attractive, and I am not saying that I don't have ideas which might help large numbers of people, but what I am saying is that my focus needs to be on healing myself, because right now I remain utterly compulsive, and that is not a position from which organic, flexible, useful thought usually proceeds.

And this morning I cannot help but think of Tamerlane, for some reason.  I recently bought an inner Asian cookbook titled "Samarkand".  I have long felt a kinship with inner Asia for some reason.  Perhaps I spent a life there too.  In a meditation the other day, I felt this coldness of a tribal warlord, but of course that might have easily been the part of me which does not respond to compassion or warmth of any sort; which was crushed and killed, long ago, but within which a spark remained that I am in the process of reigniting.

But what is the relation of universal bloodlust and greed, and universal compassion, and thirst for the political power to "deliver" it?  The Communists used the rhetoric of compassion, in my understanding.  Certainly, the French Revolutionaries did, and in the case of the Communists this was the latent if perhaps unexpressed word behind calls for "justice".

Compassion is an outgrowth of empathy in healthy people, but when used as a means of avoiding inner psychological conflict, and particularly when expressed as an ABSTRACTION, it can as easily become a means of violence and attack as the simple impulses of a Tamerlane--who I will note does need to be named as one of the most prolific murderers in human history, particularly as a lesson to those who think the West is somehow uniquely bad.  He caused the deaths of some 17 million people, which was about 5% of the worlds population at the time.  He eclipsed, in other words, Hitler.

Be that as it may, we might usefully describe the Left as it exists today as an organized band of bandits who want to conquer the world in the name of an idealized compassion, which they do not in fact feel.  They do not care about what happens to the people who they are trying to help, and have demonstrated, in fact, that they are quite willing to INCREASE the suffering of the people they claim to want to help, if it furthers the cause of their own increase in power and authority, and political and social superiority to those they claim to feel sympathy and empathy for.

Doing inner work, honestly and over the long term, is difficult work, and the distractions are nearly infinite.  This is merely one of the most obvious, at least to me.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

the day of rest

I was reading this treatment of the rules concerning Sabbath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat

I would have been happy in such a world.  I am disputatious by nature, and love complex systems.  And I do feel I have been a Jew in at least one life, perhaps more.  I feel I have had many lives.  There is much within me.

But the point I wanted to make is that I have been experimenting with making Saturday the day of rest, and I have realized that it makes a WORLD of sense. I  have been working hard recently at my day job, and come Friday I am physically and emotionally worn down.  Calling it quits from 5 or 6 PM Friday through Saturday, even though it feels odd, works really well.  Sleep in on Saturday, not Sunday.

And if you think about it, 6 days of work is really not that onerous.  Work is really a big part of life.  What I am finding is that Sunday makes a fantastic entry point to the week.  Plan everything, get everything ready, get yourself ready.  Clean the house, sort out all the small details you would otherwise worry about during the week.  Most people do this on Saturday, but my take is I am TIRED on Saturday.  It is much more burdensome than doing it after laying around for 24 hours.

And what Jews are really taking a break from is CREATING.  Logically, this means that on all non-Sabbath, non-holy days, they are meant by their maker to be creating.  Create 6 days a week, then rest.  I like this.

I am of course breaking my own rules in typing this today, but it felt appropriate.

I have a lot more things I am working on, new approaches I am taking, but all in good time.  I am never still for long, and am nearly always trodding new ground.

My world is undiscovered.  Knowing that, all can be new.

Friday, June 16, 2017

The best defense. . .

I see no reason Trump should not pursue criminal charges against Hillary and Bill Clinton.  If the investigation into the Clinton Foundation has been ended for some reason, it needs to be begun anew.  And Bill Sessions needs to evaluate all possible criminal charges which could be brought against Hillary.  The evidence is the same.

I think Trump needs to understand that no matter what he does, he will be attacked.  He needs to at least get the satisfaction of fighting back, and of sending warning shots over the bows of the people betraying him and their country that they are not only not above the law, but that he is quite willing to use the laws in effect to send them to jail.

As things stand, my understanding of the whole Russian thing remains as follows.  Some Baltic state, I think it was Estonia but won't swear to it, created what amounted to a blackmail dossier on Trump, which was at some point scooped up by British intelligence, then shared with American intelligence.  This dossier had no merit to it, and consisted in little but unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable rumors about things which (like pissing on a bed) were not even illegal.

This dossier, though, was enough for the Deep State to get authorization to initiate blatantly fascistic surveillance on Trump and his associates during and after the campaign, despite the fact that no wrong doing was ever found.

At some point--from what I read, perhaps immediately after Hillary lost the election fair and square--a political decision was made to claim that the Russians were the ones who hacked John Podesta, a claim without substance or even the flimsiest of evidence.

This claim was "buttressed" mainly by continual speculation by the complicit media, which first called it possible, then treated it as obvious, then finally came out as outraged about something which it never had any evidence happened in the first place.  This has all been made clear in recent days by the testimony of people who were and are in a position to know.

The only "evidence" of wrong-doing was the fact of an investigation, but as mentioned, that investigation was launched on the flimsiest of pretexts and ITSELF constitutes a cause for outrage.  Sitting Presidents should not be using the organs of government--particularly intelligence agencies not allowed by law to operate on American soil--to spy on their political opponents.  Nixon did nothing that extreme.

So now I read Mueller is investigating possible obstruction of "justice" in an investigation that never should have been initiated in the first place, and which, again, ITSELF should be investigated as the patent politicization of the law enforcement and intelligence gathering activities.

So we have the investigation of the "crime" of obstructing an investigation that never should have been launched in the first place.  You cannot by definition obstruct justice which was not happening in the first place.

In my view, if Mueller wants to surround himself with Democrats--which betrays partisan intent, which is antithetical to justice and professionalism--he should be fired.  He is not, in my understanding, a Kenneth Starr, who cannot be fired.  He is simply someone hired for a specific job.  If he construes that job as creating trouble for Trump, as leaking innuendo and rumor to create headlines for the hacks running most of the media in this country, I see no reason he should keep his job.  Sessions can fire him.

Ponder the stupidity of the Americans eating all this shit up.  Anyone that dumb will not be convinced even if Mueller spends the next year creating headlines at MSNBC and still turns up nothing.  Those people are gone.  Trump can't speak to stupid.  They are gone.  Their cognitive sovereignty is muted and in most cases absent.  They believe what they are told to believe, and lack the critical faculties to do otherwise.

Here is the thing: media coverage for Trump will NEVER EVER EVER turn positive.  Not going to happen.  They would slime Mother Teresa.

I was watching a video today of Matt Bevin, who is the governor of Kentucky, making a video he posted on Facebook, where he calls out media coverage specifically.  He shows what he said, then shows in their own words how "journalists" covered him.  The bias and mean spiritedness are blatant and undeniable.  You can look him up on Facebook.

Trump needs to create something similar, which puts together videos detailing both his policy decisions, and showcasing media bias in their coverage of him.  Tweets are not enough.  He is the President, and he can do much, much better.

But I really think, and I've said this more than once, that until traitors start going to jail for breaking their oaths, the leaks will continue.  And I continue to fail to see a downside to the immediate prosecution of Bill and Hillary for crimes too numerous to mention.  Are we a fucking banana republic, or are we a nation of laws?  Trump was elected to prove it was not too much to hope that we were and remain the latter.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Political Correctness

Can we just call it what it is?  Political MADNESS.

It is not even a rhetorical strategy.  It is an excuse for exclusionary political violence, used before, during and after the fact.

I am clearly not the only one who can easily envision many of todays crop of young, indoctrinated psychopaths administering Khmer Rouge style torture chambers, and mass executions.  They are literally INCAPABLE of seeing dissenters from their tribe--I don't and can't say ideology, because their ideas and goals change in demand to what their leaders want and need from moment to moment--as human, much less people with whom they could discuss, debate, and negotiate.

In my own self I have found very deep illness can hide behind a functional facade, but in the case of many of these people, even the facade is fucked up.  They wear their crazy as a badge of honor.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Write this on a coffee shop wall somewhere

Impeachment is the opiate of the media.


"Tomorrow, Fascists and communists, both persecuted by the police, may arrive at an agreement, sinking their differences until the time comes to share the spoils. I realise that though there are no political affinities between us, there are plenty of intellectual affinities. Like them, we believe in the necessity for a centralised and unitary state, imposing an iron discipline on everyone, but with the difference that they reach this conclusion through the idea of class, we through the idea of the nation."

Benito Mussolini

I have been saying the same thing for some time, as of course have many others.  Perhaps it is time for all of us who combat illiberal creeds to revisit the founder of Fascism, he who knew it better than any.

Allan Bloom recounts a leftist rally where a speaker trotted out the usual suspects (The time to act is now!!  The time for discussion had passed!!), and received continual applause until he noted the speech had been made by Mussolini.

It is farcical that people claiming to oppose fascism would don the black clothes if the ACTUAL Fascists. This is the thing: I doubt one in ten of these lunatics could give a passable account of the history of actual Fascism, or even National Socialism. They simply follow orders, and of course the Nazis did neither more nor less.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Psychoenteric pathology

We speak by rote about psychosexual pathology, and we don't mean erectile dysfunction. We mean relating to the other sex (or same).

I did not come up with the idea of the gut being an almost separate consciousness within us--neurologically, almost certainly to a much greater extent than the sexual instinct--and if we are to take this seriously, we need new words. I love to invent words the way women and gay men like to play dress up. Yes, all of them.

I was pondering this feeling within me which is easiest to call self loathing, and it really feels more to me like a chronically suppressed need for violence, to attack. Unexpressed anger easily becomes anxiety, and anxiety can easily be seen as intrapsychic violence.

We are social beings, but are we perhaps born somewhat like wolves, who instinctually want to hunt and eat in packs, or what we would call tribes?

What could be the fate of wolves born without packs, with the same hunger?

The need to feed is coeval with the survival instinct. It exists far down. Do we have instincts to eat a certain way? Are we born enjoying the feeling of killing our food and sharing it together?

To me, these are interesting questions.

Back to the ladder again.

White guilt

It seems to me the white guilt movement uses the ideas and tactics of the Christian Churchbto denigrate, humiliate and shame individuals, but in so doing create a mediated means for them to be absolved, temporarily at least, of the shame those who run this operation do so much to inculcate. They create the disease so they can gain the power inherent in being able to administer the cure.

This is no more humanistic than Christian efforts to paint us all with Original Sin, and then claim sole ownership of the means to redemption, as the Catholic Church did and does.

It is all a very old story, told by cynics to nubile minds, and all with an Empire as an aim.

Self loathing

I was reading a brief commentary by Jack Kornfield on how amazed visiting Buddhist teachers were at the pervasiveness of self loathing/ hate among Western students. This feeling--which feels a bit like a continual intrapsychic attack for me, a stream of pain I cannot escape which seems related to shame--warrants sociological analysis.

In a society like our own, where normative standards of behavior have largely rejected, where "doing your own thing" constitutes a value of sorts--it is hard to attain a sense of dignity and personal honor and self respect. It is certainly true that the pressure to conform is creatively limiting in many ways, but what it does grant are clear standards which, having been attained, enable and foster self respect and a sense of honor and belonging.

Conversely, it seems obvious that where no clear standards exist, they must be invented within a dub-group--Leftism being the most obvious but certainly not only example--and where they neither exist in a group, and cannot be plausibly invented as personal myths by the individual--there must be a residual sense of isolation and disconnection which, from clear biological roots, must be felt as a latent or explicit sense of shame, for "crimes" unknown, uncontemplated, and certainly never committed.

We need myth, which I might here define as unchanging, deeply held, ideas about the nature of how to live, and modern Science really doesn't see this. Science is a marvelous system for description, and for building useful things.

But what we really need is something prescriptive. We have that, of course, in psychology to some extent, in the interesting notion of "mental health", which is defined quite narrowly compared to most other cultures.

But I co ti he to believe that any foundation built on anything but incorporating God, Connectedness, and an honest treatment of the soul as something which survived the death of the body, will be futile. Projects without these elements need to be built on self deception or cynical pessimism.

I also continue to believe it most useful--and, of course, I hope most accurate--to view humanity as at the BEGINNING of the interesting and generative phase of its existence, and not as a somnolent dying last glimmer of a failed idea.

And I would add that the so-called Singularity--even if it proves technically possible, which I very much doubt, since I think the locus of consciousness lies outside the brain--is no solution at all as to the point and purpose of life. Will human/machine hybrids love more deeply? Is that even a question being asked?  Will the great thrill of connection with Life as a whole be somehow more likely if one merely gains the ability to recite all of Shakespeare easily?

Few thought. I do t feel like working, so I am doing this. Back now to my ladder.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Questions and comment

Is there any need for elites to be elitist?  Would this not depend on the answer to "elite in what respect?", and does the answer to that question not depend on a foundational understanding of life, which guides one in one direction or another?

Islamist might best be understood as monocultural supremacism.

The opposite of the idea that there is One Big Unchanging Truth is not "There is One Big
Unchanging Truth and it is that there is no Big Unchanging Truth."

Being confused about this seems to me to be close to the heart of our philosophical troubles over the past few centuries, which themselves underlie all the solvable political problems which never get solved.

The opposite is that there are, at any given time, knowable absolute truths, but that they are confined to time and place, which is to say SPECIFIC problems, for specific people.

I am tempted to say that prior to evaluating any aspiring philosophers ideas, one needs to know how they use their body, how much physical tension they carry, what types of brainwaves predominate.  In our present era there seems to be a strong correlation between high intelligence and stupid counterproductive beliefs.  Our culture, outside the realm of science, has largely lost the ability to select for the best and the Good.

This is not the fault of the masses, but rather that of confused and confusing intellectuals.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Global warming

I have obviously talked about this many times.  I started this blog to do an in-depth analysis back I think in 2008.  Shit, I've been blogging nearly ten years.

In any event, after lots of wasted time dealing with irrelevancies, I have finally simplified my argument.  I have shared this simplification before, but thought I might again, given how much shrieking I hear in the air.

The primary Greenhouse Gas is water vapor.  It absorbs a very broad spectrum of infrared radiation, and does so at relatively low altitudes.  Adding CO2 near the surface does nothing, since that energy was going to get absorbed anyway.

Where CO2 has a marked effect is in the upper Trophosphere, and the much thinner air perhaps a mile up.  It can only absorb about 10% of the radiant spectrum, but that is still a lot of energy.  Without its effects, Earth would freeze and life would be impossible.

The entire argument for Anthropogenic Global Warming rests on the ideas that this layer of air can be heated enough that it warms the air below it, which warms the air below it, which warms the air at surface level.

Now, it is well known that as CO2 concentrations rises, the relative impact of each PPM diminishes.  For every doubling of CO2, the relative effect is cut in half.  Double CO2 once you get one unit of warming.  Double it twice you get a half unit of warming, for 1.5 units.  Double that, and you get .25 units, or 1.75.

It is easy to see that there is an asymptotic function here, where somewhere along the line CO2 really just doesn't matter that much.

This link deals with this helpfully: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/

As they point out, most of what CO2 COULD do it is already doing.

But the core point I want to make is this: in the same way that air does not easily heat water, due to their very different densities, the thin air where CO2 operates cannot easily heat thicker air below it.  This means that the AGW hypothesis REQUIRES considerable heating in specific places for any effect at all to be registered at ground level, and as it happens we have highly accurate satellite data for those regions, and have for at least 3-4 decades.  Those regions are not warming any faster than the rest of the atmosphere, which means that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified.

IF--and I am obviously speaking counterfactually here--AGW was in the main a truly scientific idea being advanced by honest scientists--there would be no land based measurements used at all.  The entire focus would be on the one place where we have good data, and which is critical to the validation--or as it happens, the empirical falsification--of the hypothesis.

I won't go into all the methodological problems with land based data, but will simply note that for much of the Earth NASA simply invents data.  They don't have many thermometers at the poles, or for most of the Artic and Antarctic circles.  They can't measure the ocean temperatures very well.  They have no reliable means of correcting for the heat island effect for the many stations they have that actually are accessible.

So you have on the one hand satellite data which is highly reliable and relevant, and on the other ground data which is completely unreliable, and irrelevant.  Even if there is warming, there is no clear means of teasing out CO2 induced warming from other sources.

The ONLY reason they continue with this nonsense is that you can use statistical models to create any data pattern you want.  This is at least as old as Michael Mann's infamous Hockey Stick, which was created using algorithms intended and programmed to create a specific result.  Anything that conformed to their goal they weighted, and anything which did not got minimized or deleted.

If I might amend Mark Twain: "Lies, damn lies, statistics, and Global warming".

Trump unquestionably did the right thing.  The open question now is why so much of the rest of the world is so fucking stupid.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Well done, Mr. President!!!

Global Warming was THE path to global government. It has been the plan for over twenty years. It is hard to imagine a plan B, but we all need to stay alert.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017


It seems to me the prerequisites for emotional depth are solitude, silence, and time. I was tempted to add pain, but pain comes out in any long enough contemplation of the human condition.  So, too, does joy, if the person is wise enough to attach themselves to a useful tradition.

Is it any wonder, though, that so many people in modern America are so superficial?

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Back Channel Communication

Is it not obvious that Trump cannot trust his own government to keep his secrets?  He is literally going to need to engineer means of conducting foreign policy which do not touch most of our intelligence and diplomatic apparatus.  As Head of State, and Chief Executive of the United States of America, he is granted wide latitude in how he does business, and trusting people who leak everything he trusts them with does not need to be part of his job description.  Nor should it.

Our media are so concerned that he is sharing secrets that they release all the details on the front page.  Am I the only one who sees the problem here?  I don't think so.  His approval ratings are astonishingly high, considering the 24/7 media hate campaigns being waged against him.

I will add that if Sean Hannity is forced out at Fox, I will start watching and listening to him wherever he goes.  I think Bill O'Reilly and him could do quite well somewhere, perhaps the network where Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin are broadcasting.  I would pay just to support the concept of a press not dedicated to daily lies supporting global fascism.  We need that, and have far too little of it.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Psychological infantilism

It is an odd fact of our present hour that many people have rejected the Western tradition of not just valuing reasoned discourse in practice, but even of principle.

I interact with people on the internet who seem to have never grasped that life has limits, that pain is a part of life, that their side could be wrong, or that we have to make decisions, and that every serious decision precludes necessarily all the other options.

They seemingly believe that life should consist in never-ending cake which they can eat their fill of, and which will magically replenish continually.  Because that is their experience: their overprotective, neurotic mother always made more, and in their own lives they traded one mother for another, if they got that far.

What does one do with people afraid of life as it is?  Any reasoning which leads down a path which frightens them, angers them.  They become filled with rage at the temerity of anyone who would suggest they can't have it all, and that calling for manna to fall from the sky is anything but the perfection of virtue.

It is hard to know what to think, and even harder to know what to do.

Our tradition is based on the notion that a multiplicity of viewpoints is best able to approximate the truth of a matter, that the best way to form a viewpoint is through the application of reason to the facts as we think we know them, and that the best way to reconcile disparate views is through the use of reason and science.

When one founds ones Reason on Materialism--I would argue all serious logical streams begin with a position on the nature of life--the end result is the meaninglessness of life.  This is why, as I understand the matter, Nietzsche argued for passion, for artistry, and in effect for rebellion against life as it is.  He argued for myth, in a world denuded of it, which amounted for a call to self delusion, again as I understand the matter.

Perhaps infantilism is the logical end result of this process.  If you can't stand the world as it is, back off, lie to yourself, and pretend.  One can only stand heroism for so long, most of us are not born with heroic temperaments, and the air conditioned world, of course, breeds out what courage might remain.

And so we are left with permanently crippled minds and personalities occupying our best universities, preaching drivel, thinking insipid and unclear thoughts, and possessed of the arrogance of youth--a youth, to be clear, which never fades--and universal sanction outside of a few people who remain committed to the ideals of our culture, like me.

As William James pointed out at the very beginning of his lectures on Pragmatism, the question of God is not really A question, but in important respects THE question.

The question of atheism is not "can one find morality", but "in what direction does this system operate in aggregate, as a result of the complex logic of the system"?

And as I keep saying, the question is empirical.  We know psi exists, we have compelling physical evidence to believe the soul and brain are severable, and in the Zero Point Field we have a good guess as to what God might be.

There needs to be a "God Science".  We need people dedicated to researching what, within the various religious traditions, can be scientifically validated.

In my personal view, biology, specifically, needs a massive paradigm shift in the direction of resurrecting currently moribund ideas about life as systemic.  As I have said before, the work of Cleve Backster, as the most obvious example I can think of, needs to be revisited.  He demonstrated over and over and over and over and over--thousands of times--replicable work which cannot be explained by current paradigms.

Some people generate a sense of self worth and power by feeling like they know everything.  Their knowledge is their mastery of the world, and by extension of the people they interact with poorly.  Their psychological defects blind them to  new truths.  Rather than get EXCITED when something challenges what they believe, they become defensive, lie to themselves and others to make it go away, then continue, complacent, stupid, and wrong.

I hope we survive this era.  But if we don't, there is ample blame to share all around.  Substantially every biology department in every university in the world will be complicit.  So, too, will every Psychology Department.  I dealt with that a few posts ago.

Don't lie.  Don't cheat.  Don't steal.  This is a simple enough moral code.  This includes "don't lie to yourself.  Don't cheat yourself.  Don't steal from yourself."

Friday, May 26, 2017

Call of Duty

I read first person shooters are good for your brain, and have overcome my initial scruples and started playing Call of Duty.  The two I have are Modern Warfare 1 and Modern Warfare 2.

Released in 2007 and 2009 respectively, the enemies in the first one are Russians and Syrians (the guy we are looking for is named Al-Assad, and at a certain point he detonates a nuke he allegedly got from the Russians), and in the second one the Russians invade Virginia.

It is odd to me that these two countries specifically would have been chosen back then.  The Iranians, the North Koreans, and even the various Al-Queda groups in Iraq and Afghanistan would have made more sense.  We were fighting them then, and the possibilities were and remain considerable.

When the story of the modern era is told honestly--if it ever is--we may all wonder how we were collectively so stupid.



As I have pointed out to the point of tedium, National Socialism, and actual Fascism, both spring from utopian impulses.  This makes them Leftist projects.

True conservatism, "rightism", is the process of valuing and where necessary returning to the old. In France, from whose revolutionary "Assembly" we get the term "rightist", it implied Monarchism.  There had been a king, the king was overthrown and killed, and they wanted--and got--one back.  This is conservatism.

NOTHING that contains the word "new" can be called "rightist".  Yes, Hitler through and with Wagner invoked the old Germanic myths, but they had not been present when he came into the world, and they can't possibly have meant exactly to old German tribes what he made them mean in his modern Germany.

His Aryan--which is a Sanskrit word--was the result of philological study which indicated it was POSSIBLE that his neck of the woods was the original homeland of those tribes who became the creators of the Sanskritic, Greek, and Latin traditions and cultures.  They were the Urheim, in other words, of most of the best ideas of the world.  This was his myth, his claim.

It is astonishing to me that in a world where we are being told gender specific pronouns are wrong, that concepts of gender dating back to the first births of human consciousness--being based, as they are, on measurable differences in brain structure and of course biology--need to be discarded, and that all received views of our common culture are outdated and harmful, that those who seek to preserve some connection with our past would be conflated with the utopian projects of the Nazis.

That this is propaganda is obvious.  That the author does not see this is equally obvious.

I wonder sometimes about what I am beginning to think of as "the mind in the air conditioned world", which is so soft that it sees almost nothing, all while spewing words like a waterfall of acid.  So many are unconnected with the world, with reality, with common humanity, which is not common to them at all.

So many, so active on the stage of public affairs, are Sophists, while believing they are scientists.  Nothing to them is true, which makes their words the only truth they care about.

It is scary, and very hard for me to comprehend.  I have said to people often: I do not know how you function with your brain in such a small box.

JFK Assassination

I hear that according to a Congressional Act dating to 1992, all records concerning the Kennedy assassination must be made public by October of 2017, unless specifically blocked by Trump.

This would seem to be a no-brainer: the CIA is actively trying to overthrow the democratically elected leader of THIS country, which makes them his enemy, which makes anything that weakens them good.  It is hard to see how anything vindicating the CIA would be contained in those files.

Alternatively, depending on how desperately they want those files suppressed, he could use this as a weapon to force them into a MAJOR house-cleaning, one which would happen long before the October deadline.  We need an agency that works FOR America, and it seems to me a lot of heads need to roll to make that happen--and in the process they need to just be retired, not allowed to hire on immediately with a private corporation that seeks the same ends, but funded by foreign governments and who knows who.

It is interesting that Obama had the opportunity to allow--apparently it happens unless stopped, which means he stopped it--the release of the files on the Bay of Pigs invasion.  All accounts point to a feckless and cowardly JFK abandoning his soldiers on the beaches of Cuba at the first sign of resistance.  The historians I read argue that the Russians saw this and concluded he was a pussy, and this is what created the Cuban Missile Crisis, which far from being a sign of his genius and leadership, was the outcome of more or less secret failures he had been able to suppress.

By law the cycle is 25 years.  However, it does seem to me that the President ought properly to be able to order the declassification of anything he chooses, at any time he chooses.  He runs the intelligence agencies.  The law simply states that there will be an automatic declassification.

If I am right, this might be an interesting project for Trump: combing through secret files and determining what will most embarrass the people trying to embarrass him right now, and releasing that data, or holding it, subject to them acting like fucking patriotic Americans.

What he could do IMMEDIATELY is put somebody intelligent that he trusts on the project of reading through these files, which could contain very, very explosive information, and figuring out some combination of what is right and what is practical.  Those decisions would depend on the details.

And what if the CIA WAS in some way behind the assassinations?  That would mean they have been involved in internal regime change since at least the early 1960's.  Surely that is something Trump would want the American people to know, especially since that same CIA was capable of hiring, in 1977 or so, a John Brennan who voted for the Communist in 1976.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Sybaritic Leftism

When people react not with rage and anger to the purposeful, planned murder of innocents--murders called for publicly by people known to the government, and supported by large numbers of the Muslim community--but with calls for "love", and "can't we all just get along", then these are the people I identify as nice but useless.  They are also on the path to evil.

I talked about these things about 7 years ago in this piece: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/Website--Sybaritic%20Leftism%20and%20Cultural%20Sadeism.pdf

As I said, the main problem is not primarily that people choose the decadence implied in asking the government to take the risk of living out of their lives, but that such people have no means of defending their system from those who want to crash and destroy it.  They can't even bring themselves to stop bringing such people into their countries.  The whole thing is ludicrous, and based on emotional weakness, and sloppy thinking--thinking which in important respects rests on the ideas of humans as finite animals in an infinite universe, one in which everything comes to nought, no matter how hard we try.

Ideas have consequences.  This is why serious people have to honestly question their own first assumptions, particularly when it is OBVIOUS that they are emotionally rooted.

There are no atheists out there who consistently reconcile their positions with the best data available.  This is impossible, because the best data implies some form of theism, and requires of anyone honestly committed to the scientific method at least agnosticism.

No: it is a belief system, one which, once adopted, becomes prey to the same Confirmation Biases they can see in everyone but themselves.  What makes it impossible to escape is that they conflate their dishonesty with honest science.  Atheism then becomes not a scientifically defensible position based on science, but becomes SCIENCE itself, and all dissent inherently ignorant and psychologically rooted.


Their motto is "anybody but us".

Unanswered, because unanswerable in a formally post-rational context, is the question: has human civilization advanced in the last 1,500 years?  If not, then Muslims following their religion scrupulously--and the rules are set out VERY clearly and are not supposed to change, ever, for any reason, until the end of time, at least formally--are no different than those who believe in universal human rights, the importance of an accountable government, and the value of political and moral freedom.

The man who beats his wife for disobedience--or even to prevent it in the first place--is EXACTLY equal to the children marching in the streets for his right to do so.

The man who participates in a gang rape of an infidel woman, as he sees it, is EXACTLY equal to a feminist who argues for women's rights.

There is no difference, because where no morality exists, no progress is possible, and no basis for judgment exists.

It is a short step from here, to labeling residual efforts at morality "false consciousness", and then formally embracing evil as a creed, as all hard core Leftists--what I call Cultural Sadeists--tacitly and not infrequently explicitly, do.

All of this is only made possible by bad ideas, advanced by mental and emotional defectives, and amplified by well funded sociopaths.

Everything good is good

JJ Grey has a song, "Everything good is bad", and on some level I think most of us have felt this.  If you have been married a long time, the odds are overwhelming you have at least thought about infidelity.  JJ Grey himself--who I have seen, and who is a fantastic performer--is also, as they say, a "recovered" alcoholic.

At some point he could not stop himself, or, at any rate, he didn't, regularly.

I think there is such a thing as "self enabling".  In some cases, of course, there is some sycophant who secretly takes pleasure in your self sabotage, but I also think that only augments something already there.

Let us say as an example that you decide to give up cookies for one week.  White sugar, calories, self discipline, etc.

Two days in, the temptation becomes overwhelming, and some voice comes in your head and says "it's no big deal.  It's only a couple cookies".  We all know this little devil on the shoulder.  Or most of us do, in any event.  We all mostly get by, but fail often in small things.

What is this?

What I would suggest is this is poorly regulated biological drives, combined with insufficiently developed self calming capacity directed by the frontal cortex.

Our addictions--and addictions can be very, very small, like binge watching Netflix--connect our sense of self with our more primitive gut intelligence.  The gut is the energy behind everything nasty and everything good.  It is a primal force, which has to be channeled, and which is mostly, but not entirely, channeled by most modern Americans in positive ways.

Freud told us that sex was the primary drive.  But so many people are having so much sex, and it is not making their lives much better, and seems in a great many cases to be alienating them from themselves, and from others.

Given the current obesity epidemic, over and above the abysmal stupidity of the anti-fat movement, it is not hard to argue that as a culture we have switched from the sex drive to the gut drive, instinctively.  It is more primal, and better at helping at least immediate self regulation.  It, too, has a hunger, and unlike when we speak of "sexual hunger" this one is literal.  Gut imagery underlies much of our speech and thought.

"We", as emergent properties of the complex interaction of many nervous system inputs--which would in my view include spiritual inputs as well--have as our task moving from matter to spirit.

I would like to suggest that the main point of life on Earth is learning to choose the Good, which is to say what we choose from our higher Selves, and choose consistently, and do so calmly and reflectively.

When you DECIDE something, really decide it, the process is perhaps not easy, but is automatic.  You don't have to choose repeatedly.

For myself, I can imagine a world where sticking to a diet and exercise and work program is easy.  I decide what is good for me, and lose along the way that competing voice which tells me that this choice--like every other choice--has forgotten some other part of me which feels the need to make itself heard through what we call self sabotage.

Ponder this conception of self sabotage.  For me, I was watching a war in my dreams last night between the bad Transformers, and the good ones, led reasonably enough by Tony Stark.  I of course wanted the good ones to win, but as an adult in the waking light, I realize that the bad ones are me too.  They are parts of me trying to get a voice, and which having obtained a voice, will become allies.

The word integration is overused, but it certainly includes incorporating--look twice at that word--our own evil, with all the energy for good it held hostage.

I do believe there is a teleological element to life, that this world in some respects is a breeding ground for choosing beings.

And the point is not to punish evil doers, but to herd all of us gradually in the direction of good.  Without negative--and positive--feedback, the system does not work.

Here is a mantra I have decided to use for myself "Everything good is good".  You need this idea of goodness to support yourself in your own decisions.  The idea is invaluable.  Do you not think it has to compete with the idea that self denial is bad?  That we are basically animals characterized by anxiety in a herd much too large for us to compass, and that anything which meliorates any sense of unease for any period of time is defined, by our culture, wrongly, as "good", and perhaps even "god"?

These are some deep ideas.  I offer them to you in the hope they nurture your spirit.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

False flag blackmail

Let us say US intelligence DOES have incriminating information about Trump--or for that matter any OTHER person they want to influence, which for example could include members of the Supreme Court, the FBI, and of course Congress: would they need to identify themselves in any way?  Could they not pretend to be anyone they wanted?

Could the whole Russian campaign be a false flag intended to make Trump himself believe that someone who might be sending anonymous notes is Russian, when in fact it is John Brennan, through many intermediaries?

Again: walls need to be put in place, if this is technically possible, which protect civil rights, and they need to be guarded by honest people.  This may be hopelessly naive, but perhaps we could hope that rival spy agencies will spy on one another, and that the patriotic one wins.

Todays conspiracy theory

We know our intelligence agencies  (we apparently still have some whose names we are not allowed to know, just as the existence of the NSA was for a long time classified), certainly including the CIA (which literally has and had no legal warrant for eavesdropping in the USA--other than, of course, their political support of Leftist causes), placed global surveillance on Trump and those around him, extending a currently unknown distance. [This itself, and possibly law breaking involved in it, would in my view be properly a topic for Mueller].[Sorry for this sentence: it demonstrates well how my wandering mind works, often]

Here is my thought: what if they found something to blackmail Trump with?  They keep talking about the Russians blackmailing us, but what if they are blackmailing Trump right now?  In addition to the opposition of the Republicans, the Democrats, and the media, this will make it nearly impossible to accomplish anything.

What if they further have incriminating evidence against nearly every member of Congress?  It is hardly a stretch.  We have the capability of seeing and hearing nearly everything, and it would be a rare individual who never in their life did something they would not want on the front page of a paper.

This might be why, other than his congenital commitment to principle. Rand Paul continues to be one of the only ones willing to ask hard questions, and to pursue conservative causes honestly.

Certainly I think Trump has done things we still don't know about that would make for, shall we say, an unusually busy news day.  At the same time, the people who put him in office (I do think Trump won the vote honestly, although I also think hacking the election is something that is current project of US intelligence)  GET that this system is broken, and getting every year worse, and trending to the end of US sovereignty.  We would--and have--forgiven nearly anything.  If framed as political blackmail, I think truth telling might well work, particularly when combined with criminal charges against those responsible.

And let us assume that Obama was the illegal immigrant, here on a long-expired Indonesian student visa, an ardent homosexual, and son of Frank Marshall Davis.  Do you not think that they had him by the balls, even if he was in any event inclined to their cause?

Ponder carefully a largely unsupervised intelligence apparatus capable of gathering instantly a nearly unlimited quantity of highly personal data on any human being on the planet who has spent any time in our networked world.

Do the math.

In my view, our future depends on honest patriots--honest idealists and visionaries--within our system.  Part of my writing, here, is trying to build support for alternative futures, other than a global totalitarian state framed as our friend and family.

All of us have been poisoned by a system which teaches us to distrust our best ideas, to distrust our instincts, and to elevate a vapid niceness to a God we place on high, to be used as needed by the psychopaths among us to render us defenseless, and helpless.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017


It might be useful to see most addictions as "life abcesses".  Addiction is merely an outer form, the one taken by the pain which cannot be felt and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.

The word recovery seems to indicate that everything was fine, then you hit a bump in the road, and now you just have to "get back on track".  No: in a great many people things simmer and fester for long periods of time before they erupt in measurable anti-social or self destructive behavior.

I am in my middle age, and am only slowly feeling what happened to me all those years ago.

There is no addiction recovery.  There is a reinvention of self.

And there is no healing.  There is a release from a cage.

Monday, May 22, 2017

The South

A different vision, for some: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvaEJzoaYZk



I have long identified with this woman.  Oh, but more is possible than the slums and clouds of Dublin.

Sometimes I watch troubled clouds drift over me and rain.  Sometimes they thunder and lightning.  Sometimes I feel relative peace. I try to feel the sun.

But I feel at the moment that I would not exchange anything for my pain, for my visions, and for what wisdom they produce that may prove useful.

I am a Mountain Goat butting the heads of all who would oppose this.  I won't quit, and you won't break my skull or horns, or equal my skill in the mountains, or capacity to see and appreciate the sun in the higher altitudes.

The acceptance of pain is a blessing.  Because pain is nothing more or less than a teacher.  It is not an end.  I am not a masochist.  But I am one who watches, and to the extent I can manage, sees.

Learn: this is our shared destiny.

Trauma Yoga


About 3:40 Levine starts talking about the traditional Buddhist paths to surrender.  And he talks about surrender near the end, but for my own purposes I would call it "the end of continual struggle with a self sustaining victory".

The four means he discusses are ecstatic sex, long term meditation, death (e.g. the Tibetan Book of the Dead and what might be called "Death Yoga"), and trauma.

Pondering this, and my own experience, and my INTERPRETATION of my own experience, I was wondering tonight if trauma could not just be a part of a spiritual path, but an INTEGRAL part of it, a planned part of it, a chosen suffering which was a necessary precondition for creating the struggle and the strength to do and become interesting.

What if people have horrible things done to them do so as a matter of a life plan which is intended to point them in the direction of Enlightenment, of a break from the compulsive attachment to this world, this way, this place, this time?

What, I was wondering, is WONDERFUL about feeling unloved, abandoned, and under constant emotional attack?

It is a bit different, I suppose.  It creates what we might call after Churchill the "Solitary Tree" mindset and aptitude. It forces creativity.  Over some time horizon it creates a capacity for the recognition from one's own experience the suffering of others.  I have felt what most people have felt.  I can relate on some level to most of the people I meet on an empathetic level.

It creates grit.  Nobody who is worth a shit is without courage and determination.  Those qualities can come in many forms, and for some go unrecognized.  But those with those qualities, I feel, recognize their own.

I am someone capable of jumping into the abyss. I am not sure what to expect, but it is far from clear to me that the abyss can take from me more than I can take from it, or that I have more to fear from it than it has to fear from me.

Can one take nothingness from nothingness?  Is this not the definition of creation?

Few thoughts. I've had a few, but am far from drunk.  I'm now actually going to go hit my journal.

Sunday, May 21, 2017


To become Good, you have to become human, and to become human, you have to understand evil.

And by understand, you need  know intimately what it feels like, why and how it makes sense, what problems it solves, and where those problems exist within you.

So much evil is done in the name of Good that Goodness itself has largely come under attack as a meaningless word.

This is, of course, ludicrous, and the product of inferior minds.

But it is worth remembering that all of us have the capacities of all of us.  All of us have both Ted Bundy and Albert Schweitzer in us.


An enabler is someone who has tuned into your self hate and who feeds it regularly, without either of you realizing it.

I will add, I am not sure this is true.  I don't have any enablers in my life, but this feels right to me.


I woke up this morning with the keen sense that feelings are great blessings.  They constitute an extensive network of receiving stations which expand our capacity for perception immensely.  We are provided with a security and monitoring network that will tell us everything we need to know, and do so automatically.

The issue is with recurring emotions, emotions which properly belong in another time.  We get those when we are absent when they are trying to tell us something.  We also get those when they are imprinted on our nervous system in trauma.

I have for most of my life viewed feelings as a curse, because they torment me, and almost never give me anything good to feed on.

But, again, to get to a better emotional reality, often it helps--and often it is necessary--to plant the seed of a better idea.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Chris Cornell


“Most of the guys I grew up with ended up with the same struggles that I’ve had, which is you have every desire to communicate with your friends, family, with anyone, and absolutely no skill as to how to do it. And male-female relationships require that so much.”
I do not preach from a void, or, I hope, to a void.

I see the pain around me.  I feel it.  It tears me apart.  But I reassemble.  That is my superpower.

I will be fine.  And I will come for you one day, after I finish my map of Hell, and all the ways out of it.  It is a porous place, and the security is horrible.  In fact, it is designed with escape in mind.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the previous sentence.  I have some booze in me, because I continue to wrestle with awful feelings, but I am slowly, slowly winning.

I don't quit.  I have that going for me.  I made persistence a primary value for a reason.

Hang in there, if you can.  And you can.

The paradigm of Complexity

It seems to me most socialists dream of a return to the "music of the spheres" which animated the social orders of the middle ages.  They dream of planets describing fixed orbits, and lives which revolve around clearly defined social roles.  They dream of fixity, of an end to existential angst, to what they see as an overabundance of freedom.

But complexity is how the world actually works.  It is how nature works.  Even if we cannot see it within our very short lives, everything is in flux in ways which are in principle and reality very different than the machines built by those who modeled Ptolemaic models of the universe.  Everything is in a continual process of change in ways not best described as linear, but only approximately linear.  In an infinite universe, we can in principle never know enough.  God does play dice.

The paradigm of Complexity says that things tend to work out over time, given good organizing principles, within human social systems, and without top-down efforts and control and ordering.

It takes some faith, as one example, to believe in our economic system.  But it manifestly works so well that the concern is not feeding people, but that we might grow to consume all the planets resources, which we have learned to use and exploit efficiently.

But even there, there are inherent limits in the system.  Even now, ones sees a market which brings to the table "sustainably sourced fish".  One sees drives to recyling, and the reduction of waste.  Because there is an expressed need for this, our system brought it into being.  All it takes is awareness and time and economic freedom.

The faith required to believe in our system is vastly less than that required to believe in the individuals who claim they can do better.  No one has ever done better, and in the modern era those who have tried have not just failed, but created mass horrors.

The obsession with abstraction which is BEST, not least, seen in Socialism, cannot by its nature return us to stable social relations, and qualitatively better emotional connection with one another.  Economics, as I have said often, needs to be seen as a separate preoccupation from the system of meaning formation, truth formation, and political relations.  All are logically distinct, even if connected in formally complex ways.

I was listening yesterday as long as I could to some silly person pointing out that direct exchange is more socially meaningful.  This may be true, but in the eras and places where it predominated, so too did war, rapine, and plunder.  War has happened everywhere and always, in a great many cases because somebody somewhere had something that somebody else wanted, and had no other means of acquiring.

Human relations exist within an economic system.  We can choose to value people over things, but this choice must be made and expressed on an individual level.  There is no return to Eden if we try and mandate people get along in a certain way.

This truth emerges from the fundamentally crucial idea--paradigm/way of looking at the world--that social relations are Complex.  Love does not emerge at sword or gunpoint.  Connectedness cannot be coerced if it is to be valid and vital, real and lasting.

No, real change is gradual.  Seeds are planted, the soil is watered, and time is given.

Perhaps it would be most useful to speak of Social Gardening, not Social Engineering.  The topic is not machines: it is living beings, and the goal is growth and health and flourishing, not rounding up and managing.  That, we might with equal justice, call Human Husbandry.

Such an activity is the obsession of Leftists, who do not in any meaningful way connect with life as a whole, or with God, which we might call the Great Life.  They want to provide nothing more or less than the bookend to the process begun with the first emergence of self awareness in a biologically modern human.

This is what I see.

Social inclusion

It seems to me that the bar can be set very high to feel like you belong.  Nothing is given in at least our suburban and urban worlds.  You have to conform to mutable trends of fashion.  You have to dress a certain way, act a certain way, be familiar with various types of media, have goals that align with the dominant--but mutable--group consensus.

This is the Gesellschaft/Gemeinschaft distinction Ferdinand de Tonnies drew.

Many critics of what they call "Capitalism" point to the transactional nature of our social relatedness, how people are seen for their values of various sorts.  Perhaps they offer a means to social climbing, which is to say, a means of bolstering a fragile and highly contingent ego through the means of attaining the envy and admiration of others.

Perhaps the people you meet on the golf course provide a means to making money.

Perhaps you are just lonely, and need someone to fill the slot "friend", without really knowing what this could mean, or what could be built if you both only had more vision.

When one is "nested" in a Gemainschaft, you are to some extent unfree.  Belonging comes with commitments, with expectations of behavior which are NOT mutable, not negotiable.

But it does seem to me that in some respects stable, rooted social orders also provide more freedom.  Take as one example the treatment of "madness" in various societies.  Within many traditional societies behavioral forms which would get one imprisoned in a madhouse here, and heavily medicated, are treated as emergences of something qualitatively new, and potentially highly useful.  Most shamans go through periods of "madness" to earn their titles as wise men and women.

Where to go and what to do in a highly successful economic order are, or can be, very confusing questions.  There are so many possibilities.

I have things to say on this, and of course have said many things, but my introspection on our world continues.  I do believe a life philosophy built on first principles rooted in science is possible.