Tuesday, November 25, 2014


True compassion results in purposive work. It may begin in a sentiment--actually it SHOULD begin in a sentiment, that of feeling the pain of others, of life--but if it ends there it is nothing but a drug, and one at that with clearly destructive potential.

Let me ask: what people of color are helped by white guilt, actually? What is the specific value of moral posturing, superficiality, vanity, and false promises?

What people of color are being helped by making a kid into a martyr who was plainly on his way to jail or an early grave anyway?

And can we not safely assume a kid that size with severe anger issues bullied other black kids? There were probably kids he grew up with who were secretly glad he was killed.

This is of course speculation, but what is NOT speculation is that substantially ALL violent deaths of black people are a matter of complete indifference to the poseurs, the part time righteous people.

I think about this stuff daily, and have for years. What happens in our ghettoes is obscene, and I said this often .

But none of what The Usual Clowns suggest is going to help. It hasn't thus far, after a half century of trying.

Many things make me angry, but destructive self righteous hypocrisy is near the top of the list.

I'll say it.

It's time for black America to grow up.  To stop whining about past injustices, and using them to explain current failures that were and are very much within their control.  To stop believing some rescuer is on the way to make everything better with no effort on their part.  To stop excusing their children from studying hard and getting ahead.  To stop lounging around on porches complaining about the world (if you think this is a stereotype, drive around the projects in your town on an average day in any season but winter).

To take heart, to summon courage, to acknowledge its own role in its own failure.  They have access to free schools, to preferential treatment and scholarships at most colleges, to hiring.  They have access to free libraries, the internet, and to all the learning they could ever need.

All the tools any sovereign people, any sovereign individual, could ever need, have been laid out.  Not only that, but they have been implored to use them.  We white people have begged them to use them.  Many many white self identified "liberals" have made it their life's work getting black people to do things THEY DON'T WANT TO DO.

This is childish.  And it is not racist to say so.

We have reached a point where we have to choose between abdicating moral values entirely, or calling bullshit on this massive failure.  If we are to continue tolerance, continue hope that just ONE MORE program will make all the difference, then we must perforce cull from our minds any notion that it just could be their fault.

And if we grant that it IS, in the end, their fault NOW, then we must grant that one more program won't do a damn thing, at least in the old mold.

Charter Schools: these work.  Democrats oppose them.

Vouchers: these work.  Democrats oppose them.

I am tempted to say that absent the cynical Democrat abuse of black voters we would have an integrated black nation now, one with self respect, low crime rates, high levels of literacy, and high levels of economic achievement.

Only awful people would oppose that.  But if you like awful people, Hillary will be on the ballot soon enough.


Posted this on Facebook:

Michael Brown got shot--apparently on all accounts from people who were there, a number of whom were black themselves--because he was a thug. He did a strong arm robbery of some Indians, was walking, high, in the middle of the street with his buddy, gave the cop attitude who asked him to get out of the middle of the street, got arrested then went for a cops gun, got out and started to run away, then changed his mind and charged the cop, and then got killed. He was a thug, a fool, and someone who was going to either end up killing someone, or dying under someone elses gun. 

The lesson to learn here is that personal responsibility matters. The mother and father? They are to BLAME. At 18, a kid is just acting out what he was taught. If he was taught nothing by his parents, he is acting out what he learned from other kids whose parents ALSO did not teach them anything. The riots? They are crapping in their own neighborhood. They will be having trouble buying groceries and cigarettes in a few weeks. They are not showing anyone anything, other than that they are losers who are unwilling and unable to work within their own communities in a sustained and mature way to elevate the level of culture, to learn to value self restraint and educational achievement, to take responsibility for their children and themselves. 

At issue is a simple question: are black people INTRINSICALLY inferior? If so, then perhaps the efforts of the left wing to paint them as helpless, childish, victims is accurate. I choose not to believe this. I believe that they are the equals of whites, but have been fed a pack of lies by awful people for 50 years, telling them the world owes them something, and that it is being racist whenever it doesn't put out the red carpet. 

This is bullshit. It turns them into helpless children, who have no choice but to throw temper tantrums, as here, when they don't get their way. These riots will accomplish NOTHING. The agitators and journalists who did so much to create and enable them, will leave. And the fools who listened to them will have to live with the consequences of what they did last night for many, many years. No one will invest in Ferguson. Jobs will be even more scarce. The police will stop policing, making it more violent. 

All of these are obvious truths nobody seemingly any more has the courage to state openly and clearly. Political correctness does not elevate or protect anyone: it is a cloak for evil, for the rejection of true Liberalism, for the rejection of true morality.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Walking Dead

I'm trying to watch more TV.  Shocking, I know.

Well, I can't go and spring for cable, but I do have Netflix, so I watched the first two episodes of The Walking Dead.

My first thought: this is a deconstruction of the American Dream.  When we see monsters in cinema, they represent realities we are unable or unwilling to acknowledge.

The essence of all apocalyptic visions is failure: a failure of the dream.

Historically, Americans believed in our ideals.  They were taught genuine Liberalism, which depends on mutual trust, hard work, common decency, and in no small measure dreams about how the world should be.

We want peace.  We want prosperity.  We want true, deep, social harmony, connection, and love.

All of these things are achievable, but NOT ON THE PATH WE ARE ON.  We know this.  It is in every gut, even when the brains overrule them.

We have lost the faith, lost the ability to believe in notions like Good and Evil, right and wrong.

And I want to be clear that I don't want to be the one to say what is right and wrong; nor do I want to relinquish that role to anyone else.  What I want to say is that we all judge OF NECESSITY, and that failing to judge means to fail to form as a person, as a character; extended, it means failure to form communities, tribes, thriving social webs which nurture and support and instruct.

As I have said often enough, proper moral judgments are local, imperfect, and necessary.

It seems so easy to embrace visions in which all confusions of our present sort fall away in the exigencies of survival.  It seems simpler, at least watching it from a comfortable couch in a comfortable home in a safe neighborhood.

That's all for now.  I'm rambling.

Immigration "reform"

As I think about it, the best strategy for Republicans is to keep pounding on the many scandals, and to the extent possible to refuse Leftists the opportunities they need to create their talking point propagandas.  The electorate is plainly pissed off.  And even SNL is skewering Obama.  He has lost nearly everyone.

And what I think needs to be said again, is that all Obama did was issue work visas to people who were here.  He did not grant them citizenship, and even though the move may be popular among Hispanic voters, it did NOT create a new voting block of 5 million new Americans, and given that the Republicans told him point blank that taking this action would make a negotiated agreement impossible, it is unlikely they will have ANY shot at citizenship en masse until 2017 and a new President.  We can and should make the case that he never negotiated in good faith, and for that reason set their cause BACK. He did not move it forward.

And this is/was a hugely unpopular move, because it doesn't take professional economists to see Mexicans who don't even speak English doing jobs that used to be done by middle class Americans, and realize that they are coming here illegally, and depressing wages.  I have personally heard this story from 3-4 people.  Remember, I'm on construction sites constantly, and talk with both the white guys and the Mexicans.  I'm always gathering data.  It's what I do.  I am curious.  And this is first hand data.  I don't blame the Mexicans.  I would do the same thing in their shoes.

But at the same time, anyone who has the first inkling of a sense of loyalty has to grant that our job is to protect Americans FIRST, particularly when our economy was already in the crapper.  Democrats, with this move, have signaled more or less overtly that their primary sympathies are with the world, and not ordinary--or even exceptional--Americans.  Hillary seems to think it would be great if America became a massive refugee camp.  After all: she won't have to live with the consequences.  She lives on the mountaintop, and always will.

So Obama doesn't get a massive voting block, angers many people even more, is driving a wedge between Democrat moderates and the radical wing that he answers to, and overall is sinking with no way back up.

Let time take its toll.  Nobody is expecting miracles out of a Republican Congress, but they certainly do not want more of the same.

Keep pounding daily on Obamacare (and I do think pushing a repeal through the House and Senate is worth doing, so Obama has to veto the bill to protect what has become a very unpopular policy), IRS targeting (someone should go to jail), the targeting we just found out about of Sharyl Attkisson (someone else should go to jail), Fast and Furious (jail), NSA snooping (massive retasking, which they are quite capable of), the undeclared war with ISIS, and the near certain role Obama's policies played in placing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of the Taliban.  And whatever else I'm forgetting.  The list is too long to keep track of without notes.

A sea change appears to be happening gradually, in which more and more people are waking up to the dangers of unaccountable, unregulated, law-breaking government.  This shift is happening across the spectrum, and cross-aisle alliances will be shaky for some time, but I think Obama has made clear that putting unrepentant radicals in charge has consequences.  Prior to Obama, I don't think most people believed the Democrats could possibly have veered that far to the Left.  Democrats owned messaging.  Republicans were constantly on the defensive.

But now, we can speak our truths, and increasingly reach audiences willing to listen.  That has not been true for 50 years or more.  It took Carter to create Reagan, and even then Democrats controlled Congress from roughly 1960 to 1994. And we are getting better at messaging, better at pounding home the moral superiority of allowing people the freedom and the economic wherewithal to create their own lives and own destinies.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Dream Big, start small

Just popped in my head.  I like it.

Saturday, November 22, 2014


I like to think I have a "sense of things".  I use my brain, of course, but I often invite and listen to my gut, and to certain intangible intuitions that are simply there.

As I think I have argued, thought systems can be boiled down to their basics.  They can be understood practically with the same precision with which mathematical formulas can be understood.

However, thought systems are deployed by human individuals, and of course this means that thought systems in REALITY never look exactly like they ought to in theory.  Chaos enters.  And this is fun.  It makes things entertaining, and life. . . lively.

I have, for example, argued that the only good Muslims are bad Muslims.  By this, I mean Muslims who ignore the many verses inciting them to kill and terrorize (terrorism is already in the Koran: how many people openly admit this?), and who instead rely upon what I would regard as GOD given instincts about what is decent and what is profane.  And if someone wants to argue this is the overwhelming bulk of Muslims, I have no argument with this.  Most people want peace, want harmony, want prosperity, and detest violence and hate.

Scandinavia: I spent a number of formative years in the frozen North, surrounded by many blonde kids with names ending in -son, or -sen.  I know what it is like to stand at a bus stop when it is 20 degrees below zero and the bus is late, and you wore tennis shoes because the misery of feeling like your toes will freeze is less than the misery of the mockery of wearing snow boots like a grade school kid.

As it happens, being the macho man that I am, I am listening to Abba at the moment.  And in point of fact, I just watched Bergman's Island a few days ago, where he talks candidly about his many "neuroses" (I am conflicted about that word.  I will likely post on this at some point; I have been contemplating how I would describe my own emotional dysfunctions, and "neurotic" seems as good as anything, even though I felt like kicking Woody Allen even before I knew he married the adopted (and much, much younger) daughter of his ex-wife.)

Shit: I'm channeling Arlo Guthrie: "But that's not what I came to tell you about. . .", or something like that.  I played Alice's Restaurant at a bar once, but you couldn't understand a damn thing.

Suffice it to say that "sunshine in a bottle" may be in play, but I always get to the point eventually.

Read this article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden

Lots of interesting content.  I want to focus on Sweden.

"Swedes seem not to 'feel as strongly' as certain other people", Daun writes in his excellent book, Swedish Mentality. "Swedish women try to moan as little as possible during childbirth and they often ask, when it is all over, whether they screamed very much. They are very pleased to be told they did not." Apparently, crying at funerals is frowned upon and "remembered long afterwards". The Swedes are, he says, "highly adept at insulating themselves from each other". They will do anything to avoid sharing a lift with a stranger, as I found out during a day-long experiment behaving as un-Swedishly as possible in Stockholm.

Effectively a one-party state – albeit supported by a couple of shadowy industrialist families – for much of the 20th century, "neutral" Sweden (one of the world largest arms exporters) continues to thrive economically thanks to its distinctive brand of totalitarian modernism, which curbs freedoms, suppresses dissent in the name of consensus, and seems hell-bent on severing the bonds between wife and husband, children and parents, and elderly on their children. Think of it as the China of the north.

OK: what the hell is my point?   This: the miracle of the North seems predicated on being as INhuman as possible.  It works to eradicate the Male, and the Female.  It attacks families.  It works to mechanize humanity--where Socialism is merely a rationalization of applying industrial ideals to social engineering--without the least thought about what it means to be human in the first place.

What is the point of life?  Can we not ask this question?  And can we not query the Swedes as to the generalized answer their One Party State has created?  And what is that answer?

In my view: nothing matters.  Nothing matters absolutely.  If you KNOW that Islamic immigrants rape Swedish women at five or more times the rate of indigenous men, why care?  That is unpleasant knowledge.  It could lead to judgmentalism. It could lead to unpleasantness, perhaps even--fucking hell and horrors--spontaneous EMOTION.

Here is the deal.  I watched Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" perhaps two weeks ago.  It affected me.  As my kids were mocking me for, movies tend to take weeks for me to process.  I cried during Toy Story 3, when all the toys were in the incinerator, making common cause, connecting, facing death together, with bravery.

I make no apology.  I think it is a great thing, and a wonderful privilege, to be fucked up by something you see on screen, and to have the capacity to wander through a myriad of feelings, and walk out a bit wiser and more organized emotionally.  This is what the fuck life is about, god-damn-it.

Cries and Whispers is a powerful movie.  Bergman himself was locked up in a morgue as a youngish child, perhaps 8, and says a dead women on a table watched him with her eyes.  This seemingly left a permanent impression on him, which he perhaps processed in part with this movie.

But the point about the movie is the extreme emotional restraint.  I remember, from my own life, how extreme cold can push you into yourself.  It turns you into an introvert.  As Garrison Keillor--who I don't like in most respects, but who is UNQUESTIONABLY a great story teller puts it: extroverted SWEDES (I inserted that) are the one who look at YOUR shoes.

Remember the English are Vikings who studied Latin.  The Angles.  The Saxons?  Boats, hard men.  1066?  Normans/Norsemen.  And that was the second such invasion in quick succession.  I forget the king who lost, but shit he was a Norseman too, and he won the first go-round.

Where am I going?  Beside the freezer for booze and ice?

Oh, hell.

In that movie, I actually felt for the older sister.  She has massive unprocessed trauma, but lived in a world where weakness was not allowed, even for an instant.  Therefore, she lived in hell.

The younger sister: she felt compassion.   She cheated on her husband precisely because she idealized love, and found it in the Doctor, at least for a time.

But she was vain, weak, self centered.  She tried to comfort her sister, in THAT scene, but failed.  She tried to be there for her other sister, briefly, but was unable to forget the abuse that got visited on her, by a sister who desperately needed connection, but who also wanted to hate and attack as a matter of principle everyone she could.

Fast forward: OH, we are all crazy.  In my own small world, in my own small perceptual domain, I watch people.  I watch vanity, error, stupidity.

This of course does not mean I look at myself as exempt, but it does mean I  put myself in a slightly different place.

That place has no walls, but exists in a land with rivers, and no obvious mountains.

Truth: I am having to edit this, since I am not sufficiently drunk.  Truth: I like people when I am drinking, and even when I'm not I value family connections.

In the Bergman movie, the maid has the worst work, but she is also the most real.  She does the hard work that the elites around her are frightened of.

She is nobility, in my own iteration.  She is what we should all strive for, even thought most of us are cowards.

She lost her child, as we discover early on.  She is pious, and still capable of love.


I'll leave it at that.  Too much complexity.

YOU, though: chances are good I feel your confusion and anger, too.

Postscript, the day after: I'm going to leave this mess as is.  Clearly, alcohol does not make anyone smarter, but in my own case it has often allowed me to process emotions that needed processing.  It is an anesthetic I use for emotional surgery, or have used.  I am in the process, again--but this time feels different--of giving up drunkenness.  That was my first bout in two weeks, which is good for me.

I think the surest sign that alcoholic is not the best word for me is that I retain, sober, an affection for what it has done for me.  It has not cost me any relationships, any jobs, any major loss of self respect.  It has on the contrary helped me manage otherwise unmanageable emotions, acted as a balm when I needed it, and all with no visible affects on my health or overall well being, other than a few extra pounds in my belly.

Thursday, November 20, 2014


Republicans are imbeciles when it comes to messaging.  Perhaps they think too much of people; perhaps they think too much of themselves.

Regardless, the situation is simple.  Obama's talking point--and Democrats evolve these things with care, which is why you always see them talking about talking points, one of which is that Republicans use talking points, but that they implicitly don't, which itself is a good talking point--is that "If Congress doesn't act, I have to."

The response, the obvious response, is that "The President doesn't get to tell Congress what to do."  Period.

Expansion: if Congress decides NEVER to forgive people who came here illegally, if it chooses to treat them the way MEXICO treats illegal immigrants, that is their prerogative.  The Presidents JOB, REMAINS, enforcing existing laws, which he is plainly not only not doing, but not doing FLAGRANTLY.  He does not get to decide which laws he likes and which he doesn't.  Period.  Anything else is incompetence or law breaking.

Added thought: Obama cannot naturalize these people even within his grossly inflated sense of Executive entitlement.  This move, therefore, will NOT create legal voters, and will piss off roughly 90% of the American electorate, which is the percentage I see opposing this action.

As I understand it, what he wants to do is simply make official his de facto policy of not enforcing our immigration laws.  This does not put people on welfare rolls, legally at least.   And it certainly does not make them citizens.

And to the extent Congress takes this as a poke in the eye, it extends, perhaps forever, the amount of time before these people actually get American citizenship.  Hispanic activists, therefore, should not only not take this as a victory--since practically little is changing--but quite possibly as a major strategic defeat.  Republicans are on sound polling ground in opposing this, and that is not likely to change any time soon.

I have in the past overlooked these elements, and am assuming--perhaps mistakenly--that I have understood the situation now.

As I say from time to time, I screw up.  I am not a full time media consumer, and no doubt channel some ideational version of Emily Litella on occasion.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014


It seems obvious that Obama has reached the conclusion that he can use the power of the office he has won to pander to a new prospective electoral base: Mexicans who have fled the conflicts and economic devastation of Mexico and come here illegally.

But I don't want to discuss that here.  What I do want to do is submit a couple points/ideas I find relevant and interesting.

First, most Mexicans, by my straw poll talking with them--including people here with  green cards--would rather live in Mexico.  They speak the language, understand the customs, and generally feel more at home because that IS their home.  The United States is not.

An intelligent long term strategy for dealing with illegal immigration would be to strengthen the Mexican economy and return the rule of law such that they don't WANT to come here, except in small, easily manageable numbers.  Then you don't need a fence, at least to deal with this issue (national security is another issue).

I read 93% of crimes in Mexico are either not reported or not investigated.  In both cases, the legal system has failed.  This is a statistic consistent with a failed nation state.

The problem seems to be that the sheer volume of drug money coming in makes it easy to buy up all the cops, all the military, and most of the politicians.  The ones who can't be bought can be killed by someone who is paid to do so.

So step one logically is shrinking this pool of money.  Since 70% of the revenue is from marijuana, we should legalize it nationally.  I personally would like to see the DEA disbanded entirely.

Doing this would instantly shrink revenues by nearly 3/4ths.  I would then like to see us legalize cocaine, if prescribed by a doctor.  I think most people would be able to handle taking some coke on weekends at parties, and behaving during the week.  Peoples use could be tracked, and obvious patterns identified if strongly negative.

Adding this to marijuana legalization would eviscerate the cartels.

Then we institute a program like Kiva, where people make loans directly to Mexicans to start businesses.  The government kicks in 50% of the money (yes, taxpayer money is used, but it is being used now for ICE, jails, welfare, and God knows what else), and mounts a campaign to interest ordinary Americans.

We negotiate with the Mexican government for economic liberalization.  My understanding is that like all Latin American nations they have repeatedly experimented with the idea that there is in fact such a thing as a free lunch for everyone (aka Socialism), and not yet learned from their mistakes.

They need to learn from their mistakes.

We also require them to pass an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment.  Mexico has to legalize individual gun ownership across the board to all law abiding citizens.  This will be the final death knell for the cartels.

Within 10-15 years, Mexico could become a decent place to live, perhaps again, perhaps for the first time ever for the bulk of its populace.

This would work, but of course many entrenched interests could be counted on to work hard against it.


I took a turn for some Toltec mounds somewhere.  I drove 10 miles, saw nothing, and figured it was one of these things where they lead you on, and you wind up driving 40 miles out of your way, so I went back.

Somehow I got to thinking about Indians, though.  By and large, in my understanding, none of the many tribes inhabiting what became America had written languages.  This meant that myth and ceremony had to be passed down orally, and through initiation and participation.

And I got to thinking about kids asking tribal elders deep questions, like: what happens when we die, exactly?

And it seemed to me that in such a system, it is at least possible that the elder, rather than reflexively mouthing something he or she has heard, or going to consult a recondite text found in a library somewhere, as would happen in places with long written traditions, would on the contrary find HIS OWN answer through reflection, through solitude, perhaps through some sort of "accelerant" like peyote.  And that person would then answer from personal knowledge.

It seems to me that religion, to be alive, has to be constantly reinvented, and in some respects having a written tradition makes this harder.  You have words you can appeal to, and then repeat.  You can FEEL like you have answered a question, when in reality, as far as your connection with the answer, as far as your sense of personal knowledge of the answer, you may as well be reiterating a Latin phrase as a non-Latin speaker.


If guns are banned, only the government and criminals will have them.   If the two combine, you have tyranny.  This is what has happened in Mexico, and in my understanding Jamaica, both of which have very strict gun control laws.

I think the PHILOSOPHICAL importance of an armed populace for a truly Liberal nation cannot be overstated.  I personally would allow the purchase of rocket launchers, grenades, mines, and other such ordnance to people who pass background checks.

The simple fact is that per capita American civilians are by far the most heavily armed in the world, and that in the places where we have the most guns, there is almost no crime.  I don't know how widely known this is, but in a number of states you can buy and shoot fully automatic weapons.  Kentucky has an annual machine gun shoot where people even bring miniguns.

Only when you get to Democrat bastions do the guns revert to the sole domain of cops and criminals, and only there do you see widespread gun violence.

None of this is complicated.  The  psychology is not complicated, and the epidemiological data is not complicated.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Covering Fire

Most politicians, to survive, have to be sensitive to the winds.  In particular, our nation--and all nations which have had the leftist infection inflicted on them--is one in which all people proposing conservative ideas have to count on withering attacks on their persons every time they say something that contradicts Leftist propaganda.  Something as simple as "we can't borrow 40% of our money forever" brings out the choruses of pushing Granny over a cliff, even though it is true, and even though Granny will fare far better with intelligent planning that long term denial and hasty reactions to what will then be intractable problems.  Think about it: if you care about Granny, is it the part of compassion to ignore the future, or think about it?

What conservative Republicans need is what amounts to counter-battery fire.  They need lots and lots of voicing stating coherent view in support both of the specific policies, and the wisdom and MORALITY of those policies.

Who, anywhere, who still claims to value reason, rejects planning for the future?  And yet that is exactly what this Administration is doing.  A credible claim can even be made that they are bankrupting our country ON PURPOSE.  Who, anywhere, who still claims to value reason, can argue for economic ruin as a tool for bettering the lives of Americans or serving the cause of enlightment or moral improvement?  No one can, and yet they continue to get away with it with large segments of the zombified, propagandized populace.

We need to understand why and how our ideas work better, and argue them consistently and constantly, anywhere we can, until--and I think this would be a good bellweather--most academics admit our decision to fail in Vietnam--and abandon Southeast Asia generally--opened up a chamber of horrors, ultimately causing unimaginable misery, and millions of horrific deaths; and that the New Deal not only didn't work, but that it prolonged the Great Depression.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Trauma Tract

I was thinking about my mouth today.  I often find myself with tight lips and a tense jaw.  I sometimes feel like biting people.

Then I watched myself eat.  I tend to "wolf" down food.  Think about that word for a moment.

And I watched World War Z the other night, where humans became like rabid animals, and bit one another.

We are animals.  We are animals not so very different than the dogs and cats we keep in our homes.  And I think all of us retain atavistic instincts.

In my case, I have discovered a great deal of residual tension in my gut, from unprocessed trauma.  And I think the tension can go all the way from the mouth to the anus.

I think many people clench their jaws because they are biting back anger, and an unrecognized primal reaction to danger, that of biting.

We watch primal humans in that movie, and they pull their lips back like dogs, and for the same reason: they are protecting themselves and projecting aggression.

And I got to thinking about territoriality.  Humans likely retain some instinctual need for home and tribe.  We need to belong somewhere, and within some group.  Modern rejections of xenophobia mean that we are all the In group, at least in theory, but our guts may be telling us something else.

Part of the Us/Them dynamic is that you have to feel you belong, intrinsically belong, somewhere.  You feel at peace with you and yours, and whatever aggressions you may have are reserved for the Others.

But what if you never belong anywhere?  Is it possible that leads to chronic low level activation of our territorial instincts?  Could this be behind some of the obsession with zombies?  Could the zombies represent some unexpressed part of a more primitive part of our nervous systems?  I think there is some merit in this idea.

And I got to thinking about dining, one of life's great pleasures.  In dining, you merge, you blend these nervous systems.  You combine the appetitive, visceral part, with the modern social part of your brain.  It seems to me that pleasant, relaxed meals with other people with whom you feel connected is an important part of mental health.

That many families no longer eat together could also feed this disconnect between gut and sociality.

Peter Levine has an exercise in his book.   Actually, he has a number.  Looking this one up, I found some more I had marked but didn't try.  Here is Exercise 4:

The jaw is one of the places that most people carry considerable tension.  There are reasons for this.  The following exercise may serve to illuminate both reasons for this typical "holding pattern" and what may lie on the other side of it, as it dissolves.

At your next meal, or with a crisp apple in hand, take a good "aggressive" bite into a food that you desire.  Really, take a good bite out of it and then begin chewing deliberately.  Continue chewing, slowly, mindfully, until the food turns to liquid.  As you do this, become aware of other sensations and reactions in your body. If you feel the urge to swallow, try to restrain it--to "play the edge" of feeling the urge to swallow, when it arises, and continue to focus on gently chewing.  This may be difficult or uncomfortable, so be patient. Note any impulses you might have such as the urge to swallow, tear, vomit, or associations to things going on in your life--present or past. If reactions such as nausea or anxiety become too strong, please don't push yourself.  Make written notes of your reactions. Page 302

I tried this tonight, or what I remembered of it, and was able to develop a sort of conversation between my gut and the rest of my senses, and realized it is left out of most of what I do.  It is a burden I carry, but don't integrate, or haven 't yet.

And I got to thinking about anorexics. I could easily see trauma embedding in the gut and becoming a sort of alter ego, a Wolf self, a vicious self, and I could easily see a person as unconsciously wanting to attack and starve that wolf self as violent, angry, and vicious.

If this notion is correct, then the way to treat anorexics would be to have them make somatic contact with their guts.  What would pop out would a lot of horrible shit--I use that word deliberately--but there would be an end.

A key problem with severe trauma is knowing where to start, how to start.   There is no pleasant, easy way to deal with horror.

We have two brains.  This is something that needs to be integrated into mainstream psychology.

This is a bit meandering, but fuck it. I think there are some good ideas here, possibly some REALLY good ideas, inspired by Levine's excellent work. 

Government money

There was a skit I saw some years ago in which Clark Kent would take off his glasses, and the person speaking to him would suddenly realize he was Superman, then he would put them back on and they would wonder where Superman went.  I'm sure in the very first issue people were wondering how it could be than no one put two and two together.

I think the notion that the government has money is very much like this.  If I ask you to pay for your own healthcare (and as you feel necessary, insurance to protect you from catastrophic costs), that is a burden.  But if I ask you to pay taxes and the government will pay for it, then you're happy (if you're stupid, which plainly many people are).

This is a shell game, a trick.  It only tricks people who don't get this process of sending a check to the government, which goes to pay for a government employee to cash checks and check tax returns, then a government bureaucrat to administer the payments to healthcare providers, and then to the doctors.

The government does what insurance companies do, but it does it worse, because it has no competition.  There is no impediment to bloat, and no inherent need for quality and speed.  It is a monopoly, at least in Single Payer systems.

What I think people fail to grasp about our free market system is that it has inherent quality control elements.  You can't stay in business if you don't provide something people want at a price they are willing and able to pay.  You have on the one hand the value of success, which leftists love to moan about; but you have also the cost of failure, which can also be quite high, and which leftists ignore, as if all businesses were foreordained for success.  The only such businesses are one underwritten by the government. The rest have to perform or perish.

Bureaucracies merely need to continue getting funding from people whose reelection campaigns they support, with taxpayer money.

Monday, November 10, 2014


I was reading the comments on a post about PTSD and somebody said his therapist said the three things that relieve it are social connections, a sense of mastery, and pleasure.

And it occurred to me that THAT is why I like arguing on the internet so much: I am really, really good at it.  It's my go-to when I'm feeling intimidated or down.  And THAT is why I always seem to make things into a pissing contest.  To be sure, most conservatives in left wing places are insulted vigorously and constantly (and usually childishly), but my ideas are developed.  I can't sell them if I'm inflicting them.  I think of Dale Carnegie and Two Gun Crowley.

This is a human perspective, which of course fails to take into account the inhuman nature of dehumanizing, predatory propaganda.

Still, I have not thought of this quite that way.  My task is to master more things, rather than play the same old tune the same old way.

Sunday, November 9, 2014


I can't stand it.

The thing about sailing is you leave no tracks, and you live suspended by something practically infinite and in continuous motion.

Ponder that as a life metaphor. 

Call me Ishmael

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

I was tempted to add my two cents, but reading it, no.

China riots


Did you know China spends more on its suppression of popular protests than it does on its military, which by size is the biggest in the world?

They have some 180,000 protests a year, many of which escalate to riots, most of them concerning Communist Party official corruption.

In Tibet, in some cities, they have extensive early warning systems--and large number of police/military on constant stand-by--so that when Tibetan monks set themselves on fire, they can be doused and hurriedly removed from the public space within 3 minutes or so.

Howard Zinn

It occurs to me that Zinn's signature "accomplishment" is telling the Soviet version of the American story--the story which ostensibly justified all their violence, tyranny and cruelty--AS an American, and an American veteran at that. 

Since he deals only with the history of America, ostensibly, he is under no pressure to tell the truth about Communism, or all the cruelties it inflicted.

It can be argued that his book has facilitated more deception and leftist regression than any other single book written in the last 50 years.  I read that it is often the only book on American history even many college students read, and as more or less intentional agit-prop, it no doubt has made Leftist recruiting much easier.

I will submit that a much better book for anyone wanting to learn American history from someone who self identifies as a historian first and foremost (and not propagandist) would be Paul Johnson's excellent "History of the American People."  All of Johnson's books are good.  "Intellectuals" is another one I think all people aspiring to a life of the mind should read, as warning.

Those two books really started my journey into being a conservative.  Some more good ones are Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", Friedrich Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit", and "Economics in One lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.

What I want to underscore is that the conservative arguments cannot, in my view, be refuted on their merits.  I have exposed all these ideas to continual criticism for many years, including my own.

If you are a decent person, and want decent lives for the people around you, you MUST subscribe to some form of conservatism.  That is my honest view.

We have lost the messaging war precisely because we want to be nice.  We want to give people equal time.  But those people DO NOT want to us equal time for a very simple reason: looked at systematically, both in principle and their history of implementation, NOTHING the sorts of people running the Democrat Party today want can be justified.  The only ideas they hold worth holding are in general held by Republicans too.

If you want to help women or minorities, vote Republican.  If you want to help the environment, vote Republican.  If you want peace, join those of us calling for an end to foreign involvements, understand that current Democrats are no friends of peace either, and vote for some Republicans.  Vote John McCain and his ilk out.

We have allowed the shrill voices of the mentally unhinged to pervert and corrupt our national dialogue for too long.  We have many problems facing us, but we also have many untapped solutions, but ONLY if we return to the objective use of reason, to a firm commitment in ALL cases to the protection of human decency, to a foundational respect for ALL human beings.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

The hobble of the curmudgeon

I once described myself as an aspiring curmudgeon.  Well, as my kids point out from time to time--with justice--I seem long since to have tapped my inner Walter Matthau, and even if I like kids, I do like sometimes yelling at adults.  And I continue quibbling on the internet.

[although I will say that it is becoming increasingly emotionally clear to me how traumatized many segments of the right have been by the relentless lying and bullying that has been the Left's most successful method.  I'm not putting up with it any more.  Truth attacks: I am going to still call that acceptable.]

I wanted to say "dance of the curmudgeon", but they don't dance.  We don't have wings.  We throw stones at low flying pigeons.

OK, I exaggerate a bit.  A bit.

Here is what I wanted to write, a nice quote from Peter Levine's "In an Unspoken Voice."

In a situation of inescapable and mortal threat, the brain stem, or reptilian brain, sends intense signals to the viscera, causing some of them to go into hyperdrive (as with the gastrointestinal system) and others to constrict and close down, as with the bronchioles of the lungs or the beating of the heart. In the first instance (hyperdrive), we get symptoms like butterflies, knots in the gut or rumbling, uncontrollable diarrhea.  With the lungs, we have feelings of tightness and suffocation, which, when chronic, can lead to symptoms of asthma.  Likewise, the effect of the primitive vagus on the heart is to decrease the beat to a level so low that it can actually lead to (voodoo) death.  Because these sensations feel so dreadful, they themselves become a source of threat [and you suppress them from consciousness]. So rather than coming from outside, the threat now emanates from deep within one's bowels, lungs, heart, and other organs and can cause the exact same effect upon the viscera that the original threat evoked.  This situation is the unfortunate setup for a positive feedback loop with disastrous negative consequences.  In addition, because traumatized individuals are experiencing (intense) threat signals, the PROJECT this inner turmoil outward, and thus perceive the world as being responsible for their inner distress--and so remove themselves from both the real source of the problem and its potential solution [again, they dissociate and fail to recognize that they even have these feelings]. This dynamic also wreaks havoc not only on the body but also on relationships.

If I can paraphrase this, it seems to be literally the case that small sensations in your viscera, that remain unconscious to you, can cause you to view the world as a dangerous place, and to be constantly on your guard, which is one of the symptoms of PTSD.

Conversely, as I have tried to copy Levine in saying, when your viscera are not normally worked up, and you are allowing the free flow of feeling, the so-called "gut instinct" actually works quite well.  That is what it is intended for: all our senses are antennas scanning for feedback.

Hopefully this makes some sense.

Oh, and I was thinking about being grumpy, because I am grumpy.  If it was my birthday, I would take my piece of cake and go eat it in the bathroom.  Bah humbug.

This too shall pass, but I am allowing it while it does.  I need to get it out/get through it. 

The gut and healing

I have twice now had odd dreams, in which the intelligences in my gut--which feel to me like symbiotic, but separate animals (and I am talking the nervous system, not the bacteria)--were showing me they were reorganizing.  Implicitly, something has been off in that system. My relationship with food, and the way I interact with the world through food, has been deranged.  This is not a hormonal thing, or problem with allergies, or any of the foods I've been eating.  It is the WAY I have been eating, a way out of connection--of intrinsic, sympathetic connection--with my gut, with my instincts, with that part of me that when working well works as a superlative early warning system and bullshit detector, and general systemic monitor.

It manifests in my solar plexus, but the whole thing is involved.  I am trying to be gentle and to listen openly to the messages I am receiving.  This is "information", formatted somatically, that I need.

Being me, let me go off to something completely different, but related.

So I was reading that Newtown was a Satanist hub, and decided to Google it, since when I am in this particular mood, I look at EVERYTHING, however far fetched, and came up with this: http://www.satanservice.org/theory/coscm.txt

Now, I noticed a long time ago that BDSM afficionados are quite good at verbalizing and rationalizing what they do.  There is a very good reason for this: trauma detaches you from body, forcing intellectualization.  This, in turn, is an unnatural situation, which means you need to return to the body, but in a contorted, unnatural way.  That is what BDSM does, and in my view Satanism is an ideological form, an intellectual form. of self and other abuse.

Self evidently, any creed which takes as its patron the Prince of Lies cannot be relied on to tell the truth about anything, but what he writes here looks reasonably honest, if only about the outside of what they do.

Here is the point that occurred to me: Satanism exists in the world of shit, literally.  In my own experience, the energies I get from my gut are trauma, fear, pain, horror.  These feelings reside, in my view, BOTH in the physical nervous system as artifacts of traumatic experiences that both stayed and never left, and which also get regularly retriggered by certain stimuli, and which are often not noticed by the person, particularly if they have been a neural firewall to keep those energies out; AND (yes, not the most felicitous sentence) within the subtle energy body described by the Chinese and others.

Freud talked about being anal, about either crapping all over other people--as in the Anal Expulsive--or more commonly being repressed, being Anal Retentive.

Now, he often was very right while being very wrong.  He often seems to have intuited important truths, then allowed his brain to take him on the wrong path entirely.

I would submit that these conditions, to the extent they exist, exist not just in relation to the anus itself, but to the whole system.  The anus, after all, is not the only thing which keeps shit from falling out.  The whole thing is involved.

And this system is VERY suited for receiving and holding all forms of tension and trauma.  We would not think it, but why would it not be sensitive to the environment, when the digestive tract, ultimately, is what converts food to continued life for us?

This is a bit out there, but if you're used to this blog, you're used to me speculating wildly.

As far as Newtown, who the hell knows?  Satanism is a cult, so it would seem that if there were one active member, there were likely more.  They only list two addresses, with the other being San Francisco.

I have met therapists who have worked with the victims of Satanic cults, and they are quite real.  Sadistic and horrific rites are in fact performed in this nation, allegedly in the service of and worship of Satan.

Here is a link that seems reasonably impartial, on the Satanisms we know of: http://www.religionfacts.com/satanism/index.htm

Friday, November 7, 2014

Sandy Hook

My interest in this was reawakened this week when it was revealed that according to official FBI statistics, no murders were committed in Newtown in 2012.

Digging in to it, it appears the consensus among those who think it was a conspiracy was that Adam Lanza did not exist, that his picture was photoshopped, that the mother had multiple aliases and is not only still alive, but gave an interview on camera, and that NO children were killed, and that whole thing was staged using actors and police and emergency personnel in on the "joke".  The goal, self evidently, was creating an operative pretext to call all opponents of allowing a government monopoly on the effective use of force "baby killers."  One can see the logic of this, cynical and absolutely awful as it is.

I have looked at a lot of videos, which I don't like, since I prefer to read.  I can do it ten times faster, and filter for actually useful information.  I will save you the many links that were supposedly posted the day before, which seem to show preknowledge.  Here is one that is still active: http://nawlee.org/sandy-hook-press-release/ 

Note the date.  The Sandy Hook shooting supposedly took place on the 14th.  Why that has not been corrected, I do not know.  This being the internet, maybe a conspiracy theorist copied something.  The claim, which I don't care to investigate further, has been made that MANY people did this.

The claim is now being made that Sandy Hook Elementary was not even OPEN when the shooting allegedly took place.  One person claims there was no internet use.  Another claims that if you look at hard copy public bulletins all references to Sandy Hook disappear about 2008, even though all the other schools in the area continue to post things like school plays, PTA meetings and the like.

I am tired of researching, so I am going to give you three points to evaluate, which I think in tandem are damning for those willing to see with fresh eyes.

One: watch the first ten minutes of this video (or however much you want, until what is not happening becomes obvious): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8150kYsWlcM

Let me reiterate a few facts: the school supposedly had over 600 children.  The claim was made that some people were wounded and not killed, both children and adults.

Where are the ambulances?  They are at the Fire House.  There was no shooting at the fire house.

Where are the children?  Even the helicopter reporter asks this.  They have at that point not been evacuated, but there are no buses.  No one ever films them leaving, throughout the REST of the day.  We have a PICTURE of kids that got circulated, but one which could quite easily have been taken months earlier during a fire drill, and it is perhaps a dozen out of the 600.  Where is MedEvac?  MedEvac was apparently never even CALLED, according to another one of these videos.  They were never put on stand-by.

And most telling, just watch the demeanor of the cops.  They are loitering. They don't give a fuck.  There is  no urgency.  You know what it looks like?  Another fucking boring drill.  And that is what it looks like to me too.

Now watch this video of alleged father Robbie Parker, and alleged aunt something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sino1wwm3cs

I want you to watch the video through three lens.  Watch it multiple times, if need be.  Imagine these people are serious, and just lost a dear child.

Then when that doesn't work (I don't think it will),  look at them as emotionally detached, pathologically unemotional people.

Then watch it as bad acting.  Robbie Parker particularly.  It is OBVIOUS that he is smiling, then getting into his role.

Imagine this scenario: he has just been in the back with a bunch of fellow actors, hashing out his statement, working out the details of their story so there are no inconsistencies.  Imagine he sees himself as in the middle of what he sees as a massive practical joke, a massive--thus far successful--fraud of a scale rarely attempted in American history.  Does that smile not make sense?  Does his failure to start with an appropriate demeanor not square perfectly with the mental mediocrity needed to be complicit in a lie this crass and abominable?

Now, every day is Halloween on the internet, and if I were desperate or unprincipled enough, I could have any credentials I wanted to tomorrow, make any claim, and some people would believe me.  Thus, I think it wise to doubt much of what one reads.

However, this website claims not just to have identified Parker as an actor, but to have found out his actual name: Samual Travis Delaney.  Profession?  Among other things, actor.

Now watch as many minutes as you like of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meV0UYxhxeY

The coroner is odd, but what I want you do to is watch the two cops on the right side of the screen, to his left.  I have done a bit of work in microexpression recognition--Paul Ekman created a training program that I've spent perhaps two hours with--and it seems OBVIOUS to me that both of them are suppressing smirks.  The one with the mustache in particular seems to break out into an actual grin a couple of times.  Pause it at 1:48.  Look at the guy at the left at 2:44.  There are a number of occasions where he seems to be suppressing laughter.  The woman smiles too, behind him, about 2:58, then immediately tries to suppress it.

Watch the guy with the mustache at 3:04 again, after being asked about the nature of the wounds.  He has to look down, and both the other cops have a grin barely being suppressed, like kids getting away with something.  He comes back up with a grin about 3:10, and sneaks a conspiratorial glance at the cop on the left.

I suspect I could go on, but if you can't see it by now, you're not going to see it.

This video footage could easily run by somebody skilled in lie detection and microexpression analysis, and it is not going to be consistent with grief.

Simple question: does this make sense if they have just seen a tragedy they are greatly affected by?  No, of course not.

Does it make sense if they KNOW everything this guy is saying is complete bullshit, and that everybody is eating it up?  Fuck yes it does.

We can certainly question the Republican Party as to its commitment to fiscal sanity and the principle of limited government.  In general, though, it has been a STRONG supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and the balance of power between the people and their government it was intended to facilitate, and that alone is worth a lot.  An armed populace is much harder to deal with than an unarmed one, and Obama alone has put tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of firearms into circulation.

Even though a great lie--and I would argue a great evil--seems to have been committed here, there is reason for cautious optimism because the people who put this show on seem to view it as vital to disarm Americans--something  they failed horribly in, creating in fact a massive surge in gun and ammo buying--and that current political weather is strongly in their faces.

It is important to tell the truth.  I would like to see an actual investigation done, with actual interviews with alleged parents and confirmation of their identities, to the extent possible.  I would like some sort of investigator appointed who could operate outside the normal demands of politics.  I don't know what options we have.  Perhaps an Independent Prosecutor, if we can find an honest one.

A recurring theme among people who claimed to be knowledgeable in this field is that this was not only a hoax, but that it wasn't even a very good one.

But this lie reaches throughout Connecticut Police.  It reaches the Federal level.  In my view, it reaches the Oval Office, and those voices which intrude in on it that wish no Americans well.

We need to start facing as a nation the truth that at least some segments of our government have set the gross curtailment of our liberty as a vital goal, and have in fact acted on it, and perhaps even committed actual acts of murder.

I'm at this point willing to consider many possibilities.  I had seen the claim made prior to the war in Afghanistan that it was really about an oil or gas pipeline.  I had never read or seen anything about this, the leftists blamed everything on Big Oil anyway, so I saw that as something made up by the cynical for the stupid.

But lo and behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

This fucking thing actually exists.  It was started in 1995, stopped in 1998 due to Taliban opposition, and started again in 2002 after our invasion.  Whether getting this thing done was a principle secret goal of the war or not, our war clearly enabled it to happen, and it otherwise likely would not have.  It opens next year.

We need to start asking bold and large questions about the last 30 years.  Now is the time.

The Bohannan as cultural tool

No one who reads me can possibly accuse me of thinking small.  Saving the world?  I mean it literally. I mean putting into play--deploying--ideas which, if multiplied, will Act To stabilize global finances, cultural systems, and everything and everyone tied to them.

I have proposed the creation of ersatz, secondary, voluntary groups I propose calling Bohannons, which will act as extended families. [I don't know where I got this name.  I had thought it was in Stranger in a Strange Land, but without rereading it, I can't find it mentioned in the summary.  It does mean "victorious" in Gaelic.  I like that.]

It occurred to me that this idea is potentially much bigger than I realized.  It sprang from my first experience of Holotropic Breathwork, in which I was astonished how quickly groups of complete strangers achieved extremely high levels of emotional intimacy and openness.  My thought was obvious: why not create standing groups?  Why not grow old together?  This is beautiful solution to the problem of alienation and loneliness.  Groups of 20 or so are manageable.

Then I kept going.  Why not develop funerary rites?  I had in mind this scene from Akira Kurosawa's Dreams.  Every group could develop their own.  You could have regional variations.j

Members could help each other financially, as churches do.

You could support one anothers goals.  One idea I really like was from De La Salle High School football program, in which you pair up and give the other person your set of goals, and they hold you accountable.

But then I started into University of Chicago, cold stone building sorts of thinking.  Next stop: Abstraction.

The family as cultural unit is attacked by Marxists--which is to say just about all Professors of anything to do with the Humanities the world over--as patriarchal, unjust, predatory.  No doubt, in some cases it can be those things.

But what have I created?  A HORIZONTAL group, in which "leadership" can change hands in every meeting.  In my vision, the goal is not teaching or telling, but eliciting: giving people a space to tell their story in their way, and to expect to receive unconditional support.  They get advice only if they ask for it.  The world is not wanting for opinions.  It is wanting understanding.

In the Marxist world view--and this is the plain fact, even if the predatory rhetoric remains benign on the surface--there are two social positions: the isolated individual, and the State, or collective.  The goal is not to elicit from the in-dividual what is unique about them, but the exact opposite: to cause them to DENY everything that is unique about them, and to adopt a mindset and worldview that is dictated by a central elite.  Psychosocially, it consists in the emotional cloning of clinical narcissists and psychopaths, and the implantation of their ideas and manias in every member of the collective.  A hive mind, based on a lunatic queen.

I am offering, in conception, an intermediate, HUMAN position. Marxism clearly increases alienation, it facilitates it, even though it claims to oppose it.

Here is something that would work, something that is doable. I think I have more to say, but my brain is full.  I'm going to go climb a ladder and drill some holes in a wall.  It's a great thing I do manual labor for a living.


Human beings are born with the capacity for violence.  It is bred in us.  We are by evolutionary ancestry omnivores, which means that almost all of us for the entirety of our history have gotten some of our food through violence towards animals.

We seem also to share a tribal instinct.  We become closer to one group, in part, in solidarity against another.  The very existence of a Group B makes Group A huddle just a bit closer together, and we also share a instinctual need for that sort of community.

During the so-called Age of Enlightenment, the claim was made, arising out of Christian theological doctrine, that the mind and body--the soul as expressed through a rational, purified mind, and the body, source of all evil--were both severable and at odds with one another.

Emotionally detached men came up with the idea that something like pure Reason was possible, that it was possible to separate a sovereign mind from entangling emotions.

And they produced what might be called Post-Tribal ideas like "All men are created equal", and "And are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", and "Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [Eudaimonia]".  Obviously, it took some time to "live out the true meaning of [our] creed".

Such ideas are in my understanding unique in world history.  I would contrast them, for example, with India's ancient caste (varna and jati) system, in which you are more or less born into a trade union that exists at a certain social level.  You have duties (dharmas) and in somes cases privileges. Everyone has a tribe in an enormously complex system, and they never leave it.  They can't.  That's not how it works.  You live out your life, and hope to rise in the next life.

On the one hand we have nothing BUT tribes and on the other no tribes at all.  Everyone is equal in all ways, at least in principle, or at least equal in their RIGHTS as seen by the government and the people--the People--who constitute it, again in principle.

The whole thing has no content to it.  It does not positively tell you what to DO, what matters.  It presumes, though, as obvious, some sort of religious commitment centered in some way around Christianity, which could and did include Freemasonry, and many (almost entirely Protestant) sects of Christianity.

Add some time to this thing, and the belief in God starts to fade.  It has been attacked in the realm of "science" (I will use that word as shorthand to refer to the people who are employed doing science, without granting that all or even most of them adhere strictly to the METHODS of science;  they don't, not in this domain), and attacked in the Humanities.

Moral confusion grows, but the biologically rooted need for tribes does not.

Which brings me to the present day, and very unabstract, very personal, somewhat ugly, but I think justified anger.  I got angry at someone on Facebook who posted a cartoon portraying conservatives cartoonishly, as, among other things, calling for dirty air and water so CEO's could make more money, more jobs to go overseas, an end to taxpayer funded benefits, and a litany of other things.

And it just HIT ME that this cartoon was not different in any way, in intent or implied viciousness, from the cartoons the Nazis used to demonize the Jews.  You create a CARICATURE of your enemy, then repeat it over and over and over until people believe the lie, until they literally think that is how their ideological enemies think.

My oldest, just yesterday, was telling me that it was understood that Republicans are for Big Business and Democrats for racial minorities.  It is in the water, the food, air.  Our children imbibe this carefully concocted PROPAGANDA--and that is clearly, unmistakably what it is--from an early age.

And this should make us ANGRY.  We should always be angry when lies are told.  It seems to me many conservatives have been enduring this abuse for so long we simply tune it out.  Why?

The particular individual who posted was UTTERLY unable to understand why I was angry, why I would react passionately to Goebbelsian misrepresentations of people I identify with.  He stated repeatedly that he has been moderate in his responses to my anger, and more or less WTF was my problem.  I asked him repeatedly how he could possibly consider that cartoon anything but inflammatory, and of course he refused to answer.  There is no good answer, and he knew it.  That much he did know, even if he was unwilling to admit to the hate churning in his gut.

And it hit me: conservatives have literally been dehumanized to the point where we are literally having conversations like "I don't know why you mind being called Nigger.  After all we let you walk our streets, and even shop in some of our stores." or "I don't know why you mind wearing the Star of David.  After all, your store is still open and we even let Echtdeutsche shop there."

There is a difference-maker embedded in our brains, and if it is not fed intelligently, it will be fed dysfunctionally.  And it occurs to me that the more difference is erased in the egalitarian project--the more all races, all creeds, all gender differences, all social markers of any sort are eradicated in principle--the greater the need to amplify the one remaining difference: that between egalitarians and true Liberals.  It becomes a mania, a semi- or fully unconscious need to amplify all hate, all anger, and direct it at one group, and one group only: the out-group, that one which still believes in the possibility of and need for moral judgement.

Watch this clip: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/cnn-anchor-laughs-at-assault-on-bristol-palin-forced-to-apologize/

This attack sounds horrible, and Bristol was plainly very traumatized by it, and this anchor did not even see the need to APPEAR to care.  It was the daughter of a conservative woman--who was also viciously attacked AS a person, as an individual, even though Leftists supposedly stand for women--and that was all she needed to know.  She got beat down and dragged by her feet?  Fucking funny.  Best shit I've heard in years.

We conservatives need to wake up to the full extent of the awfulness that has been directed at us now for many years.  We need to fight back, never back down, not let any of the jackasses get away with their propaganda operations.  We need to underscore their innate viciousness and dehumanization of us at every turn.

It is a clear historical fact that dehumanization of PRECISELY the sort the Left has been directing at us now for at least 50 years has always preceded mass murders.  You portray your enemy as awful, as a parasite, as an insect, and this creates a CONDUIT for the channeling of all the rages anyone might have felt for anyone else, for all undirected anger, all undirected hurt, all unprocessed negative emotions, into one place.

We may have won Congress--to be clear, Republicans, which I do not conflate with conservatives, aka actual Liberals--but we have many miles to go to reclaim our humanity in the eyes of large segments of the nation.

Leftist economic and political ideas do not work for anything but entrenching small elites and enslaving the masses in poverty and what might be termed "rightlessness".  Leftist propaganda, though, must be seen as very effective at creating enemies and directing hate toward them.  Tricking people, guiding people, is something they regrettably do all too well.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Eternal Damnation

I have, from time to time, shared my thoughts/feelings about the after-life.  I believe there are differing levels, that all of us are born multiple times, and that there are both relative hells and heavens.  The Buddhists have something like 12 levels, with roughly the top 9 being substantially better than here.  Effectively, they are tiers of heaven.

The lower levels seem to be tied to this world. People stay here because they can't let something go.  And there are worse places than here, which also seem to be tied to the planet, to this sort of convergence of solid energy which has been convulsed out of the pure energy of space.

Here is the thing: we are born and reborn until we learn needed lessons, and then we move on.  We  no longer have to come here.  But the existence of human life on this planet, of our species, is a prerequisite to coming back.  If we were to end life on Earth, human life, many spirits in the lower realms would be unable to reincarnate and complete their spiritual work.  They would be trapped in limbo.

Such an event would amount to a Judgement Day, one based not on one life, but on many, many lives, hundreds, perhaps thousands of chances. It would mean such spirits would be trapped until live reevolves on Earth, if it ever does.

This is of course a nightmare scenario, and one I hope is wrong.  Higher spirits, of course, would not be tied to this planet, and would suffer no difficulty.

This is an odd, weird, idea.  I have a lot of them.  But I thought I would put it out there.  It is possible to imagine something like a Christian Apocalypse, even taking into accounts much bigger visions of God and reality.


I spent perhaps 8 years arguing several hours a day on the internet.   I was attacked constantly as a child on all levels, and I guess I sought it out, and learned to dominate debates.  I have been often ugly, often aggressive.  I have, in my defense, also been consistently attacked as a PERSON, since personal demonization and character assassination have always been important tricks in the Leftist arsenal.  Alinsky discusses this process at length and very openly.

In recent days I have been releasing some negative energies--the equivalent, I suppose, of pus from emotionally insulated sores.  And of course I find myself arguing again on the internet.

But I'm trying to look beyond this, beyond this palliative activity, this thing which gives me something to DO.

(And to be clear, all this arguing made my mind much sharper, allowed me to develop and test my ideas, and forced me to learn a whole lot of things I would not have otherwise.  It has been immensely useful, but compulsive, and compulsive is never good in the long term.)

And I realize that trauma is all I have known.  I can't imagine a life without it.  I don't know the way forward.  I truly don't.  It is fog.  It is a road turning around a bend, or going over a hill.

And I realize this is OK, that this is how it works, that uncertainty does not make me a bad person, and that confusion is often a requirement for clarity.

I don't know.  I don't know.  I don't know.  This would likely be a good mantra for me, at least for the time being.

Edit: Grant, these are not pointless abstractions.  Good thinking MUST underlie all good policy.  Our nation is dominated by crappy, sloppy, unprincipled thinking, papered over with Orwellian slogans and bright colors for the children.  You give me a topic, and I can in most cases point you to a 5-10 page, carefully considered essay.  Obamacare, immigration, Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11, Social Security, Minimum Wage, the nature of morality, Global Warming, the NSA: it's a very long list, one which would not exist without me having had my particular manias.

Once I'm done with the initial phase of my inner work, I don't expect ANY of my political ideas to change.  They are anchored in reason, and reason does not change as emotions change.  What I expect to change is my capacity to present them in a persuasive rather than bombastic way.  My outer veneer needs a LOT of work, but the ideas don't, in my considered view.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014


It is astonishing how quickly fear turns into violence.  It certainly leads to physical violence, but it can be as subtle as waiting for the other person to finish without listening, because you have something to say.  It can be impatience.  It can be rigidity.

I am on a lesson in my Kum Nye practice which is seemingly pulling the worst out of me.  I have been unable to refrain from arguing on the internet.  To my credit, I am persisting in it, despite the ugliness it is pulling up, because I believe there will be an end to it, and this is the only way; at the same time, I am watching all the ways fear deranges me.

Business Idea

I was talking last night with a guy in a bar about educational costs. He made the, to my mind correct, point that when you go, say, to MIT, what you are really buying is a piece of paper, which validates both that you were smart enough to get in, and smart and diligent enough to get out.

It immediately occurred to me that with all the explosion of internet based learning tools, why not create a company which validates knowledge?  Let's say you want to be an Electrical Engineer.  Why not create a test for people to demonstrate what they know?  As appropriate, it could even include real world work, like putting together circuit assemblies, or whatever EE's do.

People could study at home, at their own pace, pay very little tuition, and once companies get used to the idea, are sold on the idea, college would become vastly less important, and cost might well start returning to the realm of the reasonable.

You could have differing level tests, and differing levels of Pass.  If you want to study Humanities, you could do four years in two.  You could accumulate certificates of various sorts.

And to be clear, I am not talking just about on-line learning.  I am talking about getting rid of the notion of courses and credits completely, and simply testing what a person can demonstrate knowing, in aggregate, on a specific date.

I am thinking someone could become like the Underwriter's Labs, but for validating knowledge.  Obviously, you charge for it.  A lot of work would go into figuring out what companies actually need for, say, graduating Chemical Engineers, Physicists, etc.  You could have differing focuses.  Obviously, content could be offered for a fee.

If anyone has proposed this, I have not seen it.  Even places like the University of Phoenix are still giving you a degree and using the Credit system.

Informational Flow

I would like to assert a principle, that qualitatively new ideas--intelligence, in all the manners in which it expresses itself--can only initially flow horizontally or upwards.  From there, it CAN but does not invariably flow down.

What I mean by this is that if someone--and I have in mind at the moment me--has a radically new idea, it can only be understood and appreciated by people of equal or superior intelligence.  Since most of the people who have such ideas are very high up in their levels of intelligence, and since even most intelligent people suffer from varying emotional rigidities and capacities for negative hallucinations, we can with this principle easily derive most of the history of science, in which the new is treated as stupid, then malignant, then obvious.

I spend much of my time being treated as stupid or malignant, to the extent anyone even notices or cares about what I have to say.


I was feeling a great tenderness the other day, something I'm not used to.  It was like two channels of energy hit me simultaneously: love and the feeling of loss.  To love is to lose: the object of your love inevitably will change; you will lose it.  If it is a person, they will leave you or die, or they will change and the connection will no longer be the same.  If it is an idea, or ideal, principle--or a place, a food, a habit, a mood--it will change.  It will not endure in the form you presently love it in.  The relation cannot remain the same in a world filled with, defined by, motion.

So this horror of loss coexists necessarily with love.  And I understood in a flash the image of Mahakala--Great Time: you have to internalize this.  To love, you must make your peace with loss.  You must be destroyed in every moment you love: there is no other way, which is not characterized by delusion.  To love is to die; to see is to be blinded.

I have been confused by the macabre nature of much Tibetan art, but if you view it as no more and no less than an accurate portrayal of life as it must be lived on the plane of existence, then it all makes sense.  

Wednesday, October 29, 2014


That creed which seeks to protect the people from greedy, power hungry monsters in the private sector by installing omnipotent greedy power hungry monsters in the public sector.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

HuffPo Censorship

After letting one or two through, HuffPo is again blocking me.  So I'll just post here.  This is a response to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/how-conservatives-justify_n_6046748.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Propaganda much?  In the history of this republic, only one party has been consistent in its support of true, real, no BS, actually racist poll taxes: Democrats.  And for the record, if I were black, I would find the notion that I am inherently so stupid and ignorant that I can't figure out how to get something I need to drive, cash checks, and visit ANY government building offensive.  It is patronizing.  It shows CLEARLY just how little Democrats think of their black base.  They use them then discard them.  It's quite cynical, and quite ugly.
I will add that the use of the term poll tax is deliberately inflammatory, deliberately race-baiting, deliberately intended to prevent rational discussion of the topic.

Par for the course for these amoral, racist assholes. 

Keynes in a nutshell

This is the most perfect pictorial illustration of the foundational, ineluctable and it must be said OBVIOUS flaws in Keynes ideas:

Title it "infinite wealth".

Hillary Lunacy

I want to do what I can to make sure this moment of candor from a major Leftist is not forgotten: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/24/Hillary-Dont-Let-Anybody-Tell-You-That-Businesses-Create-Jobs/

Businesses do not create jobs.  Businesses do not create jobs.  Ponder the large, nearly insurmountable, epic, Himalayan stupidity of this statement.  Try, really try, to figure out some way in which this could be correct.  You can't do it.  No sane person, with even a rudimentary understanding of free enterprise can do it.

[I feel I should add this edit, since there are so many deeply held, deeply wrong ideas out there: Government, to make this stupidly simplistic, has only three sources of revenue: taxes, borrowing, and printing money.  Borrowed money must be paid back, or at least must have its interest serviced, which in practice means much more money over time is digested than would have had that money been taken in taxes.  Inflation, likewise, constitutes a tax on the wealth of Americans, even if it is subtle one that as Keynes noted not one person in a million would fathom.  Well, you are now one of those one in a millions because I am telling you that increases in the money supply constitute theft.  Presently, the Fed is printing nearly $1 trillion a year in money to help Obama maintain the illusion that his house of cards is sustainable.

The point here is that sooner or later ALL government gets its money from taxpayers.  Period. There is no other way to look at it.  This means that all government activity is funded by private sector activity. Period.  There is no other way to look at it.  This means that all government jobs depend on private sector jobs.  Period.  There is no other way to look at it.]

Yet, it has a logic, which I will attempt to go through.

First off, we  need to recognize the propaganda coup--one of many, it must be said--which enabled the widespread use of the term "Supply Side Economics".  This term is a defensive term, it is one which has been represented as a lame alternative to the purportedly most correct, most orthodox approach, that of Keynesian or Demand Side economics.  Implicitly, "Supply Side:" Economics is some sort of radical alternative to the presumed norm, the presumed success, Keynesian economics.

This of course is lunacy.  What has failed every time it has been tried is PRECISELY Keynesian economics, for the very simple reason that it was never intended to be successful outside of a Fascist political system, and arguably not even then, outside of the thefts which wars of aggression enable.

As I know I have at some point stated, counter-Keynesian economics is simply economics.  It is a description of how things ACTUALLY work, and one of the factors in how economics actually works is that if you want jobs to be created, you need to create a climate in which this is made more and not less likely.

If you want to grow flowers, you fertilize the soil, you water them, you make sure they get enough sunlight, you protect them from the cold.

The essence of a Socialist regime--the essence of the pervasive failures in the non-developing world, with Latin America being the most proximate example of these failures--is making it HARDER to do business.  It is demonizing those who do business well, who amass wealth outside of the protection and collusion of those in power for their own benefit.  Socialism is great at creating opportunities to get rich at the expense of others, but it is horrible at facilitating people getting rich themselves, while spreading and generalizing the wealth.

Bill Gates created thousands of millionaires.  Is anyone but Hillary Clinton and her ilk so stupid as to fail to grasp that those millionaires put their money into local circulation, and put their money into the pockets of landscapers, builders, purveyors of clothing, dining establishments, etc., in a sustainable way?

The alternative is taking all of Bill Gates money, and then using government officials to determine who should get it.  Politics being what it is, most of this money will go to politically connected insiders, who in almost all cases will simply waste that money, making Bill Gates poor, along with everyone else EXCEPT those on the inside, people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

This is how things actually work.  To reach the mendacity of a Hillary Clinton--to reach lies so pervasive and complete even she believes them (I would have my doubts about Bill, who is much smarter than her), here is what you have to do.

First, believe the propaganda about Supply Side Economics--trickle down economics, Voodoo economics.  This, despite the fact that it has always worked [Tax receipts went up under Reagan, exactly as predicted; Tax receipts went up under Bush, exactly as predicted.  In both cases, this increase was masked by much larger increases in spending].

The essence of anti-Keynesian economics is placing the locus of economic development on small and medium business.  Given that you have bought the propaganda, you simply have to invert this.  Logically, if anti-Keynesian economics is wrong, then the converse must be right.  If businesses cannot be counted on to create jobs, then their role as job creators must be rejected, even if within Keynes own tissue of lies even he contended that the intended net beneficiary of government largesse was still supposed to be the private sector.

Make all of this abstract.  Ignore real human suffering.  Insulate yourself in a bubble, and don't give a flying fuck about anyone except those who can advance your agenda, and those who can serve you sexually.

That is how you get statements like this.  It's not hard.  You just have to be an awful human being, utterly lacking in compassion, and utterly disinterested in fixing anything or anyone, or alleviating any sorrow or burden.  You simply say things which get you votes, pure and simple, and if you lose sleep at night, it is worrying about polling data, and what new messaging you need to enact to improve it.