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:

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:

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.

Monday, October 20, 2014


I've been angry the past few days. I am growing, and had a major dream breakthrough the other day.  I was locked in a Soviet era prison, and someone got me released, and gave me a gift in the process.

Now, I would be lying if I said no one has ever done anything nice for me.  Many people have, and no doubt many have tried that I pushed away.  But at no time in my life have I ever not felt like my life was my burden and mine alone, and that it was likely to be that way forever.

This is the thing in dealing with narcisssists: they isolate you.  They separate you from your true self, from your own reality, from the free expression of your own emotions.  In my own case, the early trauma combined to make the narcissistic effect much stronger.  It is a miracle I am not a really fat, perpetually angry, overly intellectual computer geek obsessed with video games and utterly indifferent to any and all emotions.  Hell, I am some of those things any way, but I have traveled far.

Any time you get strong abreactions, that is a positive thing.  That means growth.  Some, of course, can put some people in the hospital, but I can take just about anything that can be thrown at me, albeit sometimes with some booze as a narcotizing agent.

The point I wanted to make, though, is this: living with narcissists is like living in prison.  But conversely, living in a totalitarian state is like living with narcissists.  What is the essence of a Fascist state like the old Soviet Union, or current regimes like Cuba and North Korea?  It is that individuation is strongly discouraged.  If you fall outside the lines, you are immediately labeled defective, in a society they are trying to build like a personality and belief assembly line.

In Cuba a very high percentage of the population gets a bit of extra money every month to spy on their neighbors.  Clearly, they would build a massive surveillance apparatus of the sort, say, China has built in Tibet to suppress monk suicides, which apparently continue to this very day, but their system doesn't work, so they have no money.

Ponder a world in which you have to suspect everyone you meet--including close relatives--of betraying you if you say anything coherent and TRUE about the abominable condition of having suppress every last vestige of your spirit, your individuality, your soul?  There was an aspiring member of the Resistance in East Germany, who was betrayed by his wife.

Societies cannot grow spiritually.  Only individuals can do that, and only societies which permit liberty, which permit individual quirks, obsessions, ideosyncrasies, journeys without clear destinations, can possibly grow morally, can possibly grow in the only ways that ultimately matter.

Aspiring totalitarians are narcissists.  They are unable to separate the needs of the world from their own psychological need to find meaning by "helping" others.  It is not OK with them that most people don't NEED helping, so where need is not present, they manufacture it.

Again, the so-called War on Poverty is a good example.  If existing economic processes had simply been allowed to continue in the black community, they would have reached a middle class average 20-30 years ago at the latest.  Instead, all sorts of perverse incentives were introduced, which rewarded single parenthood, which rewarded laziness, and which encouraged people to work the system, rather than work a job, all while making sure that all blame for everything bad was laid at the feet of white men, and specifically Republicans.  The truth is that if blacks had not been "helped", they would have been vastly better off.  I don't think they are intrinsically inferior.  Democrats do.  

Democrat Racism

On what level is a high level expert witness calling black people stupid not blatantly racist and patronizing? Is it not the case that Jeff Foxworthy has made a career out of stupid white people? We all know there are plenty of those. I have quite a few in my family.  Demographically, stupid white people almost certainly vastly outnumber the sum total of blacks in this country.

The difference, the key difference, is that nobody makes excuses for them; nobody has made a political career out of exploiting them; and nobody says race has anything to do with it. Black family incomes rose steadily from the late 1940's until the late 1960's, when people decided to "help" them, at which point all those improvements in income and educational attainment reversed, giving us our current situation. The only racism that matters at this point is the soft tyranny of low expectations. The people who expect nothing of you are not trying to help you. They are using you. They are not friends: they are enemies.

I posted this on Facebook, then decided to follow my own policy of trying to avoid divisiveness.

I added, in a comment I accidentally deleted, that in my view MLK and Stephen Douglas and others would be ENRAGED at how things have evolved in the so-called "black community".  Nobody trusts anyone.  Grandmothers raise a very large number of kids, with neither father nor grandfather in sight.  Crime is rampant, Education is spit on.

This expert, in repeatedly calling blacks less educated, is also calling them lazy, because education--high school education, and in many cases college education for the "disadvantaged"-- is and has been free for the last 50 years at least.    

Think of the 150,000 freed slaves who went through Howard University after the Civil War.  Do you think they held the opportunity to get educated in contempt?  Do you think they were mocked for trying to get smarter and know more?

And libraries are open to all.  I have learned far more since leaving college than I learned in it.  ANYONE who values knowledge can get it for free in this country.

And ponder too that he is openly admitting that these people they want to be voting are ignorant of "public affairs", that they do not have, on his account, the BASIC information floating in their heads to vote for anything  but free stuff.

I think it's time for another news fast.  This level of cynicism and indifference to human suffering enrages me.

To be clear: ALL these problems are solvable.  There is no inherent, insuperable problem with the black race that they cannot be full partners in our society.  But this will not happen until they start demanding more of themselves, and for the past 50 years, all their so-called leaders (I exempt only MLK, Malcolm X, and perhaps Bill Cosby) have been making excuses for them, and assuming the worst of them, as here.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Texas and Obama

I read today that one of Obama's hacks on the Supreme Court--I think it was Ginsberg--called the Texas Voter ID Law "a poll tax".  This infuriates me.  It absolutely has my blood boiling, me popping fish oil tablets to keep from busting a gasket.

This is one of the allegedly best minds in the country repeating by rote grammar school propaganda.  It is that bad.  You can get a FREE, acceptable ID in Texas according to this law merely by asking for it.

But that is not the bigger point.  Here are several:

1) in what respect should blacks not be OFFENDED by the severely patronizing tone implied by the claim that they are too stupid to adhere to standards we demand of whites without thinking about it?  Why is Al Sharpton not up in arms about blacks being called stupid and inferior?

Why?  Because it has been happening for 50 years, and it has made him a wealthy man.  If blacks were the equals of whites, they wouldn't need him.  They wouldn't need professional advocates.  They could just work their way up the ladder through education and effort like everyone else.  But that doesn't get votes for Democrats.  That doesn't allow Democrats to make false promises about all the free things blacks will get if they just vote a straight D ticket.

What they get are free phones, and long term unemployment.  But they keep voting the same way, year after year, so I afraid I can't object to the Democrat's contempt for this core constituency--for poor blacks--except in principle.

2) Anyone in this society who does not have an ID is not participating.  You have to have one to drive.  You have to have one to check into most hotels.  You have to have one to cash checks.  You have to have one to get into most Federal buildings.

Anyone who does none of these things is not a tax payer.  Period.

And think about it: what right, really, should anyone have as to how public moneys should be spent who has contributed none?  Why do they even show up?  Again: to get more "free" (to them) stuff.

No system can survive this selfishness for long.

What makes America America?  Why have we succeeded where most of Latin America has failed, to greater and lesser extents?  Why, for example, do so many Mexicans want to live here rather than their home land, where everyone speaks their language, understands their customs, where they were born?

Simple: Mexicans, proportionately, are much more corruptible than Americans.  I work next to Mexicans with green cards all the time, and they tell me the Army and Police are more or less direct extensions of the drug cartels.  They do not have a functioning system of impartial law.  Moreover, given the chance, they have always tended to want to implement policies where you get free stuff.  Most of Latin America has been like this.  This is why Venezuela is sinking daily into deeper poverty despite huge oil reserves.  This is why Chile is faring quite well.

None of this is complicated.  What is infuriating to me is the utter lack of common sense, of common decency, of the ability to add 1+1, among elites with the power to affect us all.  There is no need for  America to fail, but fail it will if enough of these people get in power.

3) Finally, I have been wanting to comment on Obama's long rumored abuse of executive power to grant, illegally, amnesty to millions of Hispanics who came here to escape the long term failures of their home nations.

What you have to do is eliminate all sympathy, all compassion, all decency, all common sense, all concern for the general welfare, all empathy, all kindness, and look at everything SOLELY through a political lens, solely through an eye to getting and keeping and expanding power for your particular power elite.

Obama said he would grant amnesty before the election, but chose not to do so.  Why is simple enough: these people are going to be mobilized as Democrat voters, but they don't have enough time to make sure all the illegals are registered and put on buses to the polling stations.  Further, amnesty clearly would harm Democrats in the mid-terms.  So what to do?  Well, if Republicans have a really strong showing, maybe put it off indefinitely.  Anything short of that, put amnesty in place and IMMEDIATELY begin using these people as voting tools.

Specifically--and I have not heard anyone say this, although I have not been reading much news lately--Obama in my view CLEARLY thinks he can use ICE to simply bus people around to places where he needs them.  Texas has long been a prize.  Do you think they do not have detailed lists of what counties are on the bubble and could be pushed Blue with a couple dozen busloads of illegals who should have been deported, but were retained as Obama/Democrat voters?

People in this view are tools, nothing more, nothing less. They are ways of implementing vote-getting strategies that have NOTHING to do with advancing the lives of anyone outside the power elite.

This whole things is sickening to me, particularly that so many people who ought to know better find themselves reciting grade school slogans, childish slogans, delusional propaganda created for the already infected.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

UAW as protection racket

I was reading that the UAW put out a "scab" report to encourage non-union members to join the UAW.  Tennessee is a right to work State, which means that the collectivist mafia has not yet gained the right to compel union membership by law: 
“I have had more trouble with the union than with management and after this I will never come back to the UAW,” he said.

He felt the need to speak out after witnessing the establishment of voluntary unions in Chattanooga and Alabama. The UAW has said it merely wants to give voluntary union supporters an option, but the worker sees it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“What they do behind the scenes is harass non-members, those who choose not to belong,” the worker said. “The workers [in Chattanooga] can look forward to seeing their names on a list just like this one.”
Reading this, it occurs to me that the long-term relationship between unions and gangsters--especially on the East Coast--is natural and obvious.

How does a normal protection racket work?  Three guys--one with a suit, and two plain dressed but large--walk into your store one day and suggest that you need protection, and that they are the ones to provide it.  You say you've never had a problem, and don't need their help.  The suit tells you that things happen.  Who knows? Your windows might be broken tonight, one of your workers might break his leg, someone might through a nitric acid bomb through the window.  Who knows?  It's a dangerous world.  You get their drift, and if you are in New York or New Jersey, you can't legally own a gun.  They, of course, have illegal guns because that is what they do.  You fork over $1,000, $2,0000--who knows?  Whatever they thought they could get away with--and in exchange they don't attack you.  This works particularly well for foreign born people in ethnic neighborhoods whose experience with the police in their home lands has not been good.

What do unions do?  Something quite similar.

If you want to work at a car plant in Michigan, you have to join the union. There is no opt in.  There is no choice.  And if you tried to work without joining, you would both be breaking the law, and risking an assault on your person or property.  Most people don't realize this, but laws were passed under FDR making it legal for unions to do many things which would put people in jail if done by anyone else.  This includes physical violence, the threat of violence, and damage to property.  It is an outrage that these laws are still on the Federal books--they effectively grant unions their own class of citizenship; they effectively make them above the law in some ways--but as far as I know they are.

And what people fail to grasp is that unions are a BUSINESS.  The top executives make very good money, and to keep it that way they have to keep the union dues coming.  And how do they get the union dues?  Coercion, in almost all cases.

Protection racket.

Barry Goldwater (and Brent Bozell, who was arguably the brains behind Goldwater) argued in 1960 that unions need to be reformed in three ways:

1) Membership must be voluntary.  As they note in the article linked above they provide many more services, and work harder in Right to Work states because they HAVE to.  Everywhere else they have State granted monopolies and coerced membership.

2) One company, one union.  The UAW is the labor equivalent of Ford, Chrysler and GM executives getting together and price fixing labor, which is against the law.  It is not against the law for the UAW, again, only because unions are in a place somewhat above the law.

3) No political contributions.  Unions are tax exempt, in my understanding.  They pay no taxes, and should therefore not be able to contribute to elections.  In practice, they use their protection racket, which was created both by and for certain dissolute, dishonest policians, to keep them in office.  This is not contributing to the generalized public good, but rather the good of union leaders and crooked politicians.  It is wrong and should be abolished.

Hell, I'll add a couple more obvious points.

Unions are inherently unproductive.  They create nothing.  If we had only unions and no corporations, then we would have no unions, because no one would have anywhere to work.  Unions exist solely as counterbalance to an otherwise monolithic corporation, but even in this case, no one company can command wages when people can do work somewhere else.  And as I said, collusion is illegal.

Only in socialist systems can companies achieve sufficient monopolies that people can be forced to work somewhere they don't want to.

And on a lesser level, only when we pursue socialist policies, as Obama has, can the economy remain so bad that people feel they HAVE to remain at jobs they hate because management is awful.

A pro-business bias is a pro-people bias, and an anti-business bias is an anti-people bias.  As I say from time to time, just look at Detroit, once the envy of the world, once flush with cash,and filled with happy prosperous people.  What happened, effectively, is that the policies pursued by City Hall told people with money to leave, and they did.  That simple.  If you want a recent example of a country where that happened, look at Venezuela, which is increasingly Fascist.


It occurred to me this morning that the capacity for abstraction is both a prerequisite for the operation of our system--voters, for example, do not, but would optimally understand how our system operates, and if they did we would not be in the mess we are in--and a curse.

It is a curse because the thoughtful person quickly becomes aware of all the things that COULD, theoretically, happen.  The bad possibilities are endless, and there really is no final way to conclude all of them are impossible.

200 years ago, there were troubles, too, but they were things like your horse breaking a leg, or a bad harvest, or illness.

Paradoxically, I suspect that despite all our material progress, despite the eradication of most major germ-related diseases, despite the eradication of most hunger and want, we are more worried than ever, and this is because of abstraction.

As I ponder this, I think this might be the root of the authoritarian impulses within our intelligentsia.  Being intelligent by definition, they are well anchored in abstraction, and well aware of the many bad things that COULD happen (even if some, like overpopulation and Global Warming, seem easily dismissable), want some FINAL answer (might we say Endloesung?) so that they can relax, so that their minds can finally rest at ease, now that everyone has a place, and mistakes and disasters are at least THEORETICALLY eradicated from the system.

There is something important here, I think.  I've gone down this approximate path before, but perhaps not quite this way.


I release my hate to the North Wind.

I release my hate to the South Wind.

I release my hate to the East Wind.

I release my hate to the West Wind.

I release my hate to the Sun.

I release my hate to the Moon.

I release my hate to the Earth.

I walk in freedom.
I walk in freedom.
I walk in freedom.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Henomoralism and gender roles

I like to think people read my Goodness Movement website, but if anyone has read everything, there are not many.  This is a term I create/define in my glossary, I think I called it.

I posted a link on my Facebook to this song by Travis Tritt:

Any politically engaged "feminist" could object to his objectification of women if they so chose.

Here is the thing, though: sometimes women WANT to be objectified, they WANT to be appreciated for their beauty and feel sad when this no longer happens.

One can argue, on one hand, that demands for surface beauty are awful, superficial.  But one can argue on the other hand that that is how we are wired.

Life is not fair.  If the egalitarians win, the unfairness will consist precisely in what they call fairness.

There is something Luciferian in telling young adults they can be anyone they want to be, EXCEPT who they were and who they are.  There is a death in this, from which many--perhaps most--never recover.

One can both value gender roles and reject them.  One can see where they facilitate happiness and a clear sense of order; and ALSO understand how they can be unnaturally constricting, and irrconcileable with happiness.

This is henomoralism: I can change the moral God I worship, as circumstances change.


The prerequisite for the acquisition of new knowledge is the recognition of ignorance.  And the best way to recognize ignorance is to presume it.

This is why Edward de Bono called arrogance a "mistake in the future".

Intelligence DICTATES, DEMANDS humility.  The more you know the more you know what you don't know.

I've said this many times, of course, but perhaps not this way.  It is wearying trying to remember everything I've said.  Just on this blog I have I think nearly 2,000 posts (Edit: I misunderestimated it: 2,288).

And for the record, I think the Sufis taught this lesson the best.  As I understand it, in at least some schools everyone was classified according to what type of idiot they were.  I've always liked that.

And I'm honestly not sure what type of idiot I am.  Likely an emotionally constrained idiot, one unable to connect with people deeply due to a lack of development.

But there are of course grades of idiocy, and one can always strive to achieve the status of Top Idiot.  It's something to shoot for, to be sure.

Sunday, October 5, 2014


I have tapped into my trauma, and looked it in the face.  I have allowed my body to speak, through shaking, involuntary verbalizing, and regular sessions of just sitting and allowing myself to sense what it is doing.

What I am realizing now is that the only way to complete this process is to have FAITH that it can and will complete.  Only trust will do it.  Only a sincere love of myself will do it, and love always requires faith.

Related note: You know, I rarely write in my diary any more.  There are certainly many things I wrote there that I would not have written here, but in some odd way this feels to me like a communication, a communication to a perfect listener who never interrupts or offers advice.  This itself is therapeutic.

I am of course ridiculous in some ways, but perhaps evidence that God has a sense of humor.  He created me!!!

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Why I am an economic Liberal and thus a political conservative

I had lunch today with my youngest at a wonderful cafe.  I had a brilliant Salade Nicoise with a nice cup of coffee. Everyone in there was laughing and smiling.  In a number of cases hugs were exchanged between people who had presumably not seen each other in a while, and were glad to see their friends.

I want this for everyone.  I told my youngest "I pity those who cannot afford this".

Almost by definitions, those who value equality over wealth for all are NOT working to help everyone afford such meals.  Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton?  OF COURSE they will always be able to afford such meals (obviously, much better meals, since their "public service" has made them piles of money).  The question is do they want that for everyone else?

Will any amount of welfare every put poor people in such places, comfortably?  Will extensions in unemployment insurance, Social Security increases, or ANYTHING that is even remotely possible ever do it?  No.  Categorically, absolutely, finally: NO.  Not a chance.

Only a generalized increase in national wealth will do that.  Only better jobs will do that.

They claim to want this, but the only jobs they create are government jobs, which take money from more productive uses in the private sector, and thus COST jobs.

They claim increases in the minimum wage will do this, but the minimum wage would not come CLOSE to allowing people to comfortably afford such meals, and the higher they set it, the more unemployment they create, which creates a negative effect.  It hurts, on balance, far more people than it helps.

The core impediments to a generalized increase in wealth are

1) Government, obviously, and particularly punitive and unnecessary laws and high taxes, particularly corporate taxes.  I have argued often and will argue again that the corporate tax rate should be zero, and the difference made up by increases in income taxes.  This alone would lead to HUGE increases in economic growth, and would prevent fully companies from leaving. On the contrary, many foreign firms would likely relocate here.  This alone would likely ensure full employment.

2) Illegal competition with native born Americans, which depresses wages.  This is categorically the case, and the contrary cannot be argued, in my view.  Yes, Americans will probably not work hard for $8/hour, but if there were not people willing to work for $5/hour, they would be making $12 or more.  It is not that Mexicans--and they are Mexicans until they get citizenship--are doing jobs Americans won't do. They are doing jobs for WAGES most Americans will not accept, and should not have to accept, given a sane immigration policy.

3) Finally, and most importantly, our banking system must be completely reworked.  Our nation is a nation in debt, which is to say characterized by massive claims on our collected wealth and labor which have been created ex nihilo due to a fatal flaw in our financial system.  I have linked my proposal often.

But returning to my meal: ask any Democrats you know if it would make them happy knowing that everyone in America could afford such luxuries, even if the rich got richer.  Their politics compels them to say no, and that is why I could never support such awful, callous, angry, and ultimately hateful people.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

The Devil has a plan for you too

As I become aware of my body, it feels sometimes like it is filled with hungry mouths filled with sharp teeth.  This feeling I have had in me for a long time, and the way you get rid of it is to first see it, feel it, know it.  You cannot rid yourself of what you cannot see.

On a slightly higher level, you cannot rid yourself of an ego you do not have.

Christians are notorious for splitting the soul and body in unhelpful ways, but I think if one thinks of "the body" as the feelings I am sensing and releasing, that it is very much something that should be rejected.

But it has to be done from a position of wisdom.  All our instincts exist for reasons, it is the PERVERSION of instincts--turning the alarm system into a state of permanent fear, for example, which is sounding all the time and thus useless; or turning the joys of the sexual instinct into lusts for power and purely physical experience--which is to be rejected.

I do sometimes feel an energy like that called the Devil does exist.  I feel a spirit trapped in this world, not the ruler of it, trapped because it can neither grow nor diminish.  It is stuck like a monkey in a monkey trap of the sort where something desirable is placed at the bottom of a bottle tied with a string.  It can place an open hand in, but it cannot pull the thing out without opening its hand again, thus releasing the treat.

This something still speaks to us through the primordial muck from which we arose as spirits.  We can heed it, or we can let it go.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Simplicity and Hope

Lives have seasons.  Seasons have essences, flavors, and these two words mark this season as it is evolving for me.

Try as I might, I cannot change the world, or at least overnight and through effort of will, through arguing and anger.  That I felt the need to do so no doubt stems from some primitive fusion between myself and "out there" that arose as a result of my very early trauma.

I can, I think, trust that things will work out, that overall good things are on the way, even if it is clear that horrific suffering can be found the world over, suffering that will never be redeemed in this life.  People are broken by fear and horror, and grief most of us cannot begin to imagine.

Still, hope springs eternal.  Human kind has been cruel since time immemorial, and we are now for the first time in a position to contemplate global peace, and able to hope it is one that evolves, and not one that is imposed.

Sunday, September 28, 2014


is intended primarily for stupid people with long memories, particularly intellectuals.

I have found that Noam Chomsky rarely begins a book without a lie or gross violation of logic within the first three paragraphs.  Tonight I perused a book in which he claimed in the first three paragraphs that North Vietnam was a democracy in 1960.  One can only speculate at the psychopathology that leads to the NEED for lies like that.  To be sure, horror follows such lies, unimaginable horror.

It makes me happy that. . . .

I noticed my kids say this a lot.  I've been traveling a lot, so I have seen little of them over the past six weeks or so, but we try to make up for it with a lot of one on one time.  I took one out to dinner Friday, and the other to an arts fair Saturday.  I think with two kids it's important to give each one focused attention.  Both of them will tell me things I don't think they would if their sibling were present.

But I noticed both of them said this multiple times.  Balloons make me happy.  This candle makes me happy.  This song makes me happy.

I honestly don't know if I taught them this or not.  Despite all my problems, many things--simple things, usually--make me happy, and I suppose I've commented on it.  Interesting cloud formations make happy.  Pretty sunsets make me happy.  Little kids playing makes me happy.  Puppies make me happy.  Beautiful fall days.

This is a good phrase.  It's one step on from "I'm grateful for"--which is still a great phrase--but I think for most of us happiness is one of the primary emotions we are searching for (love and engagement being perhaps the two others), and it is a useful practice to consciously acknowledge it whenever it pops up, because pop up it does.  You can't plan it.  You can't force it.

And I think the more you acknowledge it, the more places it can and will appear.  It pops through the cracks you allow, until it is a more or less open window, and the sun is coming through.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Your contribution

What song will go unsung without you?


Physiologically, aggression is the neurological equivalent of running away, and I would argue it is the existential equivalent as well.  It comes from fear, from the fight or flight (or freeze, or collapse, which are the other two possibilities Peter Levine discusses) response.

As I think I mentioned, I have been rereading John Wooden's book , and it is making more and more sense to me.  The drive to win is a drive, first of all.  What drives drives?  Fear.  Specifically, I think in most cases, fear of failure.  What does fear lead to?  Aggression.

I think one could perhaps summarize Wooden's approach as "approaching perfection through relaxation, rehearsal and time".

There is no doubt in my mind that his practices were physically grueling, and required all the will and effort his players could muster.  But what I feel is that there was little ANGER in his approach.  I think he felt if he needed to get angry with someone, that person probably didn't belong on his team.  He speaks often of the power of gentleness, which is implicitly the power of gradualness and time.

When you are angry and fearful, you cannot manifest large plans in gradualistic ways over time in an organic way.  You cannot water something carefully, just a little, every day without fail until it blossoms.  You overwater one day, underwater the next, and forget entirely the following day.  It is not a wholistic, gentle approach.

I will consider myself fully healed only when I can pursue gradualism in Wooden's way, as I conceive it.

I will add as well that a quote I have long had in my head was from Ivan Pavlov.  Someone asked him what the secret to success was, and he answered "Passion and gradualism".  That is where I get that word from.

Culture and Somatic Experiencing

We need to reinvest Western, and to some extent, perhaps, global, culture.  I often ponder this, as any regular readers I may have know.  I think we need to be extremely cautious about assuming our way of life is the best, particularly when we manage to combine being fat, rich, and unhappy.  Still, I think people will adopt what they like, and ignore what they don't.  We, ourselves, CERTAINLY need to find a new path, one that goes beyond an emotionally and socially dissociated passion for abstraction (yes, they can be combined), and gross carnality.

In the movie Equilibrium they take their doses of high tech Xanax/Valium mood suppressors at regular intervals.  They will be marching around, the bells sounds, and they dose themselves.

What if our culture had the feature of taking 5 minutes 3 times a day to sit quietly and feel our bodily sensations?  I have been doing this for a week or two, and it UNQUESTIONABLY contributes to self understanding, and relaxation.  What if the whole world did it?

All you have to do is sit, and scan your body.  Feel what is going on between your shoulder blades, in your jaw, in your eyes, front and back.  Feel your feet and toes. Try to feel your liver and kidneys.  Feel your ear lobes.  Feel your hands, feel the bones in them, the middle of the bones.

Obviously, some of these areas have few nerve receptors, but I think this practice helps reconnect "mind" and body in a very physical, nervous system sort of way, and permits greater sensitivity to excessive effort, excessive tension; and it relieves emotions like fear and anger, which always begin in the body.

And this is a subtle linkage, a subtle distinction between sensation and emotion.  But what I have found is that if you analyze "fear", there is an effect on the mind, on your sense of your own relation to the world.  But it is possible to feel the physical concomitants--precursors--of fear, without that same sense. I can note tremors in my upper back and trapezius and neck, feel my eyebrows start to rise, perhaps my mouth open, but not lapse into what we call fear.  They can be separated.

This is a HUGE discovery.  William James--who to my mind is by far the greatest largely unrecognized American genius (in my view because of his participation in the scientific investigation of the after-life)--saw this 100 years ago, but Peter Levine to his credit has rerecognized this, and gone further and integrated it into an effective system for trauma resolution on a deep level.


Imagine a world in which no one had to feed themselves, or drink water.  Imagine we had no bodily requirements, even for sleep.  How would such a world evolve?  According to my beliefs, this is how at least one plane of what we call Heaven is, except that it is much more beautiful.  To get there, you learn contentment here.

It seems to me that we can satisfy spiritual hunger ourselves.  We can satisfy the need for the companionship of others, to some extent, although I think it is much like physical hunger, that we will always have in this world and these bodies.

Much of what we need, of our deepest, truest, most authentic needs, though, I feel can be satisfied by developing the right relationship with ourselves and our lives.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Conservative Egalitarianism

It occurred to me that what is called conservatism, and what I would call authentic Liberalism, is in fact the true egalitarian creed. It posits that all people are created equal, and assumes everyone is capable of using freedom responsibly until they demonstrate otherwise.  We are equal in principle, and if we become different that is perfectly acceptable, as diversity is the goal.

Everyone has the right to the same gun the cop carries, because they are equal in principle to the cop, until they break the law.

Everyone is equal before the law, and should be able to expect the same treatment no matter who they are.

Everyone has equal opportunities.  Specifically, no one is prevented from any activity by law which is not harmful to the community.  You cannot, for example, use the government to protect monopolies.

Leftism is based on the notion that people are NOT able to look after themselves, that some people are, by implication, intrinsically INFERIOR, and that their superiors--the intellectuals, and the people using the intellectuals rhetoric to enrich themselves--are responsible for them in ways they themselves could never manage.  And the practice is to make the proles equivalent in poverty, while the elite basks in all the pleasures of their ill gotten wealth.  I read that Nancy Pelosi stayed in a $10,000 a night hotel after she passed Obamacare.  Where do you think she got that money?

This sense of noblesse oblige is PRECISELY what we fought our revolution to eradicate, because for every act of ostensible generosity there are two acts of thievery.  In our present system, half our country is being bought with the money from the other half, by a political class that creates nothing.

False Gods and dead homes

Phrase popped into my head today doing my Kum Nye practice.  I think that is a pretty good summary, don't you?  If you have to ask "of what", we are likely working on different projects.

The phrase also popped into my head: "In order to lose your self you must first have a self.  Until then you are an unhatched egg."

Politics and sanity

It is an unfortunate aspect of our political system that is requires both knowledge and the capacity for abstract reasoning to work properly.  We consciously seek many viewpoints and personal contributions through our electoral process, but the quality of the end result cannot be much better than the quality of the viewpoints and people participating.

And most people in this and most other countries very simply do not have the capacity for effective abstract thinking.  When things are good, they are complacent.  The assume things will always be good. When things are bad, they allocate blame based upon their gut instincts, and not upon seeking deep knowledge.

The gut says "feed me".  Democrats say, "we will feed you".  Republicans say "we will let you feed yourself, by creating conditions in which it is possible."

The social sense says: "feed my friends".  Democrats say "we will feed your friends."  Republicans say "we will let your friends feed themselves too."

It is easy to appeal to the infantile, grasping, sucking, wanting side of human nature.  It is much, much harder to appeal to the thinking, contemplative side, the side from which all large projects come, from which all large long term successes come.

It is likely safe to say that we have done well enduring this long, and it is a testament to the fundamental social maturity of Americans, in whom the concept of self reliance was cultivated early on until recently.

Self reliance presumes a self.  If we posit psychological individuation as a principle goal of human life, self reliance must be a part of it.  This is how one connects the political with the personal, again on an abstract level of the sort that must be present for our system to endure.

Eric Holder

This situation seems pretty obvious, but I have little faith in the talking heads to put two and two together, so I'm going to chip in my two cents.

The Justice Dept. is known to have incriminating emails relating to the Lois Lerner (and associates: let's not forget probably 10 or more people belong in jail)  investigation.  Eric Holder is under considerable pressure from Obama's handlers to suppress those emails, but he can't legally do it forever, and if he tries to delete them too, he is likely to be charged with Obstruction of Justice.

My best guess is he finally told Valerie Jarrett that he wasn't going to jail for them.  They are going to hard pressed now to find someone to sit in that hot seat and play ball with them.

This should work to the benefit of truth and justice, although only time will tell.


Never believe me when I say I going to stop politics.

This war is ludicrous.  It cannot achieve lasting military victory; it is illegal, both because Syria does not want us in her space, and because Congress CLEARLY, beyond any possibility of dispute, both has not authorized it, and MUST authorize it, per the Constitution.; and it risks a much larger war with the Syrian government (and potentially even Russia and Iran), which I have argued in the past may well be the actual goal, so that Obama's Saudi patrons can build their natural gas pipeline, which has very close to NOTHING to do with American interests.

Americans are being betrayed by everyone who supports this fiasco.

Negative emotions

I woke up this morning with a distinct SENSE of the value of negative emotions: they exist as helpers, tools, sensors, informers.  They are an artifact of evolution that, strange as it may seem, continue to play important roles in optimal health and performance.  They tell  us things we need to know.  They help us.

Problems arise when we fail to listen to them, when we develop the habit of tuning them out.  As one example, what woke me up was a sense of anxiety.  It's still dark in my room, I figure it must be the middle of the night.  I look at my clock: 15 minutes before I was going to get up anyway.  I have a past history of going back to sleep, so some part of me was saying: dumbshit: why do you set the alarm if you are going to ignore it?  This is not good for you.  You would be happier and healthier if you consistently followed through on everything you imagine.

This is positive self talk, unquestionably.  It is on the side of my better self.

Or take hate.  It is likely the social equivalent of the felt sense of burning your hand on the stove.  That sense makes sure you never do it again.  We are social animals, and tend by nature to forgive and forget.  But some people we should never allow back into the fold, like psychopaths.   Hate enables us to remember this, and thus protects us.  Can and has it been abused?  Of course.  Of course.

And I think I see now Peter Levine's genius is separating emotions and sensations.  What an emotion wants is to be HEARD.  What we resist, persists, as the saying goes.  If you consistently go into the sensations that lead to the emotion, you can learn to hear emotions before they are even born, and thus make it unnecessary for them to grow to full expression.  You can do this consistently.

And by going into sensation often, you build up a sensitivity to all the things they are trying to tell you.  You feel something, and then BAM you see what it saw, you see what you otherwise would have missed if it hadn't been there like an alert guard dog.

All of these ideas are strongly positive, and I would encourage you to consider them carefully.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Pendulation, part 2

I am aggressive by nature.  If I find something that I can face and grow by, I find it, and face it.

So tonight, I do my routine: calm, peace, love on one side, then abject terror on the other.  Twice.  Then the third time I see an armored man sticking a spear in my face--killing me--and it's gone, just like that.  I kept looking back: is that it?  That was EASY.

My best guess is this is a memory from a past life. I must have gotten tired and forgotten how to die properly.  It happens.

My sense is that I have been on this Earth many times, and been a soldier many times. I identify in many respects as a soldier even now, although my battlefield does not involve physical weapons.  I am quite prepared to die or be destroyed for fighting my fight.  A life worthy of rose blossoms and violent suppression is something to be proud of.


I am going to stop doing posts on politics for the time being.  I like to think I have a talent for analysis, but it comes from a place of emotional dissociation.  I cannot but put people in categories, cannot but separate myself emotionally from many of them; and what I need now is what most people need all the time, which is connection.

At root our problem is this: it is easy to separate naive idealists from their belief in a perfect America; it is easy to separate people who have been taught submission to authority from the notion that God is even a relevant conjecture; and having done both of these things, it is easy to create an irresistible impulse to join a new tribe, a new group, to obtain a new source of meaning, of belonging, of place, of home.

Until we can offer an alternative other than family, country, God and tradition, people of genuine good will will lose the cultural battle, and that battle in turn fuels what happens in Congress.

Consider that we are borrowing NOW almost half of a very large budget, and that the Baby Boomers have not even hit, and that we just massively expanded entitlements through Obamacare.

How is there even a debate?  How is there even a question as to what must be done?

There is a debate because the tribe members are coercive, powerful.  They are not happy.  This is not a good solution to the problem of generating human community and a sense of personal meaning; but until they have something else, they will cling to it with every ounce of their being.

Monday, September 22, 2014

+ not equal =

I came up with a three symbol indictment of socialism.  I can't find a "not equal to" symbol on my keyboard, but it can be drawn easily enough.

My intent is simple: improvement is not equal to leveling.  Improvement is not equal to making everyone the same.  Entropy being what it is, socialism always amounts to the project of tearing (most of) the high and mighty down.  Human nature being what it is, a class system is retained--one more rigid than the previous class system, and without any sense of noblesse oblige--and the whole thing justified through the very process of lies used to enact the system in the first place.

Consider this lyric: "tax the rich, feed the poor/ until there are no rich no more."  Even within the logic of the lyric, the money runs out before the poor become able to feed themselves well.  Everyone knows this is how it REALLY works.  They just have no alternative meaning system to substitute for impulses which in some respects are no different from those which led previous generations into wars.

Here is another good phrase: More community; less socialism.  Socialism only builds meaningful solidarity within the ranks of the socialists themselves, who constitute a small elite.  What it does to the mass of society one can readily see in Britain and France: it builds a sense of helplessness, despair, anger, depression, and self destructive rage.

That is because it is not founded on actual empathy, on actual caring.  


I felt like I was going to crack up yesterday.  I haven't had a full day off in at least three weeks, and a two day weekend in some months.  I drove at least 30 hours by myself last week, and spent most of my time working alone, doing difficult physical labor, at least in the case of what I did Saturday.

To this I add my inner activation work, and Saturday I got "flooded", to use the term psychotherapists use.  It's not where you want to be.  It's where a shitload of stuff comes up at once and you feel like you are going crazy. Driving for some reason seems to be a sort of trance state conducive to allowing feelings up.

Anyway, I activated my social support network on Facebook, and they came through.  That made me feel good, or at least as good as I am capable of feeling deep inside.

Whatever the horror was that I went through, I have now touched it.  The thing about being capable of dissociation, though, is that you can let it go back into its cave, and bring it out when you want to.  It takes balls to do this--you are knowingly activating awful, awful feelings, knowing they will come through, knowing they will hurt; but also knowing they have a finite extent.  The lesson does not last forever.

I can do this.  Sometimes I use a technique my last therapist taught me, which is to look in one direction, and imagine safety, calm, love, beauty; and then put all the ugly stuff in another direction, say looking to the left in the one case and the right in the other.  I can pull up feelings so deep that I involuntarily scream.  The word is horror, absolute, abject horror.  Then I pendulate back, and it goes away.  Over time you dip your feet in there enough, and the feeling fades.

I can't do this today. I am too spent.  But I will be at it again soon.

I really, really want to live a life of purpose, where I choose what I am going to do and why; and where I am able to take deep meaning and pleasure from my work, and all my relationships with everyone I know and value and love.  I want to build more structure both for my work and for my social web.

And the only way out is through.  This is why this work must be done.  I refuse to accept anything less than a life of excellence and beauty.

Friday, September 19, 2014


You cannot direct unconscious processes with the rational mind. It's use is limited to finding or creating ways for unconscious work to proceed.

Corollary: you cannot be rational until you know how to be irrational.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Robin Williams

This is a completely random post, of the sort any long term readers I may have have hopefully become accustomed to.

I can't get the image out of my head of Robin Williams traveling around the world in spirit form looking for cocaine.  It is my understanding that those who pass on with severe addictions--which in my view should be viewed as severe unprocessed traumas which have been managed during life by recourse to chemicals which mask the underlying illness--keep those addictions, and that he has as well.  He never made it through the tunnel, or up the hill, however you want to frame it.  He did not surmount the challenges set before him in this life.

Here is an interesting account of a death and rebirth experience (NDE does not quite fit the data), in which he talks about the fate of addicts:

Make each day your masterpiece

The more times I review John Wooden's philosophy of life, the more I  feel he really had things figured out.  Now, he was just a basketball coach, but I really feel that the emotional maturity needed to master ANYTHING goes far beyond any sport.

His father, who appears to have been a very wise man, gave him a card at a certain age--perhaps graduation from high school--with a number of sayings on it.

One of them was "Make each day your masterpiece".

I have read this before, but am only now starting to understand it.

Wooden, in my understanding, figured he should take as long to PLAN a practice as it took his athletes to undertake it.  He would choreograph very complex drills in which conditioning was combined with very specific game day practice.

And he speaks on a number of occasions about the power of gentleness.  His aim, his accomplished aim, was gradualness.  His aim was to improve just a little every day, to plan ahead, to never reach a point where his lack of preparation required him to get agitated.  He looked far, far down the road, and never required "peak efforting".  He never wanted his players to "rise to the occasion", but rather be ready for it, to have reached a point in their preparation where the big game was something they looked forward to mastering.

Think about this concept of choreographing a day, to making your work and relaxation a work of art, an aesthetic statement about who you are and what you value.

You are not just planning to get X, Y, and Z done.  You are doing it with style, with a view to the long haul, with a view to self improvement, however you conceive this;  to, in important respects, master life, such that the major challenges can be taken in stride, because you were ready for them.

Adrian Peterson

I don't know if he is getting any support in the press--I can't be accused of being a Fox or anything else viewer, as TV moves much too slow and in most cases is much too stupid; I just need the facts, and I can do my own analysis--but I want to say I am somewhat on Adrian Peterson's side.

I've been spanked with a belt, quite a few times.  I've never been tagged in the nuts, but that was not his intent.  As any long time readers of this blog should readily grasp, I do a lot of inner work, and I don't consider any of the spankings I got after age 5 to have had any significant negative impact on me at all, and some may have been beneficial.

Now, I don't remember age 4, and it's quite possible my first spanking at age 12 months may have left a mark, but according to my best architectural excavations, this does not appear to be the case.  You can be traumatized without being touched at all, which appears to have happened in my own case.

As should be blatantly obvious, Peterson did not consider his behavior aberrant or exceptional, or anything but being consistent with "spare the rod--note it says rod, not hand--and spoil the child."  This is very old American received wisdom.  It is not stretching it too far, I don't think, to say it has informed our history of being law abiding and able to work well with others.

Personally, I don't think spanking works very well.  We tried it a couple times on my oldest when she was quite young, and it only made her behavior worse.  It was ineffective.

But Peterson himself is very successful, and he was raised that way.  There are any number of country songs which talk about being "cane switch raised".  Here is one example:

So I cannot find myself horrified that Peterson would raise his kid the way he was raised.  I cannot join the chorus of those calling for Peterson's social and professional excommunication for doing something he no doubt honestly thought--rightly or wrongly, we can certainly debate--was for his child's own best good.

We have reached a time when children don't know the phrase "Son, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."

Again, we can argue whether spanking works.  It does seem obvious to me that we are raising--have been raising--children who feel entitled to everything, who do not understand that pain is a part of life, and who in many important respects NEVER mature psychologically.

Does spanking help with this?  I don't know.  I really don't know.  I do know that we will become weak as a society if we let frightened women dictate EVERYTHING.  Men and manliness have roles to play, and part of being a man is being tough.

I'll leave it at that.  I don't have the answers, but the questions themselves seem to be getting overlooked too, and that I can rectify.

Monday, September 15, 2014


When is Congress going to ask Obama if he provided funding and training to what became ISIS?  Six months ago, they were "Syrian rebels", and he wanted to support them.  Even then they were cutting the heads off of babies and raping their mothers, and even then he still wanted us in there to fight Assad, so why is it not only possible, but LIKELY that HE is the one who initiated this mess in his patent desire to topple Assad?

I will add the obvious: Assad has said he does not want us in there, and Obama has said if he fires his Russian anti-aircraft missiles at us he will be toppled.  This leads us to the utterly farcical and completely insane possibility that we may be at war with EVERYONE in Syria.  For what?

And all without Congressional authorization.

And to be clear, I support limited action in Iraq, which is nominally our ally, to keep ISIS from getting too comfortable.  I have in mind special operators sniping and ambushing, air strikes and the like.  Economic warfare would be acceptable as well.  If they are selling oil and reaping the profits, those rigs can be attacked.  The roads in their areas of operations can be destroyed.  Their leadership can be targeted.

But, again, how did we get here?  Did our President provide support to LITERAL baby killers, who never existed in Vietnam (at least on our side; the NVA regularly used children for suicide missions), but who definitely do exist now?  And again, for what?  What is our vital national interest in Syria?  I see none.

The best explanation I have seen is that the Gulf oil interests want to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria to compete with the Russians, and Assad--who presumably would reap huge benefits and money from this--is resisting them due to in effect being bought off by the Russians, who view this as economic warfare.

But that's not our problem. It would be good to weaken the Russians, but war is not an acceptable means in my view to that end.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Last words

Like most men, I suppose, I have fantasies sometimes about running into a burning building to save someone, or into the line of fire.  And you get hit, you're dying: what are your last words?  The cliched answer is "tell my wife and kids I love them."

I've thought about this, and my kids hear "I love you" literally every time they talk to me on the telephone, and hear it twice from me every time I put them to bed, and have their entire lives.  When they were little we also had a very elaborate game that evolved over time that took 2-3 minutes, that they loved.  They are teenagers now, and we still have a routine, even though it has been shortened greatly.

So there is little informational content to this phrase.

Instead, my take is: tell my kids to be brave.  It's OK to cry, but there will be a time to move on.  I'll watch over you if I can.

If I only get out the first line, well that's enough.

There is little enough love in this world as it is.  Surely families can manage it, if they merely make it a priority?  No one you love should ever not hear it from you constantly.  We are ships traveling in the fog; it doesn't take long to drift apart.

Emotional pain

I have an enormous tolerance for emotional pain. That is why I don't really need a therapist.  Good therapists are like physical therapists, who not only show you what to do, but more or less make sure you do it.  If you are sufficiently motivated on your own, and can take the pain without someone watching you and yelling at you, AND if you understand the process, the therapist is not in my view needed.  I can and do do the work on my own.

I forget sometimes that most other people are not like this.  I am somewhat unusual in my capacity to stand solitude, insult, confusion, grief, anger, anxiety, and my latest, abject horror.  This recent addition is a nice addition to my collection, which I think will complete it.  I won't say more at the moment.

But what happens with me is I can SEE how people are constrained, see the chains around, see how they are likely to live entire lives with massive amounts of potential positive emotions completely unrealized, and in the constant dismal presence of negative feelings.

On a vastly smaller scale, I see, I think, what the Buddha saw, when he saw how many human lives are lived with only a fraction of the pleasure, joy, and fulfillment that were possible.  This is Duhkha.

People get hurt, then hide or run.  But those emotions are a part of you.  They are clothing you cannot shed.  They are a part of your psychological being, and will always be such until confronted, recognized, processed and overcome.  They will always bend you away from what is best for you.  They will always lead you into preventable confusion and sorrow and fear.

As the saw goes, what you resist persists.

So I will sometimes go into people's bubbles more than I ought to.  I intend well, but most people rarely venture into those places, and do not like to be reminded of what they think they have forgotten.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Global warming

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, on no level--period--is a feature of global warming, global cooling.  If I turn an oven on, it may warm unevenly, but no parts become colder.  If I open a refrigerator and turn it off, cooling may come out, but that cooling is counterbalanced by warming within the refrigerator.

It CANNOT be the case both that both poles are seeing increases in their ice sheets, AND that we are seeing colder winters, IF one still wants to claim the Earth is warming.  This is a fool's game.  It is stupid, counter-intuitive, gutless, lemming-like.

This is a cut and paste from a post that may well be deleted (from Mother Jones, and it looks like they are going the disengagement and suppression route, which of course is needed if they want to continue to defend the indefensible.  Edit: yes, they are tired of having to defend the indefensible, and have blocked me, which is always what happens on left wing sites.  They are not interested in either truth or a multiplicity of opinions; quite the contrary.  They call themselves liberals, but they are ANTI-liberal):

Arctic ice is increasing.
Antarctic ice is increasing.
When we add to this that we are seeing snowfalls that are the earliest in 100 years in Canada and the northern United States, common sense has to interject into this whole narrative and just call BULLSHIT.

Of course, one-off weather events don't prove anything, but to be repetitive, cooling is NOT a feature of warming, period.  This is not debatable.  Using complicated and fraudulent math, one can hide unmeasured cooling in the oceans or elsewhere, but does this come even remotely close to passing the smell taste?  No.  

Even the New York Times admits Obama is breaking the law

PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written. . .

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing. . .

In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Thursday, September 11, 2014


I had a dream the other night in which I saw both Nazis marching off to war--felt their feelings--and was a Jew killed by them, with all my animals--my chickens, cattle--destroyed, my house burnt.  And I felt that man's feelings, too, the horror, the fear, the grief.  I felt much of what it is to be human and traumatized.

It increasingly seems to me that unresolved trauma is at the root of a two branch decision tree of good and evil.  Those willing to learn to process it become good.  Those who cannot process it, who have too much, or who run from it in fear, become bad people.  They become, to be clear, dissociated people, cut off from the waters of a happy life, of the possibility of nurturing connection, of hope, of love.

I have defined evil as the internalized acceptance of self loathing, and I think that gets very close.  It is embracing the horrors in your gut, and seeking them out, inflicting them on others.  It is the embrace of the emotion of disgust.  One sees this very clearly in Sade.

Human civilization, if we are to advance, must learn to first grant the ubiquity of unrecognized trauma (much of it, to be clear, unintentional, such as birth trauma.   Much trauma also comes from the emotional unavailability of parents who are themselves traumatized, as in my case, who pass trauma on through a lack of love and nurturing.), and learn to deal with it en masse, and consciously.

I use the terms Good and Evil, but I am not a moralist per se.  I believe judgement is sometimes necessary, but I would argue strongly in the abstract that our task is not to categorize people, but to help them, to understand them, to recognize that they are dealing with things we don't understand, and that we all have breaking points.  All of us.  Subjected to the right sort of trauma, ALL OF US, without exception, will snap, will dissociate to the point of open psychosis.  Many around us dissociate to the point of semi-psychosis.  Most of us are a bit crazy.  This is nothing new.

Ah, I'm rambling.  Time to move on.  Hopefully this is useful for something.

Being caught by stolen feelings

There is a wonderful book everyone should read called "Einstein's Dreams".  It's an imagination of his dreams as he was gradually coming upon the images which led to his theories of relativity.

I have been having dreams like that, but in my own case it is, I hope, prelude to finally stumbling upon a sense of self.

Without sharing details--some of this does get quite deep--I have been having odd variants of the running away from something dream.

The phrase titling this post came to me this morning, pondering all this.

The nature of trauma is that it steals life from you, steals emotions, steals possibilities--of hope, of the future, of being fully present.

And until it is fully processed, it creates pressure on your conscious mind.  It says "look at me, feel me, deal with me.  I'm all alone and you need me."  It is almost literally like "it" has a mind of its own; and given what I have learned about how it is stored in the viscera, in a sort of meta-brain, a primitive, atavistic, very old brain, this is probably not an inapt metaphor.

This is the essence of dissociation, in which our rationality is placed one place, and our innate sensations, our visceral sensations, our gut instincts, placed somewhere else.  You become, unnecessarily, divided between man and animal.

I have argued that modern inability to process trauma leads to abstraction, but can we perhaps also posit that the very EASE with which we can absorb ourselves in abstractions--think of what a computer programmer, or intelligence analyst, or accountant does all day--makes it also easier to postpone the reckoning.

If you live a hard, physical life, the trauma may get "processed" by making you mean, but you remember it.  You are openly hostile and cruel, and not through removal of emotional connection and passive aggression.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Good paper on CO2 saturation

In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases, at frequencies corresponding to a transparent window of the atmosphere, provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth, causing some heating, and towards outer space producing cooling.  The proportion of this free radiation, relative to the amount of excitation energy trapped in the Greenhouse gas, is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of both the total heat energy present and the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.

 [The calculations show] that there is little significant difference between the spatial distributions of heat captured by the Greenhouse gases along a vertical column within the troposphere, for a range of concentrations equal to that defined at present, nominally 380 ppm of CO2 and possible future concentrations of 760 ppm and 1140 ppm.  While it is not possible to calculate the actual proportion of energy returning to the earth via these very low frequency photons passing through a transparent atmosphere, the proportion relative to that held by excited CO2 molecules will always be exactly the same, irrespective of the total amount or density of carbon dioxide present. 

The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.
I have been misunderstanding this.  What they are arguing, effectively, is that half the heat trapped winds up escaping and having a cooling effect, and the other half of course has a warming effect, and that beyond a certain concentration the quantity of CO2 doesn't matter.

It is my understanding that ALL models of CO2 accumulation posit a relatively decreasing effect per unit as quantities increase.  No sane mind can fail, then, performing basic logic on this idea, to grasp that at some point further increases do NOTHING, which is what this paper argues.

James Hanson got his start worrying about Earth becoming Venus.  Unless we move into Venus' orbit, this will not happen.  How hard is it to grasp that any planet as much closer to the Sun as Venus is will also be that much hotter?  We are of course much hotter than Mars, which in turn is much hotter than Pluto. 

Global Warming

Posted elsewhere, and will presumably be scrubbed and flushed down a Memory hole.

The Appeal to Authority argument rests, inherently, on the demonstrated credibility and integrity of the Authority in question, in this case the IPCC, primarily.

This is why the scandals, such as Climategate--where the researchers primarily responsible for the Hockey Stick both claimed they would rather delete primary data than share it with anyone who might disagree with them, and who actively admitted they were trying to sculpt data--matter so much.  The IPCC is CLEARLY politicized, and for the same reason you cannot infer from the fact that 100% of Koreans vote for their Generalissimo that they like him, you cannot infer from the fact that most professionals are on board with the IPCC, when being on board is a prerequisite to getting hired.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

William Binney interview

I listened to this all the way through.  Apparently a good program was developed by the NSA to listen to everything would-be terrorists might have to say, for cheap, back in 2000.  It was rejected in favor of listening to substantially everything, and he resigned in protest against this patent abrogation of the Constitution, and abrogation of what was NEEDED to protect Americans.

He has since evaluated the evidence of a controlled demolition of Tower 7 and reached the inescapable conclusion that NIST did not do SCIENCE.  They did not do their work.   They did not fulfill their responsibility.  He has signed the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, calling for a new investigation.

As I have argued repeatedly, no one familiar with basic science can accept the NIST explanation of the collapse of Tower 7 and this necessarily means that more people were involved than have been identified, and that both Towers 1 and 2 may have gone down the same way.

Given the wars we have fought on the basis of 9/11, this matters a LOT.  Was it the Rockefellers in part, as Aaron Russo alleged (credibly)?  Who else?  Can we escape the sense that a police state was the goal, and fear the means?  


I just finished Akira Kurosawa's excellent movie "Dreams".  Having seen nearly everything he ever made--I want to say Kagemusha is my favorite, but there are so many to choose from--I realized I had seen this film as well, but probably 25 years ago.

Watching, it occurred to me that in great art you feel an open connection between the art and your unconscious/deeper self.  This connection permits movement in that realm, which is normally hermetically sealed.

Finding this connection, or permitting this connection, takes time and practice opening yourself up.

With regard to this movie, the last vignette is particularly enjoyable.  It is a vision of a beautiful society, living in harmony.  This is all possible.  We can learn to live together peacefully and joyfully.


Tolerance is only a virtue when you are capable of judgment; otherwise it is laziness or complicity.

Sunday, September 7, 2014


I have found that if you truly give up all work and worry for one day a week, you can keep the other implied half of the Commandment, which is to work 6 days.  I haven't done it today.  I have to work 7 day weeks currently to get everything done.  I probably should have worked more than I did today, but I'm glad I didn't.

Here is the point I wanted to make.  Investigating Sabbath candles, I found not only that you are supposed to light two, but that the eldest woman in the household lights it.

Judaism tends to be treated as a patriarchal religion, which no doubt has its share of patriarchs, but women play a central role as well, in ways which would be inconceivable in Islam.  It is logical that your faith passes through the woman, and not the man.

And are there not many strong women in the Old Testament?

Peaches Geldof

This is a rant, and probably not a very good one. I'm  tired and drinking.  All the same, I'm going to leave it.

I'm just surfing the internet, and came across this.  I had read about her death, and wondered about her life.  She apparently dated Eli Roth for a time.  She was married in the same church where her mothers funeral was conducted after she died of a heroin overdose.  They are clear to call it an "accidental" overdose, but it seems silly to view heroin addiction as other than a form of Russian Roulette.

Her 11 month old baby was in the house, and if her husband had not come looking for her, a Trainspotting sort of scenario may have come about.

What is the source of her trauma?  It would seem likely grotesquely erratic parents.  How much trauma must her mother have had to be taking heroin?  I will say, there have been times in my life where if someone had offered it to me, I might have taken it.  All the same, if you love, truly love those around you, you find ways forward without risking your life.

Bob Geldof is best known for his work getting food to Ethiopia.  What he is not known for is publicizing the cause of that particular famine, which was in my understanding a combination of Communist violence leading to civil war, and "agrarian reform", which is where you march a bunch of people at gunpoint from farms which worked, to the middle of nowhere, and tell them to grow something without giving them seeds or tools.  It is lunacy.

If his moral compass were intact, he could have BOTH sought aid, AND raised consciousness about the horror.  But he doesn't like Mondays, and the conscious work they require.

Any child in that much pain has been failed by her parents.  This sounds judgmental, and it is, but that is my view.

We can do so much better as societies.  Humanity can do so much better.

Creativity is nothing other than seeing something that was always possible, but simply unrealized.

OK.  I will stop being an asshole.