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.


If we posit both that unresolved trauma and unexpressed instinctual urges reside in patterns of tension in the viscera, could it be that overeating is a way of pacifying those feelings?  In a sense, this possibility is obvious: we have likely all overeaten when under stress.

But usually what is referenced is the effect on blood chemistry.  A combination of fat and carbohydrate reduces cortisol production, in my understanding.  Certainly a sense of satiety dulls the nerves a bit, and quiets the mind.

But Peter Levine remarked in his book that in some senses one could view the brain as an organ evolved by the stomach in order to better feed itself.  Now, I am no Darwinian, but neither am I stupid enough to ignore clear connections.  My position is simply that field theories have to be added to the equation for it ever to account for all the variables/evidence.

Be that as it may, can it be a case of contending "brains", one of which feels tension unrelated to hunger, but can only relieve it by triggering the eating circuit; and with the other brain, of course, being the one that wants to be skinny and healthy?

I think most intelligent people grasp that simple carbs have to be controlled, since they induce responses which trigger further eating.  Beyond that, I think there are many, many possible diets which will result in weight loss.  The hows are not really that complicated.

Logically, though, if this rough premise is true, then much of our modern obesity can be explained by the abstraction and unnaturalness of our modern world.  If you live in your head, if you never feel "primitive", if you never let atavistic urges express themselves, then large parts of your self go unlistened to, but they don't then go away.  They demand attention.

This is all highly speculative.  I am just playing around with ideas, sketching.  I do that a lot.  There may be something here, maybe not.  For my part, I am going to continue working to understand these things.

Friday, September 5, 2014

Philosophical Self Defense

In the realm of the political, I think a set of basic questions will work in almost all cases:

What is it (how is it defined)?

Is it wrong?


Is it always wrong?  If not, why not?

Any leftist you take through this exercise will quickly contradict themselves.  Take racism.  They will tell you it is wrong, that it is group prejudice/hate against another group, and that it is wrong because we are supposed to be nice to each other.

But is it wrong when, say, blacks hate whites?  What about when blacks hate hispanics?  What about when British Pakistanis hate Jews?

This will give them trouble.  You then ask again: if this is not a universal principle, what is it?  If we are supposed to be nice to each other and people are not being nice, then that is bad, right?

The reason this gives them trouble is that they have only apparently embraced universal principles, notions of universal human rights.  Slavery in the South was wrong, but slavery in the Soviet Union was freedom (how is slavery defined again, and why is it wrong? )

Leftism is a cult of conformity.  They are told which forms of slavery are wrong, and which are acceptable.  Their reactions are dictated by the culture within which they live, which is post-Rationalist, and atavistic.  They live only figuratively in caves now, but may yet engineer it as literal fact for all of us, at great cost in human life and unimaginable misery.

Edit: I will add that I myself have "decontructed" "universal moral principles" of an historical sort. I do not say slavery is always wrong or right.  I have renounced the right to tell people what they should do.  Certainly, where my interests or those of those I love are affected, I retain the right to make decisions.

I have argued that Goodness is the eventual result of rejecting self pity, cultivating perseverance, and learning something new every day forever.  I have defined Goodness, in turn, as being capable of enjoying with them the happiness of others, and being able to be happy on your own.  You benefit people, and benefit from them, but don't need them (neediness clouds judgment, which is to say perceptual skill, and the whole thing relies on perception.)

I have further argued that all proper moral decisions are local, imperfect, and necessary.

Leftism, though, IS a moral narrative.  The entire thing rests on seemingly universal moral claims, but claims which are inherently, internally, contradictory.  It is an extraordinarily judgement creed resting on an intellectual base of sand.

I both critique political radicals, and offer an alternative to a return to orthodox religion.  That is my aim.

True, not true?

Only Goodness can be chosen: evil is compelled.

I feel our true "nature" is Goodness, but that through trauma and grief we are thrown off track.  Goodness is the DECISION to stay on track, to correct, to move right, or left or up or down, to stay on the path of Goodness--the path, ultimately, of least resistance (cite the scripture of your choice here).

Evil is being thrown off track, and not getting back on.  It is allowing emotions you don't want and which are destructive to take a hold of you.  It is precisely NOT making a choice; and obviously in not making a choice, a choice is made by default, one not to your benefit.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

The atrocity of Feminism

Did you know the founder of the National Organization for Women was a committed Marxist, with all that entails, including but not limited to a commitment to the destruction of American culture through the destruction of the family?

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.  We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.  It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution.  Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
What people need to grasp is that various churches, in opposing these agendas, very rightly sense the intrinsic viciousness behind them, the intent to turn all human beings into objects.

I have talked of this from time to time.  The supposed criticism Leftists make of Capitalism is that it "enslaves" people, and turns them into objects.  This is not true: it LIBERATES them.  Ask anyone who comes from a socialist system who comes here and realizes he or she TOO can be a "Capitalist". They can open a T-shirt company, or bake and sell cookies, or become a licensed electrician who does his or her own work.  This is freedom.

Leftists first turn THEMSELVES into objects, into tools of an ideology that turns them into reflexive machines, then seek to make the world in their image.  I have often spoken of the wax museum quality of Sade's work, particularly 120 Days of Sodom.  Fixedness is a feature of trauma, and sadomasochism is a possible result of trauma.

It seems to me we must logically speak of "higher education" as it exists now in much of the West as a sort of rape factory, one which tells impressionable youth that everything they have been taught to value, all the way markers they once used, all the people they once trusted, are wrong, and not just wrong, but terribly wrong.  This is traumatizing, since it uses for its coercive power grotesque peer pressure on young people who have been removed from their homes for the first time.

It is not different in principle from the Muslim rape gangs, and the grooming for the insanity that follows is likely quite similar.  You first come across as a friend, then introduce the drug of radical freedom from authority, and you end up with someone who is completely fucked up in the head, and will listen to every lunacy you can concoct, such as the notion that women in this nation are oppressed.

One of my projects for some time has been to create some videos on Philosophical Self Defense.  The time for them is rapidly approaching.

Holder sues companies for following law

When the top law enforcement agent is attacking people for obeying the law, you have a rogue administration, and an asshole who needs to be put in jail:

And we need to be clear: Holder and Obama and Lerner and all these left wing crazies not only don't like Americans, not only feel no special bond with us or our system, they don't even particularly like MEXICANS.  They don't like anyone.  They like power.  Power for them and their small tribe of like minded lunatics.  

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Countercultural Conservative

I'm toying with that as a description of myself.  I am a conservative, but I am also a radical.  I think our society has to be remade in major and fundamental ways, but gradually, slowly, ethically, and effectively.  This is the only way deep change can happen.

Letter from Aaron Vaughn's parents to Obama

[I will add that it is my belief that the SEAL's (and apparently two Controllers) who died in that Chinook may well have been betrayed.  They were forced to take on unvetted Afghan soldiers with them, who seem to have played a role in bringing it down.  And they never should have been in a Vietnam-era chopper in the first place, when we have Pave Lows and Blackhawks.  I personally think Obama PERSONALLY betrayed them and had them killed.  Here is one link, in which another parent says this point blank:  And why not?  What moral compass of any sort has he ever shown?  What moral compass do ANY hard core leftists have?  The whole project is about the rejection of "bourgeois" morality.]

After finally choosing to view the barbaric, on-camera beheading by ISIS of freelance war correspondent James Foley, I have been left with a level of rage known only to those of us who have sacrificed unspeakable offerings on the altar of world peace.

My offering was my only son — Aaron Carson Vaughn. Aaron was a member of SEAL Team VI. He was killed in action when a CH47D Chinook, carrying thirty Americans and eight Afghans was shot down in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan on Aug. 6, 2011.

Many times over the past three years, I have been asked what drove my son to choose his particular career. What made him want to be a Navy SEAL? My answer is simple.

Aaron Vaughn was a man who possessed the courage to acknowledge evil. And evil, once truly acknowledged, demands response. Perhaps this is why so few are willing to look it in the eye. It is much simpler — much safer — to look the other way.

That is, unless you are the leader of the Free World.

As Commander-in-Chief, your actions — or lack thereof — Mr. President, cost lives. As you bumble about in your golf cart, slapping on a happy face and fist-pounding your buddies, your cowardly lack of leadership has left a gaping hole — not only in America’s security — but the security of the entire globe. Your message has come across loud and clear, sir: You are not up to this job. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

Please vacate the people’s house and allow a man or woman of courage and substance to seize the reigns of this out-of-control thug-fest and regain the balance we, America, have provided throughout our great history.

Thanks to your “leadership” from whatever multi-million dollar vacation you happen to be on at any given moment, the world is in chaos. What’s been gained, you’ve lost. What’s been lost, you’ve decimated. You’ve demolished our ability to hold the trust of allies. You’ve made a mockery of the title “President.” And you’ve betrayed the nation for which my son and over 1.3 million others have sacrificed their very lives.

But this should come as no surprise, since your wife uttered a vile statement on Feb. 18, 2008, during the primary campaign — one that speaks volumes of your true convictions. “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” she said.

I am sure my deceased son thanks you for that, Mrs. Obama. Oh, and you’re welcome.

Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such despair and such growing fear that the world’s last best hope, America, has finally been dismantled. Perhaps the better word is transformed — fundamentally transformed. Come to think of it, it’s become difficult — if not impossible — to believe things haven’t gone exactly as you planned, Mr. President.
Amazingly, in five short years, your administration has lurched from one disaster to another. You spearheaded the ambitious rush to end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan — with no plan on how to do so effectively. Also, the release of “the Taliban five” in exchange for one American — without consulting Congress — is also on your shoulders.

You have been at the helm during unprecedented national security leaks — including, but not limited to the outing of SEAL Team VI on the Bin laden raid, the outing of the Pakistani doctor who provided the intelligence for that raid, the outing of Afghanistan’s CIA station chief, and the outing of your personal “kill list” to make you look tough. In addition, 75 percent of American deaths in Afghanistan and 83 percent of Americans-wounded-in-action have occurred on your watch, according to

And now, we have this recent, heinous event: the beheading of an American citizen by a barbaric organization you foolishly referred to as “the JV team” in your statements to the New Yorker magazine in January.

You, sir, are the JV team. It’s time for you to step down and allow a true leader to restore our honor and protect our sons and daughters.

America has always been exceptional. And she will be again. You, Mr. President, are a bump in our road.

Monday, September 1, 2014


I was driving downtown the other day, and happened to notice a couple of burly men in uniform smoking outside the city jail, aka Dept. of Corrections, which was plainly blazoned on the sign.

And I got to thinking: who does jail "correct"?  That jail, at that moment, was probably filled with some combination of screwed up scared kids, psychopaths, and the continuum between them.

Who winds up in jail?  Disproportionately, the children of single mothers who grow up in poverty brought on in large measure by only having one income, and that often largely from the government.

These kids have major psychological problems, and jail does nothing to "correct" this.  They are in pain, lonely, confused, ignorant.  Often, they have dropped out of school because no one ever taught them to value it, no one ever spent time, among other things, teaching them to read; and because their wounds make it hard for them to concentrate and sit still.

What makes sense to me is that anyone accused of a crime is put through due process, and, when convicted, subjected to a psychological evaluation.  People who are not psychotic, who are in states of severe but treatable trauma, are given treatment.  When they are relatively "healed", such that it seems likely they will not commit crimes again, they are released.j

Note: this has nothing to do with reconciling their crime with their sentence.  Horrible decisions can be made under the influence of drugs, despair, and stupidity.

Untreatable psychopaths, of course, we never release.  And for capital crimes, why not let the criminals themselves decide what they want: a lifetime in prison, or death?

These are random, as yet unorganized thoughts, but don't you think our system could be more intelligent?  Can we admit in principle that we are in fact a society, and that even given our diversity, a certain amount of consideration should be given to each of us?

Perhaps this looks socialist.  I don't view it that way.  What I want to do is expand the tribe in ways socialists would never be able to.

And Emerson:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Sunday, August 31, 2014


What a fine day for another conspiracy theory.

Obama wants a war in Syria.  Why his handlers want this, I don't know.  The best guess I have seen is so that the Gulf can build a natural gas pipeline across Syria--that Assad is presumably resisting in return for Russian favors, since Russia would lose marketshare and margin with new competition.

So, having failed to make his case a year or so ago that we should be supporting the very ISIS bastards and psychopaths he now wants to bomb, he is now saying he will bomb them anyway, in Syria, in what Assad has said will be an act of war.  If he is smart, Assad will let Obama do this.  But if ego or stupidity get in the way, he might use some of his Russian anti-aircraft missiles against us.  Then Obama gets his pretext, maybe.

This seems doubtful to me, though.  Do we really want a situation in which we are fighting BOTH sides in Syria?  I would not support a war even in those circumstances.  I personally don't understand how we can't confine our activities to Iraq, which we more or less assumed custody for when we invaded.  What made sense to me seems, maybe, to be what is happening, which is somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand Spec.  Ops types wandering around sniping, calling in air strikes, and occasionally laying ambushes, optimally with local troops.  ISIS thinks it is legit.   A thousand dead on their side from people actually willing and able to fight would change their tune.

But the people behind Obama live in realms of abstraction.  They do not do practical things for a living.  They are not responsible at the end of the day for a work performance whose utility they can demonstrate.  They are functional imbeciles, and there is no containing the stupidity of determined idiots, when backed by the power of America's CEO.

Just putting it out there.  Let's hope an understanding of their very, very fragile standing in the polls, and the strong likelihood of getting their asses handed to them in November, keeps all of these turncoat sacks of shit on the straight and narrow.


Could we call socialism the cult of anti-individuation?  Clearly, socialists themselves understand themselves explicitly as anti-individualIST.  Keynes, in his lecture "The End of Laissez-Faire", which Mussolini in my understanding called "pure Fascism", more or less takes an anti-individualistic ethos as his starting point.

But psychologically, can we not equate the two?  The core stipulation of Individualism as a creed is precisely that individuals are exactly that: non-dividable; indivisable.  Surely no social autonomy can be postulated without individual autonomy?  Surely no society can be responsible without individuals who are responsible?  Surely no large morality can be built without individual morality?

Did Sade individuate?  No, of course not.  He was only a fraction of a human being.  I suppose humans are divisible, but not without violence.  He wanted to be buried in the wild, where weeds would cover up all evidence of his failure.

I was watching some kids play tag today.  Given my newfound need to reconcile animal instincts with our subjective sense of autonomy, it occurred to me that these sorts of games are not all that different than the games we see animals play, which teach them needed skills.

Then it occurred to me that in efforts to suppress these instincts, to suppress all traces of violence and aggression, that we more or less teach passivity and following restlessness.  We suppress things that need healthy expression, without which we cannot be fully human.

We have all seen one or another of sundry visions of a dystopia which seeks to mute instincts, to teach humans to wage peace by becoming, effectively, automotons.  Surely this is imbecility?

And I think of sacrifice, which is an old topic of interest to me.  When I was studying Vedic myths, I argued that several very important ones (the Purusasukta, and a hymn to Soma I can't find at the moment) echoed very old practices of human sacrifice.  It is certain that the old texts call for a human head underneath the Agnicayana altar (in a modern performance of it, the Brahmins decided to use a squash, if memory serves.)

Sacrifice is a way of incorporating structured violence which feeds the animal instincts, without allowing it unregulated, free reign.  It is, of course, a very poor way of doing it, but primitive peoples knew no better.

I look at myself, and the progress I have made by learning to separate sensations from emotions.  I am convinced this is the path forward.  But each of us must walk it in our own way, and that is exactly contrary to socialist notions of "science", and a "best way", and a knowledge elite.

And I think of the terrible horrors of totalitarianism.  It is precisely an echo of human sacrifice, of notions that the collective good must supercede that of individuals.  But where "primitive" cultures knew when to stop, when they allowed themselves to feel emotions of expressed rage and violence, and to let them burn, and they subside in a ritual order, the Fascisms do not.  They come to be in the suppression, consciously, of primal instincts in favor of allegedly higher abstractions.  And thus the violence does not have a cathartic effect; it has no end.  It cannot end.  It can never accomplish an actual purpose which cannot be named.

And this is the role of Satanism, which is clearly connected to Leftism. It constructs a ritual order, of CONSCIOUS cruelty, sadism, violence, hate.  But even there I think we know too much for it to work.  I cannot quite express this sense in words, but I feel it is a creed doomed to failure.  It is a rationalizing of instincts that by that very process are separated out. A naivete is needed, which is gone forever, barring global catastrophe and global cultural regression.

No: we are at a time when we can and should grow beyond childish things.  Everything that everyone wants can be had.  It can be had consciously, and fulfillingly.

Oh, I have plans, but who knows if they will come to fruition?

I had an interesting experience the other day that I interpreted as a synchronicity.  I was driving in the countryside, thinking I was making progress, and the thought intruded "But there is always death".  I may die, or be sideswiped with some experience I cannot predict, and at that EXACT INSTANT a bird flew into my car, which was going about 60 miles an hour, and no doubt died instantly.  In all my years of driving, I have never killed a bird, and have only once ever killed anything (an armadillo in the middle of the highway in the middle of the night in north Texas.)

I had another odd experience today I don't feel like going in to, but will say simply that this world is connected in extraordinarily interesting ways, and I hope that as a civilization we at some point come to realize this, and act on it.  

A simple life philosophy

Work is a blessing; so too is rest.

People are a blessing; so too is solitude.

Difficulty is a blessing; so too is ease.

You could build quite a few good lives with these primary colors.


Someone had recommended this movie to me, I think in the course of discussing radically different sorts of movies.  Another one had been Jim Jarmusch's "Dead Man".  That movie I made it through.  It disturbed me, but I think it was a useful disturbance.  Among other things, I think it got closer to the actual brutality of America's history than probably any Western (if we call it that) I've seen.

Naked, though, I gave up on.  Dismal, dark people filled with despair and metaphysical pessimism.

The point I wanted to make about it, though, I have made many times: despair is the inevitable result of giving up in principle on the notion of individual moral growth, which is to say on the notion that individual pain can have meaning, and can be transcended.

Despair, then, and I am obviously developing a series of equivalencies, is a feature of egalitarianism, aka socialism.  Heroin use is a product, in part, of socialism.

Pain has always been a feature of human existence, but not necessarily QUALITATIVE pain, which is a term I haven't used in a while.  By it, I intend primarily resentment and self pity.  Thewliss's character no doubt has suffered, but he can't figure out how to do anything with it, and he feels relentless self pity, from which flows his contempt.

Some people consider misery deep.  I don't.  Misery in the process of transmutation is deep.  Completed misery is wisdom.  Open ended, submissive misery is simply demonstrative of a lack of skill in being human, in doing the work that we are called on to do here. It is burying a talent (did you know this word entered the English language through that parable?) and waiting for the master to return.

I will add as a random factoid that it is highly interesting that Thewliss was cast as Lupin (Lupine: I assume everyone eventually catches that, but maybe not.), given his comment on being a werewolf.  I suspect his role in this movie was what won him that role.

I will add as well that this post and my last post, on the fact that the British government--the power elite, the people who guard their nations commitment to the eradication of individual Goodness, and the notion of personal empowerment and development--countenances almost openly the widespread Muslim abuses of young girls, are related.

Thewliss is in despair because he does not believe in anything.  Likewise, the only absolute value of Socialists is conformity.  Rape, murder, torture, misogyny, racism, elitism: none of these are wrong, when done by people not within the group.  Self evidently, you cannot even claim egalitarianism is an absolute value for them.  They tolerate the intolerant constantly.  No: conformity is the only absolute, which is to say an eager abandonment of the notion of individual conscience, which is to say the notion of individual moral growth, and the following necessary conclusion that people and peoples can be found at differing stages on this path.

Only sloppy, cowardly thinking permits the continuance of such darkness. But continue it does. 


I need to pass along and post political stuff from time to time.  I am going to try again and stop doing it on Facebook.

Here are a couple of excellent videos:

I am increasingly of the opinion that Islam is very simply not compatible with tolerance and human decency.  Particularly in the second video he talks about how it is commonplace in many western European countries for very organized, demonically evil efforts to be made to destroy young girls through sexual torture.  The girls targeted are usually 12-13 and socially marginalized.  Exactly like individual sexual psychopaths, Muslim men have well tuned antennas to who to approach, flatter, get drunk, and gradually drag down a path to where 13 year old girls are having to sexually service ten men in a room.  It is planned.  It is coordinated in groups.  It is socially accepted, and perfectly consistent with Islamic doctrine.  Muhammad himself took sexual slaves--to be clear, women who were captured in combat, and whose husbands were quite often killed.  He married his favorite "wife" when she was 6, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9.

Ponder the profound psychopathology of that.  Of the man who stood at the very center of everything Muslims (Slaves of God) hold dear.

As I have said, good has been made of Islam, in my view most notably through the Sufis.  And clearly not everyone who is a Muslim finds the idea of sexually abusing children attractive.  But many, many do.  And there is nothing in their culture which one can point to to tell them it is wrong.

I really don't think Islam and everything that is good about our civilization--human rights, equality before the law, property rights, individual conscience--are compatible.  It will have to be one or the other, and even though cultural suicide is always an option, it is the option not just of cowards, but of people who have lost all capacity to speak of or for human Goodness.

Friday, August 29, 2014

How do you learn love?

By being a janitor in hell.


It seems to me that what we  might term the moral sense has as its objective the creation of a feeling.  You do good things to feel good.

But when it comes to abstract systems--like the economy--the connection between action and consequence can easily be obscured.  It is very possible to do something that makes you feel good which works on balance to hurt people you never see, never know, and whose fate you never learn.  And they never connect their misery with you.

The moral sense must be tied to learning, to a developed sense of responsibility to work diligently for understanding.

This is why my third sacred principle is Perceptual Movement.  I don't tie it down too hard.  What I mean is continuing to learn on every level which presents itself, in every language it presents itself in.

Idea on alternative energy

I proposed some time ago dropping small fusion bombs down a chute of sorts, deep into the earth, where the energy released could be put to productive use through turbines and heated water. It's probably a dumb idea, but may be close enough that it can be smartened up by someone with a more extensive engineering background than me.  It has long been my understanding that nuclear fusion, of which the hydrogen bomb is obviously the best example, is vastly more efficient than fission.

Here is an alternative idea.  As I understand the matter, the problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittent.  And wind towers are ungodly expensive, kill a lot of birds, and are ugly as bear shit.  Being intermittent, they cannot be relied on as steady power sources, which means in practice that countries like Denmark, which have tried to adopt wind technology, have to "borrow" nuclear power on a regular basis from countries like Germany.  If Germany did the same thing, they would have regular blackout, which is not a very good solution to solve a problem--Anthropogenic Global Warming--which does not even exist.

Long ago I wondered about giant batteries, but this is apparently not feasible.

Here is an alternative: what if you built large underground reservoirs of some material like water, or something better yet to be invented, which takes in and holds heat.  Run pipes of it through the sun in places like Nevada, such that it absorbs the radiant heat, then put it back into its "thermos".  This material--let's say it is water--can then be evaporated at a steady rate.  It can HOLD the energy it takes in, and release it in controlled ways.

I am no expert in physics, but perhaps a system can be designed in which the heat itself creates the suction to pull it in and push it out.  This is another huge problem with alternative energy sources: wind in particular takes more in fossil fuels to create (i.e. physically building the turbines then shipping them on the back of a truck somewhere to be erected with cranes on sites cleared by bulldozers) than it will ever generate out on a wind swept prairie.  It does make tree hugging hippies (not that there is anything wrong with that) feel good, but if the goal is reducing dependence on fossil fuels, it is an abject failure even on that level.

It seems to me--and I concede in advance and openly that I am perhaps being ignorant and stupid--that the focus on converting energy to immediate use, like photovoltaic solar cells, obscures the fact that energy can be taken up and stored in many forms.

Thursday, August 28, 2014


Pondering, it seems to me that if emotions and thoughts BOTH arise from primitive sensations--our gut alone, as Peter Levine noted in a quote I posted a few days ago, has the "intelligence" of a cat brain, and is thus functionally an animal within us that both is affected by AND affects our actual brain--then they are equivalent.

It may be that there is no difference in perceptual sophistication on this level between an unintelligent person who expresses trauma through recurring feelings and images, and a much more intelligent person who is able to dissociate the feelings entirely and instead think obsessively.

The former, actually, would be more advanced.  I am perhaps myself somewhere in them middle.  I remarked long ago that my thinking seems to be a way of running productively.

But if you NEED thought, it cannot have an end.  You do not work, say, the way you work to build a house.  Once a house is done, you stop building (unless you want an addition, and that, too, has an end).  With thinking as an aim, there is no limit to the number of words you can inflict on the world.  Trust me, I know.

And this linkage is interesting.  I wake up most days and the thought comes in my head "everyone hates you".  I can and of course do dispute this cognitively, but that is not where it comes from.  What happens, I now realize, is that some primitive sensation in my gut gives rise to the feeling of disgust, and that in turn crystalizes as the thought.  Rather than interrogate the thought or the emotion, I am now focusing solely on bodily sensations, and it seems to be alleviating this problem greatly.  I am getting moments, and even hours, of honest calm.  It is a beautiful thing.


The infernal thing about PTSD is you can never relax fully.  If you're on a lake, chilling, drinking beer, some part of you is still scanning the horizon, watching, preparing.  You are never off.  If there is a bump in the night, you have to investigate it.

Certainly, there is survival value in this.  In the wild, or in combat, or in a hostile environment, constant vigilance is needed.

But I think the way to do it is how animals do it.  They are completely relaxed most of the time UNTIL some signal appears to them.  They are not waiting for the signal, but respond when it appears.

If you can't relax effectively, you can't work effectively.  This is what I have concluded.

Peter Levine, on a related note, talks about how fear and anger and sadness and every emotion we are capable of feeling actually FOLLOW kinesthetic sensations.  The knot in your stomach becomes what we call fear.  It happens first.

This opens up an extraordinarily interesting possibility: by attending to our bodily sensations, by listening to them, feeling them, opening them up, challenging them, investigating them, we gain control of emotions.  We become able to get all the good things emotions give us--fear, for example, being a signalling mechanism that something is wrong--without having to go into them fully.

Further, we become sensitive to and better able to feel those sensations that give rise to the feelings we want, like belonging, emotional satiety, contentment, happiness, pleasure.

I have been attending particularly to feelings in my solar plexus lately, and it is astonishing how quickly I am becoming more optimistic and sensitive to feelings of space.

And what I am realizing is that these sensations give rise not just to feelings but to thoughts.  Thoughts are the products of unprocessed, unaccepted, unrecognized physical sensations.

Ponder that most meditation seeks to attain a thought-less state.  How can this be done when the body is not fully integrated?  This is the genius of Kum Nye.  Peter Levine is the first mainstream author I have seen mention this system.  Kum Nye necessarily precedes meditation.  There have been a number of reports that meditation actually makes many people more agitated over time.  Why?

I would guess that the underlying body energy remains unmodified, but its expression in thought is eroded, so it has no outlet.  It gets bottled up.  To be clear, this energy is not positive, but until it is identified and "pulled in", it remains.

And I think of a Sartre, who was compelled to write.  I think of intellectuals, compelled to think, even if everything they think turns to disaster, as happened with most French intellectuals of his period.

This is unidentified traumatic energy, unprocessed horror and sadness, which is remembered viscerally, and which comes out in both emotion and thought.

Monday, August 25, 2014


It is an interesting perceptual move/exercise/heuristic to consider all religions as metaphysical and cultural hypotheses. We tend to think of science and religion as opposites. Why?

This would allow us to integrate some of the insights of religion, such as the existence of a soul sever able from the body, without necessarily including everything, like Immaculate Conception.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Peter Levine and Philosophy

I would like to quote a very interesting passage from "In an Unspoken Voice" at length:

The most intimate sense we have of ourselves is through proprioception, kinesthesia, and visceral sensation.  Proprioception is afforded through special sensory receptors in the joints that signal the position of all the parts of the body with respect to gravity. Kinesthesia is the sense of the degree of tension in your muscles.  And the visceral sense arises from receptors in the gut that are integrated by the enteric nervous system (a neuronal system in our gut with more nerve cells and complexity than the entire brain of a cat has).  Without these internal senses and without an expanded "non-trance" perception of the external world, we simply are unable to know ourselves and realize it is YOU who is focusing on these events whether they are interesting, pleasant, beautiful, ugly, dangerous, dull and so on.  Without the unimpeded perceiving of these sensations, it simply is not possible to know WHO you are and what you want and need in life.  This is a strong statement, admittedly, but hopefully you will become convinced about its veracity through experiencing the following exercises yourselves. [he then goes on to describe exercises in Somatic Experiencing].

Ponder this.  Ponder a philosophy class on Existentialism in which people submit to tapping into their primal nervous system apparatus, in which they chant VOOOO until some of them start shaking or have other powerful visceral sensations.  Ponder a class where the answer to who you are is: THAT.  The teacher will at that point be fully superfluous and useless, as indeed most philosophy professors are in practice.

Who you are is not an intellectual question, or at least at best perhaps one third an intellectual question.  The felt sense of self has NOTHING to do with cognitive operation.  It has to do with the EXPLANATION, with the words you use, with the conceptions you offer, the contextualizing.  It ENDS there; it does not start there.

I have argued that much of "modernity" can be seen as a poor resolution of grieving, but I would add to that that the better word and concept is probably trauma.  The two are related, but different.  Bolshevism only truly came into its own following World War One.  Communism, likewise.  Fascism likewise.  Millions dead, for nothing, for fuck-all, for the vanity of kings and would-be kings.  For NOTHING.

Surely nothing would be a better master, since It is at least honest.

There is a lot to digest here. Chew on it.

Seriously: ponder the statement "Substantially everything you have been taught about how to live, and what to do and what matters is almost completely wrong."

Do we not look often with sentimental attachment to primitives, to the "noble savage"?  From this perspective, is not their salient trait a continued attachment to the entirety of their selves, of their primal apparatus, and not an effort to paint over and wall off primitive instincts that gain in power because, having lost consciousness of them, we lose control over them, and they in turn begin to control us?

Food for thought.

Thursday, August 21, 2014


Fascism is social engineering. It is making the trains run on time, and eugenics, and government control of the economy.  As I have said from time to time perhaps the most brilliant piece of propaganda the Left ever came up with was positioning Fascism on the right.  Yes, Hitler fought the Soviets, and Mussolini fought the very Communists among whose ranks he once was.  But they differed in the specifics, not in their embrace of totalitarianism, not in their belief that a ruling elite could remake the world.

If we return to the original French Revolutionary Assembly, who do we find on the right?  Monarchists.  If the National Socialist German Worker's Party--which by the way got most of its support from the working class--had truly been a creature of the right, they would have been seeking to reimpose the monarchy, and return things to the way they used to be.  That was the furthest thing from Hitler's mind, unless we consider that his actual goal was returning to an imagined glorious, pre-Christian past that clearly never existed as he imagined it.

There is no functional difference between a bright shiny future, or a bright shiny past, if both exist in radical difference from the actual present.

Posted in response to renewed class warfare propaganda.

 Keeping sane tax rates for the investing class makes for easy propaganda for you, the party of Detroit and the Rust Belt.  It is a liability because none of you are willing to take responsibility for understanding basic economics.  "Supply Side" economics is nothing BUT economics, period.  It is well tested, irrefutable, and works.  The alternative, Keynesian economics, has been tested repeatedly and failed every time.  It has only been applied as a solution  to economic downturns in this country twice, during what became the Great Depression, and during Obama's reign.  Not coincidentally, both periods represent the worst recoveries in our nations history.

ONLY the private sector can create sustainable jobs.  How hard is this to understand?  And the people who run these companies are made rich, relatively, in the  process.  But we NEED them to create jobs.

You are obstinate because you hate wealth in people who do not support your schemes to change the world.  You are fine with George Soros, but hate the Koch brothers, who together have contributed many, many jobs, all of which resulted in huge amounts of taxes paid into the U.S. Treasure.

If you want to understand why we are working harder and getting less, it is because all of our wealth is being siphoned off by banks, through their power to create money; and by the government, which is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent, and in turn, roughly 60-80% of those dollars are being created by the Fed to prop up our credit in an utterly unsustainable way which will result in monetary inflation and following loss of wealth for nearly everyone.

Here is a treatment of this topic:

To put this another way, if the top income tax rate were 100% above a certain income--and FDR imposed this during a period when he was trying to spur business investment, because he was stupid--do you think anyone would work one minute past the point where the government was taking everything?

history is clear: above about 25% tax rates, actual RECEIPTS go down.  Receipts from the top income earners WENT UP after Bush's tax cuts, both in total dollars, and as a percentage of the whole.

YOu want the rich to pay more?  Keep the rates where they are at.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Tribal Culture and difference

There is a continuum between dividing the world into us and them, and making the whole world us.  It is my view, which I suspect I could justify neuroanatomically, that some primitive part in us--to be clear, an ineluctable, inherent part of us that we can't switch off--has a deep seated instinctual need to classify people as Us or Them.

But the mechanism--and I do think speaking of it as a machine is accurate, making us conceptually cyborgs in some respects already--works in funny ways.

Consider this example: it is possible to consider homosexuality wrong, without rejecting homosexuals as people.  This would both integrate the Us/them mechanism, and allow for higher level brain parts to use conscious judgment to guide action.  You integrate a visceral response, with a socially acceptable solution consistent with the maintenance of peace.

In practice, I think this is the sensible and appropriate course taken by most people who are faithful Christian, Jews, and others.  Of course, there are people who hate homosexuals, like Westboro Baptist Church.  This is a poor integration of mind and body.

But there is also the approach taken by the Left of judging those who are alleged to have judged, and putting THEM into a culturally Other category, of shutting down of reason and creative, useful discussion, and instead directing animal hate at this other tribe of alleged haters, who cannot possibly justify themselves, because nobody is listening, by and large.  I don't see it, at any rate.  Go on the Daily Cause and say you hate the sin but love the person, and see if you last 15 minutes.

It was odd to me to detect in Peter Levine--a brilliant man, extraordinarily well versed in human (and primate) psychology and behavior--more or less invoking Democrat talking points at a certain point in his book, making Republicans out to be cold and heartless.

How does this happen?  

Here is the thing: we NEED difference.  We crave it.  And by difference, I mean putting people in categories and judging them as better or worse.

The egalitarian project, in its essence, works to deprive people of the ability to meet this need.  They wind up lost and rudderless.  Only in their membership within the community of the egalitarians can they meet this need, by separating out and judging everyone who is outside the group.  No, not everyone: they don't judge Muslims for their misogyny, as one example.  No, they judge people within our society, only, who could be in their group but choose not to be.

The path of accurate and appropriate perception is a difficult one.  As Levine notes, we really have three "brains", all of which have needs, all of which make demands much like Dr. Octopuses tentacles in the second Spider Man.  

You can only reconcile all three by becoming consciously aware of them, allowing them to speak, and then using your Executive function, your mammalian brain, to decide your actual course of action.

So much of modern life works to blunt our instinctual drives.  Levine dwells extensively on this. The urge to drive a mountain bike off the side of a mountain?  Instincts.

I am becoming more full of good things, as I let all of this wandering happen, let all this energy speak.  It is good.

If there is a point to this post, it is that we cannot build a better society, which everyone claims to want, even if in the form only of not breaking what was working, if we cannot agree to disagree; if we cannot maintain civil and productive dialogue even when our instincts are kicking in.  This much is obvious, of course, but I don't think it can be emphasized enough that Leftism is an anti-tribal tribe, a cult of intolerant Tolerance.

And I of course can say this having spent thousands of hours trying to have productive discussions with them.  It's always the same: redirection, insult (actually they usually lead with insult; I would guess I have been attacked 10,000 times or more), silence.  This is unfortunate.  Real human beings suffer from our collective inability to solve real problems.