Month: December 2011

Do you want the financial destiny of your nation controlled by unelected bureaucrats who cannot be convinced that water prevents dehydration?

To be clear, the word “hydrate”, in English, derives from the Greek word for water, and in turn comes from a French word meaning the same thing. So quite literally, and without any obvious means of redressing this insult, the bureaucrats of Brussels have declared, legally, that “de-waterification cannot be cured or prevented by waterification”,in flagrant violation of common sense and the experience of us all.

Do you want these people in charge? You know damn well that political control will follow, since power follows money.

In our own country-far less diverse in many ways than the polyglot EU–we only migrated from the Articles of Confederaion to the Constitution after winning guarantees that a Bill of Rights would be added to protect the States. Nothing like that is being discussed in Europe. It is blatantly obvious that the leftist power mongers are hoping to enact in reality a technocratic, undemocratic State without ever having it put to a vote.

This is what Fabians do: they don’t call what they are doing what it is–they call it something else, push it through, then keep moving.

Just how decadent and tired of freedom are you Europeans? It is an open question.

I agree that all’s fair in war. It is, after all, a contest in which the winner will not be bound by rules with respect to the loser, and in which in all cases many people will die or be permanently hurt.

Not so much in love. Short story, then my “insight” (in quotations, since I have no way of knowing when I’m being an idiot): sitting in a Cheesecake Factory, which is not my normal habitat. It’s a chick place, in my opinion, and for celebrations of after-somethings, or before-somethings. I was hungry, though, it was close and I knew they had large portions.

They seat this younger woman by herself 3 tables down. I figure she’s waiting on someone, since if you watch the world, you will notice that women nearly NEVER eat by themselves. How can they get to that daily word count that is some multiple that of men by themselves?

Eventually, her food comes and I realize she’s it. Then I notice she’s reading a Spanish dictionary, which is something I could imagine myself doing. So I start talking with her. Her dad was career Marine Intelligence, which I think is super cool, and she is a contract Arabic translator, thinking about taking on Farsi or Russian. Now, languages are one of my things, having done coursework in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, Sanskrit, and Chinese, and being fluent (mehr oder weniger) in German. But she has a boyfriend, who has won a bunch of awards, so I back off.

Now, I am not shy, but I have firm rules about women in relationships. I thought about this, and wondered: what exactly ARE your rules? What I had until then were habits.

Here is the rule, though, which can be expressed as a principle: do not break things which are not broken. Life is always imperfect. Is her relationship with her boyfriend perfect? Of course not. She felt the need to justify her attachment to him.

But what would it imply about me if I went ahead and tried to befriend her, then seduce her at some point, knowing that someone somewhere was very attached to her? It would mean that I was so WEAK that I could not stand my own solitude enough to adhere to my own principles.

Do not be weak. Breaking things which are not broken because you NEED to, due to a lack of character, is wrong. This should be clear enough, but nothing is clear any more.

That is enough moralizing for today. Hopefully I am being somewhat clear.

Actually, I will add a postscript: tonight I was sitting in a bar, with seductions being attempted on either side of me. On my left, a woman was trying to seduce a man, and on my right, a man a woman. The one on my right was more interesting. The guy had been sitting much further down on the right at the bar. The girl walks in, sits down, and 3 minutes later he asks if he can sit between me and her. The chair on her other side was not taken, but this is called, as I understand the current terminology, “cock blocking”, and is intended to prevent me from muscling in on his action.

Now, they clearly did not know each other well, but were expecting to see each other, so I assume they were either set up by friends, or met on some social networking site.

She had kind of a sorority air, one of these women who seem like they have no depth or gravity. As I see it, this is likely not true, but I think what happens with some women is they have very unhappy home lives, so they adopt this sort of detached, giggly persona to fit in. This persona, though, is easily manipulated, and I felt that is what he was trying to do. I left before they made their decisions, but he’ll likely get lucky soon.

I listened and pondered: how do I feel about all this? Sex is fun, of course, but it is never emotionless. There is always another person, another self, another vulnerable vitality out there. I have seduced my share of women. You do your thing, then you are gone. My last girlfriend was OK with me just stopping by for sex every Tuesday.

But I can’t do that. It’s not natural. To do that sort of thing regularly is to short circuit the relationship capacities with which you are born, those of love and fondness and respect and loyalty and devotion. It is to live a half life.

Now, I listen to Bob and Tom on occasion. One gets the sense listening to most comedians that our task as men is to seduce as many women as we can, to see as many boobs, and get our rocks off as often as we can. This is a short life, a life lived to the specifications of the May Fly, or the lemming, or some animal desperate for replication, but not nourishing continuity.

I choose not to live like that. I felt no jealousy for this guy at all, and I felt pity for the woman, who, being young, was likely hoping this guy would be different, when in fact he was likely NOT at all different.

I’ve had a few, and this is no doubt rambling, but I thought I would put these ideas out there–as always, in the hope they may help improve someones life. Lord knows we can all use some help on occasion, myself categorically included.

Seemingly paradoxically, I think Obama’s ascendancy to the Presidency has actually made leftist organizing HARDER, not easier. Leftist agitprop is always based upon false flag rhetoric, in which appeals are made to sentimental emotions: compassion, “justice”, mercy, fairness. In reality, of course, there is no moral core of Leftism, which is why once the 10% of the 10%–you do the math–get their way, they eradicate all opposition through violence.

But Obama got elected. He is in office. He is not in opposition. There is no “them” that is strong enough to take the spotlight off of him. We are getting what leftists ACTUALLY want: nothing. No progress. No fairness. Look at Cuba: what did all the suffering Castro inflicted on them win them? Nothing. Nothing but terror, emotional emptiness, an inconsolable sadness, and generalized and ineluctable poverty.

You cannot, as an organizer, point to Obama and say: THAT is what we want. Nor can you ignore him. The organizers are the ones who put him there. They can say he was corrupted by the system, but he wasn’t. He was is and always will be an empty suit, directed by men and women largely in the shadows.

I think the leftist action for the near future will be in Europe, in trying to force at least a piece of their long desired global government; and it will be in the UN, trying to get yet more resources allocated to them, and trying to get more power–always more power, no matter the cause or place, with these people.

If I have to pick between Romney and Newt, I will pick Romney. For anyone who cares, I’ll just put that out there. It is truly disappointing that in a nation of some 350 million people this is the best we can do. It is, I think, a clear residual effect of the long term successful use of the demonic Alinskyan strategies, of not just refusing to discuss issues, but actively PREVENTING the use of actual reason in the public space, such that people not only fall for their vilifications, but fail to notice that nothing substantive has even been permitted to enter the public space.

Was Cain’s 9/9/9 plan discussed substantively? If so, I missed it.

Has Perry’s call to end Cabinet level bureaucracies been discussed substantively? If so, I missed it.

Retarded clowns: that is our media. They want their circus on a sinking ship, and have figured out how to ostrasize anyone who points out that humans don’t breathe water. Some of us will have life jackets, but that will not lessen the scale of the disaster.

I have cited Freud’s “love and work” as the key to happiness (I am most days speaking speculatively here, although I definitely have my moments), but it occurs to me he neglected a key element in a life well lived: rest. Or, perhaps I could use the work re-creation, that process by means of which you recover from your work, such that you can again approach it creatively, with engagement, with passion, with life.

Now, for some people their life IS their work. Even beyond the so-called “workaholic” there are people who find their meaning in their work. To my mind, though, it is important not to be too attached to anything.

Take as an example Edison. He would work until he was tired–day or night–then sleep, forgetting completely about what had until them preoccupied him. I think this is healthy. He loved what he did, but he took breaks from it, and when he did he did it COMPLETELY.

An interesting example is Albert Schweitzer, who seems to have been the Mother Theresa of his day, although of course in all visible ways he was much more gifted. He only slept some 2 hours a night. He would practice medicine all day, then switch–completely and fully and with seemingly no gaps–to one of his other passions: theology, philosophy, or music. His rest came from moving from one perceptual work domain to another.

Some time ago, listening to a course on Jewish history, the professor made the point that if we take the 7th day, that of rest, seriously, then it logically follows that the other 6 days are days of WORK. And how do Jews rest on the Sabbath? Through prayer, family time, and worship. Through community and communion.

It seems to me one could perhaps judge someones character equally by what they choose to do for a living–and how committed they are to doing it well–and by how they choose to relax. If, as in the stereotype for executives, it is through golf, drinking and weird sex, then that is all we need to know about their characters, isn’t it? And if it is through charity, self improvement, or even just sleep, that says something too.

Few meandering thoughts.

One of my favorite pasttimes is drinking in bars, talking with strangers, learning their stories. I am very good at this, I think mainly because I am willing to listen with all my being, and because–within very broad limits–I am non-judgemental.

I hear all sorts of stories, many of which would shock many people who assume that most people are “normal”. Most people are not normal, at least as far as I can tell. Most people–the people in your office, who write your orders, or answer the telephone, or manage your projects–have stories that would startle you if you knew them. They continue as if nothing happened because this is simply the most logical, least painful option.

Tonight I was talking with a woman who was one of 7 children, who has had a successful career as an RN, who told me her father was an alcoholic who regularly beat her mother. Her mother left when she was 8. When all the children were launched, she drank herself to death. For her part, she seemed to see that as a tragedy. For my part, I was thinking: SHE DID HER DAMN JOB. AFTER THAT, IT’S UP TO HER. That may seem cold, but I regularly inhale the feelings of others, by imagination or contact, and that is how it seems to me.

I am no idealist, in many respects. I do not expect or demand, or look to see in any way perfection from others. Neither, in my view, does God, who–if we are to perform the most basic logical functions–is capable of seeing who we actually are, and not who we profess to be.

The word love is anathema to me, as overused. Let me rather say that I sometimes see people as I believe they want to be seen, and congratulate them for being who they are. As I see it, that is often the best I can do.

I keep reading how the European Central Bank lacks the power the Fed does, which amounts to the power to create any amount of money from nothing, and gift it to any corporation, nation, or even individual it wants to.

As I read the eurozone situation, it seems clear that in some short timeframe the demand is going to be made that the powers of the ECB be increased, obviously in the “public interest”.

Now, to be clear, the primary dichotomy with which we are presented is the eurozone tightening, and in which the fiscal decisions of all member states are subject to the veto of Brussels; and the European Union splitting, in which member nations become sovereign once again.

How attractive will it not prove to be to “monetize” the debt of the PIIGS? As I understand it, this amounts to a much smaller implementation of my basic idea, in which money is CREATED to pay the bills of profligate nations, and in exchange for which NO hard decisions have to be made.

Oh, in the end, none of this is so complicated that an actually DEDICATED journalist could not sort it out. Where the fuck are you pieces of shit? What the hell are you doing, that you are not making all of this so clear that nobody anywhere can fail to grasp that the power elite are taking care of their own? Socialist, conservative: I don’t care–if a power elite is taking money from the rest of us, shouldn’t you care?

To be clear, the Federal Reserve in the United States has on my score card four major episodes. Panic of 1908 (or so): creates plausible cause for Fed, which is soon exploited by a power elite. Great Depression: created by inflationary/deflationary Fed policy, and used to get seperation from the Treasury Secretary, who for the first 22 years or so had final say.

Inflation of 1970’s: created by Fed, and in the end used as argument to allow them to buy any type of security through Open Market Operations, supposedly as a tool to “fight inflation”.

2008: Discount Window reinvented to allow the Fed to loan any amount of money to anyone–foreign or domestic–for any period of time.

Now let me be clear: the situation, as it exists today, is that the Fed can create any amount of money from nothing, grant it to anyone it wishes, for any amount of time, and no Congressional oversight exists, and no legal limits exist.

Let us just suppose, in the spirit of adventure, that of the billions of people living on Earth today, not all are honest. If you were not honest, can you imagine ways to use the money of the Fed, unmonitored, created ex nihilo, and gifted just to you for any purpose you want to pursue?

This is what the European Central Bank will be asking for shortly. It will be proposed as the only solution to the “crisis”. Me: I am tired of pointing out the tediously and painfully obvious. Where are you fucking assholes that do journalism for a living and put up with this patent bullshit?

Edit: I was listening to some father crying tonight about the conditions of his custody. I thought to myself that if life were much easier–as it should be–all these fucking dramas, that the kids all hear, remember, internalize, and react to years later, would reduce greatly.

If it was not profane to put the word fuck on Enola Gay, it is surely not wrong to risk offense in discussing our disgusting status quo, the fucking suits who manipulate it, and the fucking stupidity that enables them to divide the left and right such that no matter who gets elected, nobody tells the truth.

I am no saint and have no desire to claim that status. If there is somebody out there who feels acute guilt and would benefit from a kick in the nuts, I can help them out. Otherwise, I will tell the truth as I see it, and continue trying to spread it.

Keeping it interesting: please keep in mind that if you are going to vote in a primary you MUST in most States be registered for that party, in this case as a Republican. If you are a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Other, you can only vote in the General Election, not the Primary.

Depending on where you live, if you are changing affiliation, it amounts to reregistering to vote. You have to fill out a card–which you can likely get at your Post Office, or Dept of Motor Vehicles–and send it in, typically some period of time before the actual election, so they can get your name on a printed list of registered voters.

An added note of interest: Paul is seemingly very healthy, but he is 76. That is older than Reagan was in 1984, at age 73. Now, Supreme Court justices routinely serve into their 80’s, but that is a different animal.

For me, I view the system as not just broken, but as having been broken for many decades. So much money is always at stake, every election, that it is striking just how hard BOTH sides of the political spectrum are working to keep Paul from even being mentioned. With no chance of winning, it seems Michelle Bachman gets more air play than he does.

Therefore, if my choices are Mitt Romney the person–rather than Mitt Romney the way he is talking right now, which I am fine with–and Newt Gingrich, I will vote for either in a General Election against Obama, but I would like to see Paul get his day in the sun to see what trouble he can cause for those who steal our money and get away with it every day.

As I say often, I am sympathetic to the basic Marxist idea that there is a power elite; I just don’t think Marx was clever enough to pick the right targets. He simply did not understand the job of a Capitalist: that of having the idea for a company–which is to say a needed product or service–and then organizing it such that it was sufficiently useful to produce a profit in a competitive market.

It is indeed ironic that many of the worst abuses of privilege happen under Leftist regimes, who in centering all power on a monolithic government thereby position it to support an unjust class structure based solely on access to the centers of power.

We hear about the “will to live”, as in people who survive major illness or calamity. We hear about the desire to live, which amounts to the same thing. Both, though, speak in large measure to a desire not to die.

Actually wanting to live, actually being curious about life, and being open to all the treasures that are possible for all of us, is a different beast.

If you actually want to live, then that is 95% of the solution to any problem you may have. Getting things done is never difficult; it is merely logistics. It is getting to where you are free of conflict, open to success, open to experience, that is hard.

We all know that it is what you do every day that adds up. We all know that delayed gratification is essential to nearly all long term success. People who want to live see this clearly: none of it is recondite, none hidden.

To be impatient is to be in some measure self destructive, is it not?

I say this as a result of reaching–after many, many years of struggle–some reasonably definitive conclusions with respect to my own psychology. The end of psychoanalysis is not reaching conclusions about what happened THEN, but rather what continues to happen NOW. What change/adaptation occurred, and can you feel it with sufficient clarity to separate it from the rest of your stream of consciousness? Can you feel your limitations in such a way that you can imagine living without them? That is the end; at least, the end short of a full cure.

We were all born for forward motion. We were all born to enjoy life. The question is always what is impeding us, not what the point of motion is. Moving is its own reward. Learning is its own reward. Growth is its own reward. It is what we were born to do.

Hopefully this is reasonably clear. The preceding paragraph, of course, consists in what I believe to be useful assertions. Very, very often, what we assert to be true becomes true as a result of the following motion. It is then true, is it not? Ontology does not interest me: decision making does.

It is an interesting thought that a credible case can be made that we should forget most of the literature and art of the last century.

As I have said before, there seems to be this idea out there that the basic mindset of Positivism–the possibility of endless progress–should be applied to creative activities. In practice, this has meant since roughly the latter half of the 19th century that what was qualitatively different was, by definition, progress. Change=progress is a very old theme, one used just recently in a major political event.

But if I break my leg, that, too, is change. If my wife leaves me, I lose my job, get drafted to fight a war, contract influenza, and even when I die, those are all changes too.

Practically, to keep this effect from being obvious–to rationalize the otherwise unmistakeable ugliness which has attended much of the art world’s change of the last century–criteria of utility and beauty are rejected. The historical bases used to judge have been thrown out, and novelty and shared opinion enthroned as the only positions from which to evaluate new projects.

Yet, are we not all, to some lesser or greater extent, wrestling with problems of meaning, of purpose, of living more happily in a world quite eager to take it from us? Would not the task of art be to help us learn how to form meaning more easily, and not to make it harder?

So often, description gets called art. People whine and moan in public about suffering in the world, or their angst, or whatever crap is going on in their pathetic lives. Practically, this leads to the culture being led by those least qualified to do so, by those who have failed, and whose exclusion from society has compelled them to operate in different ways than those which tradition has granted us as at least provisionally acceptable and useful templates.

We have people more or less having nervous breakdowns in public, and calling it art. It is art, but it is not useful art.

From time to time I wonder about things like merging Positive Psychology Departments and the Humanities, such that one can assess the qualitative effects of reading, say, Jane Eyre, on people of different psychological types; or of evaluating the alterations in mood that attend listening to, say, a Mozart piano concerto, and comparing that effect to that of listening to Nine Inch Nails.

Culture as medicine, in other words.

We live in a multicultural society, do we not? We can adopt any “lifestyle”–any cultural gestalt–we want, without consequence in most cases. We can walk through the Chicago Art Museum, and see the best efforts of a dozen countries, from 30 centuries, at raising us into humanity. This is a given. What is not given is what works, for whom, where, and when.

These would all be interesting research topics.

Hey you: yes, you the one working on a doctoral thesis in English. Dump your Derrida and postfeminist deconstructionist analysis and figure out how to figure out the UTILITY of literature. You have to do something new anyway: why not make it actually interesting?