Month: July 2013

I may have posted this, but the Boddhisattva idea is BOTH compassion and wisdom.  The Dalai Lama only talks about the first.

I just watched a documentary entitled “Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion”, and had a few thoughts.  First, if the Dalai Lama thinks Green Day and Richard Gere mean jackshit, he is wrong.  He is not practicing Wisdom (Prajhnya, if memory serves). 

If he thinks non-violence means jackshit, when the Chinese have installed so many cameras that they can run down any monks who set themselves on fire within three minutes, then he is not practicing wisdom.

Violence sometimes is the answer.  Personally, I recognize only three values, and one of them might be called Wisdom.  To my mind, compassion is an after-effect of Wisdom. They do not arise together.  Compassion is nothing more or less than understanding, of which empathy is an example.

All matters of violence (and of life generally) ultimately involve logistics.  What are your resources, what is your ability to deploy them where needed, and how do you get more?

What the answer is in Tibet I cannot say, but it does not seem to me that nearly 40 years of telling the Tibetans to behave has done anything but contribute to their on-going subjugation.  I can’t see how you can get worse than mass torture, the maintenance of political prisons, and extrajudicial murder.

High IQ could be viewed as a beneficial adaptation to a social order based largely upon abstraction.  Clearly, the capacity for the manipulation of symbols arranged in a manner reasonably consistent with actual reality is desirable in many ways.

But can anyone argue that the complexity of our civilization INHERENTLY makes people happier?  I can’t.

Where are the black leaders who could write a “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”?  I don’t see any at the moment.  For a time, given the books he said he wrote, people thought it was Barack Obama.  He had soaring rhetoric.  He seemed sensitive, genteel, well intentioned.  And he was lying about all of it, as some were surprised to learn, and as some have yet to figure out.  When he was a candidate, spying on citizens was bad.  Now that he’s President, he’s expanded all of those programs.  When he was a candidate, spending money we didn’t have was “unpatriotic”.  Now that he’s President he is managing to make Bush look like a model of fiscal sobriety. Etc.  The list is long, and in the clear light of day, relentless and ineluctable.

I will quote here in a minute a passage that I think helps explain this.  The book is “The Geography of the Intellect”, and it is so thoroughly politically incorrect that it was likely considered quite problematic in 1963, when it was first published.  It discusses the common sense notion that intelligence is not spread evenly across populations and races.  Would it not seem obvious that part of the reason successful people are successes is because they are intelligent–more intelligent, to the point–than others with whom they are competing?  Was it not always obvious that Bill Gates would do more than his bus driver?

Did Europeans cultures not come to dominate the world because–for whatever reason–they were better able to harness intelligence?  White people invented virtually everything.  The Chinese invented paper: we perfected.  The Chinese invented gunpowder: we effectively weaponized it, and invented dynamite.  We invented motor cars, airplanes, computers.

Clearly, cultural factors were at play.  We developed the Scientific Method.  We adopted the notion of Progress.  But particularly when political attention is paid to differential outcomes, we have to ask why we should NOT value our best and brightest, and why they should not be differentially successful, however we measure that.

Put another way, why is it that the black community, in general, seems both to value clinging to an identity that is congruent with ignorance, and to demand in clear conscience that they be granted all the rewards normally reserved for the best and brightest?

We do not have a hereditary aristocracy here.  The overwhelming majority of millionaires are first generation, and most get there by having good ideas, working hard, saving their money, and investing it.  If the goal is the eradication of poverty, economic growth is the only proven way to accomplish it.  By and large, we have no poor people in this country any more.  Our poor have access to luxuries undreamt of by European kings of only a century or two ago.

Here is the passage:

One final point should be made about the significance of differences between the average I.Q.’s of populations, regardless of whether they are defined in ethnic, national, class, educational or other terms.  This is that comparatively small differences in average intelligence become very great differences in the very high I.Q. ranges.  A decline in average psychometric intelligence of only a few points will mean a much smaller population of gifted individuals and it is, of course, this natural elite of gifted people and of geniuses which does most of the really creative work of the world, which gives civilization its shape, and the presence or absence of which determines which nations are to lead the world and which are to follow.  After commenting on the fact that “anyone who thinks about the future must live in fear and terror,” Albert Einstein wrote: “This is due to the fact that the intelligence and the character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the few who produce something valuable for the community.”

We can indicate the relevance of this to I.Q. frequency distribution as follows: first, let us assume that the distribution of I.Q.’s corresponds to the normal Gaussian probability curve of error.  This is approximately correct, but fortunately not entirely so. Homo Sapiens produces more highly intelligent individuals than the Gaussian formula would allot to him.

Second, assume that the average I.Q. of a population declines by 15 points, possibly because of intermarriage with mentally less gifted groups, perhaps for other reasons.  Under these assumptions, the production of highly intelligent people, those with I.Q.’s of 130 and over, would decrease from about 2.27% to about .13% of the population.  In other words, a 15-point decline in average I.Q. would suffice to wipe out 92% of the minority with markedly superior minds. (Pages 154-155).

What has been the effect of the Welfare State?  Has it not been, at least until recent years, to encourage the profligacy of the least able members of our poorest class?  I am not going to take that claim and back it empirically–and it may be either wrong or unverifiable–but it seems likely to me.

Across the board, on average, I.Q.s have been rising for a century, but consider what we just read.  Let us posit one group which remains static, and one whose average IQ goes up 15 points.  That latter groups as a whole is going to produce 17 times as many unusually talented individuals as the first group.

Here is the naked truth: the average IQ among black Americans is approximately 10 points less than that of white Americans, which itself is approximately 10 points less than the average among Jewish Americans.

Given this, we would EXPECT far few leaders of unusual ability to arise among black Americans.  We can EXPLAIN how, with something less than 1% of the world’s population, Jews have won some 40% (or very high number–I need to get going, so I won’t look up the exact number) of the Nobel Prizes.

It has been my understanding for some time that IQ is malleable, particularly across generations.  Why is no one sponsoring an initiative to raise average IQ’s among black Americans?  Guess.

Obviously, there is ample material here to offend many people.  But let me ask you this: do realities we refuse to acknowledge disappear when we are not looking?  And how can we change realities in intelligent ways without understanding what the starting point is?

To my mind, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Trayvon Martin would still be alive if he had not attacked George Zimmerman.  Although the evidence was disallowed by the court–in what to my mind is a patent breach of justice–Martin had been getting in a lot of fights lately when he confronted Zimmerman.  He bragged about it in his text messages, and seemed to enjoy it.  He had video of one fight involving two other young men on his cell phone. He had pictures both of a gun and a marijuana plant.

He was on his way to jail, sooner rather than later.  He had already been caught with stolen goods, was so chronically truant that his mother kicked him out of the house (which is why he was in that neighborhood staying with his dad.)

On the night in question, there was a steady rain, and he took over an hour for what should have been a 20 minute trip to the store.  This is not in question.  There is no doubt, at all.  Why was he wandering around in the rain?  Why have so few people asked this question?

Here is what bothers me: there are half a million Trayvon Martin’s out there: emotionally confused, angry, dysfunctional young men whose parents have failed them, who see no direction in life, and who are taught by “society” to feel sorry for themselves as the solution to everything.  What should be on trial is a political order which seemingly exists to keep creating an endless supply of Trayvon Martins, so that a very wealthy, very privileged political elite can keep their jobs.

Did Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson send their kids to the sort of place Martin went?  Barack Obama?  Hell: did Obama go to a “ghetto” school, ever?  FUCK NO: he went to an elite white prep school and two Ivy League universities (or at least one:  Columbia is still a question mark).

But these awful human beings USE people like Trayvon Martin to generate a useful division between blacks and other minorities and a white populace that in almost all cases is doing nothing but try to help. I’m a conservative and it bothers the HELL out of me how black kids have to live.  But you can’t dig out of a hole by continuing to dig, which is what the Democrats want of everyone who is afraid of being called a racist.

Consider the riots in the 1960’s, in Detroit, LA and elsewhere.  They were created by race hustlers, and Communistic Agitation Propaganda.  What was the effect?  The ghettos were made permanent.  The white people moved out, and all the States had to pass laws prohibiting real estate agents from mentioning that a neighborhood was becoming black.  All the problems of black communities became worse.  In recompense, they were in effect promised they could become wards of the State.  This has done nothing but feed the worst elements of laziness, entitlement, and illegitimacy.  Long term marriages are virtually absent.  As I understand it, a black kid has only a 10% chance of growing up in a functioning two parent home.

And we KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a STRONG correlation between being raised by a single parent and a whole host of problems, including delinquency, educational failure, and unemployment.  No serious improvement can be made in black communities without addressing the issue of reconstituting the nuclear family.  In my view, economic advancement would help immensely in that, and in turn that will only happen if Democrat policies which are inimical to business interests are reversed.  Virtually every big ghetto in every big city has been electing Democrats for at least 3 decades.

We are seeing threats of riots if Zimmerman is acquitted, as he plainly should be.  Who is asking what the effect of these riots will be?  Who is looking to the past to see what the effect of the Rodney King riots was?  Did the riots help anyone?  Were any black people advanced because of it?  Maybe a few hustlers.  Maybe a few politicians.  But the people in those communities, if anything, were WORSE off.

Dogs won’t crap in their own cages, but that is what so-called black leaders are asking blacks to do in their own communities.  That is what they have done in the past.  It is my understanding that you can still see, today, signs of the riots Detroit had some 50 years ago.

And for what?  To convince people to change their minds through violence?  They will do nothing but reinforce existing stereotypes.  They will do nothing but fan existing enmities, and build enemies among the previously indifferent.

Do they think white people are helpless?  We are the ones paying the bills.  And we are almost all armed.

I can only hope both that Zimmerman is acquitted and that calmer minds prevail.  If not, everyone loses.  The patent evil of using race for political advancement has never been more clear to me.

We need some way to legally protect whistle-blowers, and people who have been engaged in illegal activities, but under orders.

My first thought was that Congress could offer immunity from prosecution, but as I think about it, that would likely have to go through Eric Holder, and he is by far the most corrupt and unethical AG we have ever had.

My second was that Congress could grant pardons, but only the President can do that.

It would seem that some law should be on the books which protects people who expose wrong-doing.  If there is a law, we need to enforce it–by arresting Eric Holder if necessary for contempt of Congress; and if there is not, we need to create a law.  Obama used the word transparency often, presumably because it tested well in focus groups, and because he has never felt the slightest need to make his rhetoric and actions congruent.  He was lying, of course, but even so it will be difficult for him to oppose such a law, particularly given the revelations of the past six months, and the coming midterm elections.

Food for thought. 

I will add, that in the longer term amending the Constitution to grant Congress the right to pardon people would likely help to weaken the power of the Presidency, which in this late hour is desperately needed.

Oprah, perhaps, is the one who popularized this phrase.  It has always seemed to me a way of rationalizing a certain fatigue with life.  Yes, “old souls” are deep.  They understand things.

But it is my unshakeable belief that the end of wisdom is spontaneity, vigor, and vitality.  It is fun.  Of course life is serious, but does that not make play all the more important?  For my part, the older I get, the more childlike I want to become (while paying my bills, of course!).

Well, I dug down long enough to hit a nerve.  I found the springs of fear and pain that motivate my intellectualism.  And I have come to realize the profound value of numbness.  Without the ability to numb my feelings, I could not have survived.  It would have been quite impossible.  What I found was a fear that fills the sky, that permeates my being from top to bottom: a fear I have been swimming in my entire life to such an extent I could not see it; a fear that absent some at least temporary stability in my life would have crushed me.   I will get through this: it is all to the good.  This has been my goal.

Psychoanalytically, I can see where it comes from.  The details do not matter.  But I will offer two points as a justification for this post:

1) Unless you have learned to relax absolutely and completely, to let your mind go silent, you likely have knots in you that are pushing you in directions you would not otherwise choose.  In my view, the therapeutic value of Autogenics will become clear in the next ten years, if we survive.

2) I wonder if much of our modern culture does not exist to numb feelings of anxiety.  Is it possible that Horror movies are so popular BECAUSE they desensitive people?  Do we as a society have the emotional maturity to love properly and well in large numbers?  Do our children not all too often feel alienated from an early age because of the pervasive selfishness surrounding us–which in many cases is manifested as excessive paternalism?

Few thoughts.

I will add that I have no idea who reads this blog.  I assume I am on a CIA/NSA watch list, since they read everything.  I know at least a few people follow me.

And what I have just posted is extremely personal.  Somehow, though, it makes me feel better to share some things in public.  I don’t know if it is a form of self absorption, or if sharing is a perfectly valid form of self therapy.  I suppose the following feeling is the measure, and in this case I have obviously chosen to hit “post”.

Progress is being made.

You cannot run from fear.  You can only confront it.  There is no other way to deal effectively with it.  And when it comes to internal traumas, they manifest psychologically as fear, and specifically a fear of pain.

What I have come to realize is that you can suppress fear, but only at the cost of suppressing substantially all OTHER emotions as well.  It is a blanket cure, that carries with it both the suppression of unwanted emotions, but also WANTED emotions.

No person whose life is largely characterized by fear can be loving, or compassionate, or caring, or in any way emotionally available to others.  They can be inventive intellectually, however.  This may be what drives evil in some cases: the need to avoid fear, combined with a need for perceptual motion.  Deep traumas, avoided, push repetition, intellectualized.  Is this Lenin or Hitler: rationalized hatred of chosen Others?

At a deep level we have to open ourselves to pain.  The happy life is one in which sorrow is always “digested” as it happens, in which mourning is sincere and effective, and ideally shared.

This may seem trite–I don’t know–but for me at any rate his feels like one of the more important truths of my own experience that I have uncovered in some time.

We do not need politicians who promise to build things with our own money.  We can build things on our own.  What we most need, what we DESPERATELY need, are politicians who do not break things.

People ask why Republicans are not “doing something” about jobs.  The answer is simple: any more of Obama’s doing–the Democrats and RINO’s doing–and we will be in a decade-long Depression.

Everyone in power needs to do less, so the rest of us have a reason to do more.  The question is not action versus inaction.  The only question is whether or not the action will be on the part of the American people, or on the part of elected officials who understand nothing of the American people, and whose power depends on this misunderstanding.