Month: April 2014

The net is that it was apparently circulating throughout the media that Tower 7 was “unstable”.

Here is a perfectly simple explanation that does not require ALL the media to have been in on this: United 93 was supposed to hit Tower 7 around the same time Towers 1 and 2 got hit.  Whatever happened, it wound up in a field in Pennsylvania.  As I have discussed, though, it took off from Newark, right across the river, right around the time all the planes were hitting.

The plan was to have three planes hit, 1, 2, 3, then blow all three buildings one after the other, with a thousand cameras watching.

United 93 never showed up.  The building was still rigged, and in fact a few bombs had already been blown to make it look damaged and to get people out of there.  Whoever planted the explosives also set fires throughout the building.  They knew they had to blow the building, as they had no time to remove all the charges.  But you can’t just blow up a perfectly good, well constructed modern skyscraper.  You have to set the mood, the context.  You have to prep people, get the word out.  And you would not need more than a couple well placed people.

Those people, potentially, could be identified.  We could, perhaps, reconstruct who was first told, by whom, that Tower 7 was “unstable”, when in fact it was not.

These people have names, faces, histories, addresses.  They can be put in jail, even if it may never happen.

They can be shot as traitors.

I have been saying since 2010 that the conspiracy on 9/11 was MUCH bigger than the 19 (or whatever) hijackers.  If Tower 7 was blown, then the logistical demands were enormous, which means that both the funding and skill levels must have been high.

And as I have argued, if it was solely Arab terrorists, then they should have blown the buildings while they were full.  They could have killed ten times as many people.  Anyone with that level of skill would also have been able to strike again with little trouble.

No: it seems to me this whole thing was theatrical by design, as I have said before.  They were just missing one plane, and that fact makes the WHOLE story untenable, because 47 story skyscrapers do not fall at the rate of gravity because burning paper towels and curtains caused the collapse of an anchored I-Beam.

I have not read all the pieces, but two updates I will add: NIST, until the final report, resisted the claim that the building fell at the rate of gravity, because this was impossible in all scenarios other than controlled demolition.  In the final version, after have been decisively refuted and utterly unable to claim with a straight face anything else, they simply ignored the blatant and inescapable conclusion of their own finding.

Second, their ENTIRE reconstruction depends upon a key I-beam having been unanchored.  They claimed it was unanchored in their final report.  Their whole computer modeled collapse (which by the way looked NOTHING like the actual, filmed collapse) starts from that beam. But a FOIA request found that according to THEIR OWN DATA, the data they used for their findings, that beam was in fact secured.  So they LIED.  That is the word.  There is no other word.  Why, remains unseen.  I prefer the cowardice hypothesis, but it may not be the best one.

Actually, I will add one more thing.  The body of a man killed on 9/11 (has it ever occurred to you that this exact date was chosen consciously, to make it as easy to remember, as impactful, as possible?) was recovered, and it showed evidence of having been exposed both to percussive force and extreme heat.  In other words, to an explosion.  Buildings crashing made you flat, but they don’t expose you to explosions.  There were no explosions in those collapses that we were told of.

And this was in either Tower 1 or 2.  I will come out and say it: in my view Tower 7 was categorically blown, and in my view the overwhelming certainty is that so too were the other two towers.  The case is not as strong, but that is my gut instinct.

But it seems to me that Burroughs–Robinson–still has a lot of unprocessed experience.  He has chosen not to live in the past consciously–and certainly time spent in chronic anger, bitterness, and regret is wasted– but the nature of trauma is that until it is lanced and processed, it comes back, in the form of what Trauma and Recovery author Judith Herman calls “intrusions”.

And what I think needs to be clear is that intrusions can be very, very subtle.  They can consist in a latent impulse to feel a positive, happy emotion, and the sudden snatching of it by a sort of vigilant darkness.  This can happen dozens of times a day.

If we are beings of light, which is what I believe, the nature of light is to celebrate, to move, to glow.  What stops us?  Intrusions.  Only be processing all the places within us where we stop light from glowing can we allow all the expression of which it is capable on this level of existence.

Psychopathology, trauma, deep unconscious grief and hurt: these are not the province solely of modernity.  Indeed, by any objective standard, our opportunities for well being are vastly greater in the modern age than they have ever been.  Most of us have never been exposed to war, hunger, thirst, slavery, and all the cruelties that follow in their wake.

There were narcissistic mothers, and cruel fathers in the Buddha’s time.  Perhaps they were much more common.  Imagine the level of existence of people who could not read, and who could not imagine any need to be able to do so.

So I will say again that “spirituality” consists first in the opening up of one’s psychological being, of healing all wounds, and learning to live happily in the here and now.  Only afterwards does whatever we call “God” enter in to it.  I have not seen God, and may never in this life.  But I have seen a long succession of days which I have traveled clumsily, and which I would like to learn to travel with more skill.

My own parents principle concern was behavior control/modification, and towards that end they hit me until I consistently sat quietly in a corner and said and did nothing unusual.  They broke me.  I think most Christian families do this, but most, I hope, instinctively balance punishment with emotional nourishing.  Carrot and the stick.  They did this, because I was annoying: all little children are, if their neediness and constant confusions are not met with love and empathy and affection.  They justified it as saving me from Hell.  Good little boys do not go to hell, especially not if they are baptized.

All I got was the stick, because the goal was avoiding something, not building something.  I say this not to complain, so much as to continue to explore these things in public.  Everything I do takes effort, because every move I make has to be initiated in the face of a global and overpowering fear, one bred into me very early.

A great deal of what is done in the name of Christ he would repudiate entirely.  I am quite sure of this.

And ponder the awfulness of a conception of the universe in which an infinite God has to have his son slaughtered like a goat–bled–so that He can forgive the people he created.  As I have said before, if we are to take the metaphor literally, perhaps Christ should have had his throat slit at an altar on Temple Mount.  I am fully with the proselytizing atheists in finding this repugnant, even if I derive no pleasure from attacking the beliefs of others.  For my part, most of my work is generative.  Far easier to build on an existing foundation–to improve what exists–than to tear down and actually rebuild.  In practice, of course, those who tear down build nearly nothing, and almost always make the world worse.

As I have said often, this is the difference between true Liberalism and the Leftisms.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Everywhere I look I see stupidity. I see it in me, too, of course but I at least can see most of the areas, I think, covered in fog.  I have some sense of what I do not know, and am always willing to question what I think I know.  Every day.  All the time.  Perceptual motion.  This is absolutely necessary, and why it is one of my three core values.

I can’t resist sharing some history on Easter.  I am in an odd, somewhat savage mood.  It will pass, but I am going to let it roll for now.

Easter comes from a pagan festival, a celebration of the goddess Eastre.  She was the goddess of spring, and dawn, in my understanding.  When early Christian missionaries were traveling northern Europe, they realized that if they celebrated Christ’s death and resurrection at the same time, early Christians would not stand out as much for persecution.  Easter is, roughly, to Eastre, what Christmas was to the Saturnalia.  It is, in a sense, a coopted ritual based upon a coopted myth.

And I got in a flash why Dostoevsky’s Underground Man would rather be miserable in his way, than happy in the manner of everyone else.

This, you see, is the outcome of long term exposure to narcissism, particularly in parents.  They take your emotions from you.  You no longer own your sadness, and certainly not your happiness.  Everything belongs to them.  Nothing is yours.

And if you are properly indoctrinated, you more or less do the right things: go to school, then work, then live sensibly and die at a sensible age in a sensible way.  But all of this is foreign to you.  You are not emotionally connected to it.  You do not belong.  You were flattened, and no matter where you go or what you do, it feels foreign.  And true emotion feels like a sickness..

I would like to argue this: narcissism is THE modern illness.  It is, perhaps, a necessary cultural transition from no sense of self, as seen in traditional communities–in which one is assigned at birth a sense of place and duty–to a distributed sense of self, which is the Liberal ideal we have for now stopped pursuing.

No totalitarianism can be understood without recourse to narcissism, to the inability to separate one’s own ideas, ideals, and feelings, from those of others.  Every person sent to the gas chamber or gulag WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD, if they could only see things from the correct perspective of the narcissist, or so they would argue.

And violence is a form of connection for those who lack it otherwise.  I have realized that as a child I vastly preferred being punished, and the sense of being hated, to the sense of being completely alone and disconnected from emotionally distant parents.

In recent days I have been getting very, very close to core feelings, at the root of which is the ability to feel openly and honestly itself.

And I get microseconds of absolute happiness, unreasonable happiness, happiness of the sort you read about but never see; flashes that tell me it is possible, if I can just unlock this combination safe.

I feel strongly–and I say feel, but this is an intellectual/intutive sense–that I will one day be able to see in the darkness.  At that point I will become truly useful.

I am drawing a weekly Tarot card, as I think I mentioned.  My goal is to connect with time, and specifically the future, but also to provide a flavor, an aroma, to the week.  Whether there is anything to it or not, I can MAKE something from it, by imaginative interaction.

And I have drawn the Fool again.  1 in 72 chance.  I think there is something in that.

I don’t have the time and inclination to do deeply into either, but wanted to make some comments.

Was Tarkovsky’s “The Sacrifice” in part a response to this line:

Sandro: I have no desire to sacrifice myself… why? It’s idiotic to sacrifice oneself… why? For Whom?

Antonioni was an atheist.  The two movies of his I’ve watched really had no point or purpose, just people wandering aimlessly.

Contrast this with, say, Nostalghia, where our hero dies carrying a candle from one side of an empty pool to another.  This was an act of meaning, of purpose.

It is difficult, in my view, to overestimate the latent psychological damage done by the idea that life is meaningless, and that we are merely puppets of hormones, genetics and environmental programming.

We have invented science, have we not?  Why not use science to combat these ideas?  It is hardly a radical idea asking people to be honest, to pursue their own method with actual integrity.

Where the randomness?  Where the chance? Where the openness to “all that”?

I doubt Buddha ever had a church in mind.  He was much too wise to believe it could exist in sincerity more than a lifetime or two after his death.

Buddhism is a useful creed.  I believe this.  But we need to look beyond it.  There is no doubt of this, either, in my mind.

This is the reason I invented the word “Motology” a few years ago.  Thought is liberated if we are no longer trying to defend something changeless, if we are no longer invoking an Order of Being, but, perhaps, an Order of Becoming.

It is the middle of the night, and perhaps I am foggy, but I think perhaps one could argue that this small change makes all of us Buddhists.  Becoming is neither Being nor Not Being.  The Becoming Self neither “is” nor “is” not.

Peace.