Month: April 2016

We need to be clear that no parasite wants its host in anything but acceptable health.  Companies like JPMorgan Chase are sucking wealth away from ordinary Americans, but they are smart enough to know not to take it all, not to tip their hand, not to make it obvious to all what they are doing.  They want America economically relatively healthy, because that is how they make their money.  We are the richest country on Earth, and thus still the best place to do what they do.

JPMorgan, to be clear, is also the Fed.  They have a seat.  They are members.  The Fed has had the ability to destroy our economy for many decades now, but all the members have a vested interest in keeping things flowing along reasonably well.

They are working now to hide the ill effects of Obama’s borrowing, by making it painless. They use the money of the Fed to buy up the debt, and keep interest rates low.  There is no limit to how much of this they can do.  They can keep a virtually infinite debt from becoming inflationary, but at some point people will wonder how this is happening, and start asking questions about our financial system, and this they do not want.

Inherently, transgenderism and gay rights trample on long standing social prejudices. I cannot and will not defend those prejudices. But they do not supplant prejudice. They do not eliminate tribalism.

On the contrary: the egalitarian narrative is INHERENTLY anti-egalitarian. It inherently posits some people and some beliefs are so much better than others that violence–social and if needed physical–is not just justified, but a veritable holy mandate. The “Culture Wars” are holy wars on BOTH sides.

What is missed though is that the effort is to imprint upon many different beliefs, msny nuanced and shades of belief, ONE belief to rule them all. This Egslitarian propaganda seeks not equality in diversity, but equality in conformity. Such a propaganda suits a free people not at all. It is creed of slaves, propagated by aspiring masters, and mouthed and perpetrated by nihilistic fools.

Do I oppose gay rights? No. Neither do I oppose Christian, Islsmic, Hindu, or atheist rights.

The notion of Christ as an anti-sacrifice, as a symbol of an order he was seeking thereby to signify, name, describe, and overturn, is one of Rene Girard’s, at least.  And at one time I read everything he wrote.  He is the one that got me interested in sacrifice.

As I think about it, though, repetition serves a purpose.  Most importantly, it is imperfect, particularly when done unprofessionally, carelessly, in an ad hoc fashion.  Small difference may emerge, small genetic mutations, and possible improvements, possible “selections”, to use the term we apply to biology as seen through a Darwinian lens.

And I think about repetition as seen through a class perspective.  Perfect repetition is the concern of the elite.  It is the system that got them there, and the system they want to preserve.  In India, to take a pure metaphor, the Brahmin children were expected to remember the Vedas perfectly.  Flawlessly.  They were beaten–are beaten, as far as I know–until they get it perfect.

The uber-rich, say, the Rockefellers, are expected to inherit certain traits of command, certain traits of prosperity, certain habits of mind.  They may differ considerably in their hobbies, passions, etc.  But they are expected to be able to take the helm.  Some things are not to be touched or changed.  They are upheld with violence.

And I thought about it: the most violent in a strict social order are the owners, the leaders, those who benefit most.  They cannot innovate.  They cannot change.  Every change risks a fall.

This is why social evolution happens in the lower classes, those who have no particular order to maintain, no status to uphold.  Being interesting is, by and large, the role blacks play in American and even global culture.  They do and say and think new things.

And I would contrast this organic change–one which is voluntarily embraced by many or even most people–with the propaganda oriented, coerced change, such as we are seeing with the issues of gay rights, trans-rights, and the claims that illegal aliens are somehow not detrimental to the economic well being of people born here.  These are agendas, pushed by and for elites.  For what?  For power.  This habit they dare not change.

If you want the current script, simply look at the areas where Democrats and Republicans agree at the Party level.  If you want an alternative, look to the people in this election cycle who are hated by their respective parties.

I think we all sense everything I am saying is true.  To get to the top of a structure, you have to internalize the values of that structure.  You have to want very much to be a part of that structure.  This is why anyone who emerges from that structure can be expected to behave in certain predictable, scriptable ways.

I don’t like Ted Cruz, but I will vote for him if I have to.  If the formerly Grand OP wants to foist Kasich or even Ryan on me, I am going to donate to the Democrats, sit home, and plan out my stockpile of food and ammunition.  Perhaps this is the plan.  If so, I can’t see how we are not well and truly fucked.

Logically, the existence of social rules based upon violence reduces or eliminates the need for the negotiation of difference.  If everyone has a place and a duty–the  most obvious case of this again being Hindu India, where until recently everyone had a Varna and a Jati–then what you think,  and how you feel, are matters of consequence only to your immediate associates.

As I have said, economic equality can be had, easily, in slavery.  You lock people in a cage together–as in Cuba–and throw them all equal rations.  You whip them when they protest, and then offer those who are compliant putrid scraps from an already meager table, such as a free cot when they are sick, a mediocre education suffused with Party Propaganda, to train for a profession which does not exist and cannot be practiced, or a house in poor repair that was someone’s pride in 1950.

But for GENUINE equality you need emotional intelligence.  You need to be able to swim in social oceans, to bob up and down with skill in the waves of emotions, moving boundaries and expectations, and evolving and differing purposes.  You have to be able to be yourself, to be content and happy on your own, and to connect with others, even when they are changing, moving, evolving, and sometimes calm and sometimes agitated, sometimes clear and sometimes confused.

In my own world, I see room for both political parties as they exist in America today.  We might call the Democrats the “compassion” crowd, and the Republicans the “Justice, fairness, and security” crowd.  Now, both groups have people within them who routinely abuse the words that they know create responses.

As I think about it, the hard Left in the Democrat Party bears roughly the same relation to the party members as a whole, in their cheerlessness, anger, bitterness, and emotional violence, that the Religious Right does to the Republican Party.  Neither fully represents the views of most members, but both are stuck with their respective Party and its propaganda.

In both cases, negotiated disagreement is virtually impossible.  Leftists see and criticize this on the Right, but fail to see their own inability to diagnose their own mistakes, their own failures, their own attachment to power seeking for its own sake.

I speak about the Good for the simple reason that the concept, as I have defined it, works to build emotional intelligence.  EI, in turn, helps foster social harmony and evolution.

Anything which prevents or creates barriers to negotiated bridging of substantive difference is, then, anti-egalitarian.  Safe Zones are anti-egalitarian.  Government imposed social views–such as the necessity of accepting gay marriage–are anti-egalitarian.

Sick people want power.  Such people naturally gravitate to the government, and such people, in government, want to use government to “solve” all problems.  Where no problems exist, they will create them.  It is the use and abuse of power that interests them, not the well being of actual human beings.

Use and abuse is, in turn, a good short definition of a sacrificial order.

Logically, if social hierarchy is based on violence–and we see this in chimpanzees, for God’s sake–then a non-violent social order will be flat.  Egalitarian.  Egalitarian not in wanting every individual to be the same, as what I might term the Pseudo-Egalitarians want (their actual preoccupation being the reduction of society into two classes, with both classes possessing equal material wealth among themselves), but rather in respecting each individual as a world unto him or herself, and sufficient therein.

Love, unconditional love, is inherently equalizing.  It is anti-hierarchical.  And to return to the previous post, it is anti-sacrifice.  If sacrifice is a method for demonstrating and creating  and reinforcing social difference through ritual violence, then love is the anti-sacrifice.

And in my mind it is highly ironic that Christ himself was made a sacrifice.  Since it is a free country, and I can read history any way I please, and rewrite it any way I please–without, of course, being able to demand anyone join me in this quixotic enterprise–I would like to suggest that Christ never meant to get himself crucified.  He was a teacher, not the Son of God.

It could be foreseen, of course.  If social order is ratified through violence, then attacking the social order will logically always result in violence.  It is a beast, which when woken, will reliably act to destroy and consume its enemies.  Death shows the existence of the order, but the intent can only have been to critique it.  Death was a consequence, but never a goal.

And as I have commented from time to time, it is thus amazing and absolutely contrary to the spirit and intent of Christ’ teachings that from his life and death and resurrection (resurrections, by the way, can be witnessed to this day regularly, in the work of David Thompson among others, or so I personally choose to believe) a Church characterized by countless layers of bureaucratic structure should evolve.  Christ would have nothing to do with the Pope.  If He came back, he would collect crumbs at St. Peter’s with the lowest of the laiety, and laugh at the cosmic absurdity of it all.

The overall point I would make is that as a cultural ideal, egalitarianism is laudable, but this word, like that of Liberal, has been misappropriated and abused by liars.  Slaves are economically equal, too, but no one applauds their state of being, that of servitude.  Slaves, like the Cubans, may in fact have access to “free” education, “free” housing, and “Free” health care.  But like the Cubans, they have walls which they must climb to actually be free, and many of them will die, by design, in such enterprises.

Christ would lament and condemn Cuba, and excoriate–He did have a temper–any of the fools and hacks, and cynics who condone what those evil human beings have done to that proud and beautiful people.  Every Cuban has a thousand lashes on his or her back.  They are invisible, but they can be seen, I am quite sure, in their eyes.

When I was studying to be professionally useless, which is to say when I was on an almost (I still had to be admitted, and I will admit it was not a foregone conclusion due to my political tendencies) Ph.D track, sacrifice and particularly human sacrifice were a prime interest of mine.

My current operative hypothesis is that both serve to channelize in usable social directions the primal bestial energy of our gut nervous system.  It seeks to kill, to feed.  Animal sacrifices were often burnt, as the odor was considered pleasing to the “gods”, which is to say the human appetite.  A “holocaust” is a fully burnt animal sacrifice.

The point I wanted to make here is that human sacrifice clearly plays a role in Communist societies.  This is the role of the dissident, the nay-sayer, the “enemy of the people”, or worse yet, the “capitalist, or bourgeois pig”.  Why so much death?  It reinforced the class system, the social hierarchy.

This is the great delusion of Communism, that it does away with classes.  I have called it Pharaohism, for the simple reason that it seeks monumental power, consolidated entirely, and to build upon that edifice a thousand year Reich.  As far as that goes, why stop at 1,000?

The opposite of Communism is true egalitarianism, which rejects human sacrifice, which actually shares voluntarily.

The movement of human freedom is away from ritual murder, away from “acts of the sacred”, and towards communion based upon mutual affection, shared beliefs and practices, and a sense of our common humanity, and our common Verworfenheit.

Edit: I would add that the most stratified social system I know is that of the orthodox Hindus in India.  Since they are all vegetarian, people assume they are pacifistic.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What they have done is borrow a trick from the Communists and simply deny the very existence of an entire class of people–the Untouchables, Harijans, or Dalits, your choice–who they abuse in any manner they want to, any time they feel like it; and this is perfectly consistent with their religion, as they construe it

As I have commented from time to time the condition of the Dalits in India is worse than that of black slaves in America before the Civil War: http://www.ncdhr.org.in/dalits-untouchability/  Their numbers are vastly larger, too, and this condition exists TODAY.

Where is the Left?  Fucking worrying about dudes with dicks being able to go into the women’s fucking bathroom.

In a piece I posted a few days ago, I found Evan Sayet’s comment interesting that most stunt men in Hollywood are conservatives.