Month: June 2021

I had a dream of Mike Pence dressed in drag last night.  I think he has something like that in his “closet”.  He knew the election was fraudulent.  He must have known Jefferson–who was obviously one of the foremost Constitutional scholars–had set a precedent.  And I don’t think he is a coward, although he is most likely unimaginative.

With regard to myself, I think it means some old stable patterns are beginning to invert, which is good.

And with regard to my own sexuality, I have had a few very rare homoerotic thoughts in my lifetime, but literally not one a year.  Gay porn does not interest me.  The parts and pieces don’t fit.  There is zero energy there for me.

Oh: and “not that there’s anything wrong with that”.  Read that both ways.  There is nothing wrong with being gay, and nothing wrong with being straight.  You do your thing, I do mine, and all will be well.

I am going to speculate that perhaps 20,000 people participated in the voter fraud of 2020.  We can assume many of the same people were there in 2018, 2016, and going back quite a ways.  I think for many years they have stuck to the 5% or so allowed by Dominion and systems like it, which is why Republicans have sometimes won elections, even if they should have won many more.

The fraud only became really obvious in 2020 because Trump was so popular, and they had to vastly exceed the 5%.

Here is my point: while it is possible to speculate about the motivations of the core elites–who are the main beneficiaries of this sort of thing, which makes then rich and powerful–there seems to be no question these 20,000 people THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD.

They are true believers, which more or less literally means they believe what they have been told.

Writ large, the System is in great danger if any significant percentage of such people ever start having doubts.  Preventing this requires increasingly powerful doses of psychotic medicine, which amounts to increasingly strident propaganda.  This is the whole point of the White Supremacy farce.

Yes, this horrific lie is being used to TARGET political opponents, in a more or less clinically totalitarian, fascist way.  But it also has to exist to keep people from thinking.  It serves to trigger deep, trained impulses against racism.  That these impulses are being abused, and are working to INCREASE, not decrease injustice and racism, is not something they allow themselves to think.

But the whole system is built on  house of cards.  You don’t just have to believe lies, but FLIMSY, stupid, on the face of them ludicrous lies, and do so fully.

As happens as a more or less defining rule, they accuse us of being guilty of what applies to them.  They are in fact a cult.  And you can’t push someone into waking up.  They have to do it themselves.  But that it could happen almost overnight is in the realm of the possible.  They can wake one another up.

Watch the first 14 minutes or so of this.  It’s Tucker Carlson from last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3g-S_q_CAk

I don’t remember for sure, but I think I posted that discussion with the inventor of mRNA, who says that there are a lot of questions about these injections that need to be answered before ANY honest scientist can claim without lying that they feel confident the benefits outweigh the risks.

As mentioned on that segment, that piece was deleted.  This, even though it is literally impossible that anyone at YouTube had better qualifications than arguably the most qualified guy on the planet.

And of course they KNOW this.  Google knows this.  YouTube, which Google owns, knows this.  The people hitting the delete buttons, if they have an IQ over 100, know this.

So science is not the question.  Science is on the side of the best qualified scientists, particularly those who have not been caught repeatedly in patently politically motivated lies.

So who benefits from this censorship?  If saving lives is the criteria, is not science the method, and if science is not the method, can we not assume saving lives is not the criteria?

Yes, by now, yes.  Certainly.  They are not trying to save lives, or get people back to normal.

So you have to ask what the game is, and it occurred to me that paying people to REMOVE competing claims and narratives amounts to a form of advertising, doesn’t it?  Could not Big Pharma pay huge amounts of money to Google for what amounts to inverted advertising, which is not them pushing the agenda, but preventing any other competing narrative from coalescing?  Yes, I think so.

Could be the Chinese, could be Big Pharma, could be Bill Gates or George Soros.  But SOMEBODY is most likely paying for all this.  And they may pay big.  All of those mentioned could easily afford a billion dollars to make even the carefully chosen, cautious, conservative words of Dr. Robert Malone disappear.

You can buy Memory Holes, in other words.  Maybe there are bidding wars, although of course everyone wins if those particular facts disappear, even if their motives vary widely.

And I would add this: Big Pharma in effect used public funds for private profit.  The governments of the world paid them to develop these injections, but are not asking for any of the profit.

If I were them, I would hide the huge windfalls being made.  I would make it look like, oh I had huge costs, there is this going on and that, and oh I’m afraid even with all this we can’t pay a dividend this year.

What they DO NOT WANT, under any circumstances, is to look like they are making out like more or less literal bandits, PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE.

It can’t be said too often that you have to look for what is not there, as well as what is.  A wheel is defined by its spaces, and unusable without the one in the middle.

Why would Pfizer and Moderna NOT be posting record profits?  I assume they are.  They just don’t want ordinary people to know how much they have benefited from what amounts to a novel form of war profiteering.  It still involves fear induced by propaganda, still involves huge government expenditures, and even still involves pointless and large scale loss of life.

The evil that is in this world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding.  On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however isn’t the real point.  But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill.  The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear-sightedness.  Albert Camus

And it recollects for obvious reasons this one from C.S. Lewis worth requoting periodically:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

While I was searching for that one, I also came across these beauties:

Eros will have naked bodies; Friendship naked personalities.

 

The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts.

 

We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

And censorship is obviously the word.  The only standard this comment goes against is the one that says rote repetition of lies is all that is necessary to keep Jack from being a dull boy.

I think this was posted as a comment on a local newspapers comments page.  It may be them that is doing this.  When you commit a crime, obviously it helps if you clean the scene as carefully as you can before it starts getting looked at people who are not coconspirators.

This is from roughly April, 2020.  As I keep saying, my basic understanding of all this has not changed since then.  I have seen no facts to indicate that I didn’t call it right nearly from the start.

Not entirely sure what the theme is, so the theme may be uncertainty.  I just write stuff and sometimes I don’t know why.

But: in an infinite world, there is no finality, and efforts to create finality are themselves doomed to failure.

Life can only be lived in the flow.  It is an endless wave to be surfed on an endless ocean.

And I was thinking, for whatever reason, about training for Special Operations Operators.  As I have commented before, you can only survive if you learn to live in the present.  You have to forget BOTH past pain AND future pain, and yet deal with present pain.

And it hit me: to survive, you have to learn to love the grind, like Vince Lombardi talked about.

Because here is the thing: if you are going to live in the present, you have to LIKE the present.  You have to feel empowered in the present.  You have to feel GOOD in some way.  And it is perfectly natural to feel good in the midst of struggle.  An awful lot of those guys–and I’ve known a good number–like their work.  They volunteer for it.  Nobody forced them, and it is not all about patriotism.  I’ve had a few tell me they went to the next level because they wanted to do some good and be more directly and personally involved in it.  But that is a positive feeling too.

And I can think of no better cognitive strategy than learning to feel NOW what you expect to feel when you accomplish a long difficult goal.  If you can get that feeling every step of the way, then you will accomplish everything you start.

Few thoughts.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LDgHGGRUs

Tucker Carlson on point as usual.  From my own perspective, he is one of only a small handful of journalists who matter.  Sheryll Atkisson and John Stossel would be others.

As he says “normal people would say to themselves, whatever we are doing, we need to stop.”  But that isn’t what the Democrats do.

I would really like to get drunk with one of the Rockefellers, or Klaus Schwab, or even Nancy Pelosi–anybody in a loose cabal that certainly extends to the hundreds, where most of the people have a pretty good ideas what’s going on–to where we both have enough shots of something or other in us that they begin speaking the truth.  We know nearly everything they say is bullshit, and they know it.  The open question–and it really is an open question–is what the REAL agenda is.

I would almost prefer it be open Satanism–that they have embraced cruelty and sadism as their way of life–to the alternative, that they are merely so profoundly STUPID that they think they are HELPING.  Almost, but not fully.  You can’t fix aggressive and confident sociopathy.  You can sometimes fix stupidity, over time.

The most likely explanation, of course, is that the truth is in the middle somewhere.  They don’t really think they are helping, or for that matter harming.  They really don’t care one way or another.  They only think about themselves, and what is good for them and the people whose alliance they need, and that is where it stops.

Every step, every decision, stems from a basic question: what’s best for ME, right now?  The future does not matter, and the suffering of people they don’t know doesn’t matter.

And it may well be that there is no long term plan to destroy America.  China is most likely involved, but it is not a necessary assumption to replicate the reality.  The effect would be the same, step by step, if the METHOD was destroying the capacity for integrated communities, for dialogue, and for the honest and productive use of language.

Hammering, hammering, hammering: for what, to what, and for whom I can’t pretend to say.  The assumptions governing the Fabian worldview have been falsified by history (as well as theoretically in many, many ways).  What is left, but the hammering?  One can ask and not receive an answer.

Read the Red Shield (not possibly a Rothschild reference is it?) “Pray devoutly, hammer stoutly.”

And consider a political movement which adopts a wolf in sheep’s clothing as a symbol.

All I know is that 1) I don’t know what I don’t know; and 2) you need some kind of conspiracy to explain all this.

And actually 3) that the people who DO know are most likely sharing as much as half to three quarters of the plan openly, as for example Klaus Schwab.  It is that last part, though, which makes all the difference, even though what is known is bad enough.

As I wind down (one more one more), it occurs to me to comment that refusing to participate in a system of violence is not in itself condemning that system of violence.  Camus is not making the case that violence is never necessary.  He himself participated–heroically in the eyes of most–in the French Resistance, by publishing an important underground newspaper, which was called “Combat”.  He wrote much of its content.  He did so at considerable risk and no doubt supported heartily the Allied invasion and liberation of France.

So violence per se is not the issue.  He is simply making the case that it is possible for INDIVIDUALS to reject participation.  And it would be inconsistent for him not to grant to all individuals the right to their own moral decisions.

And here is thing: simply because some people choose not to participate in, say, war, we need neither judge them–if they are sincere–nor view this as a contradiction of our own beliefs.  Moral variety is as necessary and good in the cultural realm as biological diversity is in the wild.  We don’t benefit from endless rows of almond trees, pollinated by a decaying and degenerating hoard of bees overly surfeited on a tedious and unhealthy diet. (an actual example, by the way, in my understanding.)

Again, as William James pointed out, even if we do not ourselves choose a path of saintliness and non-violence, it helps to have such people around.  They provide a needed contrast.  They help keep things from getting too out of hand.

The mind needs many models.

And it occurred to me as well that Ideology, writ large–which would  very certainly include religious ideology–is the OPPOSITE of my own assertions about proper moral judgements.

Where I say a judgement should be “local” they say the same mechanical method should be used in all cases that are even remotely similar.

Where I say they should be necessary, they say that judging is the most important and proper human action, and should be applied to all situations and people, regardless of how remote they may be from us in time or space.  To take one obvious and current example, there is no need to judge the participants of the Civil War, or slave-owners in the South, as if they were alive today, and their crimes still relevant.

And for that matter, getting lost in that sort of thing blinds people to PRESENT realities.  If slavery is wrong–and I of course believe it is, in all times and places and forms–then why does the Left spend more time and energy on tearing down Civil War memorials than ridding the world of slavery, which is still practiced in many of the same West African nations from where the original slaves came from?  There are slaves in Nigeria, certainly, and most likely nations like Chad and the Sudan.  The Chinese still keep slaves, even though there has been some small talk about that.

But attacking Robert E. Lee remains “anteater taming“.  It takes no courage, no principle, and costs almost nothing.  It also achieves nothing other than rancor and division, and obviously those seeking those can in any event only be counted on to keep breaking things if they get power.

When I say they should be “imperfect”, they say that their ideology makes all decisions necessarily perfect.  The Party is always right.  The Bible is always right.  The Church is always right.  Tradition is always right.

And so life ebbs and flows.  To pick one side is not to oppose the other side.  And to pick one side is not to not reserve the right either to change sides, to step out of the arena completely, or create on your own a viable third or fourth or fifth possibility.

In any communication there are many possibilities.  There are what you intended to say, what you actually said, what you actually meant or thought you meant, what was heard, what could have been heard, and what might be heard tomorrow or next year, all of them with no necessary connection one to the other.

Life is all movement and relation.  The world is shifting under your feet.  Peace can be found in feeling, but most likely not in thought, not if we are honest.

My brain being what it is, I cannot help categorizing the rest of the main characters.

Paneloux was fully plague stricken when he delivered his Jeremiad, but repented partially.  He was at the beginning separate from the concerns of every day life.  As Rieux noted, it is one thing to speak of death in the abstract, and another to be a Parish priest who often watches men breathe their last breath.

And to his credit, he realized it.  And I think in him Camus is presenting the only version of Christianity which makes sense to him, which is one in which EVERYTHING is God’s Will, and if He is just, and it is His will, then our job is to accept it, whatever it is.

I think Camus himself, while not holding this view, of course, was sympathetic to it.  It is logically consistent, and not contradicted by life as we live it.  I recall  William James discussing this strand within Christianity too, in a book I need to reread (everything he wrote is worth reading 2-3 times, from what I can tell) in his Varieties of the Religious Experience.

And how does Paneloux die?  Not quite of the plague.  His death certificate or note reads “Case Doubtful”.  I think the double meaning there can be assumed to be quite intentional, and the translation reasonably faithful.

Rambert represents the notion that in a plague stricken world, happiness is still possible, as both an ideal and a present reality, and is worth pursuing, sometimes at the expense of others.  And the reasoning is simple:  if no one is happy, then what is the point of anything?  The happily in love, in such a world, become our hopes and perhaps even in their own ways our saints.  Rambert, of course, lived too.  I forgot to mention him.

Love, in small ways, with small people, is one of our true comforts, and no person able to avail themselves of such comfort should go without.  We need such things.  We become more human with them, and more “abstract”–again, to use Rieux’ term– without them.

And I will add that the precise virtues of both Grand and the Spaniard (who may have had a name, but I can’t recall it) were their small ambitions.  Grand wrote and rewrote a single sentence.  It was not much, but it was very important to him, and it provided him what little satisfaction he had in his life.  He was, you will recall (or notice this if I am lucky enough to inspire someone to read the book), the first one to recover spontaneously from the plague.

And the Spaniard, likewise, said he would never get the plague because he–I think I am quoting here–“knew how to live”.  And he didn’t die of the plague.  He got through just fine.

As I would view all this, it is very Taoist.  Lao Tzu just means “Old venerable Master”, something like that. These themes and ideas were old 2,500 years ago.  A certain person may have written them, and actively rejected being named as the author, or they may be a compilation of many such individuals.  Or maybe they knew at one time who wrote it, and it was forgotten in the countless wars and conflicts and disasters–the countless plagues, some of them literal plagues–since then.

One last point (I often say in bars I am going to have “one more” but I’m not sure what the multiplier is; most people don’t get it), the plague mutates from Bubonic to Pneumonic, which is more dangerous.

Can one variety of delusion not migrate easily to another?  Do people not continually claim to be “fixing” some problem, while creating worse problems?  As I argue often, this is the primary, perhaps defining, activity of the political Left in this and most other countries.  It is not about compassion, but it invokes compassion.  In abusing language ALONE they make things worse, and most of their actual nostrums–their actual policies–make their patients worse.  The inability–which amounts of course to an unwillingness–to see this is what makes it the plague.

You know, in dealing with life, as with any specific physical challenge, it is helpful to have a variety of emotive tools.  One of these, I will suggest is at times passive resignation.

This is, perhaps, perilously close to Learned Helplessness, but what I would suggest is that such helplessness exists at a preconscious, physical level, whereas passive resignation amounts to active acceptance of things we cannot control.

Wisdom–and you know the quote I would but won’t reference–consists in knowing what is needed, when.

And in large measure, wisdom is learning over time what tools to use when, and in continually enlarging your tool box, which would include among other things state management, the skillful use of words, physical health and ability, and the ability to understand people and their motivations to either manipulate or empathize with them.

Manipulation: it has a negative connotation, but in dealing with truly stupid people is it not a vastly preferable alternative to confrontation and conflict?  This seems to me to be true.  Of course it is the rationalization our Plague Lords–read that in at least two ways–have chosen to justify what they did and are doing to us.

The ten thousand things rise and fall without ceasing.  What is right today may be wrong tomorrow.  What makes sense today may be stupid tomorrow.  And nothing is more likely to be stupid than the Long, Large Plan, when concocted by people unfamiliar with peace and who hate themselves and everyone else.