Author: White Whale

I will often let my unconscious stream.  There is a more less pervious–is that a word?  I say yes–barrier between my waking mind and what lies Beyond.  There is a lot of stuff in the Beyond.

Sometimes bits of childish chatter will float up.  I will find myself saying NO, or “you can’t do that”, or STOP.  My mother, particularly, did not know when to stop.  There was no real connection there.  And, again, I was not sexually abused, I don’t think.  It is simply the case that psychologically normal people instinctively feel the presence of boundaries, feel a sense of going too far, but that some of us were not raised by psychologically normal people.

Be all that as it may, the metaphor of the movie “The Others” came to me, especially the part where the children are whispering among themselves if they should tell their father “what she did”.  It is never clear, until the end of the movie, what she did, but you feel this presence it was something terrible and irreversible.

And I feel that trauma is sometimes like being the sole inhabitant of an empty house you haunt like a ghost.  You are there physically of course, and learn over time to do a passable impression of being there emotionally and socially, but it is never quite true.

And there are whispers of the truth, but only whispers.  The full thing is too much to bear directly.

But there is a fire I am waiting to start, or kindle.  There is something, I feel, that I need to contact and allow to expand in its own way, at its own rate, in its own direction.  It needs freedom from direction, since it is escaping confinement.

I share all this because we all live in this strange world together.  I feel winds blowing through all of us, first one way, and then another.  Sometimes it smells of roses, sometimes garbage.  Sometimes the birds are singing, sometimes starving and freezing and falling from the air.  All of this is mixed together, in winds sweeping sometimes up, and sometimes down.

We, all of us, are left to make sense of it all.  We do need one another, and I aim to hold my own place in that vast line.

Can and should we not start speaking of a global peace?  Can we not speak of an end game, in which all the major powers cease their striving to build the best and most destructive weapons?  Imagine if we redirected one third of our Defense Budget to other purposes, like global economic development using something like the Kiva program of microloans.  We reduce the warranted fears of the Chinese and Russians, and we help the world.

And can we not let the Chinese have their part of the world, the Russians, theirs, and we “get” our hemisphere?  Is it really our problem what happens overseas. now?

There is an old saying that only the dead have seen the end of war.  But why?  Why, with all the material abundance we possess, the technology we possess, the POTENTIAL we possess?

I was laying in bed last night picture the astonishing, mind boggling, truly incomprehensible logistics of sending a fighting army halfway around the world to wage many year wars in two countries, one of them landlocked.  We know it ran (is running: we are still in Afghanistan for some reason) to the trillions of dollars.  This amount of money cannot be understood, but the paychecks, the sea and air transport, the bullets and bombs and cannon shells and the like can at least be approximately imagined.  It is overwhelming.  Imagine how much MONEY the arms industry made in this period, and indeed continues to make.

And all this was made politically–which is to say psychologically–possible by 9/11.  Obviously, as I have explained at length in several posts, I reached some years ago the conclusion that we were being lied to about 9/11.  NIST reached a politically determined conclusion, not one supportable by science, which is to say a reliance on known laws of physics, and what is physically possible.

The importance of this failure, and the Big Lie which was underneath it, cannot be overstated.  The Deep State did all of this.  Our wars, the unacceptable death on our side, the perhaps millions of dead around the world, the economic cost, the psychological cost: these are all on the shoulders of people who remain to be named, who have gotten away, so far, with one of the largest crimes in human history.

These two videos are good, and short.  He builds a model with bricks to simulate what is claimed to have happened in Tower 1 and Tower 2, and points out that Newton’s Laws of Motions are not suggestions.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/13-9-11-experiments-collapse-vs-demolition-part-1

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/14-9-11-experiments-collapse-vs-demolition-part-2

https://spectator.org/john-brennans-plot-to-infiltrate-the-trump-campaign/

Consciousness is something which is real and irreducible.  Put another way, there is no “bit” of consciousness.  Where present, order is present.

Related: Rationalism is the doctrine that the fundamental unit of human consciousness is the idea.

That’s getting closer.  Ideational atomism would be a synonym.  Maybe.

I seem to be getting younger.

So, I got to thinking Rationalism can be defined, for my purposes, as the proposition that all things which are knowable can be deduced through reason.

This is inaccurate.  It is a caricature, but it is not sufficiently far from the truth.

The truth is that people who style themselves Rationalists believe that FEELING something to be true is never sufficient.

That might be true. I’m not sure.

But then I got to thinking of Scientism, and this I DO definitely believe to be true: the core belief of the Scientistic disciple is that matter exists, and is absolute.  Something, however we define it, has to be physically and measurably final. It can be Superstrings, Fields of various sorts, or some as-yet undiscovered physical “bit”.

Because if matter in some form is NOT absolute, then consciousness almost necessarily has to become a part of reality.  Perhaps even absolutely necessarily.  Certainly, this is what von Neumann argued, without being able to say what exactly that meant, or what the final end result might be for our philosophies and self understandings.

Consciousness might be defined as “an ordering principle”.  That might be good, or severely lacking in some way.  But let’s run with it.

Picture a beam of light sent out by a star 50 million years ago.  In principle, we can interrupt that beam of light anywhere on its journey and it consists both of discrete photons, and a continuous wave.  In some respect, does this not make the light “conscious”, as I have defined it?  It is ordered, continuously ordered, and ordered at far past the speed of light.

I have in the past called Free Will “non-statistical coherence”, but might here expand that definition to include Consciousness itself.

I’m not sure what I am saying, and I am running late as usual, but do with this what you will.  I will keep germinating, without quite knowing what sorts of blooms I am sending into the world.

The way the Democrats want to define the school shooting narrative is an updated version of the old “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Specifically: “How many children have to die before you realize your policies are wrong?”

To answer this question in any way is to accede to it, and to LOSE to it. And I for one am tired of losing.

We need to ask Democrats to define, in detail, their own policy proposals and, critically, WHY THEY THINK THEY WILL HELP.

We have to “do something” they say.  Guns are bad, they say.  This is an emotionally rooted argument.  It depends upon the juvenile, even childish notion, that large problems always have:  1) easy fixes; that 2), are just a matter of passing a law.

But in every case many laws are broken many times before the shooting.  Many people KNEW this kid in Texas was trouble.  The girl he shot was telling her parents she feared for her life.  Is it really asking too much for the fucking school and fucking cops to visit his house, speak with whatever parental substitutes he might have, and find out if he has access to guns, and if so, to remove said access?

Never let other people define the narrative.  If you answer within someone else’s paradigm you lose.  And make no mistake: the hard core Leftists who have captured the Democrat party only think in Zero Sum terms.  Their win is always a loss for most of us, including most of the idiots who keep voting for them.

I have plenty of vitriol for Republicans too, but it is at least POSSIBLE to be an honest Republican.  It is not possible any more to be an honest Democrat, in my view, not if you toe the national line the Party leaders are pushing.

There is no psychopathy which cannot be hidden in abstraction.

Corollary: clear thinking is characterized by internal consistency, and intact modeling of the observable, external world.  If either internal consistency, or a real world referent are absent, the thinking is disordered.

Corollary 2: no thinking which presumes reason to be paramount meets this definition, since emotion clearly intrudes on all decisions and all perceptions.

Corollary 3: Rationalism, as the philosophical equivalent to Scientism, is inherently irrational and disordered.

Corollary 4: If presently thinking depends upon empirical notions currently unobservable–e.g. “God”, which as a term can be variously defined–but notes and includes in the thinking this fact, it can still be rational and reasonable, provided a means is pointed to to make the assumptions empirical, eventually, in some form.

I would comment as well that the God, as one example, of the Catholic Church, who is rendered quite human in many ways, and the details of whose existence are enumerated in many ways which are necessarily recalcitrant to observation, is no different in principle than the History of the Communists, or their present evocations of “white people” or “privilege”.

All of this is, from a formal perspective, nonsensical; or, to be generous, ideosyncratic and non-communicable.  I would add: ponder the word “nonsensical”.

Perhaps this makes sense.  Perhaps it doesn’t.  I am not imposing it on you, and you are free to modify these words, and what they represent to you, in any way you choose.  By all means: make it better if you can.

I have been having very interesting dreams lately, very qualitatively varied ones, dreams truly different in tone and content.  Some part of me is trying to school the conscious part of me.

I was a psychopath in my dreams last night.  I looked at the world as a predator.  My immediate problem was simply getting in control.  And it was simple: you have to secure means of violence, people to support you, and money.  A police department is actually one obvious place.  If you are going to be a psychopath, hide among those tasked with catching them (like the East Area Rapist).  All of these were logistical problems.  There were no moral considerations: only practical ones, like what you can get away with, and how you can get away with it.

What I feel is that at true psychopath feels about his or her victims roughly the way a lion does when killing and eating a gazelle: nothing–other than, perhaps, the satisfaction and pleasure of a successful hunt.  People exist for them.

But you can’t show this.  There is this hidden world, in which an elaborate act is conducted.  You can see CLEARLY that the world is yours for the taking, but learn early on that you can only trust this “knowledge” with certain select people, and your trust in them must be earned.

In my own case, what I feel is this is the flip side of my trauma.  Trauma sort of resets the psyche, by taking the frontal cortex off-line, or at least off-line intermittently.  What is left is much more primitive, and more or less clinically anti-social.  If you were to somehow convert a tiger to human form, and grant it speech, it would be a psychopath.  Concern for others not of its kind–and for a disconnected human, no one is of his or her kind, other than perhaps some few others dissociated in the same way, like Sade’s group of friends in 120 Days of Sodom, or Leonard Lake and Charles Ng–is simply not something that is present in predators, or at least in most predators, most of the time.

There are grades of dissociation, though.  What I feel is that the heart is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.  Morality, honest morality, is based on empathy.  It is based on feeling what others feel, and upon wishing them well the same way you wish yourself well.  It is based, to some great extent, on connection with others, and viewing their welfare as being as nearly or fully as  important as your own.  It begins with a primitive sense of your own value, of your own worth, of your own loveability.  No one who lacks this sense can spontaneously love others.  The model for the love of others is the love of yourself.  You cannot be cruel to yourself and genuinely love others.

What makes this confusing is the habit all of us form, to some greater or lesser extent, of pretending.  We pretend, to ourselves and others, that we feel what we think are morally appropriate emotions.  We cry when we are supposed to cry, feel compassion when we are supposed to feel compassion, say the “right things” when we are supposed to feel the right things.  Much of this is simply habit, social habit, which greases the social wheels, but which is disconnected from core truth formally.  Some people can be nearly 100% sincere, but others closer to 0%.  The outer form will look the same, even if the inner core can be clearly felt by those with the capacity to do so, and the willingness to see what is there, versus what they hope would be there, what they have been taught to feel SHOULD be there, and what would be there, if the people in question were 100% personally integrated.

This is the role of so-called Virtue Signalling.  I do think this is a good term for the purported moral activity of vocal leftists.  They are not just signalling to the world: they are using their words as an ersatz morality to serve in the place of moral feelings they don’t feel.

To take one concrete example: no one who is perennially enraged can possibly be acting from a place of genuine empathy.  It just isn’t possible.  Empathy is not something you can just turn on or off.  People who are genuinely open and receptive to what is going on in the world are likewise open to the feelings of the people they, at some level, feel might be responsible for some suffering they see.

And this is particularly obvious in large abstractions like “white people”, or “capitalism”.  What is happening is that they are reacting in emotionally programmed ways to ideas that are not even remotely the same as people, and which are utterly recalcitrant to being accessed through heart-based affect.  What such abstractions are are “PERMISSIONS”, for them.  They are permissions to open up the floodgates of horrible, nasty, violent, socially unacceptable emotion.

But there is no empathy there.  And I would stipulate that no political or economic philosophy which makes face to face negotiation and understanding between individuals unnecessary or even impossible, can possibly be understood as good.

The value of free markets is that prices are determined locally, between people who at least in theory could know each other.

And the value of what I might call “free market morality”, which is to say the continual negotiation of human relationships based upon a common interest rooted in mutual understanding and empathy, is that it can evolve, and can remain real for long periods of time.

Calcified moral systems, like religions and inflexible philosophies, create the continual opportunity for, and temptation to, hypocrisy, which is to say pretending.

Within my own world, the words YOU MUST, and YOU CAN”T were imprinted on my brain so deeply that they define me in some respects, or at least have.

In my youth I took a deep interest (to the extent such a thing is possible) in the Dada movement, which more or less a structured system of destruction.  It is an emotional impulse to tear down.

And I realize now that in my own case I was seeking this psychopathy, because there, at least, the ground is cleared.  YOU MUST and YOU CAN’T are gone.  Of course, you lose everything else, too, don’t you?  But I could not find a choice.  Many of us, when we look deeply, cannot find a choice.  It eludes us, because certain words and affects are carved into our very souls, or so it seems.

And again, all of this exists at the level of affect.  You can say whatever words you want.  I know one guy, who was molested by diabolical, evangelical Christians, who has taken to calling himself a “Positive Nihilist”.  He is an asshole.  He pisses people off and does socially destructive things, as a matter of principle.  It does not connect him, and it will never heal him.  He is not smart enough to find his way out (I may of course be wrong, and hope I am), but I understand well the problem he is trying to solve, in his own inchoate and ineffective way.

Within my Kum Nye practice they talk continually of finding your way, eventually, to a heart based life.  HeartMath, of course, takes that as their starting point.  I was feeling some weird anxiety the other day, and did my EmWave2 for 20 minutes, and I really did start to feel an alteration in my felt sense of how and who I am.  I stay in my head, because “down there” is just too fucking complicated.

But this dream feels like clear progress.  I got what I wanted; now I don’t need it.  That is how life works sometimes.

Few thoughts.  I don’t know if this makes sense, but some parts of it hopefully do.

It seems impossible for me to believe this has not been done, but one obvious beginning of an answer to school shootings is a “scorecard” to be created by behavioral specialists like Gavin de Becker which indicate the probability a given kid will become a shooter.

Both the Parkland and the Santa Fe shooters apparently sported Fascist and/or Communist signs.  The Santa Fe kid also apparently wore some satanic images.  He wore a trenchcoat every day. He apparently spent a lot of time alone in an abandoned mobile home.

Most of these shooters–perhaps all of them–showed signs indicating that acting out violently was at least possible for them.  The signs need not relate directly to threats.  It was found many years ago, for example, that most serial killers start as small time arsonists and torturers of small animals like cats.  If you’re killing cats, you have problems.

Likewise, some sort of rough algorithm can and should be devised for both schools and local police to narrow down who is potentially trouble.  Now, this list might be scary long.  This is a point I have made.  Just about every school in the country likely has several kids who might fit the bill.  We are a fucked up nation.  That is the long and short of it.

But early action is likely our best solution to this continuing problem.  None of these kids snap overnight.  It is always like water boiling.  It takes time, and it is not invisible in nearly all cases.