Author: White Whale

I was thinking about “dark matter/dark energy”: there is nothing dark anywhere in this universe: there are merely perceptual limitations.  In pitch blackness, at the bottom of a mile deep cave, everything is bombarded continuously with neutrinos and other radiation which, for its part, does not “see” the visible, “solid” universe.

If you think about it, thinking about emotions is a type of pendulation away from them.  It is the opposite of processing them.  It is sometimes necessary to use symbols–words–to perform logical operations, but it can never be inherently therapeutic.

If it is true that adult resilience can be largely predicted by how lovable mothers think their children are when they are two, then it should be fairly obvious why single parent homes do so poorly.  Children feel everything their mother feels, and if she is feeling anxious, lonely, angry, sad, she is not loving that child: specifically, she is not making it feel lovable.

It may or may not be the case that “there needs to be a man in the house”, but there definitely needs to be love, safety, and attention.  Who is a teenage mother living in poverty in a dangerous neighborhood?  Well, she is a saint if she is fully available emotionally, particularly when her own mother never modeled the behaviors she now needs to be showing her own child.

Humanity is not clay.  Our DNA, the hard wiring of our brains, our entire instinctual complex, is not something that can be molded like clay.  It cannot be overthrown overnight through any amount of violence generated by emotionally retarded, petty, arrogant, and blind intellectuals.

We have to work with who we ARE, not who it is preferable to believe we are.  Public policy has to be grounded in sanity, and the assumption that most people will pursue their own self interest, if they can perceive it, and that living productive, creative, engaged lives is and should be the goal.

So let me get this straight: you feel the need to feel offended on behalf of people who are not here, because they MIGHT be offended?  If you feel both the right and duty to feel the feelings of others, why not express all the possibilities? They may just have found that joke fucking FUNNY, so you need to laugh on their behalf.  It might have reminded them of their mother that just passed away, so you need to feel sad.  They might not have even heard what I just said because they were thinking about their mid-terms, so you should feel nothing.

Or perhaps, you could just mind your own business, and stop being such a judgmental, rigid asshole.

If you think about it, there is a fair amount of prejudice/racism inherent in the idea that it is possible to predict with absolute confidence how “they” would react.

The ESSENCE of the Leftist project–and I am speaking her of ideas, not people–is reducing the world to homogeneous “theys”. That is all class theory is: the elimination of intra-group diversity at the level of principle, combined with fright and anger whenever someone behaves inappropriately, with “false consciousness”.  Ponder how fucking arrogant and out of touch that is.  And yes, I am again thinking of Sartre and his fellow frogs.  Their work lives on today.

They used “middle class” (bourgeois: in Alinsky-speak “have a little, want more”) as an INSULT.  Ponder that.

I will wonder out loud as well why nobody has pointed out yet how fond Hillary was of Alinsky.  Granted, nobody seems to have cared that Obama considered him his most important political influence–a Communist who dedicated his main book to Lucifer–but it could be something put in the public domain.  Certainly lying is something he recommended.

It seems to me the principle engine for individual and social progress is curiosity, which is ideally combined with patience and kindness.

When we speak of “Morality” in our current climate, we are usually speaking of behavioral standards which, if violated, occasion the violence of censure.  This censure can be internal, expressed as guilt, or external, as expressed in shaming and/or imprisonment.

It is interesting to think that the word “order” can mean both something arranged in a coherent fashion intelligible to our minds and/or senses; as well as a demand that we do something, as in “the officer ordered me to . . .”.

Implicit in historical social orders is that some violence was needed to maintain harmony, i.e. order.  Ideosyncratic understandings–particularly in Judeo-Christian-Islamic orders–were met quite often with death and imprisonment.

What I would propose is that healthy morality is an outgrowth of play, which itself is an outgrowth of generalized mental and emotional health, which itself cannot come into being except through freedom, acceptance of diverse behaviors and ideas, and self knowledge on the part of every individual within that order.

Morality, so called, in other words, is not a rigid system for judging others, but a spontaneous effect of healthy social relations, as the Taoists argued long ago. The very existence of morality as a field of study indicates its essence, the truth within it, has been lost.

Might I say “where there are words, there is darkness”?

I knew a guy many years ago whose wife left him for another woman.  It fucked with his head badly for a really long time.  It would be difficult to imagine a more decisive blow to a man’s sense of masculinity.

What if the rumors about Hillary and Huma are true?  Would that not go a long way to explaining his bizarre behavior?  

From birth to roughly age 5 you are who you are. From 5 to 12 or so you are who you think you’re supposed to be. After that you are some combination of those two and who you choose to be. It is not possible to choose who you want to be if you can’t remember who you are.

I feel that shame is EXACTLY equal to social disconnection.

Now, we speak of shaming people.  We speak of shame-based cultures.  Implicit in this word, as used there, is that an act has been committed which has caused a reaction in others such that they are socially excluded.

But in Developmental Trauma Disorder, the issue is that person was never properly socialized to begin with.  They never entered human society with a fundamental trust in, and sense of safety with, other people. Their–my–first impulse is to say NO to everything.  To say yes you need trust.  That trust is not there, because the sense of safety was never established at a primitive level.

To the point, though, I think if you could take physiological and neurological snapshots of someone feeling shame for having been banished from their group, and someone who never entered the group in the first place, they would be very similar.  The speed with which a shamed person might reenter the group, if atonement is performed, is of course vastly faster, since there is a history upon which to draw.

For myself, I feel there is some part of me which responds to my every effort at personal growth and doing the “right things” (diet, exercise, etc.) with BULLSHIT.  Some part of me feels another part of me is a bad salesman with a cheap tie and a fake smile.  It is maddening to feel, but gratifying to see.  You cannot correct problems you cannot see.  So realizing how bad you are fucking up is major progress.

And this is not really fucking up.  It is trying to deal consciously and patiently and systematically with problems I did not create and could not have prevented in any way, given my birth conditions and birth parents.

But I propose this condition, which also fosters self defeating behaviors, since our organism is likely organized to respond to social shaming with attempts at atonement, much in the way you will see dogs apologize for screwing up, be called psychic snow.  It is cold.  It surrounds you.  And it must be thawed.

I may come up with something better, but I think much of time you need new words to think new thoughts.  We need never be limited by language, because we can always make up new words.  Never doubt your perception because you have not seen what you feel described.  Perception precedes and vastly exceeds description. 

Just kidding.  I think he will win big.  Hillary cannot do anything to win back the people she has alienated, but he can.  And at the end of the day she is a conniving, cold hearted bitch who has likely had a lot of people killed, and who will start eradicating fundamental rights on day one through fiat and a complicit system.

But look at this: http://www.theweek.com/articles/646087/donald-trump-poised-lose-biggest-landslide-modern-american-history

What do you see?  NO COMMENTS.  Yahoo particularly keeps posting these Trump hit pieces, where no comments are allowed.

It is easy enough to understand the methods of aspiring totalitarians, but much harder to understand the motives.  What do they want?  What do they think they want?  What unacknowledged emotional needs and pains are driving them?

In the modern world we have a pretty good understanding of Developmental Trauma Disorder.  Bill and Hillary likely both have very severe cases of it, and both may actually be clinical psychopaths.  Their fucked-up-ness is explained: their mothers did not love them effectively.

But who supports them?  Who says “Global Fascism?  Sounds good to me.  How can we lie, cheat and steal in the pursuit of it?”

And to the point here, who are the people defending the indefensible?  Is it just sheer stubbornness?  Emotionally driven perceptual blindness?

After all we know about Hillary, who still feels a compelling need to lie, cheat and steal in the service of her agenda?  The venal?  Surely their numbers cannot be that large.

Whatever the specific answer, it is clearly a mass psychopathology which is moving away from general societal happiness and well being, and towards violence, injustice, cruelty, and mass social and economic failure.

once a mind has embraced its own logical dissolution, how can it be recovered? This is a practical and immediate problem. To be persuaded by logic, one would first have to value it, to consider it “dispositive of normative values”, in a world where tribalism and grotesque, violent emotionality is the norm.

You have to recreate the mind in order to address it, which brings us back to those I call the headless ones.