Author: White Whale

And I thought: what do all the peace and love people do with their anger?  What do they do when anger and outrage are genuinely warranted, as they sometimes are?  I think of the pale and unsmiling faces I have seen so often in such places.  I think of the obsessions with abstractions with regard to food and supplements.

And it hit me that hippies first suppress their anger by pushing it down into the inner depths of their being, so they can put stickers about love on their cars, so that they can share in the glory of the Dalai Lama, and read all those very nice books talking about how we just have to be nice and everything will work out; and they allow it out at socially appropriate occasions, at preapproved targets, like Pro-Lifers, like alleged racists, like Donald Trump.  At such points, the anger exceeds what is necessary, because it was not allowed out before, and since most of them have never learned mature ways of processing and feeling emotions they want to reject in total, as part of a violent world they do not want to admit exists, they have no effective restraints.

Being nice is not a suitable goal for someone seeking psychological maturation.  It is an OUTCOME of developed emotional control and social skill, but it is not compulsive when someone has options for setting mature boundaries, for feeling anger when genuine emotional or physical threats are present, and for then NOT being nice.

To suppress your rage because you want to believe the world is nice is a child’s game.  They were called the Flower Children, and clearly remaining in contact with a childlike joy and connection with life is good, but avoiding adult responsibilities–the development of personal AGENCY–is not.  You do not avoid all the bad things: you empower them.

Radical Muslims, to take the most obvious examples, are ghouls who rape and kill without remorse because they ENJOY it, and their religion teaches them to enjoy it.  We do not become better people by ignoring this patent fact.  We do not alleviate human suffering–we increase it.  We do not increase human wisdom–we degrade it.  We do not serve the cause of justice–we violate and abdicate it.

All of this comes from failing to integrate the necessary and useful power of anger in healthy and mature ways.

I am often blunt, but I never even approach the vitriol which is the norm on the Left, and largely never have.  On Town Hall, last night, I was censored for pointing out the censorship.

Here is the problem we have: most people are unimaginative drones–and I am speaking here of the small minority who even attempt to attain that state of “being informed”, which has been shrinking for some time–who assume that all the information they need to make an informed decision is available to them if they spend time reading.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  All propagandists across the internet are able, through the ability to suppress information they don’t like, to simply present non-dichotomous views as if they were the fabled “two sides” of the debate, and create the illusion of knowledge.

I see people who should know better say they can’t vote for Trump because they are “fiscal conservatives”.  And as I think about it, this delusion is tenable since very few people on the right are talking often or seriously enough about our national debt. They are too busy criticizing Obama, and if they were Bush supporters, they can’t avoid criticizing him too in that same breath.  He was no conservative, but so many Republicans like to act as if he was, as if putting a new Bush in the White House would do something other than continue our slide only very slightly slower than if we put in another Obama.

Calvin Coolidge was the last fiscal conservative to occupy the White House.  Reagan certainly was not. Yes, he had Tip O’Neill and a Democrat Congress to deal with, but we need to call a spade a spade.  Both defense and social spending mushroomed in the 1980’s.

Call it Stockholm Syndrome (which actually can be read more than one way), call it intellectual fatigue, call it cowardice: whatever word you use, virtually no one who uses the Republican name takes the future of America seriously.  If we had elected McCain or Romney nothing major would have been done to our budget, and the relentless left wing attacks would have put another leftist in the White House soon enough.

This nation–indeed, this world–is suffused with lunatics.  All I can do, obviously, is try as often as I can to speak needed truths and hope, quite unreasonably, that someone who matters listens.

Conservatism is not social conservatism: where does the Constitution render an opinion either way?  It doesn’t.

Republicanism as it has been practiced since Hoover is not fiscal conservatism.  No one can credibly make that claim.  Hoover spent too much.  Eisenhower spent too much.  Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush.  You can’t claim to believe one thing and act in another way.  Tax cuts stimulate economic growth, but increases in spending are increases in spending.  Period.  This point cannot be debated in my view.

The only net reduction we have seen was with a centrist Democrat, and an aggressive Republican congress, of the sort we have not seen since the late 90’s, and certainly not from 2001 to 2007. when the Democrats were able to reclaim Congress by credibly claiming to be more fiscally conservative.

There is a lot of useless vanity, unwarranted self congratulation, and detachment from reality in the Republican Party.  Virtually everyone at every level who has an R behind their name deserves to lose their job.

This is why Trump.  He may not be a conservative, but he is what he is, and there is at least a chance he may make some very needed changes in the direction of this country.  I am sick of liars and cowards.  I donated heavily in 2014 relative to my means, and since about six months after that election I have been literally swearing at every Republican operative who has called me.  With friends like that, who needs enemies?

We are seeing how fucking arrogant many of these people are.  They are saying that if they don’t get their way, they will sit out.  They will vote for Hillary.  Such people believe nothing. They stand for nothing.  And it is good that they are finally showing their true colors.

I am very conservative, but I will be the first to admit that many conservatives are fucking assholes.  They don’t speak for me.

I call myself a Liberal, and that is what I am.  I know my history.  I have thought through my views.  I have educated myself on economics. I have no desire to tell anyone else what to do, and ask for the same courtesy in return.  That is all.

Fucking around?  He’s done it.  So has Bill.  So has Hillary.  All three with other women.  I say this not because Hillary is a strong woman, but because the accumulated evidence is overwhelming.  She and Huma Abedin seem to share more than email accounts on her “Computers ‘R Us” server.

Donald Trump, presumably, married for love several times.

Bill and Hillary?  Political alliance.  Whenever Bill was accused, credibly, of rape and unwanted sexual advances, she defended him.

Trump, he watched supermodels fuck in the middle of the room, and admitted it. He enjoyed it.  He loves being Donald Trump, and wanted the world to share the glory of that magnificent state.

Bill and Hillary: sex is one thing; politics is another.  In both domains, you say what you need to say to get what you want, take it, then never look back.

Scandal: Trump has Trump University.

The Clintons had Whitewater, the unaired spectacle of giving classified dual use technology to the Chinese, and of course Hillary’s clearly criminal activity of more or less putting our national secrets on a billboard, then lying about it.

But Bill Clinton was a centrist.  Hillary is not.  Trump is a centrist, too.

It is odd to me to watch conservatives do the work of the Left for them by tearing into every little foible of Trump, while ignoring the same flaws–but much larger–in the Clinton duo.  Remember: if Hillary gets back in the White House, so too does Bill.  Maybe he can find a new intern, or if his pecker isn’t working any more, he can find one for Hillary and watch. That is the sort of people they are.  Although I haven’t watched it, I have been told by several people that House of Cards may as well be their life story.

We get what we deserve.  I have been saying since at least 2005 that it is unclear to me that America deserves freedom.  We don’t value it.  We don’t educate ourselves.  We allow 24/7 propaganda to play nearly unchallenged.  We are addicted to football and basketball, shopping, and nearly everything but a sober sense of responsible citizenship.

In the felt sense, we often want to escape from something, into what feels like a new space. I myself often want to escape from a sense of dread.

But this sort of freedom is a sort of squeezing out.  You escape from one room to another.  You are being chased.  You can build walls, but the walls become your prison.  Walls by definition confine space.  They can never open it back up.

True freedom begins with a felt sense of control, of possibility, of agency.  It begins with a felt sense of the possibility of expansion.

This is perhaps obvious to you, but it has not been obvious to me, even if I have been exposed to this idea often.

But from a pragmatic perspective–and I certainly identify with the tradition of philosophical pragmatism–there is clear utility to thinking through the consequences of differing patterns of behavior, on the self, on the society, and on the world.

Can I posit that post-modernism/”multi-culturalism” (a misnomer, since monoculturalism is the tacit assumption and goal)/the fetishization of “tolerance” (again a misnomer, since such people are quite willing to judge the ideological tardy and overly non-compliant) is a psychologically poor adaptation to the ubiquity of the primal shame most of us come into adulthood with?  As I have said often, intellectuals become such, in my view, in almost all cases due to unresolved emotional conflicts.  They seek shelter from their emotions in the illusion of reason.

Can we not speak of the fetishization of the book–of the text–as pseudo-transcendent reality, and then usefully speak of this practice as psychodynamic dysfunction?  Certainly one can see this in the modern French and Germans and their proselytes.

When I look at my hand, I see my hand.  In what respect is it not useful to see this as a small truth?

Whenever I attempt to enter a circle, I always seem to begin with a line.

What I started to say is that symbols have their own logic.  The body has its own logic.  Emotions have their own logic.

We speak of reason. All educated people will know about syllogisms, and most will have encountered geometric proofs, and the practices of mathematicians.

But in life, most such “proofs” begin at the END of a long series of “logical” assumptions that begin in the body, in myth, in emotion. All life begins with life, and life is in the felt sense of the body.  Only in the body can true truths begin.  Only in the body can we encounter our own existences, our own agency, to use a term preferred by the NARM theorists and practitioners.

We want people to behave in our worlds.  All of us have our own version of evil, and all of us want to pursue the good, however we conceive it.  Cultural Sadeists merely invert conventional norms, but they, too, have a good and a bad.  They have a free and a contained.

This is all very abstract, and I am using multiple logical types here.  My hope is that there is deep structure which will become more clear to me as I try to clear my head, and listen over some period of time to my body, both my physical body, and to that more real emergence in spacetime which both exists, and unwinds in an infinity far beyond my mind.

Christianity and Islam, you are either heaven bound or hell bound, with some slight modifications and ameliorations available to Catholics.

I am reading Laurence Heller and Aline LaPierre’s excellent book “Healing Developmental Trauma” and I cannot but be struck by the enormous cultural implications of early childhood trauma, which must have affected countless children over all ages of humankind.  Nothing more complicated than a childhood illness can leave lifelong effects, and obviously not all parents have always been emotionally available to all children.

It would seem that the historically early separation of children from their mothers, and lack of access to grandmothers and aunts and the like made common by our constantly moving society, must have some effect on bonding and relative sense of primal safety.  We are only now seeing the effects of this.

But the point I wanted to make is that it seems that quite often we feel an emotion first–shame is what I have in mind here–and only then act out in such a way as to justify it.  This may well be a root of “evil”: you feel like shit, then you do something to justify it, and it actually releases anxiety for a time.  Does cruelty ameliorate primal shame? I simply ask the question, and am not able at the moment to feel my way through to an answer which satisfies me.

Pride and evil are often identified together.  Lucifer’s supposed sin was that of pride.  Pride is a counter-identification to shame.  Shame and price are two sides of the same coin, arising from the same place: developmental trauma, typically what Heller and LaPierre call a “Connection Survival Style”.

In our modern world we are in a position, a historically unique position, to build up in our culture all the positive values of religion, while rejecting after identifying the causes of, all the negatives.  We can build tolerance without accepting primitive and barbarous behaviors.  We can posit the scientific validity of what we might term the “God Hypothesis” without needing to assign a culturally unique name to this being, without positing attibutes, and without using it as totem or fetish for biologically rooted tribalistic behavior.

We can speak of a larger reality, one in which we survive death regardless of our beliefs, and one in which our task is simply learning, and in which the most important task is learning to love ourselves and others (as if the two could be separated).

I try not to be stupid.  I try to see both the many negative trends in our world, but to also see what could be, but is not yet.  It does not take much effort to see what is, but even that effort overwhelms most people, seemingly (and of course there is an implicit assumption that I myself have succeeded; I do have confidence in my beliefs, while retaining an understanding that I am often an idiot, and that it is useful and likely accurate to believe that at all times I am being stupid in some regard.)

But seeing possibility: this is what is useful.  I see a world in which the Larry Summers and George Soros’s and Hillary Clintons of the world fail in their grandiose and ultimately infantile project of reducing all of us to vassals of a mania dependent on their own inaccurate assumption of their capacity for rationality and reason, and based on entirely wrong notions of the nature of human life, and its place in the universe.

This is all I can do for now.  I continue to hope that the life sciences in particular will at some point take seriously the blatant and glaring problems with their notions of undirected, purely random evolution, and use them as a springboard to a better, more accurate, and more hopeful vision of what life actually is.

I continue to hope that scientists of all sorts will take seriously the long term research into the survival of death.  These things are in the empirical domain now, and merely await integration into the Academies of people who should recognize that anything which can be documented is by definition scientific; and that good scientists look for and welcome interesting new ideas, and reject vigorously the notion that their job is to defend a status quo for no reasons other than vanity, habit, and laziness.

It’s interesting, some of the subtle changes I am noticing.

Today, getting ready to walk in the gym, it hit me that for the traumatized, what you need is an anesthetic to “speak” to your authentic self, and that is what a drug  or addictive behavior gives you.  You feel alive, because you can summon, albeit at a distance, your real self.  You can look at it on the next mountain top.  You can know that you are you, and if you can’t exactly say everything will be OK, at least you are not dissolving in a vat of acid.

I have long believed, and continue to believe, that a great many people would be better and more honest, if they let their pain out in ways which could only be dealt with through behavior they are otherwise at pains to condemn.

I was thinking about heroin addicts.  What an awful thing, to feel so much pain that you do that to yourself, that you traumatize people who love you, because you are so lost, and this effort to escape, itself, lands you in the relative hell of jail, perhaps for a long time.

Sugar coating is not my business.  At the same time, I understand people, I think, better than most.  I have most of the vices and virtues which are possible, and I see my self in many forms in the people around me. I see patterns and recognize them as something I possess, which is active within me, both good and bad.

I do think we should decriminalize all drugs, like the Portuguese, dismantle the oppressive, literal police state built around trying to stop people from killing their pain no matter the cost, let loose all the people unnecessarily in jail, and spend that money on helping those people find meaning in life.  Genuinely bad people, yes, we can leave them in jail.  But just doing drugs says nothing more than that they weren’t quite ready to kill themselves, but couldn’t handle life.  Compassion is not an inappropriate emotion for that, even if of course I recognize that we all need lines, and all need forms of judgement at times.

The drug war is a manifest failure in every respect except as a means to increase the size and power of government, and as a fantastic fund raising system for police departments in particular.

I wonder sometimes about the social and cultural effects of the Christian and to a lesser extent Jewish insistence that we are all worthless pieces of shit who can only claim to be worth anything through the intermediation of a third party, a party historically “represented”–certainly, spoken for–by a powerful political organization.