Author: White Whale

It occurs to me that addiction is a rational approach to the solution of a real problem, that of social isolation caused by unresolved trauma. It is rational, because it WORKS.

The problem is that, as a solution, it can also exacerbate social isolation, to the point where the addict who has to decide who his or her actual best friends are–the people they know, or the magic potion which deadens their pain.  If they choose the latter, they die.  If they choose the former, they go into what is called “recovery”, but which is really just a system of damage mitigation.  It is remission, not cure. It is management.

It seems to me you can really only call an “addict”–again, someone who used a rational means to solve a real problem, even if that means is not socially acceptable, because the truth of trauma is not something we allow to be discussed publicly, properly–“cured” when they have found some intrinsic energy flow, some inner part of themselves, which creates an even more positive energy than they were able to get with their chosen pain management system.

To cure addiction, logically, then, you have to find ways of increasing positive emotions, particularly in social environments.

We have very, very poor means of doing this, compared to the past.  What do you think the Native American drumming circles were?  In tribal cultures the world over they have means of altering their consciousness to induce positive energies. How do we do it?

Addiction, by and large.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/05/gulf-states-refuse-to-take-a-single-syrian-refugee-say-doing-so-exposes-them-to-risk-of-terrorism/

Few read history, fewer still remember it, and all but a few fail to learn and remember the LESSONS of history.  History is really our best laboratory for discerning cause and effect, what happens when you do X and what when you do Y, in circumstance Z.

We know, for example, that the best of intentions can and often have led to disastrous outcomes.

In 1948, the UN declared Israel a nation.  Immediately every neighbor they had invaded.  Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt all sent their armies in to crush the Israelis–contrary to international law and intention, to be clear.

In what can only be called a miracle, one born of the desperation of having just had 6 million members of their “tribe”, I will call it, slaughtered–in perhaps not the largest mass murder in history, which is filled with them, but certainly the first to apply modern science to the process–the Jews prevailed.

This war created many refugees.  Some, but not all, Muslim Arabs left the nation.  Those who stayed remain citizens of Israel, with more guaranteed rights than are afforded any other comparable group of Arabs living in largely Arab nations.  They have more rights, say, than they would in Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Algeria.  This, despite the fact that some rights are still denied them.

Most of the refugees, if I recall correctly, went to Jordan.  They caused trouble, and many if not most got kicked out.  Then they went to Lebanon, and caused trouble there, too.  Eventually, they were given effective control of the West Bank–formerly a part of Jordan, and captured in a war with that nation–and the Gaza Strip, itself also taken in war with Egypt.

Many of them, 67 years later, still live is these refugee camps.  Nobody wants them because they cause trouble, and everyone in the Arab world knows this.  If they wanted peace with Israel, all they would to do is honestly lie down their weapons.  They refuse to do this, despite the impossibility of a military victory of any sort.

It seems to me that many European nations are likely indulging in a fatal kindness.  These groups, in the numbers they are emigrating, are well positioned to cause major problems, likely beginning nearly immediately, and that is the case even before you factor in that ISIS has already SAID that it fully intends to use this crisis to foment and commit acts of violence against virtually all of humanity.

Some poetic seasoning for your day.

Given that he was the only major public figure to talk about the birth certificate other than Joe Arpaio, that I can recall, I wonder if Trump, especially as a native New Yorker, could be persuaded to revisit 9/11, and all the lies and half truths that have been told about it ever since.

It is at least possible.

Asking him to understand the Fed is likely too much, but again, he is willing to hold controversial opinions, so maybe.  A cabal of bankers controlling the amount and price of money for their own profit: what could go wrong, right?  It’s not like they can write their own banks checks for $10 billion a month, right?  It’s not like they sit at a desk at the Fed in the morning and decide to gift money to, say, Chase Bank, then walk across the street and decide how to spend it, right?

Wait, they can do that?

Yes, they can.  People are fucking idiots.   Fucking, fucking idiots.  NOBODY major other than Ron and Rand Paul are even attempting to deal with this.

It is interesting to speculate if the person who told the truth about his intentions in South Vietnam had won, rather than the person who lied about them; if the person who would have prosecuted the war honestly had beat the person who drew the wrong lesson from Ia Drang.

We would have won in Vietnam, albeit in a different, more direct way than we eventually did (prior to forfeiting in 1974).  We might have invaded the North or even nuked them.  Most likely–and we are talking 1965 here–the credible threat to do so would have ended their incursions, and HUGE amounts of life would have been saved.

The Soviets would have done a lot of huffing and puffing, but even though propagandists lie for a living, that does not mean they do not know what the truth is, and the truth is that that war was ALWAYS, from the outset, an invasion by the Communist north of the non-Communist South.  They know it is not OK to invade other nations.

We would not have had the Great Society or War on Poverty, although we might possibly have gotten Civil Rights legislation of some sort, but not as encompassing as what was passed.  People forget that Goldwater was an early and enthusiastic civil rights advocate, and that he founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP.

Nobody would have tried to save the blacks or poor.  They would have continued to be forced to advance on the legs of their own effort, own ingenuity, own persistence.  And they would have advanced, in fits and steps.  They would have continued growing, integrating, becoming middle class.

They would have continued to encounter racism in the South, but this would have forced them to become so good, so well educated, that they either could not be denied, or were readily accepted elsewhere.  Characters like that of Sidney Poitier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” would have become common, even expected.

Over some period of time of determined effort, had it happened, all the old “truths” of institutional racism would have fallen away, and blacks understood and welcomed as equals.

A growing economy would have raised all boats.

And when you get to things like the Oil Shock, and Iran, and stagflation, you have to go back ten years and wonder how things might have played out differently.

It appears the PLO was created by the KGB, so the entire military history of that region has to be understood from the basis of the Soviets operating largely unopposed in their propaganda and organizing.  A stiff defense, and following victory, in Vietnam–and everyone understood even then this was a proxy battle for who was the more convincing and reliable ally–would have greatly diminished their recruiting efforts.  We might not have seen terrorism grow to the extent it did.  The coup in Iran, if the situation had even been allowed to get to that point, which seems doubtful, would have failed.

We would not have seen the slaughter in Cambodia and Vietnam and Laos that happened.  There would have been no labor camps and no psychological torture camps.  The war in Afghanistan likely would not have happened, or in Angola, or Ethiopia.

The Oil Shock likely would not have happened. As far as stagflation, I cannot speak to what the Fed would have done.  They were largely uncontrolled even then, and following their success in getting the last vestiges of control removed, COMPLETELY free and unaccountable as of roughly 1980.

In short, a lot of good things would have happened.  Slow progress does not make headlines, but seemingly neither does slow decline.

I am struck by the odd juxtapositions on this blog.  I don’t know what to say, other than that I can honestly say I am working with all the energy of my being to address the most important issues of life.

My Trauma Walk seems to be yielding fruit.  I have done it twice, and in both cases I have had emotionally deep dreams, which I could tell were dealing with very basic emotional pains.

Last night, it dealt with loss, and the fear of loss.   It seems to me you can take one of three basic positions (and obviously, much of this is emotionally colored, but you can think about, and emphasize one of three basic positions, if you think about it at all): you can attach yourself to your own behavior and detach yourself from others and objects; you can live life like most do, being constantly pushed and pulled, alternating between joy in gain and sorrow in loss; or you can take an intermediate position, where you connect with objects, connect with others, but learn to recover from their loss quickly.

Type One is Marcus Aurelius.  Type Two is most everyone you know.  Type Three is the Buddha.

There is, I think, this notion that you have to emotionally disconnect in order to “transcend” Samsara.  That to get beyond pain and grief you have to do WITHOUT pain and grief. I think this notion is mistaken.

Practically, I think many who claim to follow a spiritual path try to focus entirely on the positives, on the alleged Goodness of God, on maintaining a positive mental attitude, on avoiding negativity of all sorts, on attracting the sorts of things they think about, and thereby avoiding pain and horror.

The path I am on, the Tibetan Tantric path, is the opposite of this.  It is much more profound.  You see, if you are suppressing emotions, you are not befriending them, you are not learning their paths and ways.  You are not learning how they flow.  You are not taming them, learning to channel them.  You are not making them clear, such that you can see what lies behind them, which does not change, and which is in fact a source of endless positive energy flow.

There is a state you can reach, I am convinced, where everything which comes into your life is a source of delight, and when it leaves it leaves no mark.  Life becomes a flow of pleasant experiences, without effort, without forcing.

Without lying.

Oh, there are so few honest people.  What few there are I think hide, because no one sees them, no one hears them.  No one is capable of receiving their messages.  If I might, appropriately, quote Don Henley, we live in a “graceless age.”

I do what I can.  I cannot speak to the consequences.  But when I see that great Light, I will be able to honestly say I left every ounce of blood I have on the battlefield.

I am more or less inventing my own trauma therapy.  I have severe trust issues which are frequently exacerbated by being much smarter than the people wanting to give me therapy.  I see them, and I see that they are one chapter, if that, ahead of me, and that they are just following a set of instructions they have not fully understood.  I’m like: fuck that, I can figure it out before you do.

I continue to have issues with trauma related shaking, particularly at night when I am trying to sleep. If the NSA is eavesdropping somebody somewhere is saying “shit, I’d drink like a fish too”.

But I came up with an idea I like a great deal, and thought I would share for anyone reading who may have some degree of PTSD or other fuckedupness.

I call it a trauma walk, and what you do is walk very mindfully and slowly, while imagining that all your fears and terrors and negative emotions are flowing out of your feet in a stream into the earth, which is vast and receptive.

Simultaneously, and this is a bit of a challenge, you both connect with your senses with the scenery around you–it is good to do this in a park, or somewhere pretty–and conjure positive energy around your head and upper body.

So you have energy flowing continually out of, in my case, my lower belly, solar plexus, and an area just above my heart, and you are activating both sensory consciousness, and positive feelings, all while walking meditatively.

I’ve done this twice now, and gotten some very interesting results.  Now, I have been doing Kum Nye for some time, and apparently have some very developed powers of concentration, but shit it gives you something to try.  I think a core problem with PTSD is you can’t escape it, and you don’t know what to do with it.  I walked 2.4 miles, but obviously there are no limits.

I have a second prong to this attack that I have in mind, but can’t execute yet, and my intuition tells me there is a third prong, but I don’t know what it is.  Yet.  All in due time.

We need to be clear that Trump is a 60’s era Democrat in many respects.  I have not researched it, but I think it likely that they strongly opposed illegal immigration as damaging the jobs and livelihood of American workers.  Cesar Chavez, for example, was STRONGLY opposed to illegal immigration: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/07/10/mark-levin-cesar-chavez-believed-enabling-illegal-immigration-wasn-t-compassionate/

Rand Paul, to my mind, is the most principled person running.  But I can’t see how he can get the nomination when the Republican party doesn’t want him, and he isn’t rich. If he can, fantastic.  I  hope he does.  But failing that, plan B.

I read Ben Carson is surging in the polls.  Here is the thing: whenever a clear frontrunner emerges, however briefly, all the attack engines of the vicious Left will go into high gear.  In the last election cycle some of us hoped for Rick Perry.  They destroyed him.  We hoped for Herman Cain.  They destroyed him.

The ONLY way you can fight this insidious operation, designed to prevent honest debate, and to control the dialogue through sheer and shameless aggression, is to HIT BACK.  Carson won’t do that.  Jeb Bush won’t do that.  I don’t even think Cruz or Paul will, to the extent needed.

Trump is the only one willing to take strong stands on controversial subjects.  He is the only one who is saying he will roll back all the law breaking of the past 10 or whatever years.

And I will remind folks he is the only one who protested Obama’s birth certificate.  The situation could not have been more clear.  That patent forgery would have been thrown out of every court in the nation, likely with a contempt charge.  But everybody was afraid of the media, afraid of negative attention, afraid to make a stir.

There are really two issues in play here.  One is Donald Trumps actual politics.  I think those are evolving, but can be counted on to always work to resonate with a base of some sort.  This puts limits on his flexibility.  We know there are more conservative candidates running, but I don’t see any others surviving the meat grinder, at least without back pedaling on nearly everything they say the believe.

The other issue, though, and this is the important one, is that of style.  Trump is demonstrating how you deal with left wing propaganda, how you deal with Alinskyan attacks.  You cannot ever concede anything, and you have to attack back relentlessly.

Our media is shameless.  They are nakedly partisan and unprofessional.  And we all know this and have known it, but we have seen candidate after candidate cravenly apologize for non-crimes.  We have seen them apologize for speaking the obvious truth.

And if NOBODY in the public domain is willing to speak the truth, we are well and truly fucked.

Trump gives people hope because he exists outside a system which fills most of us with helpless rage.  At least, we hope he does.  He may disappoint us, too, but at least there is a CHANCE he won’t, which is more than I can say for any of the Establishment candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/teenagers-protest-a-transgender-students-use-of-the-girls-bathroom.html?_r=0

If you cannot set boundaries, then your ability to say no erodes.  A boy with a penis going into a girls changing area is simply unacceptable.  It is a “hostile” environment, to use the term they would use if they were trying to demonstrate sexual harassment.

But the Left does not truly believe in anything but cultural destruction, so they are quite content to contradict themselves regularly.  They don’t see the contradictions because that would require the disciplined use of logic and principle, and if they were capable of either they would not be Leftists.

With respect to the last post, I think my intuition is this: most people have lost the ability and courage to stand on principle, to swim against the current.  Seemingly, all you have to do is call most people names and they are willing to bend on anything.  I admire people who say NO simply because they can.

There need to be people who say “I am not OK with this”, and there needs to be space.  I don’t think gay marriage has existed in any nation or any time other than this present one.  How is that something that was unknown to the world 30 years ago is suddenly so blatantly OK that people who disagree get death threats?

We need to fear the herd instinct.  We need to fear the rejection of compromise and the public practice of principled disagreement.

I cannot help but wonder what is next.  Seemingly they are trying to eliminate the words man and woman.  Do you want to live in a world where you have to come up with an alternative to the words for Human with a penis, human with a vagina?

What we need to grasp is that a desperate moral pessimism and intellectual exhaustion underlie all this.  No concrete good is planned.  It is simply that our thought elites have lost all contact with the real world, all contact with physical reality, and are instead forced to live in the world of language without even the substance of meaning.

Meaning connects language to reality, but they don’t believe in reality because they are unable to make any affirmative moral judgments, and accepting the existence of a reality independent of language would force them to come to terms with this lack, this powerlessness, rather than stick to the safety of empty talk about talk.

Put another way, the people doing this do not believe in God or Truth or Beauty. They should be opposed for this reason alone.  If they are the only ones shouting, and everyone with a shred of sense is cringing and running, then our nation is doomed.

Most of us are not stupid.  Most of us are simply too polite to risk being labeled an -ist.  But these people are batshit fucking crazy, and we all need to wake up to this fact.