Author: White Whale

I am like most American men: I like to watch war movies from time to time, of which one is the account of the Battle of Ia Drang portrayed in “We were Soldiers Once”.  I read the book as well, long ago.  Sam Elliot as Plumley is hands down my favorite character.  He’s the kind of guy that gets things done right, and quickly.

I have invested a lot of time and energy researching the Vietnam War, and will take this moment to share them in a form I don’t think I have quite put out there with the clarity I am hoping to here.

As any long term readers I have may have know, I believe not only that we won the Vietnam War, then retreated unnecessarily, but that that is the only honest way to look at it, if you know the facts.  I discuss many details in my paper on Cultural Sadeism, and wanted to add here just a bit.

What happened in the Battle of Ia Drang (which a friend of mine who was a combat historian claimed means “Shit River”, which I have been unable to verify) is that we subjected our troops to fire, brought a massive number of North Vietnamese regulars (who had infiltrated into South Vietnam in patent defiance of treaty conditions and international law) into contact with American troops, and in particular American artillery, air power, and helicopter gunships. The result was that a LOT of NVA died, roughly 10 times as many as we lost.

This was in my view the origin of Westmoreland’s obsession with body counts and “search and destroy” missions.  But it only really worked once.  The NVA–and this was always an invasion of the South by the North, even if they did have some voluntary, and a LOT of involuntary support from locals–changed tactics, and from this battle in late 1965 until Creigton Abrams took over in 1968, we were losing a lot of men for little to no benefit.  This is why public opinion turned.  This is the period the Pentagon Papers covered.

What has received almost NO coverage is the brilliant and SUCCESSFUL strategy Abrams pursued in the wake of the Tet offensives that were DISASTROUS for the NVA.  They lost huge numbers of men, but even worse, they lost virtually all support they had had among the South Vietnamese, and made them wake up and realize what was in store for them if they lost the war.  Huge number of men enlisted in ARVN, and together with Abrams pacification strategy, the NVA had lost all hold on the countryside by 1972.  This left conventional, tank led invasion as their only option, one which the exercised in 1972 and again, successfully, in 1974.

To be clear, conventional warfare is what we do WELL.  That is our forte.  It depends on large numbers of weapons like artillery and tanks that we have in profusion.  What happened in 1974, effectively is what happened when the Shah of Iran fell: we abandoned an ally.  We refused to provide air support, we cut off all aid money, and we refused them access to naval transport.  With those three things–and NO American combat troops on the ground–they would have resisted the 1974 invasion as well, and remained free.

People who claimed to be “compassionate”, who claimed to be “empathetic” and “against war” caused this failure, which led immediately to tens of thousands of murders, and countless acts of torture and violence. It facilitated as well the coup in Cambodia, which was another nation we abandoned, leading to numerous literal torture chambers being set up, in which dozens of people were tortured to death daily for YEARS, and pictures taken ghoulishly of their bodies.

I have on my shelf a somewhat rare chronicling of the atrocities in North Vietnam following its falling to the Communists, and I have to say it is not pleasant reading.  How many of you knew Diem’s brother was murdered by Communists by being buried alive?  How many of you know the name of the Montagnard village attacked with flame throwers, in which hundreds of non-combatants were burnt to death?  But you know My Lai.  Curious.

When I condemn the left as evil, I don’t do this rhetorically.  I am not trying to do anything but describe factually patterns I see, and treat as analytically as I can.  When you see aging hippies, still proud to have been a part of the anti-war movement, what you need to see are self satisfied children who committed a major crime they will never, ever, accept responsibility for in this lifetime.

It is hard not to see Sallie Mae and other such entities as part of a leftist plan to deliver as many bodies as possible into indoctrination chambers, regardless of the cost.

As I think about it, I think I could make the general statement that the principle role of the unconscious is protecting us from pain, and that pain is only released and endured as a result of conscious decisions.  You have to ask for it.  We have the internal capacity to repress virtually all emotions, or at least men do.

Blame hurts.  It forces us to internalize an unattractive image of ourselves, so our unconscious always presents us with the option of opting out, of putting blame on someone else.  Now, it knows the truth, but it hides us, supposedly for our own protection.  Really, it is just doing its job, which is preventing an excess of misery.  But it also knows that any time we WANT to know the truth that it must serve it up.  You have to ACTUALLY want to know the truth.  You can’t fool it.

If you think about this, the unconscious contains all pain you have suffered, but logically it ought also to contain all joy you COULD experience.  Nobody creates anything: they reveal possibilities that were already there.  It is like taking the cover off of naked space, revealing latent information.

Could you do better than train your unconscious to support the expression of joy and tranquility?  As I think about it, the only way to do this is to relate to it constantly, and the only way to do that is to remove all the things from “storage” that it is trying to protect you from, meaning that it can be fully open to you.  In effect, you need to put it out of a job by processing all your hurts completely and instantly. Then it can move on to something else. 

This I think is the state called Nirvana. And what has been extinguished?  The need for ongoing pain, if not the inevitability of pain itself.  The Buddha was momentarily sad when his parents were killed, but it was like a cloud passing by, covering the sun for a moment, then it was gone.

I think this is some good shit.  Holy shit. (Remember, you’re supposed to kill the Buddha.  He would think that is funny, I think). I do, in any event.

Rolling Stones, of course, Ruby Tuesday.

As I think about it, a big part of the appeal of Sybaritic Leftism–and really even Cultural Sadeism to some extent–is that it puts up a big happy facade in front of the future.  If you are worried about the way things are going, about what is going to happen, about economic downturns, nuclear or biologic attack, robots, gray goo, environmental catastrophe, whatever, if you just vote for the people who your friends are voting for, it will all be OK.  Everything is fine.  Nothing to worry about. No thought needed: it is already being done by the “experts”, the people much smarter than you, who are paid to worry, not you.

This was more or less the attitude of the “futurist” David Brin, when he refused to engage with me in an actual fact-based debate.  He does the future for a living, but literally feels that if we just keep electing Democrats things will muddle along.  But when pressed, he is completely unable to defend this view.  “We are going bankrupt” is met with “Medicare Part D”.  Tax collection is at historic highs is met with “tax rates are at historic lows”, as if any money was ever collected at the 90% rates or whatever we have seen in past decades, and as if we did not go from $2 trillion in spending under Clinton and the Republican Congress, to $3 trillion under Obama and a Democrat Senate that refuses to pass a budget.  50% increase in a little over a decade, and OF COURSE Bush deserves much of the blame, but Obama has made things much much worse.

Once one grants the possibility and desirability of a happy billboard painted on the future, it can be filled with ANYTHING, including free healthcare for all, global peace at no cost to us, and ongoing economic prosperity fueled by taxes on the rich.

You read sometimes that you should have your head in the clouds and your feet on the earth.  This may be good advice.  I was thinking about this concept of grounding, of being grounded.  To be grounded is contrasted with pie in the sky, magical thinking of the sort I am describing.

If you think about it, though, every wire in every house that complies with code is grounded, despite the fact that they transmit large quantities of energy.  If energy flows properly there is no need for the ground.  It is only needed when something short circuits.

Likewise, as humans our job is to transmit energy.  If we do it intelligently, then we need not be grounded.  We need to be grounded when we enter trance states of the sort that has captured large segments of our intelligentsia (Ignorentia?  I hate to get to noon without inventing a new word).  All that energy then leaves us, and we wake up, to realize we have been wandering at random, and generally in the wrong direction.

The task is to put the next brick in the road in the right place.  This requires a clear view of the horizon, to see which direction we are going, and which looks ahead as far as possible to work around any bumps or obstacles that can be foreseen.  If you just keep walking, holding a magic banner in front of you, you have no idea what direction you are going, and will sooner or later fall in a ditch.

I will add as a postcript that in my view the thus-far most accurate dystopian movie I have seen is Terry Gilliam’s excellent “Brazil”, which contains the memorable line “don’t hold out too long: it will affect your credit rating”.  If you haven’t seen it, do. In that movie, the billboards covering devastation theme is prominent at the end, at least if memory serves.  The image is vivid in my mind.

I thought about it, and what she was really trying to do is reorganize her internal ecology to accept as normal the idea that she had to work this hard to meet her own standards.  The problem with positive thinking is that it can become another club you use to beat yourself.  You think you need to be positive, and think you are doing something wrong when you start getting emotional conflicts, confusion, fear, and the like.  Those feelings then become, in turn, a further source of conflict.

As I have said before, I have found that if you can accept feelings fully, open yourself to them, then they disappear.  The essence of tranquility is learning to do this constantly and with skill.

This is also the nature of self organization.  You have a hundred messengers within you, all trying to tell you different things.  You have GOOD ADVICE within you, PERFECT advice even (I would submit theoretically), but you spend much of your time resisting the voices, instead of letting them flow, and seeing how the dust settles in the end.  That part is worth watching and using.

The premise of Autogenic Self Regulation, which was developed Johannes Schulz and Wolfgang Luthe, if memory serves, is that in the non-ordinary state of deep relaxation, the knots within your unconscious can be loosened, generally through non-guided, spontaneous visualizations.

Holotropic Breathwork operates on more or less the same premise, but it is much easier to get into altered states with it.

A useful social order would be based upon the purpose of facilitating self organizing systems to move towards wholeness, as implied in the Title.

As I think I have said at some point, I like to think of all human orders, from the personal to the global, as visualizable as tiny dynamic circles of smoke or fog–like little hurricanes, and that I call chakras, after the Sanskrit for wheel or discus–that interact, sometimes rapidly and spontaneously with one another.  The point of freedom is allowing this process to happen.  The crime of tyranny is that it prevents such emergent orders, and all the personal and social felicity they enable.

Life is so much more fun when you get to play.  This, here, is my play.  If I lived in China, Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran, I would not be able to do it the way I do now, and I have reason to believe the world would be poorer for it.

This is patent advocacy, and frankly I really don’t get, as much as I
talk about it, how people can be so stupid as to believe good things
will flow from this man’s reelection.  The rich will get richer, the
poor will get poorer, we will continue to lurch along with high
structural unemployment, energy will get vastly more expensive, our
international standing will continue to decline, the Middle East will be
lost to the Muslim Brotherhood, a war will be waged on our suburbs,
punitive tax rates will be enacted, and so on.

With regard to the empty chair theme, consider this article, in which someone in a  position to know said that Obama thought he had WON the debate with Romney, and that he did not take debate preparation even remotely seriously.

During his debate preparation in
Henderson, Nevada, Obama broke off to visit a campaign field office.
There, he joked with a volunteer about how his advisers were ‘keeping me
indoors all the time’ to practice. ‘It’s a drag. They’re making me do
my homework.’

When I look at hippyish Sybaritic Leftists, it seems to me that they have consigned to the future the adult responsibilities they refuse to shoulder today.  Their “community” is not one of shared work and difficulty, but rather one of shared magical thinking, thinking which somehow posits that without planning and careful thought a better cultural order will emerge spontaneously; and that no present threats to that order need be considered, because it “all works out in the end”.  The reality is that it DOES NOT always work out in the end.  Ask the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who were psychologically and physically tortured following our chosen retreat from Vietnam in the face of determined nihilistic aggression.

The reality of socialism is that it is a vast machine, one which assigns you a part number, and which is utterly and completely indifferent to you as an individual.  You are not a part of a web: you are a cog in a machine which operates for its own perpetuation and benefit.

A friend of mine who had experienced close battle first hand once told me that war is “as romantic as a meat grinder”.  I would submit that Socialism, even in its Scandinavian versions, is as romantic as a car engine.

I will add that the core psychological difference between self identified Socialists and Fascists is NOT a concern for human rights, or any meaningful difference in economic beliefs and practices.  The core difference is that Fascists retain a sense of the possibility of human and national nobility, of qualitative distinction, and socialists reject that possibility.

Let me offer an example: is it better for your mother to stay with you, or an underpaid civil servant?  Is it better that someone knows she loves cherry blintzes, or that she is assigned “rational” food which nourishes her body at the lowest possible cost?

What is the purpose of life?  Is it merely continuing, without enthusiasm, without purpose, without hope of growth?  I cannot tell you how dreadful the mindset of Socialism is to me.

To be clear, I have no objection to charity.  I have no objection to publicly funded homeless shelters, and battered women’s shelters, and the like.  These, however, assume that most people can make their way, and that we just need to pick up temporarily those who fall behind.  This is very different from the idea that everyone must be equal in their results, that greatness is to be discouraged, and that creation is a nuisance.

What I would argue we have, though, is a window through which we can continue to pour light.  We need to donate MORE to conservative lobbying groups like Campaign for Liberty and Freedomworks, and RANDpac in the event of a Romney victory, to keep him from getting wobbly. 

But as I said a month or so ago when Bernanke announced  QE forever, the fact that the Fed more or less came out in support of Obama is to my mind at least encouraging.  Maybe Mitt is to some extent bought, but maybe he’s not an honest politician in the sense of someone who once bought, stays bought.  Maybe there is a fear he may play to the right, may listen to the right, and may actually act on principles he really does have, but rarely exercises.

One can hope.  These are possibilities.  No matter what, though, we have to remember that we have a $3 trillion Federal government we need to reduce by at least half.  My take is that the best simple thing most of us can do is work to educate people, and donate to on-going efforts to duplicate on the right the organizational strength of the left.  The truth is that we are right and they are wrong.  Our ideas make things better, and their ideas make things worse.  Truth is a powerful thing,  when allowed to run free.

But what must be understood is that the political is the personal, which is to say people adopt their self understandings in many cases THROUGH their political understandings.  You are compassionate BECAUSE you self identify as a Liberal.  To reject your politics, therefore, is both to reject you as a person, and to reject compassion as a desirable character trait.  When politics are personalized to that extent, rational discussion is impossible. 

I have experienced hatred many times, from people who would have been just fine with me in absolutely every other respect, had I not forced them through my political commitments to cast me from their midst.  You see NICE people, informed people, benign people, who will more or less start hissing at you the moment you reveal yourself as not one of them.  The more strongly they believe that their politics expresses their empathy, the more strongly they will reject empathy in their interaction with you.

The reality is that politics, like economics, is a realm of abstraction.  It can only be done properly by people emotionally uncommitted to a specific path, in a spirit of goal-oriented, feedback-oriented engineering.  When you are building a car, you know whether or not it works.  You take it out on the road.  Politics, particularly as expressed through related economic ideas, ought to be the same.  The sole focus should be on OUTCOMES and not methods.

But people get emotionally attached to the identity that conformity to specific methods gives them, which means that to reject those methods–the methods of Leftism that, as one example, have resulted recently in Detroit’s own police force declaring it an area beyond their ability to control–is to reject ONESELF.  You cannot make someone more defensive and hence more angry than by attacking their sense of self.

When I get hated–which has happened often–it is because people perceive me as attacking them personally.  Their whole sense of self depends upon their unquestioning membership in a tribe which provides them with social support and validation, and which rejects outcome oriented abstraction, in favor of strategies solely calculated to seizing power, and renewing efforts to implement policies that have already failed many times.

Such people are compulsive because they have to be, because they otherwise don’t know who they are.  That is why I have often said there is a thin line between Sybaritic Leftism, and Cultural Sadeism.  One bleeds into the other.

I was listening to Supertramp this morning, the “Logical Song”, and heard with renewed ears the refrain “Please tell me who I am”.

Do you think anyone who has been told who they are wants to be told they got the wrong answer?