Category: Uncategorized

Quick post.  Read this, sent by a friend: https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-vivek-ramaswamy-put-wokeism-out-of-business-11624649588

I’ve been realizing for a few months now that the anti-corporate Left has more or less been purchased by the same corporations they think they are working against, and cheaply.  All they had to pay was some cheap rhetoric, a few symbolic gestures, and small amounts of throwaway money.

This is where principle is vital: it helps you understand and know when you are on track, and when you are off track.

The Left, as a giant swarm of sea faring fish, who all change when any of them change, has no means of identifying and noticing how completely they have sold out on their own alleged principles.  All you have to do is capture the lead fish and everything else is DONE.  One and done, and you have a ring in their noses, and a rope to lead them by.

Take the vaccines.  I read Moderna alone might make $200 billion from these vaccines, which were developed with government money, and which carry with them no liability risk.  They were not only empowered but more or less encouraged to cut corners and take risks.  So you have public cost and private profit, and that public cost is going to include many thousands of lives LOST, and some multiple of that ruined.

And the Left YELLS at anyone who questions any of this.  If Big Pharma had bought this–and they likely did–they could not ask for more.

To act is to do something, is it not?  An Actor, technically, is the one who does the action.  This meaning is preserved in the phrase “a bad actor”, which usually means not an incompetent thespian, but rather someone who DOES something bad.

Ponder for a moment, though, how INTERESTING it is that the meaning of this word has come to preponderate.  This is not an issue, as one example, in German, where “actors” are called Schauspieler–literally “appearance players”.  Doing is Machen.  Power is Macht–as in their name for the military Wehrmacht.  The Doer is called Macher.

Does it not seem reasonable to suppose that, while actors were not that big a deal until TV and movies, that in subtle and not-so-subtle ways since the appearance of these mediums we have, as a culture, come to mistake appearance from reality, the illusion for the real thing?  I think so.  When we are not working, we spend a huge chunk of our money and time consuming the “action” of the “actors”.

I have in recent months had this problem, particularly watching TV, of having difficulty suspending disbelief.  These people are PAID to act.  That scene may have taken five tries.  That “actor” could be anyone, from a saint to a serial killer, and if their talent–their groomed, practiced talent for dissimulation–were sufficient, I would never know.

We practice for some hours daily living in Make-Believe Land.  Small wonder we are so easy to lie to.  We are told Big Lies.  Insane Lies.  DAMAGING Lies, and still we take the medicine.  Still, we swallow without even noticing the moment of our consent.

And then I got to thinking about Karma.  Karma is more or less literally an equal to “action”.  I took Sanskrit and could at one point tell you all the declensions (Sanskrit has three genders, 7 cases, and–in my experience uniquely–different words for 1, 2 and Many) off the top of my head.  The root is kr-, which means to do.

So of course I got to wondering if Karma, what keeps us in Samsara, was somehow like “acting” in the actor sense.  Certainly, the Hindus and Buddhists both argue we are tied here by illusion, by delusion, by Maya.

Now, it has never made sense to me that there is a Great Balance Sheet in the Sky.  Life is about quality, not quantity.  If you murder one person or a hundred, what still matters is WHO YOU ARE, why you act, and what you can see spiritually.

Obviously, your actions flow easily from your assumptions, so it is reasonable to connect them, if not conflate them.  But your assumptions, in turn, are based on your perceptions, and those can become increasingly refined.  You can see more, better.

[I nearly commented, btw, yesterday, and will today, that thought–and the language we use to build it–is a poor from of knowing.  But it is the BEST means by which to transfer some form of knowing from one person to another, both across space, in terms of people you speak to, and in terms of time, in the form of words you leave behind.]

As I understand it, the main doctrinal difference between Chinese “Cha’an” Buddhism, and classical Indian Buddhism is that the latter insists that you have to “accumulate merit” over a very long time.  You have to steadily improve your balance sheet through meritorious action, and if you do this long enough, eventually you will have enough credits in the Cosmic Bank, that you can exchange them for Nirvana.  As you may suppose, I don’t come down on that side.

The Chinese argue (or argued: Buddhism is largely dead in China, as is nearly any other authentic living religion or spiritual practice; they seem to be wanting to make American style consumerism the State Religion, since it breeds superficially happy conformists.  I will note that this is not unknown to Taoism, but Lao Tzu repeatedly, in many passages, explicitly rejects tyranny, war, and overreach) that Enlightenment is all about perception, and perception is not bought one small grain of sand at a time.  It tends to come, in practice, in quantum leaps, in “aha” moments.  This means, logically, that while it is unlikely any given person will become Enlightened in one lifetime, it is not inconceivable.

Here is what I want to argue: Karma, properly speaking is “doing to” life, and its opposite is non-action, which is participation in life, which is rolling with life, which is surfing on the wave of life, and adapting as it changes.

Karma is wanting the world to be a certain way.  This comes from attachment, and attachment reflects desire, and desire is what keeps you locked up in this massive prison.

Yes, I think that is close to the truth.  I had a large breakfast (Ottolenghi recipe: he is rather a clever fellow, I think) and a plan to smoke a cigar and then maybe take a nap or watch a movie.  Get in touch with my inner cat, without the innate sense of style.

Here is one more point that occurred to me a while back that I may as well make now.  Many of the Gnostic writers seem to have argued that God is an asshole, and this realm of existence is a cosmic bad joke.  I think the word used is Demiurge.  Here is my question: does not the notion of Samsara–that this realm of existence is a place to escape from–not perfectly consistent with that?  Maybe the Demiurge is us.  Hell, maybe it is me, if I want to take a spin at solipsism (ouch, that hurt, let’s not do that again).

But the question remains: if this realm is so bad, who created it and why?  Is it not bad workmanship?

This video is beautiful.  I think if I had to pick a single favorite movie, it would be Thin Red Line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMaf_bpG6tI

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a499i_wC3FZ5rasK6-L61dyRCWlLHa6ZgmwSdpCe4WQ/edit

Share this on your social media everywhere you can, at least until the Fascistic death mongers at Google remove it.  It’s a hodge-podge, but this sort of thing is needed.

Why would we not want to apply to these experimental medical agents the SAME criteria that were applied to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin?  We were told HCQ and Ivermectin were untested.  We didn’t know if they worked.  We need to do two year double blind trials.  OK, fine.

And the “vaccines”? Do we not need to do the SAME THING for them you wanted done for the early remedies out of the gate?  It’s relatively new technology, and absolutely new technology to this purpose.  We don’t and can’t know what we don’t know.  Only time and careful observation recorded honestly and consistently will do that.

We had DECADES of data on Ivermectin and HCQ (and for that matter Vitamin D and Zinc and Magnesium), but they still counseled “caution”.  The WHO specifically said that HCQ was dangerous and should not be used, when there existed ZERO evidence for that claim, at least for HCQ used by otherwise healthy people in reasonable doses for short periods of time.

And they threw shade on Ivermectin too.  Why would any reasonable person NOT conclude that they were bought by China and Big Pharma?  And for that matter, how do we know that  China doesn’t have huge investments in Big Pharma?  Maybe these injections are putting billions of dollars in the pockets of elitist and money grubbing “Communists” (no doubt that’s a very funny private joke at cocktail parties for the oligarchs).

I keep scratching my head.  VERY SMART PEOPLE are speaking absolute nonsense and complete bullshit.  Why?  It’s an open question, but that it is happening is really not open for debate in my view.

Most things sound better in French.  If my French is bad keep in mind I only had 1 week of French.

It occurred to me this morning that learning to live is actually a skill.  Learning to LIVE, to feel life, to feel creative and emotionally prosperous.

Art itself often of course flows out of manias of all sorts.  But it is always, I think, an outcome of trying to learn how to live.

Our ultimate creative act, though, is how we spend our days.  With what new emotions do we greet the day?  New colors?

Camus seemed to view happiness as a sort of rebellion against the order of things.  This is perhaps pushing things too far, but it does seem reasonable to suppose happiness, like painting a painting, writing music, or choreographing a dance, takes a bit of a plan, effort, and some time.

And learning how to create it is the real skill.  You have to feel it, then figure out how to replicate it regularly.  And as I said recently, happiness in you, when honest, is a gift to the world.  You provide the model.  You lead the way.

And I will append a metaphor that occurred to me a couple weeks ago that I just haven’t posted.  Some ideas come upon me so clearly that I know they will never disappear.

Learning how to learn is traveling across flat ground.  It may involve crossing marshes, may involve crossing rivers, may even involve crossing oceans, but you don’t go up or down.  Only once you have learned how to learn do you reach the foot of the mountain and begin climbing.

I think this is close to the truth, although I will admit I have offered other metaphors that contradict this one.  I am a man of many contradictions, as several clever fellows in the past have commented of themselves.  Say what you want to say, and don’t worry if you said the opposite yesterday, at least if you are playing, as I often am.  My more serious stuff is on the other website (goodnessmovement.com), although even much of that is provisional.

You only really owe the world a duty to be consistent when you are pushing people into something or other, or when you are CLAIMING to be the ONE and ONLY person who sees things clearly.  In that case, to quote Steve Martin “Always–no, never–no wait I’m pretty sure it’s always. . .” doesn’t work.

And since most people don’t remember much (as C.S. Lewis put it, the task is not to clear the jungle but irrigate the desert), I will offer the obvious Emerson quote: “Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of little minds.”

Pick what you like.  And then change it after a while if you feel like it.  Above all, don’t assume there IS one way, CAN be one way, or that any possible progress will not involve flexibility, perceptiveness, and adaptation.  You don’t get to be a tree.  You were born with feet (I hope).  Shuffle them.  To the left to the left to the left, and NOW to the right, to the right to the right.  Otherwise, you know, everybody runs into the wall.

I had a dream of Mike Pence dressed in drag last night.  I think he has something like that in his “closet”.  He knew the election was fraudulent.  He must have known Jefferson–who was obviously one of the foremost Constitutional scholars–had set a precedent.  And I don’t think he is a coward, although he is most likely unimaginative.

With regard to myself, I think it means some old stable patterns are beginning to invert, which is good.

And with regard to my own sexuality, I have had a few very rare homoerotic thoughts in my lifetime, but literally not one a year.  Gay porn does not interest me.  The parts and pieces don’t fit.  There is zero energy there for me.

Oh: and “not that there’s anything wrong with that”.  Read that both ways.  There is nothing wrong with being gay, and nothing wrong with being straight.  You do your thing, I do mine, and all will be well.

I am going to speculate that perhaps 20,000 people participated in the voter fraud of 2020.  We can assume many of the same people were there in 2018, 2016, and going back quite a ways.  I think for many years they have stuck to the 5% or so allowed by Dominion and systems like it, which is why Republicans have sometimes won elections, even if they should have won many more.

The fraud only became really obvious in 2020 because Trump was so popular, and they had to vastly exceed the 5%.

Here is my point: while it is possible to speculate about the motivations of the core elites–who are the main beneficiaries of this sort of thing, which makes then rich and powerful–there seems to be no question these 20,000 people THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD.

They are true believers, which more or less literally means they believe what they have been told.

Writ large, the System is in great danger if any significant percentage of such people ever start having doubts.  Preventing this requires increasingly powerful doses of psychotic medicine, which amounts to increasingly strident propaganda.  This is the whole point of the White Supremacy farce.

Yes, this horrific lie is being used to TARGET political opponents, in a more or less clinically totalitarian, fascist way.  But it also has to exist to keep people from thinking.  It serves to trigger deep, trained impulses against racism.  That these impulses are being abused, and are working to INCREASE, not decrease injustice and racism, is not something they allow themselves to think.

But the whole system is built on  house of cards.  You don’t just have to believe lies, but FLIMSY, stupid, on the face of them ludicrous lies, and do so fully.

As happens as a more or less defining rule, they accuse us of being guilty of what applies to them.  They are in fact a cult.  And you can’t push someone into waking up.  They have to do it themselves.  But that it could happen almost overnight is in the realm of the possible.  They can wake one another up.

Watch the first 14 minutes or so of this.  It’s Tucker Carlson from last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3g-S_q_CAk

I don’t remember for sure, but I think I posted that discussion with the inventor of mRNA, who says that there are a lot of questions about these injections that need to be answered before ANY honest scientist can claim without lying that they feel confident the benefits outweigh the risks.

As mentioned on that segment, that piece was deleted.  This, even though it is literally impossible that anyone at YouTube had better qualifications than arguably the most qualified guy on the planet.

And of course they KNOW this.  Google knows this.  YouTube, which Google owns, knows this.  The people hitting the delete buttons, if they have an IQ over 100, know this.

So science is not the question.  Science is on the side of the best qualified scientists, particularly those who have not been caught repeatedly in patently politically motivated lies.

So who benefits from this censorship?  If saving lives is the criteria, is not science the method, and if science is not the method, can we not assume saving lives is not the criteria?

Yes, by now, yes.  Certainly.  They are not trying to save lives, or get people back to normal.

So you have to ask what the game is, and it occurred to me that paying people to REMOVE competing claims and narratives amounts to a form of advertising, doesn’t it?  Could not Big Pharma pay huge amounts of money to Google for what amounts to inverted advertising, which is not them pushing the agenda, but preventing any other competing narrative from coalescing?  Yes, I think so.

Could be the Chinese, could be Big Pharma, could be Bill Gates or George Soros.  But SOMEBODY is most likely paying for all this.  And they may pay big.  All of those mentioned could easily afford a billion dollars to make even the carefully chosen, cautious, conservative words of Dr. Robert Malone disappear.

You can buy Memory Holes, in other words.  Maybe there are bidding wars, although of course everyone wins if those particular facts disappear, even if their motives vary widely.

And I would add this: Big Pharma in effect used public funds for private profit.  The governments of the world paid them to develop these injections, but are not asking for any of the profit.

If I were them, I would hide the huge windfalls being made.  I would make it look like, oh I had huge costs, there is this going on and that, and oh I’m afraid even with all this we can’t pay a dividend this year.

What they DO NOT WANT, under any circumstances, is to look like they are making out like more or less literal bandits, PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE.

It can’t be said too often that you have to look for what is not there, as well as what is.  A wheel is defined by its spaces, and unusable without the one in the middle.

Why would Pfizer and Moderna NOT be posting record profits?  I assume they are.  They just don’t want ordinary people to know how much they have benefited from what amounts to a novel form of war profiteering.  It still involves fear induced by propaganda, still involves huge government expenditures, and even still involves pointless and large scale loss of life.

The evil that is in this world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding.  On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however isn’t the real point.  But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill.  The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear-sightedness.  Albert Camus

And it recollects for obvious reasons this one from C.S. Lewis worth requoting periodically:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

While I was searching for that one, I also came across these beauties:

Eros will have naked bodies; Friendship naked personalities.

 

The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts.

 

We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

And censorship is obviously the word.  The only standard this comment goes against is the one that says rote repetition of lies is all that is necessary to keep Jack from being a dull boy.

I think this was posted as a comment on a local newspapers comments page.  It may be them that is doing this.  When you commit a crime, obviously it helps if you clean the scene as carefully as you can before it starts getting looked at people who are not coconspirators.

This is from roughly April, 2020.  As I keep saying, my basic understanding of all this has not changed since then.  I have seen no facts to indicate that I didn’t call it right nearly from the start.