Moderates United

I was talking in my mind with a woman today who I know was hurt badly. I showed her where my heart was cut out, and hers was too.  I showed her the slashes from my shoulders to my feet made by sharp machetes.  She had them too.  Razors and fire everywhere on both of us.

Neither of us knew what to make of this.  We were objects, in an object world.  We looked down, and we looked up, and we parted.  Neither of us knew what to say.

There are some things which cannot be said, some pains which cannot submit to words, to expression.

The innermost kernel of horror is not an excess of emotion, but its cessation.  It is being an inert object in the mouth of a slobbering wolf.

Perhaps a new beginning is possible for me–my intellect says it is, but my heart, being absent, can neither confirm nor deny this rumor–and perhaps it is not.

What is, is, though, and seeing clearly is always a new beginning, and this is always possible.

Edit: I just found out this woman went through a severe flashback last night.  This conversation in my mind did happen, and it has only happened once. I think I felt her, because what she was feeling, and what I have felt often, were on similar wavelengths.  I know what it is like to lose everything and be ground into dust and scattered.

My feeling is that I am strongly psychic, but that so much floods in I can’t hope to control it.  I was not only under continuous psychic attack all through my childhood, but I honestly believe that attack continues.

And my wounds attract all the negative and bad things to my consciousness.  I sometimes “wake up” just a little bit, and it is like a firehose, absolutely overwhelming. I think I can grok how autistics must process the world.

I think we might think  of the “Self” itself as a down regulator, and the brain as a further step down transformer.  Infinite things and perceptions are open to us, but without being infinite, none of us can hope to reach more than an infinitesimal fraction of them.

I will add that I rarely use the word love.  In my experience, it is usually associated with pain.  I don’t like it.  And it is a word which is easily used to hypnotize people, to bamboozle them, to manipulate them.  Love exists in eyes.  It exists in gestures.  But I almost never trust words.

https://grahamhancock.com/badrinaryanb1/

Have you heard of the archeological discoveries in the Gulf of Cambay/Khambat?  I had not.

It appears a strong case can be made that a civilization roughly of the sophistication, say, of the Incas or Harappans existed 13,000 years ago, and perhaps as far back as 31,000 years ago.

You have perhaps seen the claims of pyramids off the coast of Japan.  To my mind, this makes such a thing seem more likely.  They certainly do look like constructed structures.

I read an article a year or two ago suggesting that the notion of a previously unknown, semi-global civilization has been gaining ground even among some mainstream academics in recent years.

It’s a fascinating idea.

And from a strictly theoretical standpoint, to me it conjures a thought exercise in which we can imagine a highly SPIRITUALLY advanced culture which lived in what to us might seem primitive stone buildings.  But if you are happy, you have all you want, do you not?  If you can conjure joy and fulfillment from the air, which is the point of spirituality, why build cars and skyscrapers?

And spiritually, what might they have known that we don’t, that we see as faint echoes in the best traditions of Buddhism which have survived?  Do you know that the main Buddhist library at Nalanda, which had the accumulated canon of many centuries, was burned by Muslims in 1193?

For this reason, Tibet–whose rulers had imported many Sanskritic scholars who read the Buddhist texts in their language of origin to help them translate to Tibetan–alone contains, or should I say contained, the best preserved Buddhist canon.  Many more texts, of course, were burned in the fires of Chinese Fascist nihilism.  You know, to build a better world, one where any student can torture and kill any teacher, and truth is what the Party needs it to be that day.

That link also notes the primary library for the Zoroastrians was also burnt.

History is unpleasant.  One comment, though, that I will add, is that the first burning of books at Alexandria was done by Christians.  Such, I believe, is the history.  Everything bad about Islam–or most of it anyway–they got from Christians.  Certainly Christians bequeathed them radical intolerance, violent evangelizing, and a penchant for dogmatic warfare.  Streets ran red with blood shed in the name of religion long before Muhammad was born.

I will add, though, that specific religious authorization and approval of rape, murder, pillage, slaving, and theft is unique to Islam.

There must be foam on the sea-top,
   and turbulence below.

Only far far down will you find calm
  and there dwell strange beings whose

light is used to lure lost fish to their dooms.

There is no hiding: life is in the surf, in the tide.
  Life is in the Gulf Stream, and the surging of

Schools of fish, teaching that life is movement.

If you feel lost: get used to it.

If you know what is coming, it will
  never come at all.

And whatever it is, you need it.

Berkeley, 1956.

Rather, if it had been Berkeley 1956, and if it had been Allan Ginsberg writing this, in lieu, say, of “America”, then we would all be better off.

There is a rational lunacy.  It is the root of all true progress.  Irrational lunacy, combined with intelligence, talent, effort and time is the root of most regress.

And if all this confuses you, fantastic.

There is some truth to the notion that conservatives are white supremacists.  We believe in the superiority of Liberal political ideas over all the systems of political governance created anywhere else on the planet.  Given that these ideas were created and put into action by white people, this makes us white supremacists: we believe white ideas are better.

I believe the scientific method is the best single system for testing what we think we know, and for increasing our overall knowledge in a sustained and systematic way.  The scientific method, per se, is a white idea.  No analog exists in China, which would be the best candidate for having created something analogous.  They invented gunpowder, presumably by accident, a very long time ago, but never did anything with it other than fireworks.  They had no systematic method for increasing knowledge, which is why despite their many centuries of cultural superiority, the West overtook them at a very high rate of speed, and never looked back.  They are still trying to catch up, in many ways.  They have our technology, but not our Liberal systems of government.  They inherited, to their great detriment, the Yugo of political philosophies.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, at least if the goal is generalized wealth and prosperity, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

This is really where the Left and Right get confused.  White people value our Liberal heritage.  We value the rule of law, property rights, representative and changeable government, the habit of tolerance, and the habits of hard work and personal integrity without which America would not have succeeded.

I have nothing against Africans, say, or Mexicans, applying to come here legally, using our systems of education and free markets diligently, and succeeding far beyond anything I myself have accomplished.  I laud them.  Such people are of inestimable value.  They bring hunger, ideas, energy.  They raise all of us up by reminding us what is possible.

I am not a white supremacist in that sense.  I am quite willing to judge people on the content of their characters.

I AM a white supremacist in valuing the system as a whole, as something of intrinsic value, as an engine of felicity which was created by white men, run by white people for a long time, but which will work just as well when you replace the whites with persons of color who  THINK the same ways, who also value honesty and hard work, tolerance, the rule of law, and the value of reasoned dialogue.

If we replace our system with that of, say, Mexico or China, everything good we have built goes down the toilet.  Both systems are characterized entirely by corruption, lack of opportunity for people who are not born to the right parents, cronyism, human rights abuses, and the generalization of abject poverty which all these practices make inevitable. And, to be sure, racism.  Open racism.  Party level racism.

Mexico: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/Mexico01.htm

And I should not need to tell you about the Chinese abuse of, among others, the Tibetans and the Uighurs.  Tibet is not China.  It was never China.  Chinese fascists have taken a previously poor but happy country and turned its women into whores and its men into beggars.  All in the putative name of “Liberation”.

I see all this.  It happens that Mexicans are only partly white, but it is the system I condemn.  It happens that the Chinese are Asian, but it is the system I condemn.  It is not as good as our system, and only a fool, lunatic, or crook could deny it, none of them plausibly.

It is not the white majority we are trying to defend.  It is the cultural and political heritage that goes with it.  It is this white culture, and this white political heritage–specifically the English and broadly speaking German heritage, which is what I hear implied with the phrase Anglo-Saxon–that we are trying to defend.

Without this heritage, without what white people have built, nobody would want to come here in the first place.  Nobody is knocking down the doors of Cuba or even Mexico.  Nobody is desperate to get to Brazil or Gambia, or Hungary (well, maybe Hungary), or Cambodia.

Virtually every person on the planet who wants to emigrate anywhere wants to come here.  To be sure, the welfare systems of much of Europe are better, so many might, if they were fully informed and had no intention of trying to earn their own living, choose Europe, but anyone who wants to live and breathe free, get a fair shot at making their own way: they all want to come here.  And the reason is what white people have built here.

I am proud of this.  Justly proud.  We have much to celebrate.  And our crimes–and they are many–compare accurately with those of the rest of the world across history, with the difference that we CHANGED our ways, we banned slavery–where no one else has–and we have done our best to get rid of oppressive oligarchies, rigged systems, legalized theft, and all  of those things that continue to plague most of humanity.

Progress, itself, is a white notion.  Nowhere else is there this idea that human life can and should be made better, generation after generation.  You won’t find it in any ancient culture.  You won’t find it in any tribe in any indigenous people anywhere.

And most ancient cultures valued absolute monotony, absolute consistency.  India and China had their versions of the caste system.  Egypt by design existed almost solely for the Pharaohs.  Everywhere you look, you see kings, some of whom might be good, and some much worse, but nowhere was SOCIETY thought to be capable of evolution.  This is a white people idea.

So, in sum, the Left wants people who like our system and our history to be obsessed with the fact that white people created and ran it.  Genuine Liberals–so I would style myself–like me want to point not to the whiteness of it, but the JUSTNESS, FAIRNESS, and stability of it.  We point to how well it works, and how poorly competing ideas fare in comparison.  We want to preserve our borders, to make it so the people voting have shown some respect for our system.  We want fiscal restraint, so we do not doom ourselves as so many nations have, through trying to give everyone everything all the time, for too long.

Etc.  Our culture has conquered the world.  Everyone uses our technology, our ideas, our science, our political language.  Where there are planes, trains, and automobiles, that is us.  Where people are demanding their “Rights”, that, too is us.

Ponder what has been built.  Ponder what can easily be lost, in the entropic tendency of all civilizations.

Rarely, though–I think of no examples–does a successful society seek intentionally to tear itself apart, as the Left is trying to do with the United States, and global freedom generally.

It is insanity.  Wahnsinn, as the Germans say.

The thing with propaganda is that it works best of it is subtle.  If, when you are with a person, you make a slight movement of your face in response to an idea.  If, as a journalist, you simply throw tepid water on some person or idea, while pretending that you evaluated them honestly, and simply found them wanting, although you are too generous to say so openly.

DONALD TRUMP IS HORRIBLE!!!  is really not effective propaganda.  That sentiment has been carried everywhere for two years.  It hasn’t worked.  He goes up and down in the polls a bit, but there is no real correlation, seemingly, not just between left wing media coverage (which is a virtually, but not entirely redundant phrase), which is always, every day, negative, but even actual news, like the convictions in one week of two close Trump associates.

I have in the past used the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf analogy.  There is a point where you cannot become more negative, where you cannot spend more time in the day trying to paint Trump in a negative light.

I have taken to calling this Peak Propaganda. CNN and MSNBC really can’t make their coverage of Trump more negative, or spend more time trying to trash him and everyone around him.  Perhaps it is possible–I don’t and can’t watch either network for more than a minute or two at a time–but that is my perception.  When I look at CNN in the gym, there is always some new atrocity of Trump being discussed.

Now, Jacques Ellul, who I have mentioned from time to time, although not in a while. mentions two types of propaganda: Agitation propaganda, which is designed to get people riled up and active and angry; and Integration propaganda, which is designed to make people calm and confident in the activities of their group, in their goals, in their fundamental goodness, in the fundamental value of their membership in and support of that group.

The nominal goal, I think, for the propaganda organs of the Democrat Party and their more or less open Communist–certainly Socialist, big S–sympathies, is to make ordinary Americans angry at Trump, such that the idea of voting for him or supporting him in any way is horrifying, and such that they feel the need to defy him at every step.

This aim is failing, where most Americans are concerned.  It is why Trump was elected, in spite of the most relentlessly negative press coverage I have seen in my lifetime, coverage which was shameful, and completely inconsistent with the most basic standards of journalistic integrity.

But this coverage, now, does continue to serve out the Kool-Aid for the True Believers.  It agitates them into taking to the streets, and it integrates them into the fundamental idea of the inherent superiority of the Democrat cause.

But this process, inherently, only applies to people already in the fold.  It has split from any attempt to describe reality as it is, to tell true stories, to to evaluate the evidence honestly.  There is no longer even any serious pretense at objectivity, or journalistic integrity.  And this is obvious to all.  For those who share their biases, of course, they are just doing their jobs, showing how awful and terrible Trump and all his followers are. 

For anyone outside this process, though, the whole thing looks extraordinarily unattractive.  It is like watching sausages being made in a factory with glass walls and glass machines, where all you can see are the unfortunate animals, and the people slaughtering and processing them.  Nothing is hidden, for anyone with anything approximating intelligence.

So we have this split in the middle of the nation, one being driven by relentless lies.  It is a split the media cannot hide, and cannot plausibly deny.  It is a split, in the end, between those who value truth telling, and those who don’t.  Between those who value integrity and true public mindedness, and those who don’t.

It is very, very hard for me to conceive how this could possibly be helping the Democrats.  In reality, it seems most likely it is causing, for now, soft damage, but damage which will over some time frame expand and eventually become irreversible, absent MAJOR changes to the party as a whole.  If we have an honest election, I think this will show clearly.

It is certainly possible they have revised and improved their systems of voting fraud.  I hope the alleged Russian meddling alone will spark new national guidelines on election integrity.  I wonder, in fact, if Trump can issue an Executive Order requiring all States to demand valid ID to vote, and if there is any way to refuse to seat people from places like San Francisco, where they have openly given the right to vote–in patent violation of national law–to people here illegally, and thus ineligible to vote.

Where voting is concerned, it does seem to me the national government has a right and vested interest in ensuring that national laws are followed.  I tend to be leary of the national government stepping into State affairs.  Where State legislatures and officials are concerned, it categorically should not. 

But our national assemblies, our House and Senate, create laws which affect all Americans.  It is the right of all Americans to know that the people elected to those offices were elected fairly, and by people legally eligible to vote.  Representatives from California, for example–which I believe to be our most populous State–could easily swing legislation one way or another.  Is it fair to people in Oklahoma or Nebraska to have laws inflicted on them which were passed through majorities created by people elected illegally–who were put in office by Mexicans who want open borders, for example?

This is an important question.  Perhaps I should have dealt with it in a separate post, but I will leave it here.

As I have said often, I don’t believe in global warming.  More specifically, my careful and long term analysis of the hypothesis, and the data gathered against it, militates to the conclusion, in my mind, that nearly every person connected to this apparatus must have been corrupted to some greater extent, by the blandishments of money, fame, praise, and an underlying quite real with global ecology as a whole, if not warming specifically.  For many, I think, the USE of global warming to create the sort of government which can address the things they really believe in is quite justifiable ethically.

Be all that as it may, this THREAT, and it is sold as a threat, covered in the news as a threat, whispered and shouted about as a threat, is a very real, tangible, important issue for many people. The threat of a global catastrophe is more than enough to drive people farther to the Left, to allow them to overlook policy positions they may have hated had they not become one issue voters.

Global Warming believers, in other words, just might be Trump supporters, but for this one issue.  Some of them, at any rate.

As I keep saying, my understanding of the hypothesis is that the upper Troposphere has to warm rapidly, roughly 3x overall warming of the Earth, in order for CO2 to create added warming down below.  CO2, to be clear, is absolutely necessary for life on Earth.  It is categorically one of the elements which prevents the Earth from turning into a ball of ice in endless space. 

But the importance of CO2 is inversely proportional to its concentration.  As it goes from nothing to something, it is HUGELY important.  As it goes from a lot, to a REALLY lot?  Not so much.  Its’ effect is an inverse logarithm.  This is the math, or so I read.

It seems to me it would be prudent, and intelligent for Trump to convene some alternative to the IPCC, which is run by the very people who both work for an aspiring world government, and who also want to bring it about.

Such a committee, or panel, or working group, could focus on this one issue.  No more are needed, although ice maximums and minimums are pretty indicative too.

They could post a graph of the temperature data in the relevant altitudes.  They could explain the hypothesis clearly, which is something the warmings NEVER do.  They could point out water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.  They could mention the inverse logarithm, particularly since the warmists keep implying there is some “runaway” point, which is ridiculous.

They could point out the Earth has been covered with ice, and been devoid of ice, and that we are presently still in an Ice Age, since for most of its history, the Earth did not have polar ice.

There is whole lot of basic data, rudimentary data, which is not shared with the public.  This fact alone should alert anyone with what I would describe as a healthy level of skepticism to the fundamental corruption of the whole project.

What I have in mind, put slightly differently, is a more structured, more carefully constructed, ALTERNATIVE to the IPCC, which is staffed by people whose jobs do not depend entirely on the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

The fossil fuel industry will of course support this initiative entirely, but it would be politically prudent, if possible, not to take any money from them.  I would like this thing to subsist entirely on taxpayer money.  We are already funding the warmists.  We might as well fund their more honest counter parts.

A trusting crowd is a sociopath’s paradise.

Think about it: if Mueller COULD charge Trump with a crime, he would have by now.  That is the only reason he was appointed.  The methods used to get him into place were illegal, being based on known lies.

But Trump is not going to resign.  Ponder that.

Trump is most likely not going to be impeached, and if even if he were, he is not going to be convicted by the Senate.  We KNOW the Russians had nothing to do with the election, even though they apparently tried.

We don’t know what the Chinese tried, but given that their candidate HAD to have been Hillary, they obviously failed.

And what I think most people don’t understand is that the President cannot be arrested and charged with a crime while in office.  That is my understanding of the Constitution.  The Founders created a means of quickly removing a President, if need be, so that he then COULD be charged, but while he is in office, he cannot be arrested.  He cannot be tried for any crime, high or low.

So I see no means by which this witch hunt can remove Trump from office.  There is no end game in which the Left gets the outcome they want.

The goal can only be to create a distraction, which they have, and to do their best to embarrass the President, which I think they have not done.  His ratings were unaffected by the convictions of both Manafort and Cohen in one week.  His supporters GET that this is an illegal witch hunt, a travesty of justice, and a nakedly partisan effort to reverse the results of an election in which the American people sent a clear message to the coastal elites, and hacks of all sorts at all levels of government, and the political apparatus.

It may be that Trump’s poll numbers are not climbing greatly, but I strongly suspect that receptivity to his message among Democrats and independents, IS climbing steadily.  They are perhaps not quite ready to make the jump yet, but they are starting to think about it, for the first time in their lives.

The Democrats do not value democracy.  This much is obvious.  They do not value the opinions of ordinary Americans, do not seek to help them, and do not value free speech, diversity of opinion, an honest press, or the dignity of the lowest among us who were nonetheless born among us, and thus have a right to ask to be respected more than people born in other nations who broke our laws to get here.

The Democrats value votes.  That is all they value.  That is not even remotely enough to survive indefinitely as a national power.  When people’s perceptions catch up with reality, they are going to find themselves losing everywhere.

When the truth finally emerges, it emerges that the truth emerged a long time ago.

There is nothing you haven’t heard.  There is much you have not recognized.

Defending Communism is every bit as bad as calling Hitlet a great and misunderstood man.