Sunday, January 29, 2012

A Society Without Wise Elders

Of the current crop of Republican President candidates, all of them, except for Ron Paul, are whores and puppets for international Bankers and International Corporations (I call them Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations).

It doesn't matter if Obama is re-elected, or if Romney gets in, or Gingrich, or any of the other sleazes. Nothing will change, since there isn't a dime's worth of difference between any of them. No matter who is elected, there will be only minor, cosmetic changes. And the believers in politics will be stunned at this, as they always are.

All of the naive were shocked when Mr. Hope and Change turned out to be a continuation of George Bush, but I wasn't. None of the current crop are adults. And that's the problem. A huge problem.

What makes Paul different? For on thing, he's a doctor, whereas all the others have become rich sucking at the public tit and avoiding real work. Paul also understands the importance of political and economic liberty. The others pretend they do, but in reality they don't.

Paul is actually an Elder, which every society needs and which we barely have. The Elders have always been mentors and teachers of the young. Where are they now? They barely exist.

Although I am not Catholic, at least the last few Popes have been Elders -- teachers and mentors. Among Protestants, who is there? Obese blasphemers like John Hagee?

We no longer have Elders either religious or political. They barely exist in grade schools, middle school, high school, and college. There are some, but not all that many.

When people want to destroy a society, the first thing they do is kill the Elders. Then that society is lost. There's an old saying about it -- "kill the head and the body will fall."

I cannot remember having one mentor -- Wise Elder -- growing up. Most people cannot remember any, either. Much of the time those who pass themselves off as Elders are fools who don't know what they are talking about.

Robert Bly once wrote a book about a society in which there are no Elders. He called such a society (and the book) The Sibling Society. There are few adults and even fewer Elders in such a society. Many people are semi-adults. That's why Bly called them "siblings."

One of the reason for the destruction of the Elder system is the expansion of the State. The State, with its lies and mass murder and theft, is now supposed to be the omnipotent Wise Elder -- a mother and father that know all and give all. Those who believe this always find out how deluded they are.

How do you tell a real elder from a false one? The easiest way is that a real one is a voluntary mentor. I am reminded of Father Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov. A fake one uses force and fraud. I am reminded of the drill sargeant is Full Metal Jacket.

The difference between voluntary and force and fraud is one of the most important distinctions there is. Alfred North Whitehead, in his book, Adventures of Ideas, had this to say about the difference between persuasion and force: "The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force...Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals..."

These problems most people only vaguely understand, because we lost our Elders so long ago. These days, some people never completely grow up. And because of it society goes backward, and becomes more and more coarse and degraded. And one of the reasons is because we're being ruled by children.

Friday, January 27, 2012

The Memory Palace

It was as far as I know the Greeks who came up with the idea of the Memory Palace. The first time I ran across it was in Thomas Harris's book, Hannibal, in which Hannibal Lecter had built an extensive Memory Palace during his incarceration.

At the end of the novel Harris recommended two books: The Art of Memory and The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci, the latter of which is in the public domain and therefore available online for free.

The Memory Palace is based on the idea of associating ideas with each other, and then placing them in a building. It doesn't necessarily have to be a building, though. I use a forest, specifically a grove of trees.

I have found it works very well.

One of the favorite pictures is Gerrit Dou's Astronomer by Candlelight (actually I'm fond of all of Dou's paintings). How do I remember his name and the name of the painting? It's the first thing I put in my Memory Palace.

The sign to the grove has "Play" written above it. Why "play"?

What the astronomer was doing was playing. It was very serious play, but play none the less. You can see the absorption on his face.

Since that particular grove is "Play," the next thing I put in it is Stuart Brown, who studies play. The first video of his I saw was about a polar bear encountering a sled dog.

Usually the dog would have been gone in less than a minute, but the dog did a play bow...and the bear starting playing with him. Then he wandered off and the dog lived.

That "play" studied by Stuart Brown is associated in my grove with comedy improvisation, which is play, and is based on "Refuse no offers."

I have seen improvisational comedy, and at first thought it was staged. They do practice, and they have to have natural talent, but they are improvising.

When someone says something, the other person accepts the offer, and builds on it.

These three things, all in one place in my memory, all associated with each other, are things I will never forget.

It's too bad the Memory Palace is not taught in school. I would have probably done much better at math, at which I have very little talent. The public schools are bad enough as it is. It would be a wonderful addition to education. Real education, that is.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The Real Purpose of the Military

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” - Cicero

Lincoln: Ha ha! I finally got the South to attack Fort Sumter and kill a mule. Now I'll start a four-year war, kill over 620,000 Americans (equal to over five million in 150 years) claim it's to keep the Union together or free the slaves, but it will really be about money. It'll be about the New England Yankees economically exploiting and crushing the South! I am so smart, being a lawyer and all -- the kind of politicians that will probably destroy American someday. Not that I'll be around.

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Lincoln: What?? I'm the Emperor Lincoln!

Officer: Not any more. You're not even President.

Lincoln: What's the charge?

Officer: Treason.

Lincoln: What?

Officer: The military is to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. You're a domestic enemy.

Lincoln: What are you going to do, hang me?

Officer: And turn you into a martyr? I don't think so. You can spend ten years in prison thinking about your crimes. When you truly repent and give a public announcement, then you'll be released.

Lincoln: This is outrageous!

Officer: No, it's patriotism.

Woodrow Wilson: I'm going to get involved in a European war the Founding Fathers warned us to stay out of so I can impose the lunatic leftist dream of democracy on them!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

FDR; I'm going to attack the Japanese for ten years so they'll attack us and I can start WWII and gave Christian Eastern Europe to the atheist Commies for 50 years!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Truman: I'm going to get involved in a land war in Asia and lose tens of thousands of Americans even though it's not in our national interest in the slightest!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Kennedy: The fools think my administration is Camelot! Stupid sheeple! I'm going to get involved in another land war in Asia!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

LBJ: I'm going to escalate the land war in Asia and start the socialist Great Society!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Bush I: I'm going to start a meaningless war!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Bush II: I'm going to start two meaningless wars and enrich the international bankers and international corporations at the expense of everyone else! And it's because God chose me!

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Obama: I'm going to...

Military officer: You're under arrest!

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Diary of a Pug

7:59 am: ZZZZZZZ snore ZZZZ snore ZZZZZ

8:00 I'm awake! Where's Food Guy? There he is! I'm sleeping on him! Bark bark! WAKE UP, FOOD GUY! Bark bark! Give me food! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Bark bark bark!!!

8:05: Oh boy gobble gobble Food! gobble gobble I love food! gobble gobble It’s great! gobble gobble I don’t know what kind it is! gobble gobble I never know what kind it is, but it’s FOOD!!! gobble gobble And it’s great!!

8:13 Ahhh…nothing starts the day like peeing on a tree! Or is this a fire hydrant? Maybe it's someone's leg.

8:15 This is good to sniff! And this! And this! And this! And this!

8:17 This looks like a good place to poop. I think I’ve pooped here before. Not sure about that, though.

8:23 This is good to sniff! And this! And this! And this! And this! And this! And this!

8:25 I stand at the door and stare at it, and Food Guy opens it! The powers I have! Us dogs are amazing!

8:28 I’ll run back and forth through the house while Food Guy chases me! I’m spinning in circles and he’s laughing! I’ll stand on my hind feet and dance! This is fun!!

8:30 I'm a pug and I'm happy happy happy! But am I pooped! I need a nap on the couch!

8:31 ZZZZZZ snore ZZZZZ snore ZZZZ

Noon: I’m hungry and I have to pee. Where’s Food Guy?

Friday, January 13, 2012

Women's Blind Spot

"Crime is common. Logic is rare." -- Sherlock Holmes

Many years ago I read an article stating that any woman dating a man should ask his friends what he's like. I thought that was good advice, because men can see through other men very rapidly. Many women, on the other hand, can't see through men at all.

In my entire life I have never seen a woman ask another man what the man she is dating is really like.

In college I knew a guy, who was an acquaintance and not a friend, who I did not like. He never did anything to me, but I was getting red flags on him -- sort of an intuitive gut feeling.

He was a friend of a friend, though, so I got the story on him. He was the only guy I ever met who would go out of his way to manipulate and lie to women so he could have sex with them.

He'd target women who were less attractive than he was, lead to them to think he was their boyfriend, have sex with them for a few weeks, then dump them. He said he'd tell them "what they want to hear." He talked about marriage, lots of kids, having a home. It was all bullshit. He was the only guy in my life I've met who did this.

The women were always stunned. They had deluded themselves they were special. And I guarantee you that if my friend -- or I -- had told these women was this guy was really like, they would have never believed it. They would have thought we were trying to break them up, for whatever bizarre reason they could concoct in their fuzzy-minded heads. (I am reminded of an old Persian saying: Never come between a woman and her delusion.)

Many guys, although not all, will sleep with an available attractive woman, but they won't lead her to believe he's considering her for a serious long-term relationship. This guy did, dozens of times.

I've also met female versions of this man. He, and the women, have all ended up alone, unmarried, with no children. The women have cats as surrogate children. All of them have royally screwed up their lives, and I have no sympathy for them. How did this happen?

My experience has been excessively promiscuous people are narcissistic, i.e., self-centered, exploitative, manipulative and lacking in empathy. They're also irresponsible and cowards -- hence the phrase "selfish and irresponsible." They're very insecure inside, covered up with that Machiavellian narcissism.

They use people, don't know it, and in the long-run end up alone. All of them were the kind of people who had sex simply for their own enjoyment, with no concern for the other person. It was always about them only.

But why are so many people unable to see through them? In the case of women, who generally ruled by their feelings more than their reason, a manipulative, exploitative guy can connect with their feelings and thereby get them to connect with him.

The fact that so many women are ruled by their feelings and therefore irrational is why they traditionally have been denied the vote. It wasn't an oversight by the Founding Fathers. They did it on purpose.

Any parents with any sense, who have any understanding of their daughters, might look at them and tell them that girls tend to be more susceptible to their emotions and therefore might want to watch out for those charming, friendly, exploitative, manipulative types. If they don't least you tried.

In fact, Roissy's Ninth Commandment is "Connect with Her Emotions": "Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world..."

Sound sexist? Guess what? I don't care. The truth is the truth.

I remember only one girl saying anything bad about this guy. She said he had "a sneer on his face when he tried to smile." And it was true. That sneer was because, ultimately, I don't think he liked women. And the promiscuous women I knew, I think that they really didn't like men (the biggest red flag or this is "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world").

Women's blind spot is they are are ruled by their feelings, are not rational, and fall for a guy who can connect with their feelings, even if he is a lowlife.

Forewarned, as always, is forearmed.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Leftist Libertarians as Potential Mass Murderers

Some libertarians like to pretend they are neither right nor left. Maybe some are. Most, however, are either rightist-libertarians or leftist-libertarians.

The easiest way to tell them apart is their view of "Martin Luther" King, whose real name was Michael. The right sees him for what he was -- a plagarizing, woman-beating, whore-mongering Communist adulterer. The left thinks he was a good guy (which reminds me of what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote: "Leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature; they don't understand it at all").

Since leftists all all stripes don't understand human nature, they will of course have whacko ideas. One of those ideas that leftist-libertarians have is the idea of open borders, since they believe borders are "artificial."

That belief is the depth of silliness. What isn't artificial? Clothes? Houses? Cars? Domesticated dogs? Beaver dams?

These people can't even tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" -- not that is matters.

Leftists also don't believe, in varying degrees, there aren't any significant differences between men, women, races, cultures, religions, ethnic groups.

Such beliefs are ideology -- and I mean this in the sense that Russell Kirk defined it: a set of simple-minded beliefs that people believe apply to everything, even if they clearly, obviously don't.

Kirk wrote that ideology is "a dogmatic political theory which is an endeavor to substitute secular goals and doctrines for religious goals and doctrines." What he wrote explains why deracinated "intellectuals" believe things no one with any common sense or experience in life would believe: get rid of government and borders and Utopia will blossom.

Since what leftists believe is their religion (and atheism is a religion) they can't change their minds (and that reminds me of the saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result").

Imagine if we did have completely open borders. We wouldn't have peace and free trade. There would be war and genocide. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never heard of the Hutus and Tutsis, the Europeans and the American Indians, the Romans and the Celts...or any other ethnic group that has tried to share the land with a different one, throughout all of recorded history. And, I'm sure, before.

Imagine Jews, Christians, Muslims, whites, blacks, browns and Asians all trying to share the same land...say in America. In the hallucinations of leftists all would get along, united in their love and SUVs and DVD players. In reality they'd kill each other until one tribe expelled all the others. It's been the history of the world. As the War Nerd so perceptively wrote, "When one tribe encounters another historically the result has been genocide."

Some libertarians quote Murray Rothbard, a good economist but a poor historian. He used the examples of Ireland and Iceland as "anarchist" societies. He didn't know much about them, and neither do his followers.

Iceland was an island of bloodshed and slaughter. And as for Ireland, I have forgotten more about than area (being that my ancestors are Scots-Irish) than Rothbard ever knew. For hundreds of years the area around Ireland, Scotland and Northern England was a land also of murder, theft and slaughter. The people were called Borderers, or reivers. They were probably the most fierce and war-like people in the history of the world -- and some of the dumbest. And they are my ancestors.

The only way there can be open borders is if the federal government overrules the states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, and people. And why do they do it? To enrich the 1% at the expense of the other 99% by driving wages down to rock bottom. To impoverish everyone so the superrich and become even richer.

That would be funny if it wasn't tragic -- the idea that libertarians, who supposedly hate the federal government, unwittingly support it. That's what the self-delusion of ideology does to people. It warps their brains and makes them unable to see reality.