This is a rare political speech—forceful, substantive, straight to the point, and practical.
This is a rare political speech—forceful, substantive, straight to the point, and practical.
I see nothing wrong with White identity or White identity groups, especially defensive identity groups that want to conserve and promote the values and culture of White people, who can be defined as people of predominantly European extraction.
I have lived abroad long enough and studied enough other cultures to know that every one of them encourages identifying with its own cultural beliefs and values.
In the USA, virtually every racial and ethnic group has organizations that support and advocate for their interests. The same is true on American college campuses, unless the group is concerned with White identity and interests.
Here is a quote from an article I just read about a student group that is being prevented from organizing on campuses in South Carolina and Canada:
If the Civil Rights Movement of the fifties and sixties intended to swing the pendulum of “opportunity” and “rights” towards a more balanced center, then the ironic result is that it has now swung through neutral and clear to the other side. It is blatantly obvious that every group of students has been encouraged to embrace their ethnicity, their heritage, their culture, their values, i.e. their identity on campuses nationwide — save one: Whites. And this makes it more and more apparent that perhaps fairness, equal rights and true meritocracy were never the real objective in these last sixty years, but rather a more duplicitous form of vengeance. In essence, the “System” has convinced most minorities and even White people themselves that European-Americans are to be blamed for everything wrong in this world. (Free Speech On Campus, Student Organizations And Our Future)
If all other races and ethnicities organize, but you don’t you are stupid. A congeries of individuals can never beat an organized group, let alone many organized groups.
Real morality requires taking care of yourself as well as others. You can’t fudge that and take care only of others because before long you will be destroyed if you do.
This video about IBM’s Watson is well worth watching.
The two-finger picking style known as “Travis picking” by the maestro himself.
It’s well known that memory, context, and expectation are fundamental to our perceptions of “reality.” For more info on this see: FIML and memory distortion.
In this post I want to give a few examples of how this happens and then discuss how these examples are relevant to FIML practice.
Yesterday I took a walk with my partner. It was a sunny day and at one point the reflection of a leafless tree in the windshield of a car parked about thirty yards ahead of us caught my eye. Most of the car was in shade, so the reflection stood out prominently though I could not quite figure out what I was seeing at first. As I stared at the windshield, I saw the crude image of a human face. It flickered in my mind and changed several times as we advanced toward the car. Was I seeing a person sitting in the passenger seat, I wondered. Or was it something else? What I saw in the reflection was more of a proto-face than a real human face. My brain made several attempts to interpret the reflection as we drew closer to the car. At last, I saw that what I was looking at was a bright reflection of tree branches high above the car. The scene fooled me because the car was in the shade and the tree branches were in the sun quite high above the street.
This incident illustrates how our minds try to make sense out of what we are seeing even before we have sufficient information to do so reliably. Why did I see a person and not a cat or something else? The answer is probably that a person would be the most significant to me of the likely interpretations of what was there. In a kind of self-centered all-too-human way, I interpreted the reflection as an image that would have the most bearing on my life. In the case of that reflection, I was able to ascertain what the image really was. I remember being quite curious about it. It was kind of a delightful optical illusion which was fun to ponder once I understood it.
Another incident that happened yesterday also occured while I was walking with my partner. This time it was dark. On the street ahead of us she saw what she told me looked like a pillar that had fallen in the road. That would have been a real anomaly, so she kept looking at the object. Eventually she realized that it was a car parked in shadows in such a way that its outline had not been clear. Why she saw it as a collapsed pillar, I don’t know, but as I had done earlier in the day, she was quite curious about what she was seeing as we approached the scene. When she figured it out, she described what had happened and we discussed how it relates to FIML.
What she noticed is that since the anomaly was visual, it was fairly easy to figure out. She also noticed that her curiosity would have made her walk toward the pillar/car to see what it was even if it had meant going out of our way. Most of us, I think, would do the same. Visual illusions like that are not threatening and usually are fun to figure out.
If an illusion arises in what we think we have heard someone say, however, most of us will normally not pursue the matter. What kinds of illusions arise when we speak with others? Any interpretation that is wrong is an illusion. Any interpretation on the personal-public spectrum of possible interpretations that is not what our interlocutor meant is an illusion. Any interpretation founded on our own private neuroses or on public misconceptions instead of what the other person really meant is an illusion.
An example might be someone seems too familiar when they greet you, so you interpret their behavior as being disrespectful, flirtatious, or nutty when the person is just feeling good because of something that had recently happened. In real life, you usually can’t figure those sorts of illusions out unless they occur with your FIML partner. In real life, that sort of thing occurs many times per day and is compounded by as many people as we deal with. Just being “positive” and “a friend to all” doesn’t solve the problem either because maybe that person actually was being disrespectful or flirtatious or nutty or all of them at once. You will be deluded, to some extent, no matter what you conclude because you have no way of knowing what really happened, what was really in their mind. That is the vague and irresolute reality in which we all live. We deal with that poor level of mutual understanding by emphasizing professional standards, good manners, shared beliefs, and so on. This works well enough in the public sphere but will lead to sorrow in your private life.
A third incident occurred later that evening. As we were getting ready for bed, my partner noticed a car outside stopped near our driveway with its motor running. It was getting late, so she wondered about it. Was someone coming over? Were they turning around? The car was pretty rundown and noisy so it looked maybe a little suspicious. My partner kept watching. After a few minutes, our neighbor’s daughter got out of the car and waved goodbye to the driver. All questions answered. This is another example of how we can usually have our curiosity about visual events satisfied while it is much more difficult to do the same with verbal events.
If you can understand this and notice stuff like this in your own life, you will probably be able to see what the value of FIML is and how and why it works so well.
This opinion piece by Noah Klieger published in Israel’s Ynetnews is worth reading. His points are strongly and briefly stated and well worth considering.
The Europeans are failing to realize that Muslim refugees will lead to the complete disappearance of their countries’ tradition, culture and progress and to the establishment of an Islamic rule across the entire continent. (Source)
I myself am dismayed at Merkel’s encouraging more migrants to come to Germany (and then asking other European states to share the problem). Hers is a moralistic position that vainly encourages migration while neglecting the points Klieger makes.
The kinder and morally sounder option for Merkel and other European politicians would be to discourage the migrants and spend money helping them in Turkey and other parts of the Middle East (where a Euro will also buy much more than in Europe).
Hungary and other former Soviet-block countries that don’t want to accept the migrants have very recent memories of losing control of their nations and cultures to alien peoples and ideologies and they don’t want to do it again.
The highest virtue in Buddhism is always wisdom. Wise compassion does not mean destroying your society in the name of “helping” others. It means caring for your society while doing what you can to help others without bringing greater harm to yourself.
The reason we use the term semiotics on this site is when FIML partners do a FIML query, the data in their minds at the moment(s) in question is best described as raw semiotics. That is, it is the raw material that makes up the composite of consciousness at the moment(s) in question. This material, or data, can be sharply focused, vague, irrelevant to the subject at hand, emotional, associative, organized, disorganized, and so on. When partners get good at observing this data accurately and describing it to each other, they will find that much of it, if not all of it, is connected to a psycho-semiotic network that underlies awareness and gives rise to it. Understanding this network is extremely valuable and will provide partners with great insights into how and why they feel, think, and behave as they do. It is very difficult (and I think impossible) to understand this network through solitary pursuits only. The reason for this is a solitary mind will fool itself. In contrast, two minds working together will be able to observe this network with much greater accuracy. Language, semiotics, and emotion are fundamentally interpersonal operations, so it is reasonable to expect that deep comprehension of these operations will be best achieved through interpersonal activity.
If you read modern philosophy, it sometimes seems that culture is an iron cage and nothing can fix it or help us escape.
I do agree that cultures basically all suck after a certain point.
We need them to learn language, ideas, and many kinds of training. But beyond that they typically only stifle individual development while forcing irrational conformity to norms that are self-policed by the members of the culture itself. That’s one of the worst things about it.
But should that make us nihilists?
I don’t think so because culture only looks depressing when viewed on its own terms, as a big thing (many people) that holds together many smaller things (individual people).
Individuals can escape through FIML practice or something very similar. And this is so because FIML allows individuals to communicate with much greater accuracy than that allowed by culture itself.
That is all it takes for two people to get out or get beyond the nihilistic death grip of culture. You really have to do something to make FIML work, but it is not that hard and it is much better than the usual alternatives.
Notice how recent refugee migration into Europe is being symbolized by an image, as if imagery tells all: A dead baby becomes the most tragic symbol yet of the Mediterranean refugee crisis.
This is a reification of the migration event.
Use of semiotics happens daily, but sometimes they are stronger, as with the Confederate flag just over one month ago and this baby.
Semiotics like these are powerful appeals to emotion. They are a type of argument, a defining symbol of an event that often determines what will happen next, or foreshadows it.
Sometimes they rise out of the culture and sometimes they are knowingly placed into it. Most often both happen at once.