Liberal subculture is totalitarian

Bill Clinton said in 1995 what Trump is saying today on immigration. And Clinton said it to a standing ovation (see video below). The only difference is Clinton did not follow through while Trump is.

Compare the responses of liberals then and now. What this shows is that liberalism today has become a totalitarian subculture with mores and taboos that are impervious to reason, law, or fundamental American traditions.

The existence of this subculture is proved by the fact that ~90% of US academia and MSM is liberal. This is not a diverse subculture open to a variety of views. Rather, it is a closed cult-like subculture that blames, ostracizes, and attacks its opponents.

A real civilization is open to all ideas, willing to examine them on their merits. The legal and political rules of American civilization provide for just that by protecting the rights of individuals to say and think what they want.

A totalitarian subculture does not do that. Instead, it insists on its ideas as being the only valid ones while working to destroy the civilization that has allowed it to grow into a monster. The weak point of the American system is it protects individual rights but has few means to prevent uncivilized subcultures from taking over important parts of American society, thus subverting its core values and ideals.

Pizzagate related news

Pizzagate may or may not be a real thing, but the basic premise behind it—that powerful people do stuff like that—is real.

That said, here are a couple of interesting links.

The first link involves David Boies, a highly respected lawyer in New York City. The claim is that a lawyer of his stature would never bring a case like this unless he has strong evidence. Epstein is related fairly closely to Pizzagate, Bill and Hillary Clinton, other top Democrats, and so on. The case was filed only yesterday, so this is newsworthy. Its implications are not yet fully known, of course. The comments at the link above are interesting and provide more information.

The second link is to a radio interview with Jim Rothstein, a retired NYPD detective who spent his career investigating adult and child sex trafficking. He discusses many aspects of this type of crime that are probably not known by most people.

Alt Right as the socio-political phenomenon it is and why you should know about it

At its core the Alt Right is pro-white.

As mentioned in a previous post:

I support a strong, clear white voice similar to the Chinese, Japanese, or Zionist voice. Similar to voices all over the world.

You have to be an idiot not to see the demographic danger whites face and you have to be an ass to welcome this, as Joe Biden famously has done.

Incidentally Buddhists, even the Dalai Lama has spoken out against demographic changes that destroy traditional cultures. He should know. Tibet is all but finished, overwhelmed by Chinese immigration.

The idealist fantasy of one world where all peoples are mixed (and somehow still diverse) may come to be some day, but this is not a good goal for the present.

The left that supports the eclipse of whites is violent. They do physical harm and they do cultural harm. It is the left that has brought about the destruction of American academia and MSM, both of which are 90% liberal and both of which act much more as propaganda organs than institutions that disseminate knowledge and information.

The supposedly “diverse” left does not support intellectual diversity.

I do. Here is a Q&A from a Swedish Alt Right person: I am Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos, co-founder of AltRight.com and author of “The Real Right Returns.”

I quite recommend this Q&A, especially if you are opposed to the Alt Right. The voice is reasonable and the positions clear. Additionally, this movement is not going away. It is based on demographic facts and a political reality that has for decades subverted national interests and voices.

Edit 1/25: This is from 2008, but it’s much worse for Tibet today:

The Dalai Lama accused China of “cultural genocide” yesterday as violent clashes over Beijing’s rule in Tibet spread to neighbouring provinces.

Ideological tribalism

Do people like the one in the video below and celebrities like Ashley Judd not realize that they are demonstrating the raw tribalism that all but forced Trump’s victory?

Many other celebrities have done the same. Meryl Streep’s rant was based on an appeal to emotion that has been debunked many times. Robert De Niro used his acting skills to simply swear at the then president-elect on camera.

Do these people not understand the violent history of the left and the fear they engender with their abandonment of reason for tribal emotions?

Communist regimes killed so many people, you can’t even count the number. Communists came to power on the backs of emotional people who felt that their idealism was better than all others.

Often, those people were among the first the communists killed, along with the journalists who had cheered them on. These people were killed because once communist power was consolidated, they slaughtered anyone who questioned them.

The weakness of the American system is it respects individual rights so much it unwittingly allows groups to undermine it.

Sometimes those groups are corporations or secret societies and sometimes they are ideological and highly emotional—the tribe redefined as an abstraction to scream and cry about.

The vid mentioned at the top:

Misjudgement and misinterpretation are the fabric of human “reality”

Besides misjudging other people’s intentions (People suck at judging others), we also misinterpret our presents and pasts.

  • For example, for many decades few people in the West understood how severe mass murder was under communist regimes. Indeed, the first mass murderers of modern Europe were communists. That many of them were also Jewish is usually also scrubbed from the story. Here is a meme illustrating that simple point.
  • An article published just yesterday—Why Readers Shouldn’t Trust Staff Reporters—does an excellent job describing how and why US MSM is so bad. The writer focuses on newsprint, but TV is the same.
  • Interpersonally, we make mistakes about each other constantly. FIML is the answer to this problem for small groups of adults, but how many will make the effort?

I think that what is described above is a big piece of the modern version of what the Buddha meant by delusion. In Buddhism, delusion is the core reason for human suffering. End delusion and you end suffering.

Many people have the idea that Buddhist practice is all about being minimalist, feeling good, and letting stuff go. This ignores the fact that the Buddha was mainly described as an “analyst” and that diligence and perseverance are central to the analytical path of Buddhism.

It is through analysis that we free ourselves from suffering. If your sincere analysis shows you that MSM is lying to you, that the history you learned in school is distorted, and that most if not all of your interpersonal relationships are fraught with misunderstandings or alienating simplifications, you are probably seeing a big part of what the Buddha meant by delusion.

Delusion makes us suffer because it is wrong and because it leads us to make more and worse mistakes. We extract ourselves from deluded “reality” by using “truth,” insofar as we are able, and the Dharma as tools. Once a bit of delusion is seen for what it is, it is usually fairly easy to eliminate it from the mind. If you have never identified with it, this will be very easy.

If you have identified with it, this could be very hard to do. Why is that? The reason is identifying psychologically with something is a form of what the Buddha called “clinging” or “attachment.” Suffering is the First Noble Truth. Clinging (to the delusions that cause suffering) is the Second.

People suck at judging others

A new study indicates that “it is incredibly easy to be mistaken” about another human being’s intentions.

Dr Warren Mansell, lead author of the study, said:

We think we know what someone is doing just by observing them… But our study shows that it is incredibly easy to be mistaken… In psychological research, for example, this study suggests that some behaviour studied may be no more than a side effect of participants’ true intentions. (Source)

Dr Mansell says that if you want to know people’s true intentions, you need to ask them. His study is designed to help psychologists and others be better at changing people’s unwanted behaviors, but it really applies to all of us because none of us is good at inferring the true intentions of others without asking them.

The study is here: Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others.

The abstract:

There is limited evidence regarding the accuracy of inferences about intention. The research described in this article shows how perceptual control theory (PCT) can provide a “ground truth” for these judgments. In a series of 3 studies, participants were asked to identify a person’s intention in a tracking task where the person’s true intention was to control the position of a knot connecting a pair of rubber bands. Most participants failed to correctly infer the person’s intention, instead inferring complex but nonexistent goals (such as “tracing out two kangaroos boxing”) based on the actions taken to keep the knot under control. Therefore, most of our participants experienced what we call “control blindness.” The effect persisted with many participants even when their awareness was successfully directed at the knot whose position was under control. Beyond exploring the control blindness phenomenon in the context of our studies, we discuss its implications for psychological research and public policy.

I would maintain that all people very often “fail to correctly infer” the intentions of people interacting with them and that this effect snowballs, thus causing either confusion or retreat to easily shared social norms (which may themselves also be misunderstood).

FIML practice is designed to overcome this problem for all forms of communication that occur between FIML partners.

Pizzagate makes mainstream news

CBS Ben Swann presents a surprisingly well-balanced report on Pizzagate.

Edit 2/8/17: All of Ben Swann’s social media accounts are now deleted after being the only reporter to air a truthful segment on PizzaGate.

One aspect of this story that he has left out is it resembles many other stories with similar themes—politicians and power-brokers, abused children, little or no investigation. The Franklin coverup and Rotherham are good examples of this kind of story. (Google either one to find many links.)

Another aspect of the story that Swann has left out is there are many people (like me) who have seen this kind of thing up close and know without doubt that it does happen.

That said, Swann does a very good job with his report. Add together his report with the two factors I mention above and you will understand why Pizzagate has generated so much interest.

The struggle against entropy

Life is “anti-entropic” signal organization.

FIML practice is “anti-entropic” (signal) information (re)organization between two people.

If two people converse and never do FIML, their conversation will be entropic (become less organized). Psychologically, this means there will be less understanding.

If two people do FIML, their conversation will (re)organize information shared between them. In this sense it is “anti-entropic.” Psychologically, this means there will be more understanding.

The above applies to those aspects of the conversation that can be accessed by FIML practice. Other aspects of the conversation will require other “anti-entropic” strategies, which generally relate more to non-psychological information.

For example, two people talking about a place they have both visited might share information about the place that has little or no psychological import on one level but may have considerable import on others.

Over time, FIML partners will engage in many conversations. If FIML practice is done regularly, psychological entropy (confusion, alienation, hurt feelings, etc.) will be greatly reduced.

(See this for more on the subject of information and entropy.)

Consciousness as signal interpretation

Consciousness can be defined as “that which interprets signals” or “that which can discriminate and choose between signals.”

A single cell that can distinguish light and darkness and choose one or the other is conscious in this respect.

(I wonder if the choice needs to be “better” in some way, evolutionarily or even subjectively even if wrong. Seems that if most choices are bad, the chooser will not survive for long, yet in the interim could still be conscious.)

A dog that smells food has a more complex interpretation of many more signals than the single cell above. Additionally, the dog can choose between these signals, though not without confusion sometimes, just like us.

As humans we experience our consciousness in many ways. Few of us doubt its importance.

This makes sense based on the definition of consciousness as “that which interprets signals” or “that which can discriminate and choose between signals.”

It is emotional to be conscious in the sense that we must care about our decisions, our choices.

Surely that is much of the reason we have emotions. They are the chemistry that accompanies choices. Chemicals in the body are most definitely signals, very strong ones.

For more on this topic: Life is self-organizing signals.