Over 10 years ago, the New Left certainly liked their recreational drug use.
If you become a drug abuser and abused your girlfriend or wife because of heavy abuse, then the New Left would accuse you of being a fake New Left party animal and label you a MAN guilty of domestic abuse, warning everyone in the party to stop sharing their party drugs with them.
This may include violent removal of said man ("eviction") from the former spouse's domicile.
The police will target you, and you could end up on Skid Row, sleeping in a homeless shelter, made homeless due to reverse domestic abuse.
This is is a true story for one member of the New Left. When he got into some bad drugs and abused his spouse, she complained to the New Left junta who feel entitled to saving the world.
So they outed him, and nobody cares what happened to him.
However, it may be true that that the New Left has a problem with addiction, especially addiction to power and control.
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
20130720
Propaganda Tools of the State and Their Function
"Race" is based on propaganda manufactured by the elites to control the Middle Class.
"The Poor" and "The Rich" however are NOT classes at all. They are simply vestiges of the feudal age which have morphed into an important propaganda tool called "class warfare."
Ultimately, "class" is based on propaganda, not one's station in life, be it rich or poor, or simply middle class.
Mass media (NBC) edited portions of a 9-11 call George #Zimmerman made on the night he shot Trayvon Martin in order to polarize the liberals and the conservatives in Western society.
Why? To distract people from the reality I just explained: "race", "class", "rich", "poor", and even "middle class" are propaganda tools of the State used to exercise control over the People.
"The Poor" and "The Rich" however are NOT classes at all. They are simply vestiges of the feudal age which have morphed into an important propaganda tool called "class warfare."
Ultimately, "class" is based on propaganda, not one's station in life, be it rich or poor, or simply middle class.
Mass media (NBC) edited portions of a 9-11 call George #Zimmerman made on the night he shot Trayvon Martin in order to polarize the liberals and the conservatives in Western society.
Why? To distract people from the reality I just explained: "race", "class", "rich", "poor", and even "middle class" are propaganda tools of the State used to exercise control over the People.
20130623
Musing on Relatonships and Unconditional Love
What if You went to a club and met someone you clicked with, and s/he traded numbers with you?
If s/he called you, then you'd be sure to arrange a date because you two got along at the club.
Yet I'm going to call people on this fantasy because often what people have in common at clubs is drink and the prospect of finding someone you like combined with drink fools a person into thinking "s/he is the One."
Sober, people don't act like they do when they are inebriated. This is because a stone cold sober person is inhibited from acting uninhibited. It's also why a woman who received a call from someone they met at a club will usually turn down a date from a man with whom she exchanged numbers.
As well, she doesn't even remember the guy. This is because at a club, her girl friends come first and she is just out to have fun, not hook up.
A woman has to have a strong attraction to a guy in order to accept a date after they have met at a social event in a dark club with loud music and alcohol.
Often too, the guy will have said or done something that she would remember which makes her instinctively put him on the guy friend list.
As well, she make have a personal issue which she has yet to recover from which makes her unable to accept a date with just any guy.
Here is where a guy has to empathize with her in such a fashion as to share briefly that core issue, providing enough details for him to sympathize with her. A woman knows when a guy is empathetic because she'll share her life story with him, trusting him not to share her personal life with outsiders.
So the common ground will actually be trust. A man who can keep the secrets the woman tells him is a good confident. Confidential information is usually shared by a woman to test the guy. If he keeps her secrets safe, then he'll end up on her BFF list, which is rare because usually it is occupied by a large number of woman friends in her social and especially personal life.
A man should never inquire further into her personal life, just to fish for confirmation of "facts" found during his personal research.
Believe me that a man will do personal research because of the fallacy that his fact-finding mission will win her heart. It most often will not. For a woman would feel less trust for a man who pesters her in order to verify her personal history. It is also a breach of trust to do such a thing to a woman.
Instead, a man should just treat a woman he likes a lot with respect by allowing her to remain comfortable sharing her personal life with him because she trust him to keep secrets.
Even when a man thinks a woman is the One because she trusts him to respect her privacy, he ought to respect her privacy by not inquiring further mainly because she is the one capable of dealing with her personal issues, not him.
My intent in writing this blog is to rationalize my interest in a woman I recently met in such a way as to gain her respect. Most of this post is my way of telling myself that she isn't the One just because I know more than I ought to know about her past.
Yet this woman has earned my respect by sharing the details of her life history with me. If she had not done so, I would just consider her an acquaintance.
It is foolish of me to even consider that I'm the One for her. This is a delusion my part, which is motivated by the fantasy that were we to develop an intimate relationship, that we would fall in love and live happily ever after.
Such a delusion is often the result of thinking that what I know about her implies that I could make a difference in her life. This is due to an ego defect in my psyche.
It is vain on my part to think that I could make such a difference in her life.
Indeed, it is more likely that declaring my "love" for her would turn her off.
Instead, I should be a friend and stop thinking with my dick. Otherwise, our friendship could be ruined forever.
However, unconditional love implies that friends don't invade each other's privacy.
Besides, my female friend knows that I am unlikely to dominate her i.e. "groom" her to become attracted to me. I do not believe in treating women this way, because sometimes guys who like to dominate women who like to dominate them might become the jealous and possessive jerk who ends up being her domestic abuse "partner."
I loathe dominating a woman, because it is about power and control, and has nothing at all to do with romantic love at all.
For I believe that control and power are two assets that both partners share, both consciously through actions that follow through on words shared with each other.
Indeed, it is in our both good interest for me to declare this truth about control and power in a healthy relationship.
For partners in a relationship share equally in developing it. As well, she has let it be known to me that we could only be friends.
So, even if I hold a flame for her, then due to her personal history, it is unwise for me to pursue her a love interest even though the fantasy of a romance blooming is tempting, the potential of living such a delusion with her would only affect my emotional well-being, it would also lead to her taking me off her friends list.
Thus, it is best for both of us to be friends, because in this post-modern world, friendship is endearing and sometimes a lifelong commitment that endures.
Indeed, a good friend is the confident, the person who is a sounding board.
For friendship arises due to unconditional love.
IMO romantic relationships put conditions on each partner, and causes conditional love based on intimacy and romance. A woman puts a man or woman on their intimate partner list based on meeting conditions based on human love.
If neither side understands unconditional love through meditation and/or prayer about it, then all both of them are left with is human love based on those conditions.
For unconditional love is like a love so high that we mortals are barely able to utilize its power to transform human love into something that lasts for years.
Such a love empowers people to become compassionate and understanding of other people in our lives. In contrast, because of the conditions that human love depends on, compassion and understanding could be fickle and limited, because humans, being mortal, are limited in their power to realize unconditional love.
While love may be a many splendid thing, it can become more than that by understanding what unconditional love actually is: love without conditions place on both partners in a relationship.
This is why I mentioned dominance in a relationship and the inequity it causes. For a dominating personality seeks control and power over a submissive partner, and thus inequity is inherent in such a relationship.
I behooves me to consider such a choice, and I would rather remain single than trying to be someone I am unable to be, due to my unwillingness to control and disempower my future partner.
Yet I am open in at least trying to explain to my friend that a dynamic friendship is about being equals by the secrets we share with each other.
If s/he called you, then you'd be sure to arrange a date because you two got along at the club.
Yet I'm going to call people on this fantasy because often what people have in common at clubs is drink and the prospect of finding someone you like combined with drink fools a person into thinking "s/he is the One."
Sober, people don't act like they do when they are inebriated. This is because a stone cold sober person is inhibited from acting uninhibited. It's also why a woman who received a call from someone they met at a club will usually turn down a date from a man with whom she exchanged numbers.
As well, she doesn't even remember the guy. This is because at a club, her girl friends come first and she is just out to have fun, not hook up.
A woman has to have a strong attraction to a guy in order to accept a date after they have met at a social event in a dark club with loud music and alcohol.
Often too, the guy will have said or done something that she would remember which makes her instinctively put him on the guy friend list.
As well, she make have a personal issue which she has yet to recover from which makes her unable to accept a date with just any guy.
Here is where a guy has to empathize with her in such a fashion as to share briefly that core issue, providing enough details for him to sympathize with her. A woman knows when a guy is empathetic because she'll share her life story with him, trusting him not to share her personal life with outsiders.
So the common ground will actually be trust. A man who can keep the secrets the woman tells him is a good confident. Confidential information is usually shared by a woman to test the guy. If he keeps her secrets safe, then he'll end up on her BFF list, which is rare because usually it is occupied by a large number of woman friends in her social and especially personal life.
A man should never inquire further into her personal life, just to fish for confirmation of "facts" found during his personal research.
Believe me that a man will do personal research because of the fallacy that his fact-finding mission will win her heart. It most often will not. For a woman would feel less trust for a man who pesters her in order to verify her personal history. It is also a breach of trust to do such a thing to a woman.
Instead, a man should just treat a woman he likes a lot with respect by allowing her to remain comfortable sharing her personal life with him because she trust him to keep secrets.
Even when a man thinks a woman is the One because she trusts him to respect her privacy, he ought to respect her privacy by not inquiring further mainly because she is the one capable of dealing with her personal issues, not him.
My intent in writing this blog is to rationalize my interest in a woman I recently met in such a way as to gain her respect. Most of this post is my way of telling myself that she isn't the One just because I know more than I ought to know about her past.
Yet this woman has earned my respect by sharing the details of her life history with me. If she had not done so, I would just consider her an acquaintance.
It is foolish of me to even consider that I'm the One for her. This is a delusion my part, which is motivated by the fantasy that were we to develop an intimate relationship, that we would fall in love and live happily ever after.
Such a delusion is often the result of thinking that what I know about her implies that I could make a difference in her life. This is due to an ego defect in my psyche.
It is vain on my part to think that I could make such a difference in her life.
Indeed, it is more likely that declaring my "love" for her would turn her off.
Instead, I should be a friend and stop thinking with my dick. Otherwise, our friendship could be ruined forever.
However, unconditional love implies that friends don't invade each other's privacy.
Besides, my female friend knows that I am unlikely to dominate her i.e. "groom" her to become attracted to me. I do not believe in treating women this way, because sometimes guys who like to dominate women who like to dominate them might become the jealous and possessive jerk who ends up being her domestic abuse "partner."
I loathe dominating a woman, because it is about power and control, and has nothing at all to do with romantic love at all.
For I believe that control and power are two assets that both partners share, both consciously through actions that follow through on words shared with each other.
Indeed, it is in our both good interest for me to declare this truth about control and power in a healthy relationship.
For partners in a relationship share equally in developing it. As well, she has let it be known to me that we could only be friends.
So, even if I hold a flame for her, then due to her personal history, it is unwise for me to pursue her a love interest even though the fantasy of a romance blooming is tempting, the potential of living such a delusion with her would only affect my emotional well-being, it would also lead to her taking me off her friends list.
Thus, it is best for both of us to be friends, because in this post-modern world, friendship is endearing and sometimes a lifelong commitment that endures.
Indeed, a good friend is the confident, the person who is a sounding board.
For friendship arises due to unconditional love.
IMO romantic relationships put conditions on each partner, and causes conditional love based on intimacy and romance. A woman puts a man or woman on their intimate partner list based on meeting conditions based on human love.
If neither side understands unconditional love through meditation and/or prayer about it, then all both of them are left with is human love based on those conditions.
For unconditional love is like a love so high that we mortals are barely able to utilize its power to transform human love into something that lasts for years.
Such a love empowers people to become compassionate and understanding of other people in our lives. In contrast, because of the conditions that human love depends on, compassion and understanding could be fickle and limited, because humans, being mortal, are limited in their power to realize unconditional love.
While love may be a many splendid thing, it can become more than that by understanding what unconditional love actually is: love without conditions place on both partners in a relationship.
This is why I mentioned dominance in a relationship and the inequity it causes. For a dominating personality seeks control and power over a submissive partner, and thus inequity is inherent in such a relationship.
I behooves me to consider such a choice, and I would rather remain single than trying to be someone I am unable to be, due to my unwillingness to control and disempower my future partner.
Yet I am open in at least trying to explain to my friend that a dynamic friendship is about being equals by the secrets we share with each other.
20101108
The Social Fabrication of the Ego
In Buddhism, human suffering is explained by the Buddhist concept of dependent arising, which consists of twelve parts which work together in an orderly manner. First and foremost, ignorance is the first of those twelve parts. Next comes fabrications.
Indeed, Buddhist thought confirms that the ego is a social fabrication. Likewise does social psychology.
According to Greenwald, Ego, or self-will, is an organization of knowledge, characterized by cognitive biases strikingly analogous to totalitarian information-control strategies.
These totalitarian-ego biases function to preserve organization in cognitive structures.
Ego's cognitive biases are egocentricity (self as the focus of knowledge), "benevolence" (perception of responsibility for desired, but not undesired, outcomes), and cognitive conservatism (resistance to cognitive change).
In addition to being pervasively evident in recent studies of normal human cognition, these three biases are found in actively functioning, higher level organizations of knowledge, perhaps best exemplified by theoretical paradigms in science.
The thesis that egocentricity, benevolence, and conservatism act to preserve knowledge organizations leads to the proposal of an intra-psychic analog of genetic evolution, which in turn provides an alternative to prevalent motivational and informational interpretations of cognitive biases.
See Anthony G. Greenwald's article "The Totalitarian Ego Fabrication and Revision of Personal History" (1980).
Commentary:
"Benevolence" is my interpretation of Greenwald's term "beneffectance" (beneficence and effectance), which is a term he coined to describe the perception of oneself as responsible for desired outcomes but not responsible for undesired ones. This involves forgetting failures more easily than successes, and remembering one's contribution to a group effort to have been better than average due to superiority bias.
Beneficence is defined as doing good and feeling beneficent, and specifically describes the quality of being kind, helpful or generous.
"Effectance" itself is not defined in any dictionary, but is probably related to effectiveness and its synonyms, power and especially powerfulness, which means possession of controlling influence.
Cognitive conservatism, being defined as resistance to cognitive change — changing what one knows based on current experience — suggests an unwillingness to adapt to present circumstances.
Adaptability is a useful psycho-social trait in which the individual adapts readily to the current environment, especially during times of political change and upheaval. It is also useful within the context of social rehabilitation related to addiction, mental health and associated issues.
Thus cognitive conservatism as defined by Greenwald does not imply adaptability at all.
Overall, egocentricity, beneffectance, and cognitive conservatism are not effective means of dealing with human suffering. The reason that they are not is that the ego tends to blame others for human suffering, so as to reduce its ultimate role in one's own suffering.
Indeed, the ego will come up with seemingly good excuses to avoid or deny responsibility. Yet a healthy view of personal responsibility allows for each of us to share responsibility for relief of the suffering of others.
Therefore, Greenwald's article suggests that totalitarianism might be the externalization of egocentricity taken to political extremes.
Egocentricity taken to extreme on the individual might also explain addiction and other dysfunctional behavior, especially within the context of beneffectance and cognitive conservatism.
Indeed, beneffectance in itself could be used to deny and excuse responsibility for undesirable outcome, while cognitive conservatism, the inability to change.
Overall, Greenwald's analogy that the cognitive biases of the ego are similar to totalitarian information-control strategies confirms the ego only exists as a social fabrication.
References:
Social psychology notes on Greenwald's article: http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/greenwald_tot_ego.html
Totalitarian ego: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537228/Totalitarian-Ego
Greenwald's references on beneffectance: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/Beneffectance
Mistakes were made but not by me: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537204/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-not-by-me
Indeed, Buddhist thought confirms that the ego is a social fabrication. Likewise does social psychology.
According to Greenwald, Ego, or self-will, is an organization of knowledge, characterized by cognitive biases strikingly analogous to totalitarian information-control strategies.
These totalitarian-ego biases function to preserve organization in cognitive structures.
Ego's cognitive biases are egocentricity (self as the focus of knowledge), "benevolence" (perception of responsibility for desired, but not undesired, outcomes), and cognitive conservatism (resistance to cognitive change).
In addition to being pervasively evident in recent studies of normal human cognition, these three biases are found in actively functioning, higher level organizations of knowledge, perhaps best exemplified by theoretical paradigms in science.
The thesis that egocentricity, benevolence, and conservatism act to preserve knowledge organizations leads to the proposal of an intra-psychic analog of genetic evolution, which in turn provides an alternative to prevalent motivational and informational interpretations of cognitive biases.
See Anthony G. Greenwald's article "The Totalitarian Ego Fabrication and Revision of Personal History" (1980).
Commentary:
"Benevolence" is my interpretation of Greenwald's term "beneffectance" (beneficence and effectance), which is a term he coined to describe the perception of oneself as responsible for desired outcomes but not responsible for undesired ones. This involves forgetting failures more easily than successes, and remembering one's contribution to a group effort to have been better than average due to superiority bias.
Beneficence is defined as doing good and feeling beneficent, and specifically describes the quality of being kind, helpful or generous.
"Effectance" itself is not defined in any dictionary, but is probably related to effectiveness and its synonyms, power and especially powerfulness, which means possession of controlling influence.
Cognitive conservatism, being defined as resistance to cognitive change — changing what one knows based on current experience — suggests an unwillingness to adapt to present circumstances.
Adaptability is a useful psycho-social trait in which the individual adapts readily to the current environment, especially during times of political change and upheaval. It is also useful within the context of social rehabilitation related to addiction, mental health and associated issues.
Thus cognitive conservatism as defined by Greenwald does not imply adaptability at all.
Overall, egocentricity, beneffectance, and cognitive conservatism are not effective means of dealing with human suffering. The reason that they are not is that the ego tends to blame others for human suffering, so as to reduce its ultimate role in one's own suffering.
Indeed, the ego will come up with seemingly good excuses to avoid or deny responsibility. Yet a healthy view of personal responsibility allows for each of us to share responsibility for relief of the suffering of others.
Therefore, Greenwald's article suggests that totalitarianism might be the externalization of egocentricity taken to political extremes.
Egocentricity taken to extreme on the individual might also explain addiction and other dysfunctional behavior, especially within the context of beneffectance and cognitive conservatism.
Indeed, beneffectance in itself could be used to deny and excuse responsibility for undesirable outcome, while cognitive conservatism, the inability to change.
Overall, Greenwald's analogy that the cognitive biases of the ego are similar to totalitarian information-control strategies confirms the ego only exists as a social fabrication.
References:
Social psychology notes on Greenwald's article: http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/greenwald_tot_ego.html
Totalitarian ego: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537228/Totalitarian-Ego
Greenwald's references on beneffectance: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/Beneffectance
Mistakes were made but not by me: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537204/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-not-by-me
20090613
Legally and Politically, Pedophilia's about Money and Power
According to what I have seen, paedophilia was manufactured as a crime by the State by enacting laws to profit lawyers and relieve the apprehension of concerned parents.
It is related to the Canadian law which states that a father's daughter is his property until either age of consent or age of majority. So it's about money and power.
Lawyers profit from prosecuting this crime, and they get to manufacture a scenario of the power accused paedophiles have over their victims.
Even so, the perpetrator is rendered powerless once caught, and is labelled a sex offender.
People in authority are significantly challenged by social issues related to power and control. Thus I submit that a pedophile is actually rendered powerless due to his inability to find a mate and tries to regain control over his life in an inappropriate manner by exercising control over children who are powerless due to physical size and immaturity.
When you listen to one of these perverts or read their writings, you see evidence of obsessive views of children as sex objects. They are utterly incapable of feeling any compassion for their victims, and only see them as objects to be manipulated for their own pleasure.
Indeed, they are broken people, and it is likely possible that they are exacting revenge for past wrongs against them, possibly by their parents or closest care provider. There may even be a self-revulsion component involved.
Yet I don't doubt that a dose of MDMA could get them to see how terribly they wrong an innocent being, while kanna would relieve their depression much more effectively than the pharmaceutical roulette now forced on sex offenders. With intense therapy, even ibogaine would offer help.
Instead of trying these alternative options out, the DEA and its Canadian counterpart just daemonizes these drugs in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies.
It is related to the Canadian law which states that a father's daughter is his property until either age of consent or age of majority. So it's about money and power.
Lawyers profit from prosecuting this crime, and they get to manufacture a scenario of the power accused paedophiles have over their victims.
Even so, the perpetrator is rendered powerless once caught, and is labelled a sex offender.
People in authority are significantly challenged by social issues related to power and control. Thus I submit that a pedophile is actually rendered powerless due to his inability to find a mate and tries to regain control over his life in an inappropriate manner by exercising control over children who are powerless due to physical size and immaturity.
When you listen to one of these perverts or read their writings, you see evidence of obsessive views of children as sex objects. They are utterly incapable of feeling any compassion for their victims, and only see them as objects to be manipulated for their own pleasure.
Indeed, they are broken people, and it is likely possible that they are exacting revenge for past wrongs against them, possibly by their parents or closest care provider. There may even be a self-revulsion component involved.
Yet I don't doubt that a dose of MDMA could get them to see how terribly they wrong an innocent being, while kanna would relieve their depression much more effectively than the pharmaceutical roulette now forced on sex offenders. With intense therapy, even ibogaine would offer help.
Instead of trying these alternative options out, the DEA and its Canadian counterpart just daemonizes these drugs in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies.
20070820
Busting the Three Myths about Marijuana
Reporters have been recently fear-mongering about marijuana, again.
It makes you go mad, causes lung disease and skin cancer, they cry, but use bad science to exploit fear in people.
Marijuana Increases the Risk of Psychosis by 40%: This one turned out to be totally wrong. Apparently a correlation between marijuana use and psychosis doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana caused the psychosis. Many of the researchers made this clear in their findings, but reporters left it out. Furthermore, none of the stories on this topic explained that the risk of psychosis is small, so a 40% increase isn't that significant to begin with. Reporters also failed to observe that massive increases in marijuana use over the past century have not corresponded with increased rates of psychosis.
Comment: in that study, scientists discovered that if you've been using marijuana since you were 12, you stand a 40 percent chance of developing a psychosis. However, few studies have found that if a person aged 40 starts smoking marijuana would develop a psychosis.
If anything, anxiety would be reduced. With psychosis being a possible side effect of unrelieved anxiety, I think any scientist investigating psychosis is being bought off by pharmaceutical companies with vested interest in their anti-psychotic medications.
Smoking a Joint is as Bad For Your Lungs as 5 Cigarettes: This report also turned out to be almost entirely bogus. Shockingly, "air flow" was the only category (of several) in which marijuana was determined to be more harmful. Researchers stated that marijuana was 2.5 to 5 times more harmful than tobacco in this category, which reporters simply rounded up to 5 for the headline (behold the lofty journalistic standards of Reuters). Reporters also failed to mention conclusive research proving that marijuana does not cause lung cancer; a notable omission since "bad for your lungs" likely implies cancer for many readers. Finally, media reports failed to explain that marijuana users consume far less per day, and do not continue using for nearly as many years as tobacco smokers.
Comment: bad science is the leading cause of anxiety, and journalist are the biggest cause of it.
Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer: I don't know anything about skin cancer, so I won't attempt to refute the findings of this Harvard study. The manner in which it was reported, however, leaves much to be desired. The FOX News headline reads "Study: Marijuana Use May Cause Skin Cancer." Only upon reading the article does the reader discover that only one extremely rare form of skin cancer has been associated with marijuana, and that the researchers claim that more research is needed. Furthermore, only people with weakened immune systems are even susceptible to this infection. A more appropriate headline would have been "Study: Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer Under Very Rare Circumstances."
In short, anti-pot propaganda is based on bad science.
It makes me wonder why they fear the most harmless plant in the world.
Could it be because without control the anti-pot fanatic feel powerless? I think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)