Mount Salem: The Sheeny Man

Mount Salem is of course the giant trash dump everyone in Salem loves because they get free dumping and local taxes. Long ago, though, we noticed that no one cares about the dumping of toxic waste. Everyone just throws batteries into the trash, not to mention other chemicals. This of course goes into the ground water and flows probably into Northville Township, where no one cares because they think drinking bottled water keeps them safe. I myself have not made the one hazardous waste day in the past three years, and do not even know what day this is on. But when I worked at the factory by the dump, there was a sign not the drink the water, though they would not admit it was because it was poisoned by the dump.

So I was thinking (Who, me?) what if we had a sheeny man, a trash-picker, who was allowed to set up by the dump, reclaim and sell good stuff, even sell stuff he had fixed up, and at the same time reminded people not to dump poison? What if they had a hazardous waste day right there at the dump every day? The Sheeny man is an old word, from my mother’s childhood, when he used to go around the neighborhood picking up good trash. There are lots of sheeny men who would like such a job, and at the dump they could make a fortune if they could stand the air, and of course, bring their own water.

It is a shame too that all the compost from yardwaste is poisoned from Chemlawn and Roundup and a thousand other things.

Eric Lichtblau Discusses Surveillance on NPR’s Fresh Air

   It is very nice to know that the FBI is now unlimited in setting undercover agents on absolutely anyone, due to that nice secret FISA “court.” The Justice department and the agencies think that they do not even need a warrant, say, to commit rape for the purposes of surveillance, as I believe occurred in my own case. Everyone agrees that such things are being done, though if one asks that a particular instance be looked into, nothing will be done, and our representatives are simply intimidated. The agencies are free to stage any scene, long or short term. We consider this to be a violation of liberty which indeed requires a warrant. Again, I believe my former fiance was a person set on me due to proximity to the CIA in my education, and no one cares or will do anything about it. Billions of dollars are spent turning one third of America into spies upon another third, and this is just fine with the majority. Nothing is spent repairing damages, and these criminals, who violate our fundamental law, are never held accountable: They just keep ascending, say, to positions where they might use their practice at psychological torture. To us they say: “If you let us rape and blacklist that one person, we will keep you safe from nuclear attack and terrorism, but if you do not allow us to suspend the Bill of Rights we are sworn to uphold, why, there are just no guarantees.

   Again, I want Congress to ask, and those involved to be required to tell the truth regarding everything, now, that was ever done to me in my education and following, because it destroyed my career and chance to have a family, and was for thirty years a kind of blacklisting and psychological torture. It is likely that I did not please a professor who was also an undercover agent, or that my father was slandered by Michigan and Washtenaw County police, or that I angered the cops when I protested about weed and a woman was set on the protest, or had a Russian friend in college, or did not please the Catholic orthodoxy at my schools, or wore my hair too long, or expressed libertarian cynicism, or perhaps expressed that fourth assertion of the second sentence of the Declaration, which says it is our right and duty to overthrow our government when it ceases to secure these rights. And we will ask all these cops, too, do you believe that assertion, or not? Do you uphold that Declaration, and would rebel against tyranny if it were established over our land in subversion of our Constitution? Perhaps they can get themselves on the list, even for swearing to uphold the Constitution.

   Eric Lichtblau did not discuss the use of women or the imitation of love in spying, as this is just too sensitive yet to discuss, and of course, we do not want to reveal their Machiavellian methods to the enemy. We are a half step from genuine domestic torture, because hey, you know, one just can never be too sure.

David Bowie With Two Comments on Politics and Psychology

David Bowie has a lot to say about psychology, some of which has been addressed in our book of Rock Commentaries. Here are two additional notes that come to mind lately. The first is a quote from “All the Madmen,” off The Man Who Sold the World:

Where can the horizon lie

When a nation hides its

Organic minds

In a cellar, Dark and grim?

They must be very dim.

The second is a piece of a reflection on Bowie’s comment on Carl Jung in the song “Drive Inn Saturday,” off Alladin Sane:

Jung the foreman who prayed at work

That neither hands not limbs would burst, its

Hard enough to keep formation

Amid this fallout saturation

Cursing at the Astronettes

He stands ensteeled by his cabinet

He’s crashing out with Sylvian

The Bureau supply for aging men

With snorting head he gazes to the shore

Where once had raged, the sea that raged no more

Like the video films we saw.

The song seems to compare Jung in his older age, as is documented in the book Memories, Dreams and Reflections, to the lover in nostalgia for the love of Drive Inn Saturday. “Where once had raged, the sea that raged no more,” he is an old man gazing over the sea of the collective unconscious that once raged before him in the younger days of his genius. One wonders, too, if there is not a suggestion that the lover that he took on later in life (you know, trying to integrate that anima), she may have been supplied by the Bureau, or may have been a spy. We always liked the album Alladin Sane, and have noted that the title and title song also mean “Who will love a lad insane?” Ah, sweet little Ramona!

An Essay on Thomas Jefferson and the Meaning of Equality

A Jefferson essay (18 pages) is now available on the title page of the politics website. It enjoys being copied and read, so for the fee of ink you may print out your own copy to underline and mark up! I was just reading the essay of Eva Brann titled “Was Jefferson a Philosopher,” from a book of essays in honor of George Anastoplo. She too is a Jeffersonian, from St. John’s College!

How will we deal with the passage of the Murphy Act?…The Cleansing of the Peceived Insane from America

What is this Murphy Law? Are we then to criminalize saying things some powerful person does not understand, or being defenseless before rich and ignorant judgements of appearance? Awake, Constitution! and lets lock up those crazy enough not to understand liberty. Or those corrupt enough to drug people for money or convenience! Abuse psychiatry, like medicine, and its true function can no longer be performed.

This Hunger Is Secret

First of all, a commenter pointed out last night that it’s highly likely that the States will not have the money to implement their Grand Plan to “treat” everyone on their “insane” list.

Given that it’s all about money, to survive, I’d recommend the following to anyone who does not want Mental Health “Treatment” (i.e. tortures) in their lives:

My guess is that living in an impoverished area would be to your advantage. If you are surrounded by people who at least appear to be much more needy than you are, then it’s likely that you’ll pass off as “normal” even though nobody’s normal in the eyes of psychiatry.

Stay away from emergency rooms! These are now far more lethal than ever. The Murphy Law is not yet implemented, but will be. If you have a minor injury go to a walk-in clinic, a doc’s office, or treat it at…

View original post 494 more words

Marijuana legalization is Blocked from the Ballot in Michigan

The 1986 policy used to block the petition has NEVER BEFORE BEEN USED.

This is why we need a Supreme Court decision declaring the prohibition of Marijuana unconstitutional. The prohibition itself leads to the violation of the constitution in countless other ways, and assures that money will flow to organized crime. All we need do is obey our constitution to cut the “war on drugs” in half overnight. Common sense, rather than special interest inspired regulation of genuine commerce would then have to be enacted. An example is that one ought not use carcinogenic chemicals in growing medicinal weed for sale. But again, the states never gave the federal government the power to prohibit growing ones own weed and smoking it. The federal government simply took this power, and justified it on the basis of their power to tax and regulate commerce, which are among their enumerated powers. They had to change the constitution to prohibit alcohol, and even then never prohibited making ones own beer and drinking it at home. The prohibition is a constitutional absurdity that has perverted our public offices beyond belief and in numerous ways. Only people who do not understand the issue, or else lie, are permitted to hold public offices. So we have cultivated liars and corruption in our polity, and all we have to do to be rid of this corruption is, like Dorothy, click our heels and obey our Constitution.

The following post was sent out by MI Legalize:

MILegalize has filed a 48-page, six-count complaint and 26-page emergency motion against various agencies of the State of Michigan for refusing to count the 354,000 signatures submitted by MILegalize to place the Marijuana Legalization, Regulation, and Economic Stimulus Act on the November 2016 ballot.

The State defendants are using a never-before utilized 1986 policy as an excuse not to count the signatures. This policy would require MILegalize to collect almost double the amount of signatures required to make the ballot by requiring affidavits from every signor of the petition whose signature was more than 180 days old- 200,000+ people- or, local clerks could certify the signatures as valid.
But that doesn’t work for a lot of reasons: local clerks have no legal obligation to verify the signatures, they have never done it before, have never received any training or money to do so, and even the Bureau of Elections stated clerks did not have to verify the signatures.
For these reasons, and more, the 1986 policy is impossible to comply with– they may as well have asked MILegalize to turn in a unicorn or find Bigfoot to qualify for the ballot.
The MILegalize legal team, which consists of six attorneys working on the case in consultation with many more attorneys behind the scenes, prepared a suit which MILegalize filed which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the state from using the 1986 policy; it asks the Court to declare the policy and two other election laws as unconstitutional; and asks the Court to order the Bureau of Elections to begin counting MILegalize’s signatures.
The case was filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims on June 17th, and MILegalize is currently waiting on the State’s reply or for the Court to issue an emergency ruling.
Rest assured, MILegalize will fight for the inclusion of every valid Michigan voter who signed the petition. We are fighting for more than just better cannabis laws, we are fighting for the heart and soul of our democracy. We will not quit.
At the same time we engage in legal action to protect the rights of Michigan voters, we continue to campaign for the November election and need your help educating Michigan voters about the initiative. Our enemies may be trying to keep us bogged down in court so the public does not get informed of the details of the campaign as much as they would if we had already qualified.
A typical statewide ballot campaign requires $3-$10 million dollars for media advertising and get-out-the-vote resources. MILegalize is not a typical campaign and we can achieve victory without the resources of a typical campaign, but we still need your help to win.


A friend and seriously good Catholic scholar, whose name I would otherwise publish, has suggested, as I myself do in my Hamlet essay, that my work is gnostic and that inquiry of this sort into the higher mysteries is dangerous. My first response was to say that Nietzsche is indeed like Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias or like Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, and I have not done much work on Nietzsche since college. Nietzsche is of course much deeper than the ancient Greek sophists, and much more harmful. We implicate these turns of modern thought in the origin of ideological tyranny, though it is a bit of an argument to demonstrate this. Nietzsche is generally well received due to reputation, and people like to repeat thoughts of his like “that which does not kill us makes us stronger.” But these thinkers, like the ancient sophists, hold that tyranny is the good for man, power the important goal of human endeavor. My work, in its explicitness, is a theoretical response to Machiavelli and Nietzsche, and my suggestion is that without some such basis, Catholic and Platonic thought in modernity does not have a response, nor any way to stop diabolism from taking over politics.

Gnostic is of course a word based upon the ancient Greek word Nous, translated variously, but we use the word intellect. It is different from the faculty commonly known as reason, and the two are gradually distinguished in Plato’s Republic. Logistike or calculation is used by us as an instrument when the soul is ordered to seek other goals, but for the intellect, the first principles both theoretical and practical are its proper objects. It is called the eye of the soul. The heretical gnostics considered for example by St. Ireneus spun imaginative cosmologies, going along with the two-thousand year post platonic effort to know being directly, the way we know the outside world. Following Leo Strauss, we keep much of the Platonic replacement for materialist cosmology, the theory of the ideas, and talk of light and word from the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, but we think that Leo Strauss has opened the way to a new effort, an attempt to know being by reflection in the human things and in the soul as an image of God, so we pursue this indirect effort, called political philosophy.

St. John is also called a “gnostic,” and we adhere to this Johannine gnosticism. In the first and third chapters of the gospel of John, the word that was in the beginning was made flesh and dwelt among us. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” John writes that although he came to his own home, his people did not receive him…

But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power (or liberty, exousian)to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Hence we say that Nous is a thing begotten, and that this is different from the created reason. We think that Plato knew and taught this very thing, when he writes that intelligence and truth are begotten in the soul (Republic 490b, etc). Since this is in each, but is nascent or not yet awakened, we say with Jung that it is “in” the “unconscious.” Nietzsche’s “In the body is the great reason” is a perversion of nous. Hence, the ability to receive the faculty is in the soul, and can be inverted. But in its proper or natural form, it is the soul reborn, the very myster:y referred to by John in chapter 3:,

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit…Are you a teacher of all Israel, and yet you do not understand this?

Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So our “gnosticism” is like that of the reborn Christians, though we teach that this is not something one does by going through the ritual of baptism on the Church calendar, nor by receiving the Lord as your personal savior, nor indeed by anything that can be done by the will of man. It is not by convention, but by nature, and occurs through penance and a natural process, which opens the eye of the soul to the things of heaven. We say it is a natural process because Socrates and Plato were reborn in this sense, though of course they did not have access to the Christ made flesh or the Biblical teachings. And I suppose this is what the Catholics and Baptists will find objectionable and call heretical gnosticism. So let it be, as long as we are clear. We say that the sacraments are a “copy and a shadow” of the true things that do indeed happen to the soul, and that is our Christian-Platonic psychology.

Second, we refer to Ephesians 5, where Paul says of marriage:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church…

The profound mystery indicates that the fundamental things of metaphysics are accessible for us through the image of God in man, or that, as Leo Strauss says, “the human things are the key to understanding all things.” We oppose this metaphysics to that of the Johnnies, who talk with great mystery and secrecy of the “Diad” or the fundamental two of the cosmos, heaven and earth or the inside and outside of the Cave in Plato’s allegory. We think the wedding of the Bride and Lamb, alluded to in the 19th chapter of the Revelation, is superior metaphysics, though the supposed opposition between “faith” and “reason” prevents the philosophers from considering such things, which they know ahead of time to be merely parts of our civil religion. We can give some answer to the question of why marriage is sacred or why murder is wrong (Genesis 1:26; 9:6), whereas they, from their metaphysics must simply let humanity descend into lawlessness.

So my critics, if they can stand these dangerous heights, when they look up from their Nietzsche and Machiavelli, might give an account of just why such “gnosticism” is heretical or harmful to the soul. Indeed, as Plato’s Socrates too teaches, anyone for whom the eye of the soul is opened and he begins to see the things of heaven will be considered mad by those around him, and our psychology will surely get out their DSM and seek to drug this thing, the very health of the soul that is the first principle of psychology. We seek a psychology that will teach them to be more moderate, and stop doing this, “Stop drugging my people.”

Madness or Reason? A Rubic’s Cube Not For Math But Psychology

Here are the facts that all will agree upon, that lead me to say there is plenty of reason that we inquire into the covert activity of executive agencies in domestic matters. Anyone who wishes to call me mad for attempting to raise the obvious questions that would occur to a person in these circumstances will note that it is I who appeal to reason, and they who shut down the discussion and are unable to inquire. People indeed are disturbed by the question, and simply silence all explanation- but that is not reason. These will also admit that they do not really care whether what I say is true or not, and are too afraid of their own government to think anything contrary to its powerful wishes. The facts are these:

  1. My former fiance, by remarkable coincidence, came from about a mile and a half from my graduate school, the University of Dallas in Irving Texas, thought I met her up here in Michigan.
  2. My former professor, the first reader in the processing of my dissertation, has refused to even speak to me from the day the defense was completed.
  3. My schools are connected with the CIA in some way. I was invited to apply and can prove this proximity, and could discuss this in much more detail.
  4. When sought, I learned that my academic files have disappeared from the University of Dallas.
  5. Police and Federal agents do indeed use women in a strange sort of meta-rape or meta-prostitution for the purposes of spying.
  6. No one in government at any level, after most persistent effort, will inquire into the obvious questions that the previous agreed facts do raise.

 The possibility, which looks probable, is that the woman was something like an FBI agent recruited, perhaps by a student of my professor or through some connection to the executive agencies, such as the FBI. She just happened to come from Irving, just happened to be the secretary at my friend’s company where I produced the copies of my dissertation drafts, just happened to attend my class called the Salem Academy, just happened to be involved with me and my friend in the John McCain campaign, and just happened to get me to fall in love with her. We lived together for about ten years, and I gave her a nice ring, though she would not marry me. She also just happened to have no genuine interest in philosophy, to never have loved me, but to have had access to every part and aspect of my life, every phone call, tax form, piece of paper going in and out (I was forbid use of the fireplace in her home), all e-mails, all computer files, etc. I was treated as temporary from the beginning, my stuff confined to a single room and never integrated into the house, a temporary job from the beginning, as became more apparent through the years. I would have left after a year or two, due to suspicions of her affairs, but I could not afford to do so, and was in love, however unfortunate. I realized the possibility that she was set on me, but thought they would not do this, and chose not to deny the possibility of love for what might indeed have been delusion. Four years ago, after gaining some distance on the circumstance, it began to look quite obvious, and so I began to ask for the assistance of Congress, both the House and Senate, filling out the forms, and such assistance has been denied. This was addressed in a previous blog about the failure of Representative Walberg and Senators Stabenow and Peters to do a thing to oversee the executive agencies in violations of the Bill of Rights, which is a part of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, as have all the executive agents.

On election day, I stayed at the library for six hours calling for a trusted federal agent before going to the polls to set up a table and launch the CLC, a centrist political party.When I showed a librarian a blog posting which I took to be a possible death and torture threat, and explained to her why I thought I may have received it, another woman came in the room and interrupted us, just as I was getting to the last sentence. I showed this to the librarian because, whether it was a death threat or not, It is so vulgar and vicious that such things on the internet ought be reported. Consequently, my father came to believe that I was “Schizophrenic,” because of “Some things that I said at the library.” It may be that this was the librarian’s own opinion, as I am a strange looking person, with an odd haircut, twitching eye and missing teeth. I have been extremely impoverished. But I do not believe that this is the opinion of the librarian, but rather that someone did indeed show up, though not to receive a report of wrongdoing by persons employed by our government, but rather to spy on and interfere with me. I would sue them, but not the librarian, for a slander which indeed has some effect. Following my father’s suggestion, or perhaps on their own, because I say these things and they will not inquire, others too now say that I am mad or such things. A sister says she is “concerned about me,” but not enough to follow three sentences of the question. I may indeed be in error somehow, but rather, mad is a nation that calls itself free and allows such things to occur, refusing to subject the agencies to the rule of law. Further, just because a person is mad does not mean that these things could not have occurred, nor is madness likely to cause someone to say such thing so persistently, things that do indeed occur. We are not talking martians here, but things everyone agrees do occur and things we all agree we do not oversee our government regarding. Indeed, if a secret CIA school were set up with a PhD program to attract promising students of politics, and one were invited but declined to apply, and the things he said were not understood, the possibility of these things or something like them is just what might occur, just what one would expect to occur in an environment, pre-Snowden, where there is no oversight and no one thought our government would ever do such things. And so we insist that this matter be inquired into, if we are a free people, and if not, well, they know what follows, since we are sworn too not to allow tyranny and adhere to the Declaration. Hence I am in protest, petitioning my government for the redress of grievances. It is absolutely unacceptable that so much reason to inquire be presented and there be no inquiry.

As I told the librarian, if anyone wishes to inquire into my personal psychology, a good place to begin would be my published works. I will next take up a question from these works, as someone has suggested that my thought is “gnostic” and dangerous, like the Kabbalists or Zoharists say of certain kinds of the inquiry into the higher mysteries. Another important part of such an inquiry is to gain an understanding of madnesses such as “Schizophrenia,” as our current theoretical basis is extraordinarily weak, and I have invited theoretical efforts to advance our understanding of the mind, if anyone has suggestions to improve our psychology. I have begun to publish my own efforts in the psychology page of this website. Madness, or as they call it “mental illness” is surely not defined by a person saying things we do not understand or have the motive to consider.

So where is sanity and where is madness in this perplexing question? I(s it madness or reason? A Rubic’s Cube for psychology.

My Friend, My Error

When we meet any new person, or come into new relations through necessity, there is an assumption that we make, that this person is a friend. One speaks to them then as though they were a friend, till one hits that facet of their souls that reveals this to be an error. When I finally retire from each person back into my solitude and silence, I find myself muttering to myself “I have done you no injustice, and done not a thing wrong. Try to put into words your objection to me, and see how it sounds.”  What they do rather is to distort something I did do or say until a fits into a category that justifies indignation, and, while it still does not sound right, they let go the facts and cling to the abstraction. I am faulted for having spoke, and faulted for the very intelligence and truth in my words. And once this is done, my extreme fault is to try to explain myself to avert the slander. Of all the things I do, this is found most intolerable, and when they close their ears, oh, should I raise my voice, I am clearly over the edge, in need of some drugging or executive action.

It is like the experience in love, an analogy, of approaching a woman under a street lamp only to say, “I’m sorry, I thought you were someone I had known.” My error was to speak to you as a friend.

Anything you say will only be used against you. People will use you, then throw you away when you are no longer found profitable. Socrates was a gadfly to Athens, till the beast smacked him. He was prosecuted in the trial that was like that of a physician by a pastry chef before a jury of children.

What is “the accuser” another word for? Our error is to approach the world as though it were a friend, till we are broken on its rocks. Then we learn that friendship is actually quite rare, those capable of learning through discussion almost non-existent. Our error is to assume otherwise, and though they would be offended if we did not, assume that they were intelligent and capable of conversation and learning, they are not. That old thing the shadow kicks in, and soon they are after the splinters in our eyes again. Worst if all is if one says a thing they do not understand, that calls for an ascent of even a moments thought. In the pain of their ignorance, they will lash out most viciously, to everyone’s surprise, because they are not accustomed to take pleasure in learning.

If the Orlando Shooter Was On Antidepressants, Does Anyone Care?

Does anyone care if psychiatric medicine is causing mass murder in America? Or are we just too snowed by the reputation of the “mental heath professionals” and our ignorance of psychology, the ignorance of our science, to consider the possibility that our “cure” is the cause? The Emperor Wears No Clothes! The medical profession cares more about profiting from prescriptions than about the health of their patients, and the psychiatric profession is no different. It is our modern sophistry, the practice of a profession for profit, together with the legal and congressional professions. Our stupidity is the architectonic national disaster.

Hey, kids, just don’t smoke! And have a little Ritalin!