Trump-Putin Conspiracy? Absolutely

   I have been amused at the accusation that I espouse a sort of conspiracy theory, since to me these things have seemed obvious for some time. Machiavelli writes clearly enough about how to destroy the liberty of a republic by conspiracy (Discourses III. 6 and Prince IX; previous blog). What is occurring may seem to us- to those who read- like a textbook conspiracy. Everyone knows that there are no conspiracies in politics, right? And everyone knows that if there ever were a conspiracy, we must simply be prey to it, at its mercy, because one need only call the truth a “conspiracy theory,” and everyone will know that its proponent is “Crazy,” and “dangerous,” right? I just did twenty days under such an accusation, without having done a single thing wrong or even said a single thing that is false, and surely nothing to warrant such treatment, nothing that I did not have a perfect right to say. My bother was convinced that I was “insane” because I thought the “T.V. was spying on me,” three days before Wikileaks broke it to us that that in fact is the case. Since it is a crime to think such things, especially if they are true, I was nearly taken away that day, but they got me late, after they found out one must be a danger to oneself or others to be taken away by compulsion, so they lied and said I was, and that is the clear perjury. No apology from them, though, no acknowledgement, they just go on to a new and different accusation. The agent then assured me that the spying is purely for marketing purposes- The FBI would not lie- and asked me if I had read the Quran, and was very interested in my having written on the Revelation) So I know by experience, having seen for myself, and not only from the things I gather into a whole from the continuous study of real news, that our liberty is being destroyed. And if I did 20 days for it, surely you ought not listen, right? Such a one has the stigma, right, PhD in politics or no? Rather, having received three death threats now, I am quite confident that I am on the right track. The last two threats appear to have come from Trumpsters and Russians. No police will even inquire, so far as I know, though they took a report. The perjurous accusation that put me away for 20 days, right as I was working on Supreme Court case 16-907 to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference, was made and motivated by 3 Trumpster Relatives, and someone ought check- though no one will- to see if they are in contact with people in the Trump organization. It is just the kind of question a good detective would ask.

   The Russians joined with white supremacists in the United States to manipulate opinion though fake news but especially though the spy-tech that we are assured is only being used for “marketing” purposes. Interference can then be targeted to the swing states and to whee it is likely to have the desired effect, just enough to tun the election while staying under the radar That is the method that Trump seems to have been told could not be discovered, as he assured us, and that led him to be so confident that he would win despite being behind in the polls that he assured us that if he did not win, it would be due to election fraud. Trump himself is guilty of election fraud, and as usual is accusing his opponents of versions of his own crimes.

   What Russia has in mind is a very disturbing question, but our politicians have thus far lacked imagination on this question as well. Either Putin is himself a White fascist, or he has chosen fascism for us to “destroy us from within,” as Khrushchev promised to do. Another key is the Oxy epidemic, a corruption of U.S. medicine that shows long preparation on Putin’s part. Oxy deaths are higher in the swing states. Go figure. But he plan did seem to be for us to be entangled in a Middle East war against not just ISIS, who has declared war on us, but all of Islam: a fatal error supported by the emerging fascist fringe among the fa right of the “Republican” party in America which refuses to distinguish between Islam and ISIS, saying for example that Islam teaches the whole wold must be Islamic. The Quran forbids compulsion in matters of religion.

   But everyone knows there are no conspiracies, right, and why would one nation eve want to destroy another, and those saying such things are crazy and dangerous, especially if they just did 20 days in a mental hospital and insist they did not do o say one thing to deserve such “treatment.” Unless, of course, such a thing occurred on the perjury of Trumpsters to someone acting strangely because he really was receiving death threats and someone had an interest in saying he was  “insane.” Another typical Trump method is to discredit the speaker rather than answer the question posed by the charge.

   The Americans are beyond gullible. Anyone who reads Machiavelli and understands the reason James Otis insisted upon privacy knows that such a thing is not only possible but likely, and I dare say, is occurring. Is there anyone in the Trump campaign / cabinet who does not have ties to Russia that were unthinkable for an American just 5 o 10 years ago? As Barack said, Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.” This is in fact, as General Hayden said that same day, “The greatest covet operation in history.” My suggestion is that we need not be prey to it and to Putin and the Internet just because it is a conspiracy.

   By the way, after 20 days I finally gained an independent evaluation from a nice “psychologist,” and two other shrinks too agreed that, in effect, they had no reason to seize me to begin. So you can read my work despite the stigma- its kind of racy if it is not true. And if I am going to pay for it- I just had the police called on me a week ago literally for speaking at my own address in my own defense from an accusation in an argument I did not begin, and then was threatened by the one who committed perjuy- I may as well make use of it.

Strange Fruit: Rock Commentaries

   Among the greatest of all lyrics is Strange Fruit, written by Abel Meeropol and sung famously by Billie Holliday, who may be said to have died of the sorrow from singing it. David Margolick (2001) wrote that Holliday’s mother objected to her singing the song, and she said “It could make things better.” Her mother answered: “but you’ll be dead,” and Billie said, “yeah, but I’ll feel it. I’ll know it in my grave.” So she intentionally and courageously faced down the fear of death.

   The song was difficult to sing in night clubs, because people came to have a good time, and this would put an end to that! But it would work at the end of the night, to send people home contemplative.

Southern trees bear strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees

Pastoral scene of the gallant south
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop
Here is a strange and bitter crop

   By their fruit we will know them. These “gallant” scenes of the “pastoral” South are not forgotten, in part because of the courage of Meeropol and Ms. Holliday. For shame, take down that defeated flag and hoist the stars and stripes!

   The symbolism of bodies hanging from trees is like the crucifixion, and like that very eerie scene in an Arthurian movie when the knight Galahad comes to Mordred’s lair. The macabre contrast of fruit, flower and scenery with bulging eyes and burning flesh also makes the song give us chills from deeper than we know where. Not even Dylan or Neil Young produced this great a folk song, and this is jazz or blues.

   I knew a woman, Elise Emerick, who saw a lynching in Florida back around the twenties, when she was five. Her father, Mr. Du Champs, (I believe he was a Henry) tried to stop it, and told her to go on home and don’t look back.

   We have been trying to get Jack White, or some other Hendrix, to pull out the anger implicit in the sorrow of every note of the Billie Holliday version. I know this can be done, and with great commercial success, but the point is that right now in America, we need to wake up, and shout a loud, spirited “NO!” to fascism, tyranny and the destruction of our Constitution by domestic White Supremacists in league with foreign powers.

   A final point: The fruit and leaves in the first two line reminds of the fruit and leaves in the book of Revelation. The leaves of the tree of life are to be given for the healing of the nations, which are of course still plural nations, and bring tribute into the city of God that has come down from heaven. There are 12 kinds of fruit on trees on either side of the river of the water of life. The eating of the fruit of the tree of life is a great mystery, and it is said that this is not possible in this life in any sort, because of the body. But it is promised one of the churches (Ephesus) that to him who conquers, it will be given to eat of the fruit of the tree of life, along with the six promises: to not be hurt by the second death, to be given the hidden manna and a white stone with a new name written on the stone, power over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron and the morning star, to be clothed in white garments with his name not blotted from the book of life and confessed to the father and before the angels, to be made a pillar in the temple with the name of the father and son written on him, and to sit with him on his throne.

The following video is simply profound, and identifies the strange fruit with the trees in Eden and the Christ hanging from the tree in the crucifixion:

Strange Fruit – the story behind “The Song of the Century” https://youtu.be/EZUoYgPe1Y4  via @YouTube

https://twitter.com/i/cards/tfw/v1/1112045223528546304?cardname=player&autoplay_disabled=true&forward=true&earned=true&edge=true&lang=en&card_height=130&scribe_context=%7B%22client%22%3A%22web%22%2C%22page%22%3A%22me%22%2C%22section%22%3A%22profile%22%2C%22component%22%3A%22tweet%22%7D&bearer_token=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPYXBAAAAAAACLXUNDekMxqa8h%252F40K4moUkGsoc%253DTYfbDKbT3jJPCEVnMYqilB28NHfOPqkca3qaAxGfsyKCs0wRbw#xdm_e=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com&xdm_c=default5888&xdm_p=1

 

ELECTIRC HARP and Strange Fruit for Jack White

6/30/2017:

We just sent Jack White the idea to electrify the classical harp. I hinted at bowing it, too, but their still way too cool to talk to a mere philosopher. We want him to convert the Billie Holliday blues song Strange Fruit into a Rock-blues song, translating  what she does with her voice into electric blues guitar, and rage rather than sorrow, or sorrow yielding to our rage at the rising fascism that would again take power in America if it is not opposed, as by American Folk culture. Now there is a theme that could sound like Zeppelin’s Dazed and Confused. We suggest like Uriah Heap in Easy Livin‘ with Hendrix on guitar. Its all in there!

 

mmcdonaldon June 30, 2015   Link

Musing on Evolution: Life is Rare

   In evolution, certain things happen only on a very few occasions. Life began only once, as all living things on earth are genetic descendants of the same line. Life crawled out of the ocean onto land not once a year or a thousand times, but once with plants, once with insects and once with salamanders! Only three times! Dogs are not drawn from wolves once a week, but only in three lines, your woofdog or pointy-eared type, your hound dog or floppy-eared type, and your lap dog, those Chinese toy dogs, roughly speaking. Creatures learned to fly, but only once with insects, once with dinosaurs, and once with flying fish and once with flying squirrels or bats, and once with men! And life returned to the oceans only a couple times, with dolphins and whales. Flightless bids are a return from air to land, but mostly nobody lives wholly in the air. That life is all related on earth, apparently, means that life is quite rare, and does not come in from outer space on every asteroid, growing like mold on bread everywhere the conditions are right, for example. Once in 3 Billion years? And we are direct genetic descendants? This is the literal tree of Life, branching into kinds, as no one before Darwin and Lyle in Geology could have really suspected (Thanks Carl Bajema, GVSC). The ancients did not suspect that the natural kinds change. (C. “J” and Jacob Klein, St. John’s). But the mathematical or literal “forms” don’t get artificial beings or new kinds of things neither. But the materialists or materialistic science cannot explain the form or “What” of anything, and so literally cannot know (though they assume) the difference between any of the many kinds of things.

   Many times we have explained that the supposed incongruity between the Bible and evolution is an illusion. Darwin and Wilson found some very new knowledge is all, and it is surprising how little the Bible contradicts science. Each still comes “after its kind,” life may well have arose from the dust of the earth, just took ’bout 3 Billion years is all. The Beginning is indeed as though God spoke, and of before the beginning it still does not make sense to speak. After that, Genesis unfolds the six or seven orders of being in much agreement, except perhaps for birds looking out of place. And if we knew what the write of Genesis means by “Man, we would know who it is that Cain fears will kill him out East of Eden there (as those guys are not supposed to be there yet). First man apparently means something we readers did not imagine correctly.

   In love, we joke that the eugenics of nature is quite cruel enough. Man is too stupid to direct the development of or domesticate his own species, and does not yet think that nature might also direct itself, if in a natural sense. But man is too stupid to keep his hands off tying to direct when he does not know what he is doing. As we may be about to see, this ignorance will be selected against.

It is to join the human with the study of what is called material nature that we get something like a unified field theory sought in physics. Perhaps with a sense of humor, this was hidden above, since it was known we would never look there!

Hypotheses, and a New View of the Greek Gods

   I have a new view of the Greek myths beginning to gel, and would like someday to bring this into full form by writing a story, perhaps about Hercules, who I have taken up for study of late, spinning out of my comparison of Barack Obama and Theseus, writ maybe a year ago now. I had to study Theseus in order to write on Shakespeare’s A midsummer Night’s Dream, and so on Independence Day last year I stayed home, reflecting on the heritage of our liberty from Theseus and Athens. Theseus is the founder of Athens as a city as distinct from Athens as a village, which is much older. Since there is no guarantee of getting to write more about this enthralling matter, I will state the stunning revelations that seem to be coming as Homer’s knowledge of the Trojan war came to him, by way of the muses. In some things, I have simply not studied enough, but at the risk of embarrassing myself with certain errors no real Greek scholar would make, I want to record the fundamental insights and hypotheses.

   The Greek myths embody an amazing history, put together after their flood, after which Deucalion and Phyrrah re-peopled the Peloponnese. The gods are men, or ancestors, as Holinshed brilliantly noticed. These may have been men of a different sort, similar to Noah, men who lived a long long time, but that makes much more sense of Zeus descending on occasion from Mt. Olympus to pursue mortal women. Their flood is different and more recent than the flood of Noah (3500? B.C.), perhaps occurring about 1800 B.C. The three generations from Hercules through Odysseus occur about 900-1100, nearly contemporaneous with Israel’s David. So Zeus is quite a different thing from our God, the Yahweh of Israel, who is, was and will be, the Most High, the Good One. And the moderns will think what they will, till they have time and think it through, and see that I am indeed on the right track. But realizing that the Greek gods dwelling on Mount Olympus made sense in terms of a genealogy and flood is indeed one key: The Italian gods are Pelasgian, having come from Greece as with Hercules, even before Aeneas.

   The Geeks were a very rude people, but the stories of their reception of the alphabet from Phoenicia, the founding first of Argos, Cadmus bringing the alphabet to the Athenians or Thessalians, and Minos coming from Greek relatives are all conveying genuine history.

   I have just noticed, to my astonishment, that the early Greeks did not ride horses, but went straight from walking about to driving chariots. Hence, the centaurs are simply based upon the way horsemen were seen by very rude people. The Mongolians, from whence the original horse was domesticated, spent their entire lives riding, but according to the hypothesis, the Greeks of the two generations prior to the Trojan war did not ride. So they saw the horsemen as centaurs, and we have Chiron the centaur and Hercules various exploits with the centaurs getting drunk at weddings and Pholos, who died accidentally by a poisoned arrow of Hercules.

   From Homer and Herodotus, I figured out that the Cyclopse described in the Odyssy are actually Neanderthal men, or something like these, seen from a distance, their heavy brow ridge appearing as one eye. All the rare examples are lost by archaeology, so these creatures, and many strange “dragons,” may well have survived long past when archaeology says they became extinct, and it is men who killed all the mega fauna, including giant apes. A tooth of a giant ape was found in a Chinese medicine collection, leading one to wonder about the “abominable snowman,” or our Sesquatch, and even Giant men: Mega fauna. Tiny men who are not Cro-Magnon were found recently in Java, hunting tiny elephants just 30,000 years ago. And we know for sure there never were any Leprechauns and Unicorns! Rubbish! These, like Pterodactyls, may have survived in stories based on examples as rare as the Loch Ness Monster. Giant Squids were once assumed never to have existed, but now have been discovered. Not that the mythic memory does not stretch it a bit, but science based upon nature can ferret out the truth. That the centaur is based upon how pedestrian men see horse men for the first time- how would they imagine what they are seeing?- is the prime example. Hence Herodotus writes of the “One eyed Arimaspu,” and everyone thought these writers were just spinning tales. The clue is that “each gave law to his own family,” noted by Homer in contrast with our kind of man, whom we call “Cro-Magnon,” and Aristotle callas the rational or political Animal. These domesticate, beginning with the dog from the wolf, on only 3 occasions,* the earliest about 120,000 B.C., though the Cyclopse may have picked up herding from the men. These, unlike every other primate, live in tribes, and these tribes settle into villages, and these villages become cites, which are the root of the nation and then the “empire.” From this, and the study of Freud and his questions in psychology, viewed scientifically, for those who can stand it, I realized that the riddle of the Sphynx is not the question but the answer: man. The riddle is the incest prohibition, which Neanderthal and other kinds of man apparently did not have. The families are joined into tribes, and corresponding changes occur for our kind of man in the soul and emotions as these relate to the family. The genetic mixing that results is superior, and would quickly demarcate the species called the rational animal. And wherever tribal man devolves into filial man, a degeneration, together with grave consequences for the soul, is obvious, if insufficiently understood.

   So, Machiavelli does not know shit about centaurs! Chiron the centaur was the pupil of Asclepius, who invented or brought to mankind the first hospitals and the whole idea of the medical art of healing. He also seems to have established a university, centering around the teaching of medicine, riding and music. He is perhaps an Olympian, of the sort superior to the rude Pelopponnesian Greeks. One sees in this a higher culture that had developed and survived somehow on Mt. Olympus, perhaps even from Atlantis, if they sent Physicians into the world when they foresaw the doom of their Island, which was probably where the Azores are today. Hercules may have gone there on a labor, as the cattle of Geryon are on an island off the coast of Spain, though it is thought that the Apples of the Hesperides were in Africa. Aegyptus, incidentally, is in both the genealogy in Genesis and in the Greek myths, so one might here find a connection, if it is the same Aegyptos. or Egypt. Comprehensive world history takes a long time to comprehend in any stable way, and I am helped by the timeline on the wall of the British museum, to which I will return many times, and by Plato’s Timaeus. One must build in one’s understanding a timeline which relates the different timelines from archeology and history. Aesclepius saw a snake apply an herb that brought another snake back from the dead- probably smelling salts) and that is where the two snake emblem of the medical profession comes to this day (Thanks to W.H.D. Rouse, Gods, Heroes and Men of Ancient Greece). Watch the Hippocratic oath turn out to be Aesclepiadic. But Machiavelli is a fool because the study of the natural philosophy that preceded Socrates has its end and purpose not in tyranny, or how to acquire and maintain State or political power, but in medicine.

   Chiron the pupil of Aesclepius taught medicine and horsemanship to Achilleus in the generation after Theseus, who was of the generation after Hecules. Hercules, the son of Zeus and Alcmena, is the origin of the martial arts. Rouse gives a nice account of how Hercules killed the Nemian Lion, and David too in the Bible is able to kill lions and bears with his bare hands. And you thought that was just myth! There is one sentence that tells how David found the martial arts, and that is all that need be said, because if one does not make the choice of Hercules to follow virtue, one cannot learn the martial arts. Hence Hercules went about destroying robbers and tyrants, making the world safer for civilization. But the arts were brought by Alexander (380-350 B.C) into India, and by the Buddhists first to China and then to Japan, kept in the temple for the aforesaid reason. There has been a man who killed a tiger, and a man who could drop a charging bull, both by the same method. These rare Japanese martial artists are both exceptional by nature and spend their lives doing it: the one who dropped the charging bull spent many years alone in the forest beating upon trees. Mr. Musashi entered the forest orphaned at age 5 and emerged from the forest at age 13 the best swordsman in Japan, about the 1650’s. But Hercules, before using his wrestling Jitsu, first shattered his club on the lion’s head, which does help a bit when trying to get inside on a Lion! David too was not adverse to weapons when it came time to fight Goliath. But do note: The undefeated Mr. Musashi- perhaps the greatest swordsman in history- defeated his last opponent, the otherwise greatest in all Japan, with a wooden sword which he carved out of an oar on his way over to the island where this man waited for the match. And Mitsushige superseded that, dropping his opponent with ki alone, without touching him at all, though this is “hidden by leaves.” If one never fights, he will not bruise his hand, and will die as did Musashi, undefeated, and having conquered himself! It is in fact a great dishonor and a sign of imperfection to ever need to fight, as the sage takes care of problems before they happen. Hercules may truly have met up with Prometheus! There are many deep psychological and historical mysteries waiting study in the Greek myths. But, as Nishyama teaches, “Mind like moon,” and “Heart controls Ki.” The good will never lose if they use the ancient Tao, which is like a bellows, according to Lao Tzu, and will never fail.

   These then are the hypotheses, which I would not even write for publication without about a ten year study, but for fear that the points, important to philosophy, might be lost. I will work on them some more, and would greatly appreciate any help of the genuine sort in my attempt, following these masters, to follow the muses for the benefit of mankind.

*note: In evolution, certain things happen only on a very few occasions. Life began only once, as all living things on earth ore genetic descendants of the same line. Life crawled out of the ocean onto land not once a year or a thousand times, but once with plants, once with insects and once with salamanders! Only three times! Dogs are not drawn from wolves once a week, but only in three lines, your woofdog, your hound dog or floppy-eared type, and your lap dog, those Chinese toy dogs, roughly speaking. Creatures learned to fly, but only once with insects, once with dinosaurs, and once with flying fish and flying squirrels or bats, and once with men! That life is all related on earth, apparently, means that life is quite rare, and does not come in from outer space on every asteroid, growing like mold on bread everywhere the conditions are right, for example. Once in 4 Billion years? And we are direct genetic descendants?

Why Are the Americans Asleep to the Surveillance of the Internet?

   As usual, the Americans are just not thinking it through. Everyone welcomes this “internet of things,” assuming it is unopposable or something. We just had an election turned by foreign manipulation of the internet, and fascism has been rising in America, while we all just go on about our business. A few literat-ures talk about Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s “the Handmaid’s Tale,” but for the most part, our noses are in the dirt and we walk about in an Oxy induced daze, dumb as a box of rocks. Awake! Your liberty is being destroyed, and indeed we can do something about it! We do not have to let this happen because there are internet billionaires and dark forces over drug gangs flushed with the proceeds of our vices. There are in fact billionaires who can think, and do have hearts and souls. We could install an honest internet TOMORROW. And “they” – who are probably some logarithm by now- still cannot control the American voter completely,

   The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the destruction of our security in our houses, persons, papers and effects, and this is fundamental law. The internet of things is illegal. “No person shall… is how this amendment begins. Laws can prevent rich companies from supplanting our government and constitution if the Constitution itself is thought to not forbid this. But it only need be argued that if, for example, Duterte is allowed access to my phone calls, this will effect government, and liberty cannot then be secured. Look how they argued that growing one’s own weed and smoking it “effects” interstate commerce (Reich v. Ashcroft). The cell towers are tracking us are they? How bout if we cut them down? These companies are remarkably responsive, though, to public opinion when it effects their bottom line. The bosses want now infinite surveillance of employees, do they- How ’bout we stop working till they back the f off! The people are enough, too, to trample Congress and push cell towers over- how expensive will that be for the corporate panel and shareholder value”? Put that in your logarithm and crunch it!

   And did this not all start when we gave companies the right to make us piss in a cup to see if we smoked any weed? What would be the answer of James Otis in 1774, of Thomas Jefferson and the generation of 1776? Well, let us give them the answer for which they are asking.

Psycho-Rant on JULIETHEMADBLOGGER

Yeah, Vlad, I’m “Crazy,” “Dangerous!”

Julie is writing today about the words used in the mental health system, a funny kind of “New Speak” combined with a disregard of basic respect in speaking to the patients. But if it were not for us, the stigmatized, who would invent new words like “There-embodied.” Shakespeare himself coined over 700 new words for the English language. And “madness” indeed might save the world- the title of a previous excellent blog by Julie.

I set this comment on Julies blog, since “they” allowed me to do so today:

…The Mental Health code is given precedence over the Constitution and the principles therembodied. The facilities are great for when people really need them- as the suicidal do, but it is so corny! They just replaced Medieval religion with a new set of stupid DSM-type principles from our bankrupt modern psychology. And too afraid of being sued to speak for the -iatria or healing of the human souls placed by misfortune in their care. Then they want to make everyone talk a certain way! I used to have to tell this retarded guy Kevin, who I worked for as his servant: “Kevin, your being inappropriate.” “Non-compliant”: one of their values considered scientific facts, after they kicked out all the real “values” with their corney-ass, value free science! Their left hand does not even know what their left hand is doing!

By the way, it is illegal for the Mental Health System to set up a new law above the Constitution, and, for example, seize people and stigmatize them when they have done nothing wrong and violated no rights of their fellow citizens which government has a purpose to secure. One cannot simply replace the name above the building JAIL with the words MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY and suspend Habeus Corpus: That one must be presented bodily before a Judge in order for the executive to hold them. Nor may they violate our religion by tricking or compelling people into taking their addictive, lucrative Psycho-dope! If their medicine were based on science, or scientific knowledge of neurons and such, it would not take the 4-30 attempts to find the right concoction to inflict upon their guinea pigs! A soft-despotism, American style, Big Mother version of Himmler!

Indeed…Patribotics

EXCLUSIVE: House Judiciary Committee considering Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States

via EXCLUSIVE: Judiciary Committee Considering Articles of Impeachment — patribotics

Trump’s Method of Lying: Racism Behind the Trumpeting About MS 13

   “We’re going to get tough,” Trump said, and “its not nice now for MS 13,” a Mexican gang infesting arias such as L.A. We want the reader to see the Trump method of lying in this particular instance. He is using the just application of the law as an excuse, a thin veneer to justify the racist policies behind his anti-immigration nationalism. The deportation of non-criminal immigrants is up 157 %, and cell towers are being tricked into identifying undocumented immigrants. If I need to spell it out, your next, because the cell towers are identifying everyone. Trump is a tyrant and needs to be impeached. Our ignorant toleration of the new violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee of security in our houses, persons, papers and effects is allowing tyranny to walk right in, and we need to reverse course and stop this nonsense.

   First, the last thing one wants to do with MS 13 members is deport them, since they want they will come right back. But second, is it only accidental that Trump targets gangs of the races that are the outgroups of the American fascists, the blacks and the Mexicans, while ignoring the White and the Italian gangs? How much distance is there between the Russian mob and the Russian government- with whom everyone in the Trump administration has questionable ties? Is he not then rather obviously using the un-opposable policy of targeting MS 13 as a cover to enlist police in his racist policies, just as they were about to do in striking the black gangs in Chicago? The fear of deportation in the Latino community, and justified distrust of police, allows the gangs to flourish. For the 34 deported, most of whom will return, have not many times more hydra heads been grown?

   If the argument here is too complicated for the American citizen, that is what Trump counts on. He keeps his method of lying just below the level of obviousness at which the Americans will catch on and do something. Trump Justice retreated from the plan to attack Chicago, and the plan to bring the “hammer down” has retreated in favor of a more long term and more subtle approach. But Trump is a gangster himself, and his allied gangs are- surprise- not being targeted by those big tough ICE heroes deporting Mexican mothers of American citizen children, and sending waves of fear and distrust through Mexican American citizens and their communities. We suspect that the Russian and U.S. mobs are behind the Oxy-heroin scandal in America, a genuine conspiracy the first half of which Trump wants to deregulate. The knee jerk Republicans hear “deregulation,” and for them there is no issue. Our corruption as a nation is allowing the rise of fascist tyranny, and it is past time we rise up and put a stop to it.

   The Trump-Russian methods of lying are repeated, and can be quickly generalized. The blog “Hands Tied : Use Mirror” concerns another aspect of their method, and Putin’s new tactic of labeling those who see the Trump-Russian conspiracy as “insane” and “dangerous” is just another variation on the method of the manipulation of public opinion, which has proven remarkably easy upon the rather thick American public. To paralyze the Americans, one need only spread fake news, then when accused, say it is “fake news.”

Psychology: Fidelity and Love

   On the Ted Talk this morning, they had a fellow, the writer of a pop science book, who argues theoretically in favor of lust. The argument is something like this: that fidelity in love is the mere invention of males attempting to possess women as property, that it enters the human world with agriculture, and so is contrary to our natures. We have begun a discussion of biology, psychology and love a few blogs back, and there are of course great mysteries involved. But to begin an attempt to defend the poor lover and human love, even Shakespearean love, we will say this: The love “contract,” or the agreement of fidelity that lovers enter into, and that courtship is about, is because the beloved can destroy the soul or, if that is an exaggeration, “break the heart” of the lover by infidelity. It is this, the broken heart, and not “property rights” that fidelity is about. The lover, impelled by nature and at its mercy, does not even foresee, but the conjugal union brings with it a fusion: the two become “one flesh” or soul, again an exaggeration, but true in part. St. Paul writes that even the union with a prostitute bring this about, so that the promiscuous are literally dragging about their history as baggage. Erotic union causes a filial connection. Events that would otherwise be telepathic or prophetic even occur because the two literally participate in one love, a soul higher than the soul of either, and yet it is themselves. Most people are base and do not love, but that does not mean that the marriage customs, built up over thousands of years of hard experience, are unnatural or harmful.

   It is no coincidence that the conjugal union is the participation of man in the Creating of the creator, and the perpetuation of the generations, continuing according to one account a four billion year continuous genetic lineage. And the reason marriage is sacred is that the soul is an image of God, male and female. The Creator appears at the incarnation, and the highest image of God in the scriptures – the wedding of the Bride and Lamb- is reflected in marriage. So both the Creator and Redeemer are reflected in human marriage: Called the mystery of the bridal chamber.

   It is also true that love is the navel of our attachment to the earth of cave, and that the jilted lover can be dawn to the fundamental penance that leads up and out. The attachment to the earth and to the mother is beneath the attachment to the beloved, and its conquest is the overcoming of the fear of death. When this is trapped in the material, it can become a literal suicide, or worse. The attachment at the root of the family presents each with the fundamental questions, and the opportunity for some most fundamental errors.

   The true lover does not desire another beside the beloved, and so it is the beloved that must be persuaded. Maybe one in ten actual humans love this way, but the happiness of the household depends in large part on the way to which they follow the example. Similarly, jealousy excludes infidelity, or at least would be contradicted by infidelity. A test of fidelity is whether one becomes jealous, but for humans to make such things by artifice renders the elation artificial already, and harms the love. Affairs cause faction in the household, as the staying one will withdraw from the love, cannot celebrate the holidays together in the same way, etc. It also causes faction in the soul, so that one cannot act in unison with himself, and becomes clumsy. making mistakes.

   Love has its own ethics and its own understanding of justice, as assumed though inexplicable in the words “cheating,” “faithful” and such. One suspects that the lovers use these words so that loves justice will be assumed and they will not have to explain, because we can’t! And so the language is that of contract and promise. These things are just assumed, and no one can explain them, let alone convince one who does believe: Then I saw her face / Now I’m a believer” say the Monkeys, contradicting Darwin. But i heard a straying husband once who lamented that, having seen what the affair had done to his wife, he was quite shocked, and would never sacrifice so much pain for so little pleasure.

   Of course there are many different ways that humans participate in erotic union, but the suggestion is that these are all based upon and understood in light of the natural conjugal union at the root of the family, called “fertile” rather than infertile love.

   From the start, the biology of the matter no more supports the argument of lust than the argument of fidelity. Fidelity is different for men and women due to the circumstance in which women find themselves by nature, being the ones to bear or carry the child.    The male may be confused as to whose child he is raising, but the woman cannot be so confused for the same cause. Infidelity, if one can get away with it, would be selected for, but fidelity would decrease deaths from cuckolded husbands and due to sexual diseases, and so have an obvious claim to natural selection. The human family is much older than agriculture, and it is suspected that the continuous rather than cyclical human estrus was invented by nature to fuse the family. But this as often can destroy the family. When things are well, the couples are together caring even for the bodies and pleasures of one another, and after a fight or argument it is well known what occurs when the couples make up. It is even possible to argue that true and free lust occurs only in the conjugal union. The human family goes back even millions of years, into the avian and reptilian nature, where the family first emerges to care for the young. Swans and certain birds even excel mankind in fidelity and the attachment of love that joins the couples. The continuous human estrus is as likely to break as preserve the human family, but another common experience is the emptiness of the brief liaison. Bar patrons joke about wanting to chew their own arm off in the morning. The suspicion is that deep within our nature. love and the conjugal union are involved in the mystery of human connected-ness at the root of our political and filial nature. I am thinking of Allan Bloom, who writes of love this way, as the root of our connected-ness to other persons, or the reason that almost all humans cannot be alone. For the true priest or solitary philosopher, there are different mysteries, but for almost all practical purposes, it is not good for man to be alone.

   The mysteries of mankind involve the distinction between the filial and political nature, endogamy and exogamy, and the connection of families into polities through intermarriage. The incest prohibition acts upon us as if it were biological, that is, “lust” does not even operate within the family, and humans cannot even consciously address the theoretical issue, such, as Freud noted, is the human unconscious- and our Ted Talk biologist has not even begun to consider such “scientific” questions, but the treatment of man as wholly animal by the evolutionary theorists fundamentally destroys the specifically human nature and indeed destroys the soul, and this is not even an exaggeration. Psychologist well know, without any theoretical basis, the grave harm done by molestations and violations of the prohibitions, though modern psychology literally has no theoretical basis to account for this. It is as though our human soul were fundamentally disturbed, and in the worst cases, split personalities even emerge, as though one soul cannot acknowledge what has occurred to another within the same soul. The psychologists thankfully revert to law, common sense and repression, and do not notice the theoretical marvel which the law assumes. The harm done to children by the indiscriminate lusts of criminal adults is beyond notorious. These laws are ancient for us beyond the Decalogue, so that Moses himself, while addressing the facts and furthering civilization by forbidding the practices that some cultures in 1300 B.C. did not yet forbid, struggles to understand the theoretical basis. Neanderthal man may have been filial and not political, but for our species, such things are indeed inhuman, crossing the bounds of the humanity of “Cromagnon” man. We are indeed, as Aristotle wrote, the “political” animal, joined into tribes and these into villages by filial connections that are established by love. Exogamy then is for us most natural, and we suggest that Ted and his remarkable guest have not begun to think out even the anthropology involved in a defense of animal lust. Love is a rare and delicate plant, and human customs, rightly conceived, aim to uphold this beautiful thing against a tide of animal nature threatening to sweep away all that is priceless and hard won in human civilization. The law is like a trellis that allows roses to grow in abundance. To say that such things are based upon some mere patriarchal right of property is a joke, and a bad joke if we begin to think the matter through.

   Love is for the lover attended by jealousy, though for the one loved, this is not as impelling, and it comes upon us by nature. The lover must contract the fidelity of the beloved to preserve his own soul from jealousy, which can so possess the lives and thoughts of lovers as to make their lives from morning until night a misery. This comes upon the lover as did the love, like a force of nature o like a daemonic possession, and would call it the influence of an “archetype, and each is measured by and responsible for his own reaction to painful jealousy. One can do little to correct the circumstance except to leave or recede, but many things to make it worse, and suspicion itself can drive the beloved away. Bloom, in commenting on Othello and Lear, notes that the beloved does not owe love, and the lover cannot command love. But infidelity means that the beloved does not love you. Stupid of us to think ourselves worthy of love, as though we were the best for the beloved! Love implies an inflation: “I am the best of those that speak this speech,” says Ferdinand in Shakespeare’s Tempest. The heo will be sent out to slay the dragon for the princess and by the princess, though she does not do this knowingly, but apparently by nature.In each relation, it seems, there is as in Plato’s Phaedrus, a lover and a beloved, or as Jung writes, a container and one contained within the whole that is the love. Mutual lovers are rare among the couples, and the lover must seek to inspire the “ant-eros,” to win the heart of the beloved. Consider the things Prospero says to Ferdinand about the challenge to overcome his lust until marriage: Weeds will infest his marriage bed if he does not succeed in this fundamental establishment of the order of soul where he is able to control himself even in under the influence of his strong love for Miranda. The lover is indeed not capable of doing this himself while in love, and that is why it is thankful or fortunate that Ferdinand has the wise man to compel him, and that we once had the marriage customs of courtship and convention.

A Note * The word love does not occur in the index of our textbook titled “Abnormal Psychology,” perhaps because they wish to assume that love is normal! There is however a disorder called the “dependent” personality, and “co-dependent” has become a catchphrase in the fashionable opinion that parades itself as science under the banner of our pseudoscience, unworthy of the trust we give to these supposed knowers and healers of the soul. One suspects that these phrases are the inventions of beloveds seeking to escape the annoyance of the pain of some lover’s broken heart, and that the shrinks are among the base who do not love. In fact, without an understanding of eros and the human soul, it will be impossible to establish a science for the treatment or healing of the human soul, and while we possess the study, we do not possess the science. I will be thought arrogant for asserting the superiority of Plato, Shakespeare and the Bible to all of modern psychology, but be this as it may, and let the accuser provide a theoretical explanation for why that, or any other thing, is truly wrong on the basis of their pseudo-science. Modern psychology has not begun the serious study of the soul, and the authority it assumes for itself is harmful to humanity.  We at least can begin to provide a theoretical basis for arguing why this, or any other thing, is harmful, right or wrong: The health of the human soul.

Note 2: What is at stake in the argument of love and lust is, an the one hand the beautiful things that make life meaningful and worth living, and on the other, a momentary and usually fruitless thing called a “pleasure.” Eros must be feed from its imprisonment in matter as Ariel, the spirit that serves the wise man, is freed from his imprisonment in a cloven pine, but threatened with imprisonment in an oak. Two different theories of the nature of man underlie the question of whether the excess human eros or libido creates the higher human things by a “sublimation,” or whether there is not rather a natural gradient that eros ascends, a “ladder of love,” as in the Symposium.

Note 3. Lyric poetry contains an understanding of the soul and love far superior to our pseudoscience. Jack White writes: “How dare you. How old are you now, anyway,” and “You took a white orchid, turned it blue.” Another tragic love lyric showing the height, depth and intensity of the passions involved in the question of fidelity is Seven Nation Army. We have  lyric interpretation on these, in blogs and in Chapter IX of the book of music commentaries.

Niel Young writes: “Country girl…

I think your pretty

Got to make you understand

Have no lovers in the city

Let me be your Country man

Note 4: This strange lyric, in its irrationality, demonstrates a number of points about common sense and love:

Jack White: I Fell in Love with a Girl:

Fell in love with a girl
I fell in love once and almost completely
She’s in love with the world
But sometimes these feelings
Can be so misleading
She turns and said “are you alright?”
I said “I must be fine cause my heart’s still beating
Come and kiss me by the riverside, yeah
Bobby says it’s fine he don’t consider it cheating now

Red hair with a curl
mellow roll for the flavor
and the eyes for peeping
can’t keep away from the girl
these two sides of my brain need to have a meeting
can’t think of anything to do yeah
my left brain knows that our love is fleeting
she just looking for something new
and I said it once before but it bears repeating now

Ah-ah-ah-ah!

can’t think of anything to do yeah
my left brain knows that our love is fleeting
she’s just looking for something new
and I said it once before but it bears repeating now

Fell in love with a girl
i fell in love once and almost completely
she’s in love with the world
but sometimes these feelings can be so misleading
she turns and said “are you alright?”
I said “I must be fine cause my heart’s still beating
come and kiss me by the riverside, yeah
Bobby says it’s fine he don’t consider it cheating now

can’t think of anything to do yeah
my left brain knows that our love is fleeting
she just looking for something new
and I said it once before but it bears repeating now

A Query on Hamlet and Madness

Bring me to the test

And I the matter will reword,

which madness would gambol from…

Hamlet says he is not mad because he can reword what he says into different words, same thing. His speech is not involuntary. A nice preface for a Comprehensive exam on Plato’s Sun, line and Cave.

“My uncle-father and my aunt-mother are deceived,” Hamlet tells Guildenstern (II,ii, 372). In what, my dear lord? Guildenstern asks, and Hamlet tells him:

I am but mad north-northwest. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.

And then Polonius enters.

   In my Hamlet essay, I got hawk and handsaw: A hawk is an actor, and a handsaw is one who saws the air too much with his hand, as is mentioned elsewhere in the play, when Hamlet gives advice to the actors. Polonius is a bad actor, while Hamlet wants his mother, Uncle and Guildenstern to think he thinks Guildenstern is a good actor, preserving the veil of illusion, and is still giving him the opportunity to see what he is doing in spying on his friend. But I did not get these wind directions, though a good explanation is in the Arden notes: “when the wind is southerly, “the watcher’s eye is turned away from the sun and so can see more clearly” (p. 258). There might be something to this, if my reader is considering my previous blog.

   The play Hamlet is of course famous for the question of weather Hamlet is really mad or is just faking it, in the antic disposition” he says he will put on to hide his knowledge of the true circumstance in the Kingdom: his uncle has murdered his father Hamlet, and has seized the throne and married the mother of Hamlet. The movie “the Ninth Configuration,” I believe, suggested that he is faking it, but as a defense against a genuine madness, of which he is in danger. Hamlet is the only one who knows the truth about what is occurring in the kingdom. Hamlet talks like Shakespeare himself, though, and those who do not understand or inquire are allowed to believe he is mad. He has had his love, if he loves Ophelia, used as a spy against him, as is being done with Guildenstern in this moment, and no readers seem to think that very significant. Ophelia, of course, drowns herself accidentally in a genuine madness in which she literally does not know what is going on around her. This, though, is caused by the genuine flaw of Hamlet, which is not madness but revenge, and of a strange sort that attempts to influence the immortal souls. Ophelia dies, tragically, because Hamlet, her love, killed her father while he, Polonius, was spying on him, and he thought it was the King. Tragedy, as Aristotle writes, affects those near to one another in kinship, its causes bound up with the filial things. Hamlet would have dealt with the “king” one way or another, except that he wanted to wait until the king was up to no good, assuring that his soul would not go to heaven. Note that domestic spying was once considered being up to no good.* Hamlet does not follow the Socratic reasoning about revenge, and the play turns screaming toward tragedy from this single event.

   Our psychology, with its DSM and its material causes, is not much in advance of the explanations of madness then current, such as that it based on the humors, perhaps an “imbalance,” and is effected by the weather.

   The two plays of Shakespeare on madness are Lear and Hamlet, and I have a three page discussion on modern psychology in the notes to my book on Lear, which has largely been ignored. There is more in the draft of the first chapter of my book on psychology, if anyone is interested. But no one even cares if Hamlet is the only one who knows, on supernatural evidence, what is going on in the kingdom, and he suspected something of the sort, that “something is rotten in Denmark.” The question is what is to be done about it, and of course in classical tragedy, the protagonist makes the wrong choice due to a flaw in his otherwise noble character. Shakespeare also wrote tragedy about villains, Macbeth and Richard III, characters that are essentially flawed though they have some noble element enslaved in the service of their villainy. Hamlet is not a villain.

   Our psychology is incapable of even this ethical distinction, though thankfully it does assume that “values” are facts when considering the “sociopath” and the “psychopath.” It does not even raise the question or try to distinguish between genius and madness. But Al-Farabi is not incapable, and as cited in my psych chapter, has something to say about the distinction between genius and madness.

   But let it suffice to say that if Shakespeare is a sane example, merely saying things most do not understand is not a sufficient indication of madness. One might be the only one who knows what is going on. Such may be accused of madness, and our psychiatry seek to seize and drug them all the same. Psychology can then easily be made the instrument of tyranny. The accusation of madness is extremely serious, not something the courts should allow to be used for ulterior motives, as against the vulnerable, because, as in communist Russia of the Twentieth Century, it will be so used.

*Spying is a deep and terribly complicated question, because it is fine against serious crime and foreign enemies, but places one into a “state of nature” with the one spying, because one is then in their power to the extent of the spying. One can assume it is a state or condition of war, which is outside the civil society or law in some sense. Claudius is in fact trying to kill Hamlet, and Polonius is helping the tyrant kill the lawful heir- though he may think of himself as “help”ing. The use of women and love in spying is far more grave than the perpetrators can possibly realize, or they would not be doing it, though it is less of a crime against those who do not love. It is in truth a violation of religious rights (Genesis 1:26), though it may be thought only a matter of appetites, again by those souls incapable of love..