Anti-fascist?

Taking a look into George Soros:

A very powerful many indeed.

Consider this: if this is the face of anti-fascism, can you perhaps better understand his supposedly fascistic opposition? By that I really mean nationalists whose aim it was to protect their nations from influence by globalists of his sort. People pledging allegiance to their own cultures and histories rather than embracing a globalizing agenda wherein they lose local power and control.

Is it so hard to imagine why people might object to the activities of someone like George Soros? The meddling by his international Open Society Foundations into matters of great consequences to the peoples of these nations? Question: Does Haiti appear better off today after years and years of intervention by Soros and the Clinton Foundation?

Russia and Hungary (the latter being Soros’ own home-country) have in recent times ousted Soros’ foreign-funded NGOs and, as a result, been labeled as backward, “repressive,” “xenophobic parties” and “authoritarian” governments that pose a threat to human rights. Soros has even decided to sue Hungary for their refusal to tolerate his extremely powerful influence there. Does he sound like he’s really in pursuit of upholding human rights when he refuses to allow a nation of people to decide national policies for themselves? In that instance having to do with rejecting the EU’s immigration quota.

I am not a fan of George Soros. Though that doesn’t automatically make me a fan of his opponents either. Partisan politics has never been my bag. But I find it interesting how his organizations have influenced media outlets and encouraged negative reporting against the Koch brothers for donating millions of dollars to colleges while his own Open Society Foundations have donated nearly as many millions (if not more) to institutions of learning (mostly abroad) — though it deserves to be stated that Soros’ main priority has been direct political funding and lobbying efforts, particularly to groups dubbed 527 organizations (less traceable; made publicly known through leaked documents). That’s a supreme bias, which I don’t doubt Soros would dismiss as boiling down to amoral competition among rival camps. Still, it’s interesting to note how dirty he plays in aiming to undermine those he opposes via smear campaigns, casting doubt upon their motives while protecting his own from as much scrutiny.

I say all of this as someone who’s been highly skeptical of the Koch brothers in the past but who now realizes I may have been swayed for the wrong reasons. Perhaps I should take another look into who they are and what they support instead of taking the word of media outlets paid to speak against their efforts.

Though, admittedly, I’m not too cool with this trend of billionaires dumping money into universities in an effort to impact curriculum in their own ideological favor, regardless of which side of the aisle they happen to belong to. Nor was I a supporter of the Citizens United decision for campaign financing. But I suppose these are the times we now live in…

Fascists?

This week a new figure has come across my radar whom I knew little about: Oswald Mosley.

To get a feel for his preaching style back in the day, here’s a portion of a documentary titled “Europeans”:

Relevant portion beginning 1:13:25 in.

I have yet to watch the full documentary, only that end portion. One could dismiss it as propaganda, sure, but that doesn’t drain it of its intensity and prescience. People are attracted to this sort of information precisely because European nations have once again come under siege, this time as a result of their own leaders, adherents to the EU policies, who insist in flooding the land with immigrants from outside cultures, many of whom express no desire to assimilate within these Western cultures. That’s a problem for those who appreciate and wish to protect their heritage, as most humans are wont to do.

That they employed fascism as a means of protecting these cultures historically continues to perplex and upset our modern sensibilities. Which is understandable considering how much propaganda we have been fed in recent decades that denounce such movements as anti-Semitic and barbaric. It’s difficult to argue against what we’ve been taught about the Holocaust as it being anything other than a destructive and dark force. However, I find it helpful to attempt to suspend judgment for a spell and to try to imagine the perspective of Europeans at that point in history. Were they truly little more than blood-thirsty tyrants seeking a scapegoat to blame? That appears to be an uncharitable interpretation of events leading up to one of the worst wars the world had ever known. Why would people be so willing to die for that cause? What were they feeling so threatened by that they’d be willing to lay down their lives to oppose it?

There’s more to the story than we’re typically taught, as is usually the case. The victors write the history books and the opposition are commonly derided as lunatics deserving to be discarded in the waste bins of history. And yet, we’re made aware that the problem has not since been rectified and that people continue to seethe with resentment for how their resistance has been treated and ridiculed and distorted in the decades since. Might be a good time to stop and listen to those we’re so eager to dismiss as “fascists” so as to understand that they too were human beings, not mere monsters bent on the pursuit of power for no purpose — that they too were invested in protecting their cultures and societies against persons and opposing ideologies seeking to overtake them.

What would we do when confronted with forces that threaten to unravel all that we are and have ever been? All of history laid low and diminished, reconstructed in the textbooks with the goal to demonize those who came before in an effort to usher in a new vision for humanity. Nevermind if that new vision is antithetical to what most people actually want and believe in. If it’s packaged nicely enough and sold to us as progressive and bound to improve our lots in life, we buy into it. Foolishly so.

What am I referring to here? What many refer to openly nowadays as the New World Order. It’s not a new concept, though it’s no longer shrouded in secrecy. It’s the goal set by powerful financiers and the like who believe their vision for humanity should be brought to fruition by any means necessary. This goal has been made abundantly clear by now, and it was in the earlier stages of development around the time of the World Wars. People then saw it as a menace just as people now are reawakening to it. And it has been winning.

This is not merely about Europeans of old and their resistance. This issue now extends to include us all, peoples of far-flung nations. Some say it began with the formation of the Federal Reserve system (ushered in finally in 1913 in the U.S. after many prior attempts to do so), though it appears to date back much further than that, though that definitely was a key moment in time worth wrapping one’s mind around. Who all is behind this global initiative and why? That remains a debated topic that there are no clear and easy answers to. Just know that life is incredibly strange and that much of what we’ve been taught is not wholly accurately. In fact, much of it is deliberately skewed so that we might misunderstand the events of the early 20th century and not seek to reanimate them in the present day.

Before we go any further, let’s look at an interview Oswald Mosley did in 1975:

Observe the interviews’ interest in trying his best to paint Mosley as an anti-semite through and through. Despite Mosley explaining that the issue he took was with some Jews, not all, and with Zionism in particular. That’s a tactic still proving popular today, where we’re accused of anti-semitism if we level any criticism at all toward Israel or toward famous and powerful bankers and financiers who happen to be Jewish (like George Soros or the Rothschild dynasty). Even if we critique Israel’s decision to not open its national borders to immigrants while encouraging other nations to do so we’re commonly caricatured as if we’re knuckle-dragging idiots who secretly detest all Jews and who wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the planet. That slippery slope form of argument is all the rage still today and it seeks to place Jewish people uniquely in a category above reproach. This is identity politics, yes, and it achieves its aims through shaming people into staying silent by threatening to label us with the dreaded anti-Semitic epithet.

Why do we fear such epithets? Well, for one, it’s usually unwarranted and inaccurate. But, thinking beyond the box, does it not signal to wider society that we’re despicable persons? That we’re backwards and deserving of having abuse heaped upon us? For a relatively small minority on the planet, Jewish folks (or at least the popular ideology claiming to protect them in recent decades) have garnered immense power when this has become the case in all Western nations. Seriously think about that. We like to imagine we’re simply being protective of this group of people out of respect for historical atrocities that befell them, but is that really all there is to the story? A scratch of the surface demonstrates there’s more to it than that, but we’re strongly discouraged from speaking about it with one another publicly. To do so is to invite being labeled as a “fascist” or a “white supremacist,” with all the negative connotations associated with that. You’re automatically deemed illiberal, primitive and monstrously evil. Why must that be the case?

I personally believe in questioning everything. If someone says a topic is off-limits, I will investigate it out of stubborn rebellion. Because I strongly believe information channels deserve to remain open and that no vein of inquiry should be disallowed in our discussions and research. Because I prize protecting free speech and free thought over fitting in and following the herd. It helps to start off as an unpopular type, freeing you up to remain unpopular since you don’t know what you’re missing. Accusations and labels are par for the course. But that’s not to say such accusations don’t have teeth. Indeed they can. If you’re aiming to work your way up a corporate ladder, you’ll likely choose to keep such thoughts to yourself and to instead parrot what you’ve been instructed to believe is true. Luckily, the corporate world never held much appeal to me and I’m content with remaining relatively poor. There’s freedom in not being bound too tightly into the wider game, allowing more flexibility with fewer concern for consequences. And why should there be consequences to merely speaking words and sharing ideas? To investigating what really happened and why? Because powers-that-be actively discourage that and will try to make an example out of those who step out of line.

Imagine how much power that must entail to exert so much control over people, worldwide. This consideration unto itself demonstrates how entrenched it all is and how far back it spreads. The new normal. For an American to call upon our representatives to curb the amount of money handed over to Israel would spell out political suicide. Even to request greater oversight and accounting there will garner nasty insults and labels from elites and your brainwashed fellow Americans who don’t even know why they support what they do. It’s clear enough that we’ve been thoroughly programmed via our media and politicians to not only accept this way of life but to believe it to be right, beyond question. Beyond scrutiny. Does that not strike any of the rest of you as a bit queer?

We live in strange times that are growing stranger. To stand up against the EU is to be bashed and treated as an ignorant redneck best kept out of serious political conversations. Backwards — they love that word. Why? Because they see their way as the only right way forward. Is it? Well, if the Georgia Guidestones are any indicator I’d say that we’re all being played. In the end very few of us will matter. We’re mostly of value now in that we prove quite effective at keeping one another down.

Is all of this “conspiracy theory” mumbo-jumbo? Some like to paint it as such. And sure, there are plenty of people who will extend these ideas much further and incorporate all sorts of extraneous theories that can’t be proven or that seem so incredibly outlandish as to be little more than distractions. But because some lunatics exist says nothing about whether any and all conspiracies are fiction. Humans conspire. It’s what we do. We collude so as to protect what power we have and/or to acquire more of it. There are powerful persons in the world who operate behind the scenes in pushing agendas that many of us oppose. George Soros and his Open Society Foundation are a clear demonstration of that. It’s not even a secret any longer. And he was there back in the days of WWII, getting his start in first aiding the Nazis…but now look at what he’s up to. Is what he’s pushing today fascism? No. But it is a form of socialism of sorts. I’d argue it’s not truly going to improve the lives of most people and that really he’s sowing seeds of discord among us.

So what do we mean when we refer to fascism? National socialism? Is what we see unfolding in European nations and the U.S. truly nationalistic? No. Not anymore. Mussolini’s famous reference to fascism being little more than a fusion of government and corporations apparently had to do with nationalizing companies and guilds, bringing them under the power and influence of the ruling body of the time. Yet today in America we see major (global) corporations infiltrating and dominating our political system. In other words, the opposite scenario. Are we truly a capitalist nation? No, not since corporatism came on the scene and began dismantling capitalism (the origins of which stem back centuries). Are we a socialist nation? In some respects, arguably we are. Though the push to usher in more immigration and to ignore our borders is distinctly non-nationalistic in nature. Are we ruled by major corporate interests? To an extent, yes. And yet they have no loyalty to America and will abandon us when it proves most profitable to do so.

Is Israel nationalistic? Very much so. Is Israel socialistic?

Is this truly a battle between capitalism and communism playing out on the world stage? Not so much anymore. Dr. Erich Fromm wrote in one of his books about how capitalism and communism exist on the same continuum, whereas communism is what capitalist nations eventually have to look forward to. Not sure if he’s right about that, but it’s an interesting proposition.

I have no answers here. Only countless questions. I won’t guess at what the future holds since unforeseen variables can flip the script. But I do see us being forced to kowtow to narratives that aren’t serving us at present, and it seems a shame that we allow ourselves to be limited in these ways. It’s neither a position belonging on the political Left or Right to acknowledge these facts either. I just know that human life is messy and we should be cautious about accepting the claim that an entire people were monsters with no justification whatsoever for their actions, especially when they’ve otherwise generally proven to be high-minded, creative and well-educated. Such claims do not compute. There’s more to the story than we’re hearing. Question all narratives.

Harari on our lack of freedom & Free Will (my thoughts)

This afternoon I came across an article in The Guardian titled “Yuval Noah Harari: the myth of freedom” (Sept. 14, 2018).

A few notable excerpts from the article:

Unfortunately, “free will” isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology. Theologians developed the idea of “free will” to explain why God is right to punish sinners for their bad choices and reward saints for their good choices.

[…]

Though “free will” was always a myth, in previous centuries […]

But now the belief in “free will” suddenly becomes dangerous. If governments and corporations succeed in hacking the human animal, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will.

[…]

In recent years some of the smartest people in the world have worked on hacking the human brain in order to make you click on ads and sell you stuff. Now these methods are being used to sell you politicians and ideologies, too.

[…]

Liberalism has developed an impressive arsenal of arguments and institutions to defend individual freedoms against external attacks from oppressive governments and bigoted religions, but it is unprepared for a situation when individual freedom is subverted from within, and when the very concepts of “individual” and “freedom” no longer make much sense.

[…]

The very same technologies that we have invented to help individuals pursue their dreams also make it possible to re-engineer those dreams. So how can I trust any of my dreams?

[…]

There is nothing new about doubting free will or about exploring the true nature of humanity. We humans have had this discussion a thousand times before. But we never had the technology before. And the technology changes everything.

My initial reaction after reading that article:

Having now read it through a 2nd time, I’d like to elaborate a bit further.

First off, I listened to the audio version of Yuval Noah Harari’s book Sapiens a couple years back and generally appreciated it. Though I haven’t kept up with the author since then and was unaware of his shifting views. Now, the reason I reacted as I did to his latest article is based on a number of reservations and concerns.

1.) The notion of Free Will being a “myth” approaches sacrilege among average Western minds. Our entire history up until this point is predicated on the idea of individual rights and freedoms, as Harari acknowledges. But I’m not aware of anyone who would claim that Free Will can be defined as 100% freedom over oneself with no regard whatsoever for our human, environmental or cultural limitations. Scientific exploration indeed has taught us much about the role genetics play in directing our desires and weaknesses, but are we mere animals bound to deterministic cause and effect? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in that area as well. We humans are a mixed lot, existing within and impacted by the material realm while also possessing potential to transcend what’s given to us to an extent, at least psychologically. In short, we are both directed by forces beyond our control as well as directors of our own lives, simultaneously.

2.) Blaming Free Will off onto Christianity (though it’d be more apt to include Judaism in this as well) seems to imply that this religion somehow did humans a disservice in this regard, that it lied to us about Reality and our role within it. Furthermore, it appears Harari assumes that individualism didn’t arise organically on its own — that is to say, is a natural part of the evolution of our species. Instead he seems to be arguing that such a notion was born strictly out of this monotheistic religion, which is confusing since which came first, humanity’s trending toward individualism or the idea of individualism being encapsulated within a religious context?

3.) Harari’s argument appears to be that while individualism and the notion of Free Will proved useful previously, it’s no longer of much (if any) value moving forward. Why? Because we have failed at the calling to Know Thyself and therefore are being rendered at the mercy of other humans and the technologies they employ to sway, deceive, control and make money off of us, all while convincing us that we’re actually acting as free agents. Okay, that much I can agree with. We, collectively speaking, have dropped the ball in taking seriously the navigation of our own individual lives, preferring instead to flow with the mainstream channels provided to all of us. But still, recognition of this does not negate the existence of Free Will. Rather, it points to our option to not embrace it (that being an important part of the concept of Free Will). We’re not required to strive to understand it and act upon it, though arguably we should. Because people often prove weak and fail at this task still doesn’t negate the Free Will option (again, despite it not being about 100% freedom since that’s an impossibility; we human beings not being gods in our own right).

4.) It seems that Harari is suggesting that artificial intelligence is coming on the scene, whether any of us like it or not, and that it will necessarily prove dominant over all of us. Okay, that might happen. But is Harari fine with that outcome? Is he suggesting that we should bow down and accept that fate as the “hackable animals” that we apparently are? Is it his opinion that resistance is futile? Because that’s the way it sounds, and that comes across as extremely deterministic, which then causes someone like me to feel pangs in my soul at such a thought.

5.) Harari’s position also seems to leave out consideration over whether this AI-dominated future that’s unfurling will be psychologically compatible with us as human beings. I personally don’t believe it will. Already a good many of us are disturbed by the effects of modern life and are exhibiting chronic symptoms of depression and anxiety as a result. Plus there are the falling birth rates (perhaps due to our “captivity” conditions) and the rising suicide rates among Westerners. It’s possible that we’re heading in a direction that will wind up pushing more of us to the margins of society, if not off a cliff entirely. (Though, some then might argue that’s evidence that we who can’t or won’t adapt are not strong enough in this game for survival, so adios.)

6.) The idea that if we give up our notion of individuality and Free Will we’ll then be free to listen more to others and become more actively engaged in protecting the environment sounds absurd. If anything, this trend would lead to more nihilism which may lead to more violent backlashes and reactionary inclinations to attempt to dismantle society itself. Just sayin’. (Perhaps he would argue that the anarchistic spirit within some is just another genetically-determined drive and/or a manipulated reaction stoked by those with a hidden agenda? *shrugs*) Anyway, why would a person care about a future world where humans aren’t free to be human, where life’s meaning has become trivialized, where our choices and options are supposedly pre-determined, and where Big Brother dominates us all whether we like it or not? Sounds like hell on earth, not a place I’d care about trying to save.

7.) Because science has not (or perhaps cannot) explain a phenomenon doesn’t automatically mean it’s not real. As others have suggested, scientists have barely scratched the surface in trying to make sense of consciousness — and yet, here it remains. What is it? We don’t know. Where did it originate from? We’re not certain. What is its purpose? That remains to be seen. Should we deny it outright and treat it dismissively because scientists can’t explain it? No. We continue studying and pondering on the topic, all while utilizing the very thing we’re unable to understand. Life is paradoxical like that. So much remains a mystery. Yet some place so much faith in human accomplishments and ingenuity that anything that falls outside of that which our sciences can readily explain winds up being treated as if inconsequential. To our detriment, I’ll argue.

8.) Harari speaks disdainfully of those who retreat away from this AI-dominated future vision, preferring instead to turn back toward traditional ways of life and the religions of old. He sees this trend as problematic, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps this too is a perfectly natural response for humans confronting a future that may very well spell our demise. Instead of having compassion for that reaction, he labels it as a threat. Which then gives me the impression that he’s actually in favor of this new world order he speaks of. (New world order = totalitarian in nature, tech-dominated, highly centralized, surveillance-infested, socially-engineered so much as possible, with the emphasis placed on our unity as persons on this globe, no longer citizens of nations.) Much as he seems to be warning us about it, he also appears to be pushing for it, hence why he chastises those who wish to break rank and seek a way to escape or fight back against it. That’s not too cool. Doesn’t sound like someone’s advice I’d care to follow.

So, those are my points of contention with what Harari wrote in the article, as well as what I listened to thus far from the podcast he went on with Sam Harris (uploaded yesterday):

Happened to be cleaning my guns while tuning in, which turned out to be a fine task while concentrating on a conversation of that nature. Then the phone rang and I’ve been distracted ever since. Decided to post this up before resuming listening.

If nothing else is certain to be true, I can safely say it’s a hell of a time to be alive.

______________________________________________________

The next day: I have now listened to the following talk from Harari (uploaded a month ago):

Pedogate?

Weird time to observe the internet fallout over concerns about pedophiles in Hollywood and in our government. Some of it’s been confirmed, as in the case of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert being charged for molesting children:

Observe the paltry 15-month sentence for a man entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law. After DECADES of having gotten away with it…

A little more information on Dennis Hastert and why his case wasn’t blown wide open:

Turning our attention now to Jimmy Savile of the BBC, another prolific sex offender who got away with his crimes for DECADES:

Observe that he was well-known as a campaigner for children’s charities. That trend turns out to not be uncommon among these types.

That last video goes into the UK coverup of MP Cyril Smith‘s crimes (that allegedly spanned DECADES as well), which then goes on to implicate various other high-ranking officials for sexual offenses in that country (further material on those allegations can be accessed here).

Another important mention in that last video is that of the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, close friend of the Clintons. Many of us are familiar with his name by now, having already about his island trips accompanied by Bill Clinton where underage girls were present and allegedly sexually abused, one of which claiming to be kept there against her will.

Then there was the Netherland’s Joris Demmink, accused of sexually abusing boys from Turkey since the 1990s.

Then the Lithuanian government pedophilia story:

Returning our attention to U.S. cases, we can’t leave out the Franklin cover-up scandal involving Lawrence King and implicating high officials in Nebraska and elsewhere in the nation (on up to the White House), as well as Boystown where these youths were procured. That case hits close to home for me personally, having once known a guy who lived at Boystown during the late ’80s who, while never mentioning the Franklin Credit Union scandal specifically, did discuss other forms of corruption occurring there where adults engaged in sexual behavior with certain youths. I have absolutely no love toward Boystown and consider it a serious offense for any parent to send their child there — that has been my firm opinion on the matter for nearly 15 years now since being told about the place firsthand.

Kakistocracy — remember that term. It means a system of government which is ruled by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens. James Corbett and his guest did a good job explaining how that may be at play here alongside psychopathy, and when they discuss psychopathy here they acknowledge how most psychopaths aren’t geared toward ruthless violence and/or able to maintain a veneer of respectability in front of the general public, so the goal under these circumstances is to 1.) attempt to create such people through early abuse and trauma, and 2.) to encourage involvement in abuse and traumatization of children (and others) in order to demonstrate one’s willful ruthlessness while submitting to blackmailability that proves one’s loyalty to the kakistocracy one wishes to rank within and be further enriched and empowered by. In short, it’s a corruption cycle guaranteed to spiral toward deeper depravity due to the nature of the game being played by those involved.

Now, let’s shift focus to the so-called PizzaGate scandal that surfaced over a year back.

While it’s commonly dismissed as little more than a baseless conspiracy theory, some of the information disclosed around that time and since has proven very noteworthy. I looked into aspects of that case and documented it on here already, so not wishing to fully repeat myself — go look there too. All I’m wanting to say right now is let’s not be so quick to dismiss it all as nonsense since some of the people showcased therein are unarguably VERY STRANGE and yet remain tied in with high-status politicians and celebrities, causing me to wonder why on earth any politician looking to be taken seriously would choose to affiliate with company of that sort.

Immediately springing to mind is Marina Abramović, which many are already familiar with by now and her “spirit cooking” art. Other artists whose works were displayed in the homes of Tony and John Podesta‘s homes also prove quite puzzling. Again, these are high-ranking officials with top ties in Washington D.C. who choose to partake in purchasing art of a highly questionable nature and to keep the company of very weird artists, one of whom notably likes to use blood and semen in her artforms, as is by now well-documented. Blurring the lines of respectability occurred when leading Democrats like the Clintons chose to include such people in their campaign financing endeavors, which can’t help but turn plenty of us off out here in the heartland. Many of us expect our political leaders to be of good moral character and to possess reasonable judgement, and these associations completely fly in the face of that expectation, leaving us wondering who the hell these people really are and what it is they’re really up to. Like it or not, our associations do reflect on our own character. Our art selections—like those depicting children in unnerving ways as proudly displayed by the Podesta brothers—do serve as indicators of WHO WE ARE. It’s showing what we’re attracted to, what we find pleasing to look at repeatedly, what artists we wish to financially compensate for their creations, etc. We know this. Let’s not pretend as if our art purchases have no bearings on us and in no way showcase our personalities — that’s ridiculous since that’s the entire purpose of purchasing or producing art in the first place.

So, there are the “artists” these people choose to buy from and befriend and invite to campaigning events. Then there was the Comet Ping Pong and Pizza shop that was used for hosting campaign rallies. Is it strange as hell? Yes, it is. And yet it’s also said to be very popular. The owner, James Alefantis, posted up some very weird and uncomfortable pictures and messages on his social media platforms that have widely been circulated that, again, call into question the Clintons’ choice in associations. Wouldn’t think that being affiliated with such extreme people would be viewed as a safe play for a woman hellbent on being elected president, but oh well — she chose to go that route anyway for whatever reasons. And the public reacted very badly as a result, as to be expected by any sane person giving the matter any serious thought. This information came to light thanks to emails first leaked by Wikileaks, allegedly provided to Julian Assange by Seth Rich when he recognized the DNC scandal occurring (he having since been killed — that being a topic for another time).

Comet Ping Pong and Pizza still deserves attention, if for no other reason than that it hosts not only Hilary Clinton’s campaign fundraising events but also much darker, definitely adult-only events such as this one captured by an attendee:

I have some strange friends, but we’re nowhere near as strange and crazy as those folks appear to be. Not my kind of people at all.

Is being strange a crime? Not claiming it is, but we do choose who we willfully associate with. These are people the Clintons willfully choose to associate with and befriend for many years. That’s a known fact by now.

Another case-in-point that’s hard to forget about, Anthony Weiner:

Such associations are unlikely to help anybody get elected when the news comes out as graphically as this all did. Because most of us Americans aren’t into this shit. Many of us don’t wish to be associated with such degrading crap, immoral as we might otherwise be. There’s a line drawn somewhere, and it most definitely cuts most of us off from finding the sexual mistreatment of children funny or artistic.

Which brings me to the latest news that’s set Youtube ablaze, that being the firing of director James Gunn by Disney for his pedophile-esque tweets posted approximately a decade back (which some claim he previously apologized for, yet he still opted to leave them up all this time since and now is shocked that much of the public doesn’t share his sick sense of humor):

Following that, Dan Harmon’s idea of pedo-esque “satire” was uncovered from a few years ago and that hasn’t gone over well either:

Noticing a trend here?

Some claim that it appears like pedophilia is becoming normalized in our society…

…and that the Hollywood elite are (and arguably for many years have already been) injecting pedo jokes and content into the mainstream movies and television shows either in attempt to get us on board with this brand of “humor” or perhaps simply because they’re choosing to display their true colors and figure there won’t be repercussions since there haven’t been many thus far. Or perhaps they’re just a bunch of idiot savants of some sort. I don’t know. Won’t claim to know either. I just know that this shit is disheartening, though it isn’t new on the scene. Maybe as I’m getting a bit older it’s dawning on me more and more how much perverted shit I’ve been exposed to throughout my life, much coming by way of the mainstream venues (plus the internet). And maybe I’m ultra sensitive to this in light of my own history and the stories told to me by numerous friends over the years that I still harbor in my psyche to this day. Causes jokes about sexual mistreatment of children to just not be funny. Not funny at all. Not one fucking bit.

Rather, it makes me hold the line and resist further affiliating with or otherwise giving money to such characters. I don’t wish to perpetuate that bullshit, not in actual deed or in spirit.

There’s so much creepiness in the world…

Perhaps it’s always been this way and now it’s just televised and mass-marketed? I think it leaves its mark on our minds regardless. All that is seen can’t be unseen.

Case in point, Brooke Shields being sexualized via mainstream venues at 10-12 years old:

Are we cool with that? That the kind of world we’re hoping to create here? All that can be done should be done? Nothing left to stop us anymore, no moral constraints that draw a firm line to protect vulnerable interests. Just pure nihilism. A death spiral. Observing for the sake of doing so, just because we can. Anything that can be sold for money ought to be sold for money, because muh capitalism. Don’t tread on my free market, bitches. Right? But it seems to me that we conveniently like to forget that Adam Smith was a moral philosopher first and foremost and that a free market only functions sustainably when we properly govern ourselves. A mindless descent into decadence and nihilistic exploration doesn’t strike me as the most productive path forward, though perhaps we needed to go this deep to realize the importance of values. This path we’re on leads to nothing being sacred: not family, not youth, not love, and certainly not peace and community-building. No, it’s a psychological wasteland, folks, and I think we’re bound to figure that out in the not-so-distant future.

Though, I’m not arguing for the bubble-wrapping of society either. Not claiming that all must be geared for the greater good of the children. No, we need adult-only spaces where we can speak freely. Just saying that it’s high time we do a better job of voting with our dollars if we’re not interested in promoting those who find child porn hilarious. Me personally, I’m not a big fan of the idea of bringing more kids into this quagmire we call modern life, but the rest of you will do as you please obviously.

On the Intellectual Dark Web | Glenn Loury & Bret Weinstein [The Glenn Show]

An excellent conversation between two people I admire:

Also, Bret Weinstein’s perspective on Trump’s Hitler-esque strategy was interesting. His general political views are somewhat in line with my own, although his are more liberal or Left-leaning, but I do grasp how there’s something very wrong with our political system on both sides of the partisan aisle and agree that Trump isn’t necessarily a special indicator of how off the rails it’s all gone. Trump is just one more in a long line of people who should never have been elected, but Hillary Clinton was certainly no better option, and that in itself is the problem: the choices we’re being presented with are shit and have been shit for a long, long time. Guess it’s difficult for me to be strongly distressed over Trump they way some of my fellow Americans are since I felt similarly about Clinton, though neither option were worth a damn.

But, then again, we get the System we’re willing to tolerate. I vote 3rd party while others scoff, but I don’t see any benefit in playing into the duopoly game. Not in my lifetime anyway. Observing the Political Left losing its shit over this most recent election is somewhat amusing, though also kind of unnerving how animated they’re all becoming, particularly in the mainstream media. Some do indeed seem to be angling toward stoking a civil war, and that’s not likely in any of our best interests. But whatever will come will come. Can’t probably stop that train, try as we might. Good to keep the channels of communication open though and to prod one another to think more deeply about all these topics, including what elements of society we think we’re aiming to recreate and/or preserve.

Speaking of “batshit craziness”…

Recently while perusing the listing of local counselors and therapists on Psychology Today’s website, I stumbled across (to my horror) a profile belonging to somebody I used to know well. There she was, after having completed her master’s degree during the last 7 years since we cut off contact, offering her services as a licensed therapist to work with children, adults and families, claiming to specialize in treating depression and providing grief counseling. Charging, according to the site, $140-$250 per session (notably with no sliding scale fees available for low-income patients, though accepting various insurance plans). Huh.

People pay THAT woman for help??? WOW. Pardon me for sounding like an arrogant jerk here, but I knew that woman for a few years as a friend and can’t help but find that shockingly absurd. Mentioned this to another friend of mine who also used to know her and he too was floored by the news. Just goes to show that the mental health field will indeed take all comers, so long as they can pass the social work or psychology curriculum (which apparently isn’t too terribly difficult).

I knew her, and through knowing her I can’t imagine her having anything of value to bring to the table when it comes to aiding anybody with depression or overcoming grief. Sure, she herself experienced grief when her father died, but that doesn’t mean she’s a good candidate for helping others in a similar predicament. In our time knowing one another she was drinking to blackout limits on a regular basis, taking home strange men who she’d then accuse of raping her (due to them taking advantage of her blackout state), contracting STDs as a result (on more than one occasion), and then completely fucking up her social services job that eventually fired her and then aggressively refuted her attempts to collect unemployment benefits (a very painful lesson to her that occurred shortly before our friendship ended). THAT lady, a mere 7 years onward, is now credentialed to be a source of aid to others, and at a very steep price.

Okay. Examples like this are why I don’t place much faith in the mental health field. Look, even if that woman has turned her life around and is doing much better these days (as I sincerely hope she is), that still doesn’t qualify her to be a mental health professional to others. It would take a lot more than a few years and an additional academic degree to provide her with enough life experience and wisdom to be of much use to others. I recall her temperament and in no way can I see her personality as being that of someone who’s truly and deeply committed to helping others or exploring life in open-minded ways or relating to depression in others. She was one of the more selfish women I’ve ever befriended, and I say this as a pretty damn selfish woman myself. The difference being that I have the sense to recognize I’d be a charlatan if I hung out a shingle and played therapist to others for a paycheck.

I’m not trying to come across angry here. Mostly I’m incredulous. And I can’t help but wonder how many folks have visited with her and whether they felt they actually received any benefit from doing so. Was she mentally and emotionally present with them during sessions? Does she have any worthwhile advice to offer, or is she just regurgitating whatever she read in college textbooks? Is she sober these days or still living each day in the hazy fog of a perpetual hangover? Has she actually done more soul-searching over the years and unearthed the problems and pain that were driving her own self-destructive tendencies? Is she less of a bitch nowadays?

How does one go from raging drunken party girl to professional counselor in such a short span of time? And how does one feel right about doing so? She’s younger than me, so in her early 30s by now. How much useful advice can people like us give to others when we’ve spent our 20s drowning our sorrow in bars, depending heavily on the help of friends and others ourselves?

Like the blind leading the blind…

Just strikes me as utterly queer to have come across her profile on there. Yet another example of what I’ve grown aware of over the years: that there’s a disproportionate amount of fucked up people in the mental health industry. By that I mean that the very people we’re instructed to turn toward during our times of need unfortunately tend to be the ones who have a shitload of drama in their own lives, and often enough of their own creation. Why? My assumption is that those of us trying to heal ourselves tend to be drawn to those fields and their material, which for some gets them thinking that because they learn a lot about these subjects that that then qualifies them to join such fields in order to earn a living. In short, crazy attracted to information about crazy transforms into professional for other crazies in order to earn a profit and prestige. Maybe it’s a way to help oneself to feel less crazy by comparison. I don’t know. I just know that it makes me very uneasy when I keep seeing this play out time and again.

Reminds me of a close girlfriend of mine whose uncle is a child psychologist. He and his mental health field wife had one daughter and she happens to be one of the most batshit crazy people some of us have ever known. Seriously. Enough to where my friend’s husband refuses to leave his own kids alone with the woman for any amount of time. And of course, as to be expected of completely unhinged people like herself, she went to college and became a teacher. And when that blew up in her face finally (due to her bizarre behavior and ongoing disruptive lunacy, including screaming on her cell phone and hysterically crying in front of a classroom of children, that ending one of her teaching jobs), she’s now decided to return to college to pursue her master’s degree. In what, you ask? Psychology. Naturally…

Nevermind having been locked up in a psych ward herself due to multiple suicide “attempts” (more like manipulative displays to distress and guilt the hell out of her parents, who continue to financially provide for her into her 30s).

Makes the head spin.

While I can understand the attraction to these fields of research, it’s one thing to learn about them and yet quite another to preach from their pulpits. Unhealthy people aren’t the best at defining or demonstrating what health is. Winds up being abstract and theoretical rather than lived experientially. I can understand this as a lover of sociology — the study of human dynamics, particularly among or across groups — as someone who repels from groups. It’s as if we’re attracted to that which is foreign to us. Not saying we can’t offer up unique perspectives about these subjects through our own research, but how helpful to others are we likely to be when we can’t embody that which we wish to teach?

Just a thought this morning. The more I learn, the less I really can claim to know. But I do tread carefully in my dealings with anyone claiming to belong within the mental health establishment (in any capacity) since life has been teaching me that crazies tend to flock within its ranks. And I’m not down with having my mind screwed up even more by folks who play a role they have no business playing.

The way that game is currently set up, there are no checks and balances to deter unhealthy people from joining such fields and then passing along their own warped way of looking at life onto others (or simply wasting our time and money in our search for useful guidance). And yet we as a society grant them so much power and funnel the masses toward these supposed professionals. It’s worth seriously pondering on the potential consequences of this trend.

“Joe Rogan Experience #1081 – Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying”

“The Master and His Emissary: Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist”