Archive for April 2010

Obamacans vs Americans

April 30, 2010

People desire things. When they believe violence can get them what they want, they will use violence. When they think there is a better way or that violence won’t get them what they want, people won’t use violence.

Even the criminally sociopathic or psychopathic serial killer knows this. That’s why he hides himself amongst a neighborhood of good people without ever giving away who or what he is. To kill, he must compromise and get along with the system. Because to kill is what he desires above all else. Everything else is negotiable.

For most people it is the reverse. Everything is not negotiable. There are some things people won’t give up just as there are some things they wish with all their hearts. But if they are blocked from acquiring their desires, then violence becomes a feasible option for getting what they would otherwise be denied. They negotiate with violence to get what they desire.

Everything depends upon whether what you desire is Good for humanity or Evil for humanity. It matters whether what you desire harms many people or simply one. Just as it matters whether the Good you do affects only yourself or many people around you.

Violence is not socially acceptable and the wannabe liberals will constantly tell you this from their moral highhorse. Thus in order to make it morally palatable, Democrats will justify it using political reasoning. Rage and hate then become useful emotions for concentrating people’s motivations. What they would not have done because social inhibitions had limited them, they will gladly do at the behest of uncontrollable internal rage and hate.

Rage and hate then produce a tantrum type violent reaction. These people believe so strongly that the world is out to get them, they want to hurt the entire world back. And if you are conveniently there for them to go off on you, then all they will need is an excuse. A BusHitler for example. Or a hated Republican. Something they can justify to themselves that makes violence appropriate to use, even just and righteous to use. They need to justify to themselves that their behavior is right by their own standards of morality, even the ethics of moral relativity. Recall Columbine. Recall Ft. Hood. Recall 9/11. These are all examples of what can be done with tantrums. Violence that isn’t directly related to you personally nor intended to acquire a personal desire, but simply a means of self-regulating uncontrollable rage and hate. There’s no way to convince these people that there is a mutually beneficial arrangement. To them, they can only get what they want from taking it out on you. Unlike violence directed towards individuals, this isn’t personal. This is simply you being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone else could have sufficed.

Rage and hate concentrate the mind using monkey brain politics. It turns hypothetical future threats into current reality. Instead of something that might happen in the future to hurt you, the monkey brain transforms it into a current threat that is happening NOW. Pride, status, emotions: those are the things the monkey brain prioritizes above all else. Thus, everything you do to the other person becomes justified. It becomes the right thing to do. Self-defense even.

A huge factor is ‘how you think in the long term’ directs your emotional responses.

We’re not talking about a single thought here (e.g. the cat knocked the glass over). What we’re talking about is your long established thought patterns determine your emotions. How you think directs how you feel.

Imagine your emotions like water. These long term ‘thinking patterns’ channel your emotions (and thoughts) down certain pathways. And this happens without you consciously knowing it. Like rain running off a roof and down a drain spout, you only become aware of it when it comes gushing out.

Have you ever had an emotion faster than conscious thought? Who hasn’t? Someone says something and you’re immediately angry. Then you have a moment to ‘think about it’ and you calm down — when you realize that the person didn’t mean what you thought he said. That is an example of emotional processing being guided down certain pathways and you consciously stopping the process.

Often however, people DON’T stop the process, they just react as if their feelings reflect actuality. Not only that, but they react as though their emotions are conscious and rational.

Democrats are used to allowing their emotions and social status to direct their behavior. It is, to them, the safest way to operate given their environment and peers. After all, the Left does not treat people who break the circle-consensus gently. Often times it is easier to go with the flow rather than object using logic.

When somebody becomes a threat, whether it is fascist Bush or racist Tea Partiers, the rage, fear, and hate all come together and drive the actual behavior of these people. And they feel good doing it. They feel good because they are free. Free from all consequences, all fears, all doubts. For the first time in their miserable and pathetic lives, they have become free from the social inhibitions against violence, rudeness, hysteria, intolerance, and the various other collars they have had around their necks since they were born. Whether it is religion they rage against, whether it is politics, whether it is the police, whether it is social welfare or their guilt at making more money than the starving poor, rage frees them from a lifetime of bondage.

They no longer have to doubt that attacking humans is wrong. They no longer have to hide their fear for fear of being attacked for fearing blacks. They no longer have to worry about being called too rich for their own good for having more money than the poor. They have an enemy and their hate liberates them from the consequences of morality or ethics. They have one goal, the destruction of their target. Nothing else matters. As Kos called American ex Special Forces “mercenaries”, he cared little for their well being. He wished simply for them to disappear. And he’ll lap up the juices of anybody, including Islamic terrorists, that make it happen.

But they forgot one thing. Allowing rage, hate, anger, and fear to control their behavior and thoughts didn’t make them free. It simply made them slaves of their monkey. I, who was born with an inherent instinct for perfecting through thought the use of violence against humans for real or imagined injustice, was never under the illusion that if I just let those instincts do whatever it wanted that I would always remain in control rather than the other way around. I never told myself that my instincts driving me towards destruction as the most effective means of resolving human problems would always give me the truth of this world. And because I never did that, I could begin to gain control over extreme negative emotions.

Instead of me doing whatever they told me to do, now they do whatever I tell them to do. It is no longer my rage telling me to hurt somebody I wish to see destroyed. Now it is me telling my rage to use everything it has to ensure the destruction of somebody I wish to destroy, for reasons born out of the truth, not the monkey truth, of the world.

Freely giving up control to your emotions is the ultimate self-admission that you are too weak physically or mentally to handle problems on your own. The rage has certainty. The rage has endurance. The rage has a power that you lack in normal life. The rage has no doubts about who needs killing and what needs to be sacrificed (life or limb) for it. But you do. You doubt because wannabe liberals have taught you to doubt. Moral relativity has taught you that nothing is worth dying for, nothing worth killing for. Nothing worth living for except pleasure and immortality. The self-justification for existence, more existence.

It is hard to gain control of extreme emotions. If you don’t know what triggered it, if you don’t know why or how it is affecting you, if you don’t know what started it or what is the source of it, telling yourself to be calm will simply make you more angry. Trying to regain control will simply make you lose even more control as the evidence of your own weakness becomes apparent to your own awareness. The monkey will fight back. He doesn’t want to give up the driver’s seat to you because he doesn’t think you can handle it. You have to take it from him, throw him out the window and then ride over him, repeatedly, with the bus. Da Bump, Da Bump, Da Bump. Show the monkey that you are a better driver, and conveniently far more ruthless and efficient, than he ever will be.

Survival instincts that tell you to attack Republicans because Republicans are evil can’t be stood down simply by repeating to yourself that these survival instincts won’t work to fix things. Because if that doesn’t work, that means nothing will work to help you. And that is unacceptable to wannabe liberals. The admission of absolute failure is something beyond their courage. You can’t come up with a better way of making yourself safe, you won’t run, so you must fight Republicans. Even if they are willingly to negotiate a fair and mutually beneficial arrangement, the Left will fight. Because they will lose if they give up and they know it.

It will be the ultimate admission of their weakness and personal failure. That even when they become slaves of their own emotions, even with such godlike strength in their veins… they will still have failed. Well, what did they expect when the monkey is the master. Blacks are so uptight about whites owning their non-existent slave ancestors that they will go and agree to become slaves of another in return for power that they personally could never deserve to wield. Because they’re too weak to wield it.

Against most normal people, rage and anger are enough to give you the edge. Because most normal people are peaceful and won’t escalate matters to asocial violence or physical conflict. However, those are normal people. There is always a better killer around the corner. You just have to have the bad luck of finding them. The Left has been successful in Cuba, Russia, Europe, China, and all around the world because they and only they were the best killers in their little pond. They overpowered through arms or numbers the local competition.

This is not the case here, now. America did not become the world’s lone superpower based upon the personal fighting abilities of our politicians. FDR was a Communist loving adulterer and plantation slave advocate. JFK was a Bay of Pigs and anti-Communist incompetent that somehow allowed and then evaded nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The strength of this nation has always relied upon the willingness of the American people to kill and die for the American dream. Everything else is negotiable. Even the Left are not stupid enough to think they can conquer such a place with force of arms alone. They knew that subversion and subterfuge was a necessary ingredient to the poison before the actual fight could be won. Our strength was never in mass movements or the cover of large organizations. It was Always, always what we would





for personally. Not something we’d hire out like Gore’s carbon credits. On this matter, politics doesn’t even matter. Even if we were enemies across a national or political divide, it would not change the nature of our character or the presence or absence of our honor.


Hypnotism and the fear of Rush Limbaugh

April 21, 2010

It is not their minds they are worried about. It is their very identity. To them, the destruction of their vast Utopia is the same as a physical attack. They can neither handle the former nor the latter.

Alpha leaders exist for this express purpose. Throughout evolution, humans were weak, foolish, and all too easily killed by their own foolishness, ignorance, or sheer stupidity. Intelligence back then wasn’t rated on a standard test like the SATs. Intelligence back then was rated at how long it took you to realize that you should be running in front of ole George after George comes out of the bushes screaming in terror. Intelligence back then was rated how much you could imagine a blizzard or a famine or a winter without food, thus motivating one to plan ahead. Intelligence back then was all about how to adapt to ever changing conditions, no matter what they were, because all of them impacted human survival.

Alpha leaders exist to ensure that the people that they are leading gets what they need. Not what they want, but what they need to survive.

The simple reason why your friends fear Rush is because they believe that the only source that can give them what they need to survive is the Democrat party. They are the same as those stuck in cults. They can’t get out, because they believe their life will end. If you actually raised this subject with them, they will automatically shut you out. Because the very idea that their survival is at stake has to be denied, for that is part of their mental defenses. But this has gone on for too long. It is no longer a mental defense but a mental defect. It is not aiding them in survival as it was intended to be. Such mental defenses were simply to help humans cope with trauma in order to survive long enough to re-stabilize conditions. It wasn’t supposed to be there forever after.

There are many who were not invested in Leftist creed and dogma. Robin was. Neo and Book were not.

Without alpha leaders, all you get are a bunch of con artists that can easily sway the views of anybody else. At least the hypnotist in your story produced results. Con artists like Obama can’t even produce any results that are objective in standard.

They live by the cult and they will be used by the cult. It is as simple as that. The cult wants your money. You give it to them because the cult is your route to safety, whereas money is not.

How to deprogram people that has been in a cult? Patty O’Hearst, I believe, would know.

On a related topic, John put up this informative source pdf.

Neuro-linguistic programming works from what I have seen, unrelated to the fields of psychotherapy.

It’s something people have learned to use to con people, pick up women using seduction, or provide security and leadership to a community.

Some few people are very or entirely resistant to hypnosis. This can be because they have essentially created a counter-hypnotic command in themselves that says they, and only they, get to tell them what is or is not true, who or what they are. Others have very well defended personal boundaries that prevent anybody, perhaps even including trusted family members, from telling them what is or is not true, what is or is not good/evil, what is or is not appropriate. People have personal space, defined as their thoughts and emotions which they and they only control. Without the proper defense of such space, one can allow others, therapists or hypnotists, to encroach upon this space and slowly make it their own.

Others voluntarily abdicate part of their personal space for social reasons. Such as to get help from a therapist. To confide in a friend or family member. To obtain lovers and create long lasting relationships. Family and kids. Careers and goals.
There is also the scientific factor. There are 3 primary drivers in your brain. The neo-cortex, or rational mind. What the document may refer to as the critical factor. Then there is the sub-conscious monkey brain, the emotional level. The monkey brain has a lot of imagination. It is the part of you that tells you that you are going to die if you let that other guy humiliate you and not do anything back. It is the part that says winter is coming so you should store food now, while the grass is green. It is the part that controls all the social aspects of how you perceive life to be. When the monkey is driving the bus, your neo-cortex is not. While you may think you are in control and acting rationally, the one really in control is the monkey, a crack addicted monkey even.

The third driver that can be driving your bus is the lizard brain. This is the machine, the killer, the mother that goes werewolf to defend her child, the men and women who survive extreme physical hazards and conditions. It has nothing to do with your monkey brain. In fact, it will push your monkey brain right out of the driver’s seat and even throw him off the bus and then under the bus. *Bump*

The third driver, what can be commonly called the lizard brain, controls much of the adrenaline, endorphin production, and epinephrine production of the body. It also controls unconscious breathing, heartbeats, and various other autonomic processes. It is not so much that when you feel emotional, that your body then responds, so much as when you feel emotional your body starts undergoing a state change. A state change that will inevitably put you into behavior modes such as fight/flight/submit/x once your body and brain gets to a certain status. At that point, your pride, ego, and feelings of social discomfort goes away and is replaced by pure instinctual survival.

Hypnosis must always seek to place the monkey in the driver’s seat. Things like 9/11 tend to put the lizard brain in the seat. And things like reading philosophy, hearing conservatives, and using logic tends to put the neo-cortex into the seat. Hypnosis has to bypass those two things first, to work. But once bypassed, then it is easy. Once the monkey is in the seat, it is easy to tell the monkey something about what “could happen” like “right wing violence” and the monkey automatically imagines this in the future and then believes it to be true.

“If I turn my back on this guy facing me down, he’ll chase after me and I’ll be hurt”

That’s the kind of thinking going on. It has nothing to do with rational judgment. It has nothing to do with your survival, since leaving the place would preserve your safety. So would running. But your monkey brain tells you that you shouldn’t do this. Because it is on crack, obviously, and also in control of you.

Targeted Assault of Republican logistics and personnel

April 20, 2010

People need safety, security, and some kind of mobility. But some people don’t want everyone to get what they need.

“It is deeply ironic that Democrats are trying to sell the idea that Republicans are somehow violent and unAmerican, when in fact, every actual violent incident is perpetrated by liberals, usually union thugs, against Republicans. It happened again in New Orleans following a fundraiser for the Louisiana Republican Party. Governor Bobby Jindal’s chief fundraiser, Allee Bautsch, left the event with her boyfriend, Joe Brown. They were attacked by a gang that reportedly prefaced their assault with racial and political insults. The attack was extraordinarily vicious.”

This is a rather above average success for the Left. Not only do they create Reichstag fire/ Nero’s burning of Rome moments, but they completely eliminate the functionality of a lead Republican fundraiser for 3 months, not counting the effect of psychological scarring on her performance afterwards.

Violence isn’t something that is open to interpretation. Cause it works. You can rely upon it. There’s not much in this messed up world that you can rely upon.

Being attacked will render those unfamiliar with violence, both shocked, traumatized, and vulnerable.

The effect of violence is not just the death or incapacity of a human being. It is a permanent influence upon the thinking of human beings. It is far more effective than social negotiations or bluffs.

It is a sad thing, however, to me. No matter how strong I am or will become, I cannot be everywhere. I cannot protect everyone that deserves it. It is the basic limitation of centralized power. The central government cannot protect everyone within that government. Thus there is no legitimacy for absolute loyalty and sacrifice of the individuals at the bottom. Because absolute protection cannot be the reward, absolute obedience is not a justifiable offering.

De-centralized power is what takes care of these types of attacks. We saw the same in Iraq, where the mighty US military could defeat any and all terrorists, yet could not protect the weak and vulnerable Iraqi civilians. Thus the US military began to lose the war because they were losing territory de facto. No matter how powerful you are, your power is meaningless if you cannot apply it to the target. Can’t find the target? Don’t know who the target should be? Your power might as well be a tums.

Besides, criminals don’t target people like me. I wouldn’t pass their interview. This is another matter of import. Something the Left can’t tell you because they were never taught it to begin with. There are specific stages to a crime. There are 3 things a criminal needs for a crime to happen. Without anyone of those 3 things, there can be no crime because it just wouldn’t be possible.

For example, if I was with the couple at that partner intersection, assuming everything else had happened, the criminals would have lacked the ability to overpower us. 5 isn’t really a problem, unless one of them hangs out at long range with a ranged weapon. 10 might be stretching it, but should the leader fall and their morale broken, it is the same as fighting 1 or 3.
Opportunity. Being on the corner of a street, between your hotel and a public restaurant, generates opportunity. Because the criminal perceives that he has a Chance to do what he wants in the time gap before reinforcements can come to interfere.

Intent. This involves the interview process. If you fail the interview process, the criminal will not have the intent to commit a crime against you. Why? because he thinks in his head that he won’t succeed. That you will fight back. That problems will ensue.

If any of the 3 sides of this triangle is absent, crime does not happen. Crime, thus, is the triangle. It doesn’t matter if two sides are long and one side short, so long as all 3 exist, the triangle exists. If only two sides exist, there is no triangle, thus no crime.

The victims in question wanted to get to the hotel. They thought this was safe. They didn’t realize that by heading to the hotel, they put themselves into a place where a criminal opportunity was a given. At the same time, both the two passed the interview. The criminals asked them if they were the right targets to be attacked, and the two responded with “yes, we are”. Given the outcome of the attack, the criminals also demonstrated the ability to successfully attack the two. So their interview was Not Wrong.

The practical aspect of not passing an interview given to you by a criminal is to demonstrate that you know exactly where the threat is and how to handle it. This differs depending on the threat and situation. What doesn’t differ is one’s inherent capability. You can’t bluff this out. If you attempt to bluff your way past the interview, the criminals will pick it up. If you know what is going on and are handling it, the criminals should see it.

Now criminals may be stupid, and that’s why some of them actually attack those they shouldn’t attack. Or even just people who don’t train in the use of violence, yet nonetheless will fight to defend themselves or their property. But statistically, most criminals, because they are successful and not dead, know to avoid certain targets. Because they aren’t targets but traps.

Steven Pinker on History of Violence

An oldie but a good recap on the history of violence.

How come 140 million Americans pay nothing and get to vote on everything

April 9, 2010

People thought Communism was eradicated by the end of the Cold War.

It wasn’t true. The Soviet Union went kaput, but their weapons here in the US remained viable and dangerous. Just without a controlling puppet master, they went kind of wild.

50 some odd percent of the American people [no contribution to federal tax rolls] shouldn’t be voting. But perhaps they are the ones that actually are voting, as part of the 60% turn out. It’s a rather interesting inverse scenario Athens and early America. Then the land owner class had voting power, not the landless or those requiring support.

Now instead of the Spartans running Sparta, now it is the Helots running Sparta, while the Helots are still slave farmers and the Spartans supreme land soldier-warriors.

God must have a sense of humor. Or maybe he’s working on the Grand Finale.
Neo has up a new post about Rhodesia. The country that Carter, Leftist useful tools, and various other international players helped make into Zimbabwe.

If you voted for Carter, welcome to the joy of actual real world consequences.

It sucks, but not as much as having to be a serf in Zimbabwe

People in the US and in other wealthier parts of the world have the luxury to play House and Dolls with the lives of others in far off places. Knocking stuff over, doing arm chair generalship, all that sounds fun to the Left and their Utopian, bullying, mentality.

People Love Conflict

April 9, 2010

Humans cannot exist without war for the same reason they love their country. Because they love their family. They will fight to protect what is important to them.

If you become a threat to them, by marginalizing their interests and trumping somebody else’s, creating an unbalanced power situation, then they will retaliate. There is no true security when you have to keep your boot on someone’s neck, just in case they want to try something. You are stuck there, never truly secure. And the person on the bottom is stuck there too, never truly secure.

It’s the Leftest fantasy that they lust after with all their pride and joy. A world free of men and women who are…


One of the things that people like to float around like it is folk lore concerns the justifications in attacking the status quo, whether it be Western civilization, Judeo-Christian principles, or the Catholic Church. The justification is always that these institutions and people have the power, so they are responsible for everything. Everything horrible, that is. The organization responsible for all the good things, obviously, would be the Left.

But this kind of dichotomy isn’t real. It is an artificially created imbalance.

If the status quo is responsible for the bad, then they would also have to be responsible for the good. If they have power to do evil, then they must also had power to do good. By constructing a world view that says those in power will never use their power for good, that they have always used it for evil, de-humanizes a very human trait: the power to command. In a sense, those that have power to command others, are responsible for the outcome of their actions. That is what it means to be a leader, amongst other things.

If you can have power and never take responsibility for the good or never take responsibility for the bad, then you can essentially create a cult. Reform will never be possible with the world view that those in power cannot do good, that they must be eliminated and replaced anew with those that have always used their power for good.

Coincidentally, this has the byproduct of making supposed underdogs, like Leftist organizations and Palestinian terror groups, into freedom fighters. It creates the child like mentality that there are always good guys and always bad guys. That the good stays good, that the bad stays bad. A happy ending created by the good guys by taking out the bad guys.

That’s not how the real world works. In the real world, people can change their allegiances. Good people work for evil organizations. Evil people work for good organizations. There traitors like Arnold and Judas that traded in trust for silver/gold. There are traitors who traded their own respectability and honor in return for the safety and liberty of their countrymen. There are all kinds of people, good and bad, evil and virtuous. Sometimes it is even hard to tell them apart. The angels of God can look like Obama, yet be the Devil in disguise. The Lord of Lies.

It is also human to mistake the good for the evil. Which is why it is never as simple as good vs evil. Because one first needs to figure out… what is the good and what is the evil.

Whose Vision of Beauty

April 8, 2010

… should we accept?

I get a lot of enjoyment from absorbing Japanese entertainment media: manga, animation, light novels. To the extent that I wish I knew how to read Japanese because then I could access even more works directly rather than requiring a translated form.

There’s not much of beauty left in the devastated ruins of the Obamanation. Great sadness and suffering, but no beautiful byproduct.

Code Geass and its R2 sequel is a masterpiece of Sunrise, an animation studio. It’s due to the simple correlation that in Code Geass, the entire world is corrupt, in one form or another, and here you have the main character being given a divine power to change things. Similar to Obama, who thinks he was given divine power to transform and beat America into the shape he preferred.

The Geass is an absolute override in a human’s free will, allowing the user to command anything of the human and they would then act willingly as if that command was their own decision. As you go along the series, you see the effects, positive and negative, comedic and tragic, of the results of that particular Geass being used in a bid for personal crusade and world justice.

It isn’t until the end, you see, that you figure out whether the main character is a real megalomaniac or a leader protecting his people. Of course, with Obama, I knew he was a megalomaniac from Day 1 of his election. But that takes all the fun out of things. Not to mention the fact that he is in power in my country.

Clannad, a visual novel by Key, tells the story of 5 young women and their relationship to the main character. Like many Japanese original works, there’s an intense focus on school life (a sort of glamorization of Japanese social rituals combined with how Americans view college life) and the concept of “kawaii”. Sort of like how people feel when they see a koala bear or how kittens look and feel. Kawaii. It’s a lethal weapon in high enough doses, believe you me.

Clannad, like many Japanese visual novels, is intensely interactive in the sense that it immerses you in the role. You usually see events from the viewpoint of the main character and thus you sympathize with the main character’s thoughts. You may not wish to do things the same way he ends up doing things, but the emotions you feel are very closely synced with his. At least, the best moments are when synchronization is achieved. There are a lot of fun stories, great humor moments with a boke buddy, as well as what you almost never see from Leftist Hollywood propaganda: actual artistic originality.

Shakespeare wrote comedies and tragedies. Clannad is a combination of many various themes, acted out through the interactive user interface. Hollywood now a days can’t come up with original material. If you haven’t notice, often their best works, if you can call it that, are purely derivative: copies of others. They can’t come up with original stories because their hearts are empty. They replaced their personal hopes and dreams with the dead platform of the Democrat party. It doesn’t really make for great loves, great hatreds, or great happiness.

Often we are bombarded with emotionally abusive language and entertainment because the Left in this nation has obtained a monopoly on such entertainment mediums. We are only just starting to break out. In Japan, however, much of their entertainment original source came from individuals and not Leftist infiltrated institutions. That meant for Japanese works, there was still the availability of unique individual perspectives. In America, Hollywood has had a stranglehold on individual talent. If you don’t toe the line, you get blacklisted. How’s that for motivation to be original and innovative? But what this ends up doing for people in the US is that we never get much emotionally intensive works of drama that we can relate to, in a modern sense. But when I looked at Japanese entertainment, much of the values Americans would say is American, you can find them shining brightly in the Japanese sky.

To explain this phenomenon a bit, you should know that a lot of Japanese light novels (basically dialogues like old Greek/Roman philosophical dialogues) and manga are written and produced by entirely one person. This makes the industry a sort of freehold, where your individual talent decides how well you do, not how much money you have or what big names you have backing you. Instead of trading on favors and names, you trade on your ability to draw in the Japanese audience of something something million people, young and old. Now, when large organizations get in things, the same thing happens in Japan that happens here. They screw things up, usually. The original author’s vision becomes muddied and compromised, replaced with this corporate idea of what works. In the US, much of our stuff has been replaced by what a Leftist Utopian thinks is beautiful and good.

Obviously that’s not really going to agree with many of us. What the Left finds beautiful and sublime, we do not. What we find beautiful and sublime, they find ugly and worthless. What we find brave and courageous, they call cowardly and idiotic. What they think is brave and courageous, we call psychopathic, sociopathic, and narcissistic.

In Clannad for example, the idea of family is paramount. Many of the story arcs had me in tears from a combination of sadness, pride, hope, and joy. It’s an aspect of mine that I feel particularly strong emotions from seeing noble sacrifices, such as Leyte Gulf. In part, it is due to empathy. Once you place yourself in their shoes, you can see how hard they tried to make it work. You feel how sad it would be if they failed. You hope that they won’t fail. Yet in the end, you are alive now, a beneficiary of their actions, but they are long gone.

Girls cry at sad and joyful romances. Others cry over whatever it is they feel strongly connected to. Nobility and sacrifice, tragedy and hope, are what I find of supreme importance. In entertainment as it is true of real life. True nobility, true liberty, true liberals, true security, those things are not common place in human affairs. That is why we should value them when we see em.

And it is why our common enemies, whether they wear the face of an Obama or some other incarnation years from now, will fight to destroy the only things that can uplift human existence beyond the utter soul rotting death and destruction that humans normally squat in.

Such a thing is truly unforgivable.

P.S. What is sublime and what is beautiful has slightly different meanings. The sublime necessarily combines great pain with the good, thus also incorporating beauty. The beautiful does not necessarily require pain, though it does require exemplifiers of what is good and wholesome in human affairs.

School of Darkness

April 5, 2010

This is the story of Bella Dodd.

Of particular interest to me is chapters 8 and 9 onwards. After 9, much is written of how the Communists reacted to WWII, including Soviet and German strategic calculations.

In a sense, it is a sad story, but also an eternal one. One we are fighting now, even.

“I now saw that with the best motives and a desire to serve the working people… I and thousands like me, had been led to a betrayal of these very people…. I had been on the side of those who sought the destruction of my own country.” (229)

“This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind. The individual is made into nothing … he operates as the physical part of [a] higher group intelligence… he has no awareness of the plans the higher group intelligence has for utilizing him.” (158)

[]TO THE New York newspapers the story of the expulsion of a woman Communist was merely one more story. It was handled in the routine way. I winced, however, when reputable papers headlined the Communist Party charges and used the words “fascism” and “racism,” even though I knew these words were only quoted from the Party resolution.

I braced myself for further attacks from the Party, and they came soon in terms of economic threats. Some of my law practice came from trade-union and Party members, and here action was swift. The union Communists told me there would be no more referrals to me. Party members who were my clients came to my office, some with their new lawyers, to withdraw their pending cases.

Reprisals came, too, in the form of telephone calls, letters, and telegrams of hate and vituperation, many of them from people I did not know. What made me feel desolate were the reprisals from those I had known best, those among the teachers whom I had considered friends. While I was busy with Party work I sometimes thought proudly of my hundreds of friends and how strong were the ties that bound us. Now those bonds were ropes of sand.

What I had failed to understand was that the security I felt in the Party was that of a group and that affection in that strange communist world is never a personal emotion. You were loved or hated on the basis of group acceptance, and emotions were stirred or dulled by propaganda. That propaganda was made by the powerful people at the top. That is why ordinary Communists get along well with their groups: they think and feel together and work toward a common goal.


The New York Post asked me to write a series of articles on why I had broken with the Communist Party, and made me a generous offer. I agreed. But when I had finished them and read them over I did not want to see them published and found an excuse for refusing the offer. When a weekly magazine made an even more lucrative offer, I refused that, too. There were several reasons for this, as I now realize: one was that I did not trust my own conclusions, and another that I could not bear to hurt people I had known in the Party and for whom I still felt affection. Some I knew were entrapped as surely as I had been.

It was a strange and painful year. The process of completely freeing oneself emotionally from being a Communist is a thing no outsider can understand. The group thinking and group planning and the group life of the Party had been a part of me for so long that it was desperately difficult for me to be a person again. That is why I have lost track of whole days and weeks of that period.

But I had begun the process of “unbecoming” a Communist. It was a long and painful process, much like that of a polio victim who has to learn to walk all over again. I had to learn to think. I had to learn to love. I had to drain the hate and frenzy from my system. I had to dislodge the self and the pride that had made me arrogant, made me feel that I knew all the answers. I had to learn that I knew nothing. There were many stumbling blocks in this process.

In the days that have gone since we enunciated these statements so confidently I have had many occasions to see that this cataloging of people as either “right” or “left” has led to more confusion in American life than perhaps any other false concept. It sounds so simple and so right. By using this schematic device one puts the communists on the left and then one regards them as advanced liberals -after which it is easy to regard them as the enzyme necessary for progress.

Communists usurp the position of the left, but when one examines them in the light of what they really stand for, one sees them as the rankest kind of reactionaries and communism as the most reactionary backward leap in the long history of social movements. It is one which seeks to obliterate in one revolutionary wave two thousand years of man’s progress.

During my thirteen years of teaching at Hunter I was to repeat this semantic falsehood many times. I did not see the truth that people are not born “right” or “left” nor can they become “right” or “left” unless educated on the basis of a philosophy which is as carefully organized and as all-inclusive as communism.

I was among the first of a new kind of teacher who was to come in great numbers to the city colleges. The mark of the decade was on us. We were sophisticated, intellectually snobbish, but usually fetishly “democratic” with the students. It is true that we understood them better than did many of the older teachers; our sympathy with them was a part of ourselves.


I knew how devoted he was to the South and its people and after our marriage we went to visit his home. I had never been South before, but I now realized why so many of its children went to Northern cities for a livelihood.

John’s people were not plantation owners nor did they have share croppers. They owned a lot of land and they worked it themselves. The women worked as hard as the men. I visited some of the Dodd children at the Martha Berry Schools near John’s home and I was struck by the independence and sturdiness of these people. Never after that first visit did I read morbid literature on the South without a sense of resentment at the twisted picture it gave of a section which has great reservoirs of strength, based not on material wealth but upon the integrity of its people.

I did not become a Communist overnight. It came a little at a time. I had been conditioned by my education and association to accept this materialistic philosophy. Now came new reasons for acceptance. I was grateful for communist support in the struggles of the Instructors Association. I admired the selfless dedication of many who belonged to the Party. They took me into their fraternal circle and made me feel at home. I was not interested in any long-range Party objectives but I did welcome their assistance on immediate issues, and I admired them for their courage. Most of all I respected the way they fought for the forgotten man of the city. So I did not argue with them about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which they talked about, or about its implications.
Of course some of my friends were unhappy about my new course. One day when Ruth Goldstein and I were walking down Sixty-eighth Street she spoke bitterly about my new affiliations.

“You are getting too involved, Bella,” she said. “You will get hurt. Wait and see!”

I laughed at her. “Oh, Ruth, you are too concerned about promotions and tenures. There are other things in life.” “What about this one-party system that they favor?” she demanded.

“Well, you know we really have only a one-party system in America right now,” I retorted. “Remember the Harvard professor who says that both political parties resemble empty bottles with different labels?”

Ruth continued arguing and I finally said: “Oh, Ruth, I am only interested in the present. What the Communist Party says about the future is not important to me. The sanity of the American people will assert itself. But these people are about the only ones who are doing anything about the rotten conditions of today. That is why I am with them, and,” I ended truculently, “I will stay with them.”
Of course I was not the only American who thought one could go along with the good things the Communists did and then reject their objectives. It was a naive idea and many of us were naive. It took a long time for me to know that once you march with them there is no easy return. I learned over the years that if you stumbled from weariness they had no time to pick up a fallen comrade. They simply marched over him.

The saddest situation I saw in the Party were the hundreds of young people eager to be used. And the Party did use this mass of anonymous people for its immediate purposes. And so young people were burned out before they could reach maturity. But I saw, too, how inexhaustible was the supply of human beings willing to be sacrificed. Much of the strength of the Party, of course, is derived from this very ruthlessness in exploiting people.


Since 1932 the Communist Party had publicized itself as the leading opponent of fascism. It had used the emotional appeal of anti-fascism to bring many people to the acceptance of communism, by posing communism and fascism as alternatives. Its propaganda machine ground out an endless stream of words, pictures, and cartoons. It played on intellectual, humanitarian, racial, and religious sensibilities until it succeeded to an amazing degree in conditioning America to recoil at the word fascist even when people did not know its meaning.

Today I marvel that the world communist movement was able to beat the drums against Germany and never once betray what the inner group knew well: that some of the same forces which gave Hitler his start had also started Lenin and his staff of revolutionists from Switzerland to St. Petersburg to begin the revolution which was to result in the Soviet totalitarian state.

There was not a hint that despite the propaganda of hate unleashed against Germany and Italy, communist representatives were meeting behind the scenes to do business with Italian and German fascists to whom they sold materiel and oil. There was not a hint that Soviet brass was meeting with German brass to redraw the map of Europe. There was no betrayal of these facts until one day they met openly to sign a contract for a new map of Europe — a treaty made by Molotov and Von Ribbentrop.