The Rumblings – and the Upcoming Domino Effect

When the ump first refused to disclose his taxes, let alone divest from his holdings, I said: “He can’t, for one simple reason: It ain’t his money. The man is dead broke. His numbers consist of collateral for property that is based on loans that are based on collateral for property that is based on property that is based on . . . things and people and sources he cannot disclose, let alone declare with the Internal Revenue Service or the American People.


In light of recently emerging puzzle pieces, it becomes more and more likely that the “successful businessman” the ump voters wanted to project on, is, in reality, a mere “fence*” for laundered Russian Mafia billions.

The ultimate loser may be Vladimir Putin, for messing with as weak a link in his schemes as the cheetohead.

*Merriam Webster:
Fence (coll), noun, often attributive \fen(t)s\
a receiver of stolen goods;

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biophobic Censorship and Trans McCarthyism

A few thoughts on the recently issued Statement of Solidarity with the NWSA Trans and Gender Variant Caucus. (see also )

Why Academia has Always been At War with Women

The Women’s Studies community has been targeted for take-over by patriarchal interests in many guises for several decades. One such approach uses the academic backdrop itself and perversely turns it into a poison pill to liquidate original thought, creativity, diversity – and I mean DIVERSITY rather than multiple choice. Why do I refer to patriarchal interests?

While science – all science – has its origin in women’s bodies, women’s bleeding with the moon, the whiney male of the species has long been jealous of Woman and more-or-less successfully tamed Woman’s knowledge and insights into what is today called “classical science and philosophy”, thought up by men and disseminated – pun intended – among men of the upper classes. In later millennia, the church appropriated rudiments of science, turned it into kitchen Latin (really is lousy Latin) and kept it from the non-ordained common folk. But since the church held not only the key to eternity but yuuuge amounts of land, resources, and power, that church monopoly was used to eliminate dissent, and especially female dissent, and especially property owning female dissent.

The Academic Company Store

Monopoly in knowledge, that means there’s only a single “company store” for knowledge. Which is why, in order to succeed in academia, original thought beyond a small new wrinkle in the well-traveled and non-threatening regurgitation of established doctrine is discouraged.

Now, when you go back to how Woman receives her knowledge, you immediately see that the two, academic company store and home-grown fare, are fundamentally incompatible.

Academia has never, ever been equipped to deal with anything that is as uncontrollable as Woman, except for claiming the ability to measure the uncontrollability. You get the drift.

Anyone invested in any academia-based entity therefore can be blackmailed into compliance . . or else, be branded and exiled into the academic desert.

The reason this matters is that the signers of the “Statement of Solidarity with the NWSA* Trans and Gender Variant Caucus” are all beholden to their status with the NWSA. Some not very kind metaphors come to mind but I leave it to the readers’ mind to come up with them. (*NWSA stands for the National Women’s Studies Association.)

Why All Hierarchies Always Had to Have Been At War with Women

In my childhood, long before electronic games and without the means, even had they existed, among our various toys, there were little tin figures, about one and a half inches tall, and miniature toy cars, all of which were moved by means of magnets underneath the table. What made these toys move on top of the table was an invisible power below. This is a relevant metaphor because in the conflict about the trans issue, we often seem to deal with motivation we cannot address, motivation that is unknown to the other person, i.e. under the table, and cannot be addressed. And we are frustrated beyond belief for trying to argue against a framing shell game where, whatever we answer or propose, the main issues remain framed in such a way that they remain untouchable by any discussion.

A look in that direction is helpful when we try to understand why especially school administrators, school nurses, psychologists, and any number of mid level administrators in many fields so staunchly undertake the crusades on the side of an allegedly unquestionable validity of anything the trans lobby demands. The trick here is to see whose validity is really at issue. Like most wheels in the works of patriarchal hierarchies, people at work in low- to mid-level administrative jobs live with a deep desire to feel meaning in their job; that they are mostly conscious of. But they also experience a deep powerlessness and – mostly below the table top of conscious awareness, a corresponding need for validation and power. By nature, this power has to be derived. It is the opposite of self-arising, It is, again, fundamentally incompatible with the essence of Woman’s relationship to life.

This makes low- and midlevel administrators very susceptible to the temptation to exert power and derive validation by way of directives, guidelines, laws and ordinances over those, whose power exists regardless of their professional validation or lack thereof: Women. Perversely, since an increasing number of women are stuck in those low-to mid-level (underpaid) jobs, it amounts to what appears like a war by women on women, especially in the matter of trans issues. Add to this the “sexy” look of it being a civil rights issue, and the official advocacy against biology becomes dogma.

Victim Status to Fuel the War on Women

Now to the trans-megaphone at hand. It is riddled with assumptions, self-importance, and entitlement, implied lies and deceptions. A flood of buzzwords, my friends, does not make for content. The assumption that a “statement by NWSA Trans Caucus co-chair Cael Keegan” (check the dude out) has us shake in our boots is a clinical sign of male-identified grandiosity. On the other hand, fascist propaganda always, really every fucking time, dresses itself up in victim garb. I’m sure Hitler did not invent that, and neither did “the Senator from Wisconsin” and neither did Bannon and Spencer and the soon to be second-shortest POTUS. (I give him two months.) Hence the framing of an openly expressed difference of opinion as “blatant hostility” and a questioning of some physiologically questionable premises as oppression and exclusion.

Self-Importance Proves this Crusade to be Male

But let’s look at the snow job from the other side. Actually, there are two other sides.

First, the implied claims and assertions:

Trans-scholarship is being excluded, probably for the very reason that we don’t really know what it is other then narcissistic umbilicus picking. Hollywood has covered it in “The Danish Girl”, yes? The real issue is that, from the male p.o.v., women’s studies urgently needed to be cut down to being as much of an adjunct to gender and anything-you-want studies as women were considered adjunct to the male, ever since she was made from Adam’s rib or climbed out of Zeus’ head, whichever came first..

(As I said, academia is more than systemically vulnerable to that crap.)

This scholarship claim as well as that of a validity of the “careful and critical engagement with intersectionality and privilege” cleverly bypasses the opportunity to actually question that very validity by framing it as the victim of oppression. So we are called to address the alleged oppression without asking “of what?” And tucked in here is an open threat: “cannot go unchecked.” The impersonal “cannot” creates the divinely ordained crusade-like righteous justification, and “unchecked” translates as a call to armed action. I don’t literally mean guns and knives but militarism and intimidation. “Agree or else.”

The Fingers Pointing Back

The other other side is the one where three giant fingers point back (ouch) at the source of the index finger pointing and screaming accusations of oppression, exclusion, invalidating, hostility and any number of phobia labels. (I, for example, have some very helpful ones, such as idiot-phobia, phoney-phobia, self-important-little-shit-phobia, all nothing fatal but annoying – where is my fly swatter.) But back to the three phalanges. To save some time here, I recommend videos of how trans lobbyists and their bussed-in foot soldiers harassed and verbally abused totally peaceful female participants in various events. Maybe I’ll post them here later. The bottom line of this other other side is that you will find hooligan behavior that makes a beer inundated soccer match pale by comparison.

And yet another other other side, the kind of stuff that happened in response to the claim of oppression of the Arian race as alleged in Mein Kampf:

Action Plan: Comply . . . Or Else

What to do with “individuals who have [perpetrated] this oppressive behavior on the listserv and in other academic settings”?

This is where the McCarthyism of the action plan comes in., which boils down to excluding (oops) and deplatforming (=excluding) and punishing those who “were warned, given an explanation, but nevertheless persisted.” After all, the purpose of the job listing links is to monitor all applicable job offerings and come down on any entity who is hiring a person who is not “certified trans-friendly”. The result will be a militant censorship against anyone getting any academic job who is not trans-conformist.

“Are you now or have you ever been. . ?“

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Key Words

Exxon, Russia, Tillerson, Flynn, Sanctions, Crimea, pipeline, 63 Million acres of drilling rights, insanity, ignorance, naivete, Putin, arrogance, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity, stupidity.

Did I say stupidity?


The Art of Breaking a Deal

Yuuuuge deals were made in the past. And then broken without leaving the screwed party much of a recourse, as in “what are you going to do?” Hitler did it shortly after he agreed with Stalin (by way of their respective foreign ministers Ribbentrop and Molotov) to a non-aggression pact. How fucking blue-eyed must one be to believe that Putin isn’t going to do the same thing once EXXON has helped establish the requisite oil drilling infrastructure in the area the size of the United Kingdom which Russia is leasing to Exxon?

The market is obvious: China, and the cheap consumer goods flooding capitalist world markets. And without being given the cheap-consumer-goods pacifier to suck, what is the spoiled US population going to do? “Panem et circenses”,. Latin, literally “bread and circuses,” what the Roman emperors considered sufficient for keeping their masses content. We could translate that as ample cheap food and addictive entertainment, a strategy which has always proven a one-way street. There is no controllable way back. This means that without Russian oil going to China the sucking game is over and you are going to see a yuuuge eruption of the shit volcano. None of this, btw., is judging the people of China, who are led by the nose ring of unsustainable economic expansion themselves. What a powder keg!

Long-Headed vs Non-Headed

Putin and his oil (thanks Exxon) will have the whimpy US population by its proverbial balls. Remember Bobby Fischer? Chess World Champion 1972 to 1975? The remaining champions from 1948 to 2000 were . . . you guessed it: Russian. And you think that Putin doesn’t know how to play? Granted, he is not world class and he hates to lose, but compared to the likes of the unmentionable and his chaotic crew he has nothing to fear. A mere “Art of the Deal” is no match for him. After all, he is a KGB guy who has proven a master of the now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t game.

How Blind do They Come?

Back to the Exxon equation: Hasn’t it been all over the media? Russia’s involvement in the election. Flynn’s involvement with Russia concerning the sanctions that would hamper the consummation of the Rosneft-Exxon vows. The age-old motivation for invading the Crimea: Access to the Black Sea. Just do a little of your own footwork with the search terms: Exxon, Tillerson, Putin, Siberia, Crimea, Oil, and the like. But no, Melania’s cup size is more important, yes? The White House clown show is more important. Don’t look! Stay entertained with the puppet theatre. Reality might bite you in the ass!

What National Interest?

When you look – if you look – at what world-wide strategies are devised and implemented to rape human and geologic and natural sources, political or geographic nations as such have little to do with it any longer. Note: I refer to sources rather than resources for the simple reason that the term RE-sources creates the fatal illusion that you can cut the same tree again and again, or that you can come back to where there used to be a mountain and haul it away again, or that you can poison the waters and then drink it.

Then you look at morons like the occupant of the second –shortest POTUS ( I predict he’ll be gone by the end of March) and the reality show where he is trying to sell the lie of a nationalism that is going to work in 2017. It is laughable. He is not the kind of character who gets to play globally with “the big guys”. To be sure, they let him think he is so he stays out of their way or does a little dirty work for them. But national interest? Really? A self-engrossed male person like him, with the emotional age of eight, only knows about self interest and his grandiose self-image. The emperor’s new statesmanship.

Conflict of Interest or Flat-Out Treason?

Considering the globalization and the waning significance of national interest world-wide, how should glaring conflicts of interest be treated? If a person, individual or corporate (the lobbies wanted corporate personhood, didn’t they?), acts in a way that yields an advantage to a foreign country and in return harms the people of its own nation (make . . great again), how do we call that? In a war, which this is, that would turn the Tillersons, and Flynns and a soon to be growing list of people into traitors. And if the treason was committed not even for ideological reasons but merely for personal greed, there is no wiggle room for even the trace of redemption. Not even Spicey and KellyAnn can rig that one . . for long.

Watching Treason Happen And Fail to Act is . . . ??

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

For Chrissakes, Don’t Connect the Dots!

Go ahead. Ignore history.
Go ahead. Ignore the dots, and, for chrissakes, don’t connect them!

If you are a tolerably intelligent and creative person, which I assume because you’re reading this, you will be surrounded by people who don’t dislike you but who are not really sure they know where to put you. Maybe it’s that you speak another language. Maybe you have interesting pictures on the wall. Maybe you don’t barbecue and guzzle sixpacs every summer weekend. Maybe you are Lesbian or just not safely tucked away in a conventional marriage. Maybe you and the person(s) in your household have different last names. Or maybe you merely drive an old car that you actually own. The list could be extended.

Any and all of these characteristics make John and Jane uncomfortable. (If you change the particulars in the above list, you can also migrate the situation down decades, centuries or millennia. But let’s stay right here, at the onset of the new dark ages.)
People do not like to be uncomfortable. People do not like to not know if the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence or the grapes really really sweet where they can’t reach them. People don’t like that. People will develop a resentment, but in most cases not be aware of it. They will chat will you across the fence or from driveway to driveway. Hubby over there may actually lend you some tools or explain how to swap a faucet. Nice neighbors.

But why is your TV not on? Why don’t you even have a TV? Why don’t you get drunk on the 4th of July? People don’t like to be uncomfortable, and you make them uncomfortable!

Worst of all, you are a nice person, a helpful person perhaps, caring and supportive when you sense a need on your neighbors’ part.

But there is nothing you can do. Your neighbors’ discomfort is a powder keg. Whatever they don’t know about you will be used against you. When the time comes. And the time may be now.

The only thing people in unconscious discomfort need is the relief of a common denominator, a führer or some such who taps into that discomfort and triggers a long suppressed reaction. Happened to J.C.. Will happen to you. How many fingers do you think are already pointing at you? What rumors do you think are circulated about you?

When things all over are bad enough –unconscious discomfort included, people need scapegoats. It is the nature of these animals, that we know nothing about them. Actually, it is required, that we know nothing about them. Because if we did, we would understand them to be no more than the most personable ruminants with no more interest in harming you than your pet rabbit. But because people don’t know anything about these critters, they can blame them for whatever makes them uncomfortable or scared. And once you know what’s “wrong” – even if it is total fiction – you can take care of it. Pop-pop fizz-fizz.

This dynamic may also explain why, to many people, fear, perversely, seems so enormously empowering. Which explains the humungous success of sickness advertising. The more unconscious a person is, the more the “unbearable lightness of being” – a.k.a. life – seems to seek relief by way of beer or an illness that presumably can be fought, or any other variety of scapegoat. “Now I know why . . .” even if it is bullshit.

All this explains why people join armies and put their lives on the line – senselessly – as long as they are sold the story that an eradication of “the enemy” would make it all alright. This is the rhetoric that made people vote Donald Trump into office, a cowardly bully, who pretends he knows how to make the discomfort go away.

Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end here because how he promises to do that depends on enemies that he will defeat. Like China or “the Chinese” or “the Mexicans” or . . . but wait! Since your neighbors’ aspiration for discomfort removal are now hitched to that “successful” leader, your neighbor will join the scapegoating party and add you to the enemies. After all, “1984” has, in recent weeks, been the top bestseller on Amazon. But go ahead. Ignore history. Go ahead. Ignore the dots, and, for chrissakes, don’t connect them!

Maybe to be continued . . .

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

From Jean D’Arc to Hillary Clinton

galleryFrom Jean D’Arc to Hillary Clinton

No, this is not about a fictitious Saint Hillary. It is about powerful women being burned at the stake, exiled, accused of nepotism, accused of the very thing that patriarchy itself has done to women: Appropriated their power. There are several “chapters” to this, from the onset of patriarchy, to the demonization of women’s intrinsic power (the apple and serpent thing), to the centuries of witch burnings (literally still ongoing today), to the propaganda about and the fate of women in power world wide, and finally to the Orange One’s assaults on the authenticity and legitimacy of Hillary Clinton. This is not about a glass ceiling but about any and all variations of pyres.

This is also about the inciting and sanctioning of violence against anyone and anything in patriarchy’s way to the trough of power. When, in Genesis, 1_Samuel/15-3, the Israelites are commanded to “not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” we are talking about grazing lands, to make – whatever power realm – “great again”, so to speak. But let’s not get distracted by the sense of male entitlement alone.

Historically, long or short term, from Cleopatra to Malinche, and on to Indira Ghandi and finally Hillary Clinton, there was and is a trend to reject women’s power as legitimately their own. Men – and women — claim “she” only arrived at her place of power by means of nepotism, sex, or “magic”. (A queen is acceptable because she is only reigning due to a temporary lack of a “real” king.)

This is why not only men but also women voted against Hillary Clinton.

Whatever detriment “she” faces, whatever fate “she “ meets is well deserved since “she” violated the often spelled-out rule that women may only be lesser powers, subordinate and in service to the divinely ordained male.
We recognize this as the usual reversal, as a projection and as re-framing of reality. Once Eve makes her case that she is not derived from Adam’s rib, she becomes fair game.

This is the witch-burning factor overlooked by the strategists around Hillary Clinton. And if the orange poison pill has its way, she may still burn.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Men are So Boring

Because all male excitement is derivative. Non-original.

Let’s examine this surprisingly generalizing, blanket statement about roughly half the human race. To start with, two images of excitement involving men:fury

This is the world champion bout between Wladimir Klitschko and Tyson Fury. Hot stuff, aint it? The problem is that it aint. What is hot is the spectator’s rooting for one or the other or for empathizing with this blow or that knockout. If the fight had taken place in an empty training room with no spectators . . . boooooooooooooring. Why? Because the spectators, the whole world watching, that’s what creates the excitement.
Next, an image from a different time and a different world, but it proves essentially the same point:kleiber

What we are looking at here is a 1970 performance of the overture to the German Opera “Der Freischütz” at minute 8:35 on The conductor, Carlos Kleiber, is probably the most exciting musician of the second half of the 20th century. And the musicians playing under im are all mostly men. So how can that electrifying performance of more perfections than I have space here to describe prove the point why men are so boring. Easy: The are playing music and they are playing it masterfully. But it is the music they ‘channel’ rather than themselves which is the substance of what we experience. Tellingly, “the music” in most languages that assign gender to things, is La Musica in Italian, La Musique in French or die Musik in German.
Men largely use the aid of stuff to make themselves and or their interactions and conversations exciting. When you listen to men talking at parties, they always talk about stuff. Doesn’t have to be theirs. Even having seen something or having had an uncle who told them about  . . something, that’s what carries a conversation. I always find myself “running not walking” to get away, because it is boring.
Maybe men get a bad wrap about their stuff. Maybe they could be interesting if they only had a sense of being intrinsically of a certain creative interest. But . . ., yes but how few actually do not run scared of not trying to impress the world and, in the process, make themselves and their sense of worth utterly dependent on stuff. Academic degrees are as much stuff as badges or money in the bank or accomplishments and exploits.
JHFC! Stop trying to impress the whole fucking world! Don’t you understand that, in reality, you are sending the message that you would feel like absolutely nothing if you didn’t have your brag bag to pull open for anyone anytime? Not sexy at all, but needy.
Women want men, not boys.
Good luck!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Closet Bigots’ Alibi

TBALIBIAgain and again, over the last couple of years of dealing with the “transgender” issue, I have asked myself why most of the people supporting the transgender agenda don’t really seem to have the full picture of what a full “transition” involves. Transition is the word used for a sex change. They also don’t know about the lack of definitions for “gender” or “gender identity”. And they don’t know about the dynamic within the LGBT “community”.

I also asked myself why most supporters don’t see the misogynist motivation and the stereotype enforcing outcome of the trans agenda.

And least of all, they are aware of the strategies employed in funneling children into sex changes or wish to see the mutilation inflicted on children who are “transitioned” into the opposite sex, such as puberty blockers and other irretrievably life changing drugs and procedures. Notice the passive voice in the “transitioned”.

Throughout, I continue asking myself why intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties express not an inkling of doubt about the ability of a child to make decisions that will irreparably affect its life forever. None of these intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties would let their own child drive a car or get married at age 7 or 10 or 13, or entrust them with a loaded handgun, or send them on a trip around the world by themselves. But they will let them sterilize themselves and set themselves on a life-long regimen of medical intervention?

In terms of adult sex changes, would intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties believe that a person with a history of destructive and ill-fated life decisions would suddenly discover the root of all his or her problems in a divine fuck-up (wrong sex) and then find a successful solution in a new “identity”? Quite unlikely.

What it all boils down to is: Why are so many intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties so ignorant about the issue of so-called gender politics? Why is there even something like “gender politics”? Why is something as fundamental as a person’s sex made subject to political wrangling and propaganda?

And why are these countless intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties not only ignorant about what they are supporting but also insist on staying ignorant about what they are supporting? The ignorance seems to serve a purpose. It helps . . . something

In Praise of Prejudice

(In Defense of Natural Ignorance)

In the middle ages or whatever far away time, we lived in some type of a modest-sized village or tribe or other community, and we knew what we knew. And if we didn’t know, we didn’t know that we didn’t know. There was a road of sorts, a path to get from point A to point B , maybe or maybe not. There probably existed some kind of shelter like houses, tents, or huts or caves, and we knew who was in charge of things. And we also knew who wanted to be in charge of things. We knew when it was cold or colder. And things were good, bad or indifferent.

But all in all, the quantity of information in our lives about all these things like roads and shelter and cold, hot, wet, dry, and the people around us was of a dimension that we were equipped to process. Our nervous systems, our brains, our immune system and our human capacities in general haven’t changed that much since.

There were animals that grew up in the village and we had relationships with them, they were domesticated. There also were wild animals and maybe those wild animals were dangerous to one’s own or one’s domesticated animals’ well being. So if you heard a growl at night in the forest you assessed that as being dangerous, pre-judged it as dangerous, and that was a good thing to do that.

Outside that village there may have been a town or larger accumulation of people, and there was likely some higher authority; there were things or markets with people and wares that were different from what the person who came from the village was familiar with. The town and its realities, the markets and the people were something strange, something “out there” or “other” than the village.

This allowed for an assessment, let’s call it the “non village” label; and all its ingredients were othered and that was a safe, healthy assessment under the circumstances.. For the village person, the town was pre judged as being ‘town’, as being other, and all those discriminatory boundary labels. And that was a good thing for everyone’s individual safety and the community, along with a scope of decision-making the human mind was readily able to manage.

Under those circumstances, when a stranger comes by the village that you may or may not have heard of in the town, the hair in the back of your neck stands up, and you think “who’s that?” There is no familiar response stored for that one.

It’s all a very healthy way of dealing with the unknown, to pre-judge it as being unknown, and it requires that moment of “hmmm I’ve got to figure that out” or “I gotta stay away from it” or “I gotta run from it”. Again, all creating a fairly safe place, despite being good, bad or indifferent. It’s not about whether it was bad or good in quality, but that it was manageable for the psyche. I’m talking about the design of the psyche, if you will, of the wiring. I’m basically arguing in defense of prejudice and that it is a good thing and it is a means to make life safe. It keeps your adrenaline at a reasonable level.

The Sound Barrier of Tolerance

Fast forward to today or even fast forward only to the second half of the 20th century. In the first half, there were two world wars and there were changes, changes, and world events of such indescribable dimensions that no person could possibly understand it or digest it or deal with it on the type of “village level” that we are designed for. What options does that leave?

As a brief “biographical” side note: Whatever state of the U.S. someone was born in, there was slavery at one time or another, which pre-judged the slaves as being slaves. Or to take it back a couple of centuries further, let’s assume you’re Native American, and here come some pale dudes and because you’re a nice person you don’t pre-judge them as danger. And it doesn’t turn out so good – which leaves you with a justified pre-judice. The high road got you six feet under, and you’re unlikely to forget that.

To continue with that unfortunate experience: So you’re going to have a prejudice and maybe even act on that prejudice and try to get rid of these people whom you pre-judged as human beings and correctly so, but they’re trying to kill you all off. Therefore, for a Native American person to be prejudiced against white people is accurate, is healthy, is good. Maybe it’s a life saver. Remember the high road.

Someone else may have been born in France or in Austria or in Japan or New Zealand, and acquainted with the life at their respective home, be that as a female or a male, poor or rich; and there comes a person who dresses different and speaks a foreign language. What are you going to do? Of course, you’re pre-judging that person. I’m not saying it’s a mono-factorial issue at all. In fact, the outcome of the encounter may be determined not by the language barrier or the unfamiliar dress but by a smile that conveys good intent and a benign personality. Just look at the eyes, there may be charm or if the person happens to be of the opposite sex there might be “chemistry” also. But that’s a different subject or maybe it isn’t. We’ll get there.

Finally approaching today’s “news” media inundated world, we have to recognize that a smile can’t fix it any longer, even though the information peddlers try very hard with make-up and cleavage, TV star look-alikes or “sexy” 5-o’clock shadow. The amount of information is simply overwhelming. But there is relief, if you only limit your world to what Fox News or CBS or CNN or NBC or ABC or their equivalents in other countries serve you up. You may feel fairly safe.
On the other hand, if you are an educated, world open person who is looking at the world in differentiated ways and from different angles, you are facing a politically incorrect problem. While that world open person knows more and is aware of the multitude of facets and viewpoints of many world events, that world openness far exceeds their wiring and their psycho-emotional capacity.

What happens next is that for sheer survival, a great deal of facets and considerations must be pre-sorted – or pre-judged, except that in the case of the educated, world open and differentiated person, the prejudice is pushed underground because it contradicts your (and others’) perception of yourself as being open-minded, tolerant, and all that good stuff. Your need for a safety boundary to protect you from information or feeling overload in how you interact with the world must stay invisible, most of all to yourself.

Knee-Jerk Liberalism

One effective way of protection is profuse – and necessarily insincere – agreeableness.

Of course, because the human “system”, the mental, emotional make up, not to mention the physical, is not designed for life without boundary, the unlimited open-mindedness becomes a façade, at least for most people who have not experienced or are not in some way pre-disposed to an affinity with cultural exchange with “other” human beings. For most, the boundaries therefore are repressed, one could say, the boundaries themselves are pre-judged. The means of reasonable discernment are filtered away by what is perceived as politically or otherwise correct.

The problem with repression is that whatever is hidden, will grow, uncontrolled and never examined: It festers. Where does that leave the person, especially the educated intelligent card carrying liberal with fully developed critical faculties, who might otherwise discern a problem with someone else or someone’s thinking or communication but cannot admit that discernment for fear of spoiling the politically correct self-image? What happens? Will it not be a kind of “immune defense suppression”? And in time, such a suppression will irreparably fatigue or disengage the immune system.

At the same time, because we are more afraid of what we are suppressing than of the prejudice we have to employ to defend against the prejudice we are suppressing – all while having to deny that we do: We get addicted.

So what happens with repressed emotions, repressed sentiments? They fester and instead of being beneficial, they become destructive. This does not spare our more or less stereotypical yogically educationally, spiritually, politically correct person whose prejudice is compulsively under wraps, underground and festering. And the more the world becomes insecure, the more things like the non-sustainability of the way the world operates is in your face, the more a mere Prius-ness is insane, but your status depends on it because you don’t get the job unless you do have a Prius because the yoga instructor who doesn’t come in a Prius but in an old V-8 pickup is terrible and on and on  . . . . .  no way can you do it. In other words, the more the onslaught of the real world (I’m not wronging the world) would provoke or demand increased or strengthened boundaries, the more the prejudice against prejudice requires a build-up of the façade of tolerance. So you start lying to yourself. Normal thing, depressed, denial, denial of things, we get addicted. Did I just say that?

Again, the real prejudice – and along with it some degree of discernment – has gone underground and you need to protect the undergroundness more the more it is underground. What ensues is an ongoing battle between some degree of armor your soul needs and the need to maintain the façade. So now, here comes addictive. compulsive non discrimination.

Imagine what happens if you live in some established neighborhood and someone of a different race or culture wants to move in next door. What is your reaction? But your image of yourself doesn’t allow you to react the way your armor wants you to react. Remember, you’re addicted to non-discrimination. Perhaps you see a muscle car and it triggers any number of pre-conceptions. Or you see a very well-dressed person and fear their judgment of you. Of course you don’t say any of this and you don’t admit any of this to anybody, including yourself, because you are an intelligent, educated, tolerant, progressive human being, and you disapprove of any kind of discrimination.

Let’s up the ante and introduce the subject of sex. Sex triggers much deeper and much more stubborn reactions than race or culture. (That alone should tell us something.)  There is fear on the one hand and the desire for control on the other, and a variety of feelings in between, depending on the triggers, depending on your sexual preference or the lack thereof. But because you are an intelligent, educated, tolerant, progressive human being, you cannot admit to most of them. Instead, you are likely to profess to non-discrimination and equal rights under all circumstances, and you are likely to maintain that card-carrying lieral image even if things get sticky. Let’s assume you’re female and good looking and there’s a good looking woman coming down the pike. What you may feel is a cascade of conflicting feelings, conflicting mainly because you don’t want to feel that you are judging the person. Right? She could be competition, she could be a potential hot fling, or she could be just another superficial, self-engrossed pretty girl.

Now let’s assume you’re a hetero male, and here comes a stunning looking female, and you can’t take your eyes off her, you can almost feel her in you hands, her cleavage, her tight skirt . . . you’re drooling, and then you see her embracing, kissing another woman. Okay, you tell me what kind of non-prejudicial stuff is happening in your gut. Bullshit. Your whole system was geared for ‘gimme, gimme’ and now someone else is doing the getting and you can’t even compete. Where does that leave your intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant hetero male hard-on ego? Hanging out to dry and shrivel, I guess, but you must find a way to protect your well educated, progressive, tolerant image. And the only way is not to know, not to discern what just happened but to hole up behind the sandwich board of the intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant image.

To go one step further, this time assuming you’re female, and you have a company. Someone is waiting on the other side of the glass wall for a job interview with you. From what you can see, she looks very very. But when the door opens, a big thud hits your gut. It’s a biological male introducing himself as ‘Jeanelle’. What happens? Are you going to hire her/him? Are you prejudiced? Can you see the person as a “sister” or does your female fear reaction versus the male prevail. But you can’t allow that. Do you want to know more about his/her psyche? Your mind is racing, scrambling for a plausible reason not to hire her/him. Do you want to know more about anything concerning this person? Let’s just lay it all out. Do you want to know more? No, you don’t because you just, by the skin of your teeth, you’re hanging on to your self image as intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant, open-minded and non-discriminatory.

To Know Or Not To Know

These are a just few examples; yours may differ. But are there really any of us who don’t ever need to shut that door on some experiences we have that threaten to wake the sleeping dog? In fact, don’t many marketing methods capitalize on this conflict on a daily basis: Feed the stereotype, raise the righteousness, and sell to appease the conflict. This is where most people live, unable to face it themselves, just making “non-discriminatory” decisions in the abstract.
You need to close that door. No, you need to slam that door of discomfort and judgment, slam it shut as tight as you can. Remember, your judgement is underground, your pre-judgment, the armor, the walls, all that is underground, and you need to keep it there, quickly, before any of that armor gets chewed on by information, by understanding by non ignorance or fear. To maintain that ignorance protects you: “No, I don’t want to know. I don’t need to know, to understand, to discern. All I need is to be tolerant and non-discriminatory.” Put on your, politically and otherwise correct façade and smile: How wonderful diversity is, isn’t it!

How would the armor underneath the liberal tolerance mask react if it were forced to know, to understand, to discern, to form a differentiated opinion and act on it responsively? How would that “safely progressive” person react toward someone holding different opinions? Worse, if they actually had plausible arguments to challenge yours. Could such a person endure their own feelings contradicting their progressive, tolerant, liberal convictions? Could such a person be tolerant toward those feelings and sentiments and thoughts that, Goddess forbid, might lead to different opinions?

Here is the American Heritage definition of a bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

The fictional person above fits this description in at least one way: Due to her or his perception of righteousness and political or moral correctness, he or she is extremely intolerant toward any of her or his own impulses that could rock the intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant and non-discriminatory boat. There is no muscle of self reflection to keep the boat afloat and steer it through waters of doubt or challenge.

To the contrary, in order to protect the boat, no questioning of any progressive, tolerant and non-discriminatory premise or idea or law or opinion must ever be tolerated. In service to and for the protection of the safe, non-discriminatory boat, the fully developed critical faculties must be suspended or at least heavily sedated.

Your soul, your village soul is in there, forgotten under the progressive, non-discriminatory paint, but controlling your inner safety mechanisms nevertheless.

As a result, what we have here is the closet bigot hiding his or her closet prejudice.

And since hiding and self-lies require increasing propaganda, we need to act in a way that is counter to how we feel because we don’t know how we really feel anymore because we have assumed a persona that is superficially consistent.

This is not an accusation or a judgment. It is an attempt to understand the intolerance with which intelligent, educated, progressive, tolerant adults with fully developed critical faculties protect themselves from challenging information and differing views. And there are many millions of them.
They desperately need the alibi of believing their own progressive, liberal, non-discriminatory propaganda. They are closet bigots clutching their politically correct alibi of indiscriminate non-disrimination.

While this would generally be a benign occurrence, since these millions really rank among the nicest ones, it becomes destructive and harmful when people in willful naivete let their good intentions be hijacked.

You see, now I understand why most of the people supporting the transgender agenda don’t really seem to have the full picture of what a full “transition” involves, why they don’t know about the lack of definitions for “gender” or “gender identity” or about the dynamic within the LGBT “community”. I guess I understand why so many supporters of undefined “equality” don’t see the misogynist motivation and the stereotype enforcing outcome of the trans agenda, why they are not aware of the strategies employed in funneling children into sex changes and don’t want to see the mutilation inflicted on children who are “transitioned” into the opposite sex, like puberty blockers and other irretrievably life changing drugs and procedures. Now I think I understand why intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties express not an inkling of doubt about the ability of a child to make decisions that will irreparably affect its life forever, and why so many intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties are so ignorant about the issue of so-called gender politics in general and insist on staying so..

Maybe now I understand and can meet them with compassion.

I’ll try.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment