Mamet, change, and Eliot Spitzer
No, there’s not really any relation between Mamet, change, and Eliot Spitzer.
Except that I was planning to write a post today on playwright David Mamet’s Village Voice essay “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal.'” It seemed tailor-made for me. But the site appears to have crashed shortly after I began reading it, and I can’t load the rest of it.
Which brings me to the default post for today, Spitzer. But I must confess that I’m not all that interested in exploring the fall of this particular public figure.
Why not? Maybe it was his wife, doing the “stand by your man” thing with a face so downcast and haunted that she couldn’t even look up for more than a few seconds at a time. Maybe it was the photos of the family’s three lovely daughters in happier times.
Yes, it seems the guy is one of the most hated people in politics, and that’s saying something. But I only can muster up two comments. The first is that crusaders and zealots sometimes have the occupational hazard of falling prey to the very thing they are so against; that’s part of what the struggle is all about. The second is a question: four thousand three hundred dollars??
[NOTE: For further reading, I recommend Shrinkwrapped on the subject of Spitzer’s ignominy.]
[ADDENDUM: I see the Mamet article is now accessible. I’ve run out of time at the moment, but plan to return to it later.]
I just tried sending you the article – let me know if you had any problems.
Just read the Mamet piece. After reading it, I wouldn’t call him conservative. I’d say he falls into the same catagory I’m in. Someone who once looked at all things conservative with suspicion, and now looks at all things liberal with equal suspicion. Does he hold up conservativism for praise? Depends on whose conservativism. Certainly smaller government conservativism.
An indepenent?
kungfu Says:
“An indepenent?”
Maybe… but as a ‘conservative’ I see what he’s saying as ‘with us’ and I bet most liberals will read it and say ‘not with us’…
He may really be an independent… but if you agree with Sowell and are generally against government interventions…. you can not be a progressive-lefty-‘liberal’… period.
Immediately thought of your manifesto, Neo, as soon as I read Mamet’s piece, and said so.
As for Spitzer, I think John Kass summed it up best in the Chicago Trib: “Cowardly men who don’t have the guts to stand alone when it’s time.”
http://www.amusedcynic.com/?p=683
Pingback:The clear vision of the converted…. at Amused Cynic
Thanks for pointing me to the Mamet article.
Where does he now fall? As a thinking person, aware of his previous prisms, and committed to viewing his country through the lens of those living in it instead of those dreaming about it.
His renewed faith is in people, as individuals. And he acknowledges the genius of a system of government that ensnares power-hungry lusts within a mesh of mirrors, grinding against each other. Tyranny cannot be systematized as long as there are competing powers trying to assume control of the system. And the winner is you, me, and everyone else who gets to live our lives making free and selfish choices.
That alone would tip him to the classical conservative camp. He’d never wear the Capital-C label, because of the implications of being a “values conservative”, independent of his professed worldview.
Yes, Silda Wall looked deeply wounded and I suspect that her life will never be the same. Good luck to her.
1. I was haunted by the open, un-hide-able, devastated agony of Spitzer’s wife. I recall the pain of Vitter’s wife, and of other wives standing beside the microphone. Yet, Mrs. Spitzer seemed to inhabit a state of horrified shock. Painful horrified shock. I felt devastated for her.
2. $4,300. My common sense, unprofessional opinion: this is the end result of an overt narcissism. I know this narcissism, as I have lived it myself:
In school, you are not the cool kid, yet you KNOW, in the deepest part of your being, you are a completely wonderful and fabulous person. You KNOW, if the prettiest girls were wise, they would see how wonderful you are.
I was fortunate – a lot of it was luck – in my twenties+, to be in relationships with three girls who were semi-stunning in the beauty dept., and with other girls who were also very attractive. I was with these girls enough to learn lessons about what constitutes true beauty.
If my life had not played out like that, and if I had come into wealth and power, I might EASILY have been narcissistic enough to have wasted $4300 nights on beautiful girls. The desire was there for me – from the moment I saw princesses in fairy tales. And the desire was strong. I understand Eliot Spitzer. I detest him exactly as much as I detest my own foibles and inclinations.
3. about Mamet:
Mamet’s essay will be immortalized as a moment when we all (left and right) sat up straight and paid attention.
Mamet’s gravitas will legitimize apostasy amongst the arts community. Slowly, slowly, artists will begin peeking heads out of leftist holes. They will creep, ever so slightly, away from the left on certain issues. Individuals will, here and there, publicly test out a pet conservative opinion which it was never before okay to voice. Mamet has made it okay to do so.
To be sure: Mamet will first be scorched by the heat of leftist anger and outrage. He will have to fiercely reassert his leftist credentials – especially on social issues. He will have to criiticize and mock conservatives.
Yet, I doubt Mamet will back away from his core assertions in the Village Voice article. I have an instinct about Mamet having character and strength of conviction. A person with those values cannot read Thomas Sowell and merrily return to ignorance.
I can’t believe that Silda didn’t have at least a notion that something was going on with her husband; an offhand remark, a strange look, lack of attention, whatever.
My wife knows when I even try to slyly peer at another attractive woman, much less if it were to go further than that.
Perhaps Silda always sort of ‘knew’ and the sudden shocking force of having it shown to the entire country put her in the funk.
Whatever, I’m just a guy, what the hell do I know?
“four thousand three hundred dollars??”
At least according to several TV shows on prostitutes and looking at legal brothels on the internet they go *much* higher than that. Not only are some absolutely stunning in appearance but that also tends to pay for discreteness.
While he *was* caught in the end it wasn’t because they gave him away or bribed him even though it would have been well within their power to do so.
I guess I figure would it have been better to have a 20 dollar prostitute?
Not that I’m defending him, he deserves more punishment than what he will get (if for nothing more than the stupidity of doing this while in some of the highest offices of the land) – but 4000 doesn’t seem out of line especially if you look at the prices they charge in the areas where prostitution is legal.
I can’t believe that Silda didn’t have at least a notion that something was going on with her husband;
I can. There were probably explanations for anything suspicious and she most likely didn’t have the experience to call BS when she wanted to believe. We are easier to fool than we like to think. A few years from now I suspect that she will wonder how she was such a fool, but the cost of tuition is not going to be cheap. Some knowledge is not worth the apple but we get the schooling anyway.
Don’t cut Spitzer any slack. He is and always was a goon, unfailingly willing to use any tool at his public disposal — though he especially like the snarky press leak — to “get” his victims. He never saw a successful businessman he didn’t like, always figured their goods were ill-gotten, always striving to make his political name at anyone’s (literal) expense. If all this sounds shrill to you, check out his glowing portrait in the Atlantic Monthly from October of ’04 — it’s all in there.
His fall is downright Shakespearian. Throw the frigging book at him and I hope he rots.
(… and this is from someone who doesn’t think prostitution should be a crime.)
At least according to several TV shows on prostitutes and looking at legal brothels on the internet they go *much* higher than that.
And no doubt the range of abilities in sexual matters is like it is in other areas. The scope of the art may be somewhat limited, but that doesn’t mean that the trained talents of that one artist in a million aren’t worth paying for if you have the money.
I was discussing this in email with someone, though probably not the take that you would take on it. We were commenting on his piece, and how that relates to the actions and manipulations put on us as a public. His piece at points allowed a clear illustration as to WHY some points are key iconic points, like family destruction, or religion removal.
Quoting the relative part of the article:
Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out. And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so.
The tie to Abolition of Religion:
The revolutionary mindset delivered is that other thoughts are dangerous. That the patriarchy, or whatever demon will convert you if you listen to them. In essence they instill a protection for their wrong ideas by preventing discourse, examination, comparables, dissonances, etc.
Don’t question, just let the bosses tell you what you need to know… Only those trying to trick you will want you to think “logically” and logic is a male western lie (I am not kidding, you can read stuff that informs you of this mindset). It’s the real reason why they grit their teeth. They have been taught that dialogue with the enemy by any other than their leaders is a no no.
It’s why Hitler used the youth orgs to shout down opposition. Since the opposition not allowed to talk loses the argument by absentia. However in this case, RELIGION again triumphed over ideology and caused them to make a choice of either abandoning their faith (which they were not willing to do yet being that it was their Rabbi), or having to listen fairly to the other side.
I am hoping that at this point you might see why religion is a big enemy. Religion teaches morals and upright actions (if your lucky, other religions may not teach as beneficently. The Discordians are interesting though).
It makes the state as an arbiter of daily life and interactions useless. A man can’t serve two masters and if his master is God, then he checks with God first, then the state. If we actually lived life by the Judeo Christian ethical code (as pointed out by the Rabbi) and what would happen to the courts as a huge bureaucratic center? As happened above, what would happen to their plans of getting you to do what they want, rather than accept what you want as is their job?
For those that don’t believe that they are trying to destroy logical thinking by demonizing men then attributing ‘logic’ to them.
In “A Companion to Feminist Philosophy”, MacKinnon talks at length to “feminist logic” and you can even find things like feminist mathematics that would lead to a new physics (though those words not MacKinnon’s)
Oh… and with that stuff you get this kind of BS.
Gender and physics: feminist philosophy and science education
Abstract Physics education reform movements should pay attention to feminist analyses of gender in the culture of physics for two reasons. One reason is that feminist analyses contribute to an understanding of a ‘chilly climate’ women encounter in many physics university departments. Another reason is that feminist analyses reveal that certain styles of doing science are predominant in the culture of physics. I introduce recent philosophical work in social epistemology to argue that the predominance of certain styles of doing science is not good for science. Scientific communities would benefit from greater diversity in styles of doing science.
Maybe they should read about Emmy Noether, Einstein had some nice words for her obituary. (I am a physicist by training, and arts… everything else then comes from there, which is why I am so capable — and why I know about this kind of BS)
Note that in the above, they are going to “improve science” the same way they improved marriage, relationships, education, taxes, entitlements, sports, law, courts, etc.
Poor Emmy, she did all the work herself… she went to school by proving herself (her story shows that if you could do the work and prove it you got in. the new push has always been to force substandard people by force into places. Each according to their need (they need a job), each according to their ability (we don’t require you to be able), how else do you get to entitlements to balance the ledger?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
Emmy Noether did not show any early precocity at mathematics – as a teenager she was more interested in music and dancing.
And my favorite part (I am a man, but every time I read about Emmy I say go go go, she reminds me of my grandmother)
said by Einstein in eulogy to be “[i]n the judgment of the most competent living mathematicians, […] the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began.”[2] Almost universally known as Emmy Noether, she had penetrating insights that she used to develop elegant abstractions.
Noether’s theorem is a central result in theoretical physics and the calculus of variations that shows that a conservation law can be derived from any differentiable symmetry of a physical system. For example, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that all laws of physics (including the values of the physical constants) are invariant under translation through time; they do not change as time passes.
Noether’s theorem, published in 1918, holds for all physical laws based upon the action principle. It is named after the early 20th century mathematician Emmy Noether. Noether’s theorem is a relationship of classical mechanics between pairs of conjugate variables–if the action is invariant under a shift in one of the two physical variables, then the equations of motion resulting from holding that action stationary conserve the value of the other of the pair of variables. These conjugate pairs also play a crucial role in quantum theory–they are the pairs of variables that are related by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (such as position and momentum, time and energy, angle and angular momentum, etc).
I digressed too much, but Emmy is an important historical person. And she shows that the old ways were better. We sure are not producing any of the kind of women like that any more. Summers being thrown out of Harvard for wanting more Emmys without adhering to ideology is what happens now. Meanwhile… the Chinese are turning them out as they are not bogged down by the Gramsci crap.
You can read about an amazing piece of mathematical work by a Chinese woman, here is some stuff on her work http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/cryptanalysis_o.html
And here is some stuff on her Xiaoyun Wang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaoyun_Wang
The point here is that if you don’t question wahts going on, then you will live in a bubble. You wont get out of that bubble till the discontinuities bother you enough.
Resistance is very high for a simple psychological reason, and given the places that worked on this stuff in germany and Columbia university, they know the outcome, and the game is to convince you that what you think, which is correct, is wrong, so that they seem correct.
If they deny that there is such games going on, as most do. then they are free to enjoy the life they live (for movie goers the abstraction of the red or blue pill).
If they choose to let you in and you then listen and they get to hear you, if they cant deny you, or strip you of the facts, or shame you like crazy, etc. or they just plain respect you, then they have only two choices and neither of them are as pleasant as above given assumptions.
One is to give up, the other is to take action.
Mamet is in this second uncomfortable place where the cognitive dissonance prevents him from returning to the other more comfortable blissful ignorance.
There is a lot of literature like this. Langston huges converted. Even funnier if you read the mountains of comments under the article, you get a GREAT smattering of the dichotomy between the two sides.
The leftists argue from no where.. the BEST they could do was fault him on one and maybe a half point on kennedy, using the lack of perfection argument to then damn the whole piece. Ad hominems, eruditely calling him crazy.
And on the other side, a welcoming party describing the revelations that woke them up like it was some alcoholics anonymous meeting.
Since we refer to Keynes earlier a quote from him is apropos.
When I find out new facts, I change my mind, what do you do?
Well Mamet changed his mind, and now he has a hard road. This might be his last pieve in the village voice. He may find money will dry up. There are others that have walked his path.
Though one of my favorites (out of so many that our illustrious host would dislike me more than she probably does now — brevity is not my forte as i like to share what I know freely, and be corrected if I am wrong), wacky leftist comments had to do with someone answering a challenge to name anything that the socialist state has done that is good.
The leftist responder who was quite indignant answered the roads, the libraries, and the fire department.
The roads were because ford convinced the state to tax you to pay for a platform for his product, and he did a lot of manipulation to do that. So it was a huge capitalist that did the roads.
The fire department was, I believe, Ben Franklins idea.. so that isn’t exactly a state success either as fire departments are mostly voluntary. City dwellers don’t realize this. So leftists like him think that all over America the state makes fire departments. Nope, even suburban nj from Jackson mills to tinton falls, is all voluntary.
And libraries. That was a capitalist again, Andrew Carnegie. Who said that a man should spend the first half of his life earning money and the second half of his life giving it away. He came to America broke and poor, and wanted to give something back, so he made a deal. He would build the library, and stock it with books, if the locations would pay to maintain it.
Hospitals are similar. Mount Sinai hospital in NY was once called the Jewish hospital. They have Sabbath elevators, and literally every level and shade of life is there. However most forget that that hospital was created and developed with the monies of capitalists. Left to the state, Jewish people (and others) would not have been able to get care. From the wall street “man for all seasons” Annenberg, to so many others I cant begin.
Read city journal, a great article on the children’s aid societies origin and how that too was not only not run with tax dollars, they actually handled and helped more kids than nj can handle today. I put up a post that put that article and an article showing how after some foster kids starved, the state took more taxes, hired more people, and more starved. They were crowing of a record 1,300 or so adoptions and the old organization separate for the state placed 50,000.
As soon as we learn to walk on our own two feet and think like a free person, its not as warm and fuzzy ever again, but the air sure is cleaner, and your rudder finally answers your call.
I will end this with a thanks again to our host, and apologies for my wordiness…
And a quote by Churchill, a man who ¼ of the UK thinks is a myth.
“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” – Winston Churchill
Four thousand three hundred dollars: at that price, you’re not paying for the girl, or even the sex. You’re paying for the knowledge that you just spent the evening with a thousand-dollar whore.
As to Mamet: I hope gcotharn is right, but I’m not so sure. David Mamet’s career peaked a few years ago — he can easily be dismissed by the true believers. They’ll call it senility, or chalk it up to his being Jewish. Or Mamet himself can perform a climb-down, “clarifying” his remarks to make it clear that he’s still one of the anointed.
Mamet… yes… woo-hoo! Now you can take a break from bearing the burden mostly alone, Neo, and I can enjoy some theater with less shrillness than ever before.
I’ll believe Mamet’s conversion when he makes his screenplays less impenetrable.Simplicity wouldn’t hurt that man’s work;he could also drop the double mcguffin cliche that oozes from his movies like a festering wound.
How about a plotline with decent and human characters who the audience can cheer? Write like you actually experience the world, Mamet, and not like you still need to impress the NYC critics.
$4300 dollars for an evening with a woman.
I once ‘spent an evening’ a woman for whom I would pay that sum.
Now I spend every evening and morning with her. She’s my wife. Aside from all notions of honor, I would never cheat on her with any other woman: It would only be a disappointment.
Eliot is a nerdy utopian dumbass and his poor dopey wife should have a sign around her neck that reads:
“bad in bed”.
On prostitution the daily news ran an interesting piece.
The sad part was that one of these high priced call girls telling the truth said that when she started she thought she would have to do all these things, and wear funny clothes, and all that. While that does go on, she said that the vast majority are paying for a great date.
I would concur, that unless you believe the propaganda about men being so shallow, and then ignore the evidence all around you, you might think that sex is all that its about, after all, that’s what the femnits say.
And i will expand a bit on her shorter statement that basically said it was about a great date with no focus on money, etc.
We can’t see paying 4,000 for sex, because sex really isn’t that special. We also don’t understand why pay when there are plenty of willing people out there, but the famous words are you don’t pay them for sex, you pay them to leave.
A great date for most men that would be a high school wet dream is actually quite benign and dull from a pornographic stand point.
First of all, top beautiful women are never interested in us. in fact most women treat men with contempt, and never realize it. The commercials make us all dolts; no TV show has any decent males on it that are not juvenile. If it’s a drama, they are second fiddles or like the new terminator series, an excuse to watch a girl beat the crap out of a guy dworkinesquely.
So is it any real surprise that the money draw isn’t sex with a sex toy that you see walking the streets (like I saw on my way to work), but with an ideal mate?
An ideal mate is not the whore or the Madonna, she is a life partner aware of comparative advantage and loves the natural reason we are here.
She is beautiful (to us). She is younger and ‘bright’, preferably educated the old way (not modern education that is vacuous and devoid of substance. Remember philosophy at the end of the day appears huge and with substance, but in reality, when living, it has the substance of cotton candy when you bite into it).
She would be talented, polite, well mannered, self controlled, but not cold, reserved. Educated across a wide range of subjects and interests. Mentally challenging, not competitively challenging. A bit playful, but not goofy. Music or singing is a plus, as is long hair.
For some reason men like women, and they like women who show ideal physical traits. The right hip waiste ratio (twiggy and marylin Monroe had the same ratio), facial symmetry, long healthy hair, clear eyes.
We also like them to be interested in US. not for what we can do, or what we have, or where we will go. But US, and not in that sensitive crappy cheesy way. we like it when her eyes get a little wider when she leans forward and talks to us. even better if we perceive her pupils get larger.
The point here is that this is what they have secretly been offering for all these years while women have been turning themselves into sex toys and fetish objects, which is a short term fantasy.
The real deal fantasy is the real deal fantasy, the short term deal is not the fantasy.
Ok. Proof.
Playboy is desired and read by men and such because they put weird things in it like odd Norwegian 8mm films, or barn animals, etc. Right? no. they gave you the real deal fantasy, the girl next door.
Contrary to popular and vulgar western myth, Geisha were not whores. Geisha were the real deal fantasy of the ideal intimate life for a man. Worldly, educated, helpful, enthusiastic, entertaining, skilled, polite, etc.
Oh, and the story of Scheherazade. She didn’t save her life by doing the “wild thang”, he had harems. Read the old stories and you will find that the harem girls didn’t become favored by missile twisting. (someone has been selling magic beans again)
While the world turns… the old world turns still.
That’s why “Surval Mont-fleuri” still exists. Its an old finishing school in the alps. This is where parents send their girls to be something big with a big husband.
Surval Mont-fleuri is an international school for 85 young women from 10 to 22 years old set in the heights of Montreux in a privileged environment facing the Lake of Geneva. It is the ideal place for the pursuit of stimulating studies suitable to the professional aspirations of a modern young lady.
Our study programme is a combination of language studies (intensive French and English courses) and a large choice of optional courses adapted to today’s modern life. The number and variety of optional courses proposed are unique. This concept gives our students the possibility to create their programme individually. These optional courses include Cookery, Etiquette, Photography, History of Art, Computer, Small Business Management, Music, etc. In addition to the above-mentioned supplementary courses, we also offer courses in languages such as German, Spanish and Italian.
Turns out that the old way was the way we all liked it best… but heck they besotted us, to meet their labor goals. Before if women watched each others kids, the state didn’t have access to tax that transaction. Now they do. not to mention the family destruction thing if they follow the plan. Though if you note the top ladies that do seem to get it all follow the old plan. They work hard, get married early, have kids, go to school, get into career unbroken, and then we interview them in their 40s and 50s, as the ‘winners’.
However if you look above, and compare with what the programme has created, you can see that in a way 4300 hookers are the only way a guy can sit with a decent girl any more.
What most women don’t understand is that guys always pay. So to many its just a form of exchange (I am not one of them, and no I wouldn’t care if the world knew I was. I am old fashioned and it always struck me as depressing to do that. But that don’t mean I don’t understand it).
A big date on the town can easily cost a few hundred to a thousand dollars. For someone that may be using you for free meals and adventures. Heck I had to work so hard to earn so much extra money so I could take people out. Its what most men do. while she has a choice to pay, he has to be prepared to pay (unless he has some prior knowledge).
To magnify the importance of this fact, and the importance that one shouldn’t discussi it. there is an absolutely to die for French restaurant in rye ny. Its exclusive. If you didn’t know it was there, you wouldn’t know it was there. I have been there as senators were lauging it up on the dole, and dinner with expensive drinks can easily run into thousands for a couple, including napoleon brandy from the vault in the basement.
I took a date there once, and she was out of her depth. She didn’t know how to act. While I grew up poor, I knew how to act. The service is impeccable. Glance with your eye and tweak your head and someone is at your table. The menus though had her flummoxed. She said that they had no prices. I said of course they don’t, my menu has the prices.
I walk in many worlds, and this is one of them. The menus have no prices for her because as a woman, she is not supposed to know the price so she doesn’t feel obligated and can freely act in her own way. often the polite thing a girl would do when she wasn’t as interested would be to let him order, that way she wouldn’t order the 1200 a plate duck with the chopped truffles (not oil), and napoleon brandy sauce. but would get the filet mignon prix fix.
The point here is that world is the hated one, and people have no idea what it’s about. My photography, and my nature has allowed me to wander through many worlds, and i have learned a lot as to things. It became a habit since so many people were lying to me about what different people were about, and I grew up in the Bronx during the race conflicts and stagflation.
So the high priced call girl is only offering what a great wife would be like, but only for one night.
As for spitzer.. he follows the sociopathic profile, which is what leftist leaders generally are. They HAVE to present a dual mind to be willing to steal from one group, and give to another in a perverted way that hurts them. its not the power, as there are plenty of good people of power that are not sociopathic that resist this. Sociopaths promiscuity is well known, and they are promoted in socialist states because they are easy to compromise, and therefore easy to control.
[Another reason why religion is not liked. Many men and women of decent upbringing will not compromise themselves this way. They can’t be controlled through a honey pot. They will not cheat. The lessons of the saints show that there are many men of principal that will not bend on those principals and as examples would die first. This is not a kind of creature you want if you want to manipulate and control things. This I why skull and bones and other orgs sometimes have perverted or embarrassing initiations to put all the members in equal footing that way and bond them — and the mob and gangs have murder]
So I see Spitzer like Clinton, Kennedy, and a host of others that are that way, and that the main stream media always describes as fallen, and never describes as sociopathic.
His actions say he was getting a heck of a lot of duping delight… (So is having sex in the oval office). The pain he caused people is also part of it. Power can only be felt if exercised and positive power can’t be felt. So they have to do things that are hurtful and cause damage and that people have no control to change or fix. It’s that helplessness to retaliate that makes them know they have power. This is why the sub clinical gravitates to psychology, medicine, police, government, fire, etc. All of these are jobs in which a clever person can hurt people and not be blamed for it. With despot as the top choice of all time.
In the old days sociopathy was called “moral imbecility”…
While the best fantasy describes most mens reasons for such companionship, the mention of statements from his calls shows that he was not that type. He went to hookers to get his perversion fix, to do things that he couldn’t trust his wife to do with him. That tells me that his wife is not one, the way Ms Clinton is. His wife is a prop. His daughters a necessity for the image he is projecting to achieve his position. That position was to pull the strings and twist 8 million people when he could. When he wasn’t in office, he spent his time using law to destroy people.
I’m looking forward to your write up on Mamet neo. I’d like to see how his awakening compares with yours and any further insights you may have about the conversion (did you have to take the red pill and go down a rabbit hole?).
I look forward to this so that I might find some way over having a discussion with a liberal that I may understand might be willing to hear the other side. I do understand that there are those who are just unable to move beyond the emotionally visceral. Im wondering where that break is. The point where it starts to tip so that the other side briefly becomes visible.
Anyway Im sure it will be a good read.
My late aunt Betty was excitable. Very excitable. She could rattle on for half an hour about almost anything. Betty was once invited to an Academy Awards party and was asked to bring her own duct tape. Once, when she complained to a doctor about her “nerves”, he asked her if she drank much coffee. She replied, ” three or four”. “Cups?” he asked. “No”, she replied, “pots.”
My late aunt Betty was excitable. Very excitable. She could rattle on for half an hour about almost anything. Betty was invited to an Academy Awards party and was asked to bring her own duct tape. Once, when she complained to a doctor about her “nerves”, he asked her if she drank much coffee. She replied, ” three or four”. “Cups?” he asked. “No”, she replied, “pots.”
The point where it starts to tip so that the other side briefly becomes visible.
My opinion is that the tipping point is when a Democrat supporter does some introspection and starts to realize that there are other people, besides them, that cares about race issues and what not. That just because people pursue a 100% degree opposite policy, that it does not necessarily mean they are in league with Big Oil, Corporations, or what not.
The need to cling to such myths and conspiracies are due to the inferiority complex inculcated in minorities by Democrat propaganda operations designed to mentally keep blacks and minorities in chains. Mental chains bind far harder than physical ones.
You can see with the Palestinians that the crushing psychological pressure created by the knowledge that they and their people are inferior, promotes a desire to excel at violence and self-destructive behavior. Supporting Democrats, especially blacks supporting Democrats because they think Lincoln was a Democrat and the Democrats are helping to solve racism in America, is quite similar to self-destructive behavior.
Via Shrink’s blog.
The breakthrough came when she casually mentioned toward the end of one session that her ankle was bothering her and she was annoyed (she was almost always annoyed about something, I might add) that she wouldn’t be able to jog that night. Since I knew that she was living in a marginal area of Manhattan and this was at a time when crime was at high levels and much in the news, I had concerns that her jogging might be putting her at risk. When I asked her where she jogged, she confirmed that she jogged in a relatively dangerous area. Her response to my comment to that effect was that women should be allowed to jog wherever and whenever they wished without fear of men and that nothing and nobody, including me, was going to stop her from doing what she wanted.
I was greatly relieved that it did not take long for her to recognize that her angry feminism (which had roots in long term feelings of disgust with her mother and envy of her brother’s exalted position in her family) was inadvertently providing her with a rationalization for dangerous and self destructive behavior. I should point out that both of us agreed that she and every other woman should be free to jog wherever and whenever they wished, but reality required that until such time as this Utopian ideal could be arranged, prudence dictated that she jog at a different time and place as was her wont. When, as often was reported in the news in those days, a woman was assaulted and badly injured near the area she had been jogging, she responded with an anxiety attack; she was stricken with the thought that it could have been her and that there was an unconscious part of her mind that had been inviting just such an outcome. This was the true beginning of a very successful analytic treatment.-Shrink writing about an anonymous client.
The ability for a person to conduct introspection is critical to reforming one’s basic or advanced beliefs.
A Republican cannot make a Democrat conduct introspection primarily because a Democrat is not required by anything to actually consider what the Republican is saying. There is no gun coercing them. There is no economic reason for them to do so. Shrink, as a therapist, is there to listen and is paid to listen. Thus the patient has, some, motivation to hearing what the therapist is saying. It is one to one, producing longer attention spans. But even then, Shrink needed weeks or longer for results to show.
For primary or core political beliefs, years may pass before a person even starts thinking about why he believes certain things are true.
Events like 9/11 accelerate and inculcate this process, but it still takes individual free will to activate it.
If you wish more background reading and the requisite links, go here.
Link
Artfldgr Says:
In reply to one of your comments here, I’d like to refer you to this post I wrote concerning why certain people value totalitarian systems more than they do Chaos Theory free choice.
Link
A lot of people have noticed such things, but I try to tie numerous observations together.
Your views concerning how to handle enemy organizations anathema to certain ideological movements and your second comment were very informative and entertaining.
Seeing Spitzer’s foto in Internet, I was struck by sheer ugliness of his looks. There is something devilish in his facial expression; this thought came to my mind even before I could know who he was and what is all the fuss about. Does anybody see what I see?
Ymar:
“A Republican cannot make a Democrat conduct introspection primarily because a Democrat is not required by anything to actually consider what the Republican is saying. There is no gun coercing them.”
You know Ymar, thats sounds about right. Its not about a “magic” argument. Maybe a series of arguments, but would have to be a personal epiphany. There are people you are not going to reach because their hatred is so ingrained. Then again I believe that there are people (like Neo) that grew up in the middle of strong regional liberalism (great term huh?) that are able to break free of the dogma. Would that be accurate to say? I dont know.
As Mamet described his change of worldview, it was not an epiphany, but a long process of critical evaluation of his own presumptions which lead him from a rather childish or adolescent perspective to more adult one, from idealism to realism and acceptance of inherent restrictions of humans, of society and of government. Looks like maturation, not a sudden light on the road to Damascus.
I tend to be very, very suspicious of any kind of epiphany, political or another: in 99% of cases this is transition from ignorance to sheer madness. Real intellectual of spiritual growth requires long, hard and painstaking work.
As somebody on another blog pointed out, Mamet still believes in the Truths (Bush stole Florida, etc.) but they matter to him differently. Hence the beginning of change.
If he were to discover in himself, as Sowell says, that much of liberalism is a way to feel [unjustifiably] good about oneself, he’d be further along.
Well, there’s always time.
in 99% of cases this is transition from ignorance to sheer madness. Real intellectual of spiritual growth requires long, hard and painstaking work.
You really, really are a Russian…..
Living in Russia, I am surrounded by neophytes. In their previous atheistic lives they were much more amiable neighbours. Now they became almost unbearable in their “I am holier than you” attitude.
Ymar:
“A Republican cannot make a Democrat conduct introspection primarily because a Democrat is not required by anything to actually consider what the Republican is saying. There is no gun coercing them.”
Possibly worse, the libs I’m around – by necessity – used to think that if I remained resolutely stoic in the face of whatever they were saying that I had actively agreed with them.
Now they try to avoid any opening for a real conversation on anything important, probably also because I’m fairly well prepared with one-liners in response, that is, unless they have strong numbers or can otherwise virtually trap me in some socially compromising position.
Still, they catch me off guard by doing such things, which they apparently can’t suppress, like referring to Blacks as Nig****, talking about “that Jew”,or trying to get me involved in something illegal – things which by their ver own zealotry they themselves have made illegal such as catching and eating a “protected” fish.
Again, stoicism in response to these outbreaks is not something they recognize as not really affirmative but instead rather negative.
So I just might have to start packing and even occasionally draw a gun on them in order to have a ready means of communication available at all times.
Ymarsakar,
thank you for the link, i will look it over when i have time, and thank you for the kind words.
I was looking and discussing political sociopathy with someone thru email. during the course of these long tracts (you see how i write), i pulled up an article by martha stout. eye opening if you dont discount things out of hand http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm?author_number=1097
anyway.. one of the things in this article is that she listed out a few of the famous sociopaths. i my discussion i listed out more.
then i asked the person i was discussing with, to list next to each one, the ideology they were following. with a cut off date being the creation of new social order… in this case, soci is a root symbol that stands for sociopathic… like a little club, so socialize is no longer to make social, but to make socialist, which is to make sociopathic.
SOCIalism is rule by sociopaths.
here is the list… we may not have all the subtypes right, but we have the major category all of them sit under correct!!!
Hitler: socialism, fascism
Stalin: socialism, communist
Mao: socialism, Maoism
Rasputin: socialism, socialist realist
Eichman: socialism, fascism
Peron: socialism, liberation theology
Che: socialism, liberation theology
Pol Pot: socialism, Leninist
Chavez: socialism, Leninist
does anyone see a pattern here? leftists dont, and socialists excuse everyone of them as having good intentions.
John Gotti was the only one on her list that was not political. but with that in mind, is it really so hard to see and imagine what gotti would be like if he were president of a nation?
Zipping over to an interesting psych site (sort of), who seems to specialize in discussing clinincal sociopaths, but focused more on the sub clinical of which its very hard to study. (who would step forward for that? which is why what we know is the criminal clinical sociopath)
http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/category/explaining-the-sociopath/
just the headlines are interesting.
think about kennedy, clinton, spitzer, Barry, etc.
everyone of them the news makes the excuse for that they have fallen (temporarily) from grace. the news NEVER EVER associates them with sociopathy, which not only would associate them politically with stalin, et al, but also with them medically!!! (and if the press is leftist, then wouldnt this be a very convenient omission for the side of sociopathic megolamaniacle rule)
with those people in mind..
It’s not that the psychopath’s beliefs are awry (they are); it’s that his desires are too perverse and too uninhibited
just this little phrase opens up a world of insight.
the reason to teach sex in school so young… to create a bevy of curious victims that are more easily manipulated, and to prime sociopaths to seek those victims later in life since this creates their impression experience with such young people. perversion of innocence. (look up hungarian schools, and luckaks).
reinforce it? the vagina monologues, original script, has a lesbian drug a 12 year old whose vagina later says, if it was a rape, it was a good rape.
destruction of family. puts the kids into the hands of the new sociopathic state, so that tehy can sort them as they did in russia, with the sociopaths being shuttled to certain schools that train them in more than just reading and writing. the rest are horses and the means of production.
by destroying the family, you release the protection of women from sociopaths. no longer could others watch as the person behaved, and could glean their suitability. we now believe that this was elitism, what if it was to weed the mentally unfit from your genetic family line?
well then changing that would allow sociopaths to then have a EQUAL stand at access to proginey. in fact, they are most likely to wander aroud and create babies and leave. t
feminism paints all men as being sociopaths, which means, that the feminist leaders are sociopathic and projecting. they cant see merit, since they are cheating, and so they think that mens place is not by hard work and merit but by a large secret collusive system called patriarchy. now if they think this, then what would they be attempting to make then? a large secret collusive system called matriarchy that is sociopathic and the same as they imagine the patriarchy to be… (though like moriarty we can find the matriarchy plots, but the patriarchy plots, are too good)
one of the most telling is an almost identical quote that a serial killer gave. the serial killer after describing how he tortured a woman to death, then said she was lucky. thanks to him, she may have learned something.
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52..
going back to the headings… and tying the analytical view to examine the goals in light of waht sociopaths would like, what would make more of them, and so forth… things become even more interesting.
next heading:
Why are there so many sociopaths in America?
This semester I am teaching Psychology of Women at the University of Bridgeport. This is the second time I have taught this course. It is a fun course to teach because everyone likes it. This week we took up the issue of whether overall women’s personalities are different from men’s. A significant percentage of the class believes that men and women are very different in many domains and that this difference is biologic or genetic. The author of our textbook is a feminist from New York so she tends to down play any gender differences found, and she attributes nearly all gender differences to culture.
To balance the views of the textbook, I look for other articles to share with the class. This week I found a great paper, and coincidentally some interesting statistics were also reported in the news. The paper I found is entitled Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures. It was just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The results are shocking and a wake up call.
what you will find is that the ideology is all lies, or half truths… and waht is the baliwick of sociopathy?
would a culture of relativism be conducive to socipathy, or against it?
would a culture, such as being jewish, work against or for sociopathy? well, mamet found out but didnt realize that jewishness and its laws, protect you from sociopaths by forcing the dialog to move to merit and not games.
so science uplifting human growth, is a process where the sociopath who is a throw back to our dayhs before civilization… civilized man has to cooperate and the more kind they are and loving they are, the more likely they will grow into the dream that socialism promises.
one thing that is VERY commin is that they reverse things. they are our dopplgange opposites.
think about it.
the direction we went to with society is a direction away from a world that favors the sociopathic and perverse.
so judo would say, take that big dream, and stick it on an arrow pointing in the wrong direction and who will follow?
this is why socialismt degrads society till its primitivized. this is why adorno wanted to primitivise the culture. not only because it makes them easier to control, but becasue it moves us away from a nice world where everyone is happy and cooperates gladly, and protects each other.
wouldnt that be anathema to sociopathic dreams of thier kind of world?
heck, you can look at christian settlements, like the amish, and they are accomllishing what socialism promises.. no? but their world has little perversion in it.. in fact, sociopaths are weeded out very fast… they are cheaters and with such morals as the amish, cheaters dont get far as their sins are not excused.
of course sociopaths would love a more TOLERANT world in which tolerance is defined as indifference not understanding.
just to note, the amish are not backwards. every amish kid has to leave the community and live among the english. then they have the choice of whether to live that way, or live the other way. so much for religious programming and force. are socilaists giving us that choice?
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
i think not…
who does the AUTHORIZING? isnt that totalitarian?
“A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
look at sanger… she wanted to exterminate the blacks and chinese… her planned parenthood was originally the negro project… hitler wrote to her people for suggestions on his programs. she said the purpose was soft eugenics.
so how do we get to that being a public good?
even worse…
the stem cell argument puts lights on to how up is down and down is up, and heads now are tails.
remember the people are not the group of 120 and above that may or may not have some understanding. they are the people below that. there are a lot more people below 120, than there are above. so would the politicians argumetn for licence be cogent or manipulative? i am not saying whether the manipuation is good or bad.
now if one side is good, and one side is bad, and this is not reletevated away to excuse sociopathci acts.
then the one that is arguing the right course is forced to manipulate the better course…
while the side that is arguing the ulterior motive is forced to manipulate the worse course as being the best.
the assumption of the argument on the left, was that only fetal cells could do that. that stopping this from using fetal cells woudl stop the science.
on the other side, the slippery slope is what they were against, and not to mention that, capitalists realize the power of the invisable hand.
unlike socialists, capitalists know that capitalism overcomes obticals if there is something that can make people happy on the other side, and there are no cheaper alternatives on your side.
so what happened?
the same thign that happened in the drug war when they sprayed teh fields with paraquat.
the birds were kicked out of the nest of the easy path, and so they were forced to seek alternatives. and so they found the more productive and expensive cocaine.
int he case of stem cells, they foudn an alternative that allows adult cells to be used..
now actually thats better since now you dont have to bank your fetal cells.
but the left isnt happy… why? they should be happy that science wasnt killed and progress wasnt stopped and its all workig out great for the long run.
so why not?
because the argumetns were false. they were trying to stake out a justification for abortion and eugenics.
planned parenthood and all that is changing the demographics of teh nation. the smart are suiciding their family lines. the gullible are too. the poor are not listening, the middle is exterminating, the wealthy are just fine.
its an assault on the middle… putting off babies is the same thing… oops, missed the boat, sorry maybe your next life..
ulimately what does that do demographically for the lords at the top? well it pushes their proginey foward and increases their repreentation in the genetic legacy.
while we are all in dreamland, they realize that ther is only one game in town, and there was always only one game in town.
dynasty.
serial monogamy is anotehr one. how do 25 sociopaths share a harem of 200 women without haveing to take care of them and upkeep them.
mathematicallhy serial monogamy (material equivalence), is a harem system in which the harem girls have to pay their own way.
this is why they play with perspectives and create a correct party pc perspective.
if you juggle the varialbes, then you fidn that the ultra smart sociopaths are playing with words to create equivalent material outcomes.
just as a book or a locket can have a magical quality to the normal person, the sociopath sees that as an exploitable weekness. it means that we have ways of looking at things that change how we see thigns which changes how we react.
if we had soldiers or doctors exterminate 54 million babies since 1964, we would do what?
but if we convince mothers and change their life cirumcstances to misery, we can get them to walk in happily and exterminate their future contrubution to the world in favor of the leaders who tell them too.
would normal males think a harem is good? no. not at all, because a normal man (not described by feminists so that the normal man turns into a secondary sociopath and adopts the tenets because of unjust social harm. worked to make the blacks hate the whites, no? worked to make them forget that it was the republicans that freed them and wanted them and invited them whilet he left fought for slavery and jim crow. shows the real values, and how they flipped).
since a normal man with sensitive emotions and things sees his mother, daughter and children as important. the harem system is not liked. its why more enlightened groups went to that.
in this way, the women were not the sexual chattel of all the men that wandred by. that she would ahve trust love and help… not abuse, abandonment, and be used up.
up is down… war is peace.
arbeit mach frei.
work will set you free… the words over the gate at auswitz.
[here is the punch line no one tells you. the sociopathic punch line. for auswitz that message was TRUE. if you worked very hard, you would use up your subsistence calories faster, and would die sooner. work will set you free]
i am not good at organizing this stuff for people that need things linearly… i dont think that way..
so i make a lot more novel associations
as should be evident here i think divergently, so rather than my thoughts converging on a solution, my solutions expand to all other implications.
so when i look at something i see it in 50 different ways as a supposition of states where the intersections of many of them is the truth.
physics is my training, and i will show you why they see things differently.
ideology says there is no objective truth becasue there is no clear view without subjectivity always leaks through.
is that true? or is that an assertion that hasnt been truly determined. remember 40 years on, their blind assertion of tabula rasa is dead as it was always.
are they giving you a preferred view in which you stop asking questions and questioning authority? question authority is something stout advises you do ALL the tiem so that you authority is not a sociopath.
read this and let me know if it changes your view
A pessimist will see that the glass is half empty
The optimist will see that the glass is half full
the quintessential example that reality is subjetive.
no?
well if you say or think that is all there is, then yeah.
but what about a third option?
The physicist will say you have too big a glass for the water you have.
is that subjective? or absolute? would the converse statement lead to opposites?
the first two are subjective preferential, the last one is unarguable fact in which its obverse is also true and not a contradiction. You don’t have enough water for the glass you have. to the physicist both answers are valid and unlike the one tied to subjective ego, they are neutral and equivalent and not at all dependent on your outlook in life or you bias that day.
So is truth subjective? or is there an absolute truth?
is it dependent upon the rigor of how you phrase the problem?
dont let smart people play with lesser minds of naivette and honesty.
it then would take a good person of high smarts without the contempt for their fellow man, and such high faluting things.
wasnt it maslow that discovered that these people really existed? didnt the church make some of them saints? doesnt ultimate power corrupts ultimately really just blaming an inanimate state for the actions and moral of the person absoving them of their responsiblity and creating false forgiveness?
That’s why physics gets farther than other branches of science. physics is at the edge of reality, philosophy, and mind. unlike the other branches of sciece, physics was the branch that knocked the philosophers off their pedastal.
prior to physics, and empirical math, invented by men… philosophy, magic, intuition, were the leaders of modern thought and deviners of how god made the world.
intelligentisa, pseudo religious thinking, and womens special knowing.
so in the bigger picture… taking hegel into account.. they got the intelligentisa to agree to their own immolation by teasing them with the promise that they will be on top again over empiracsicm.
and in sociology and psychology they are very well along… but in the HARD sciences, they are not so far along.
read about the spy franz boas.
he tagged anotehr woman.. margret meade..
she lied.. her somoa work is a sham.
boas turned out to be a front man.
dont worry, naomi goldstein she took the lies of margret, tied that with the lies of the sociopathic kinsey, and giving up her writing for the CPUSA created the feminine mystique.
kinsey is a good example of a sociopathic doctor.
how did he get babis to orgasm so he could describe it? well, he put them in the hands of child molesters who he was also studiying too.
so his work is a sham too…
i have to get going.
i am the king of digression… but there is so much to talk about that just doestn enter discussion due to ignorance… and trust.. and refusal to believe what is right in front of you.
[on another note i just read that link… nope… it doesnt explain it. its argumetns are off, and i dont have time to spend dissecting it and such. sorry. but i do thank you a whole lot for sharing it with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
@J. Peden
You are a threat to their worldview, because you do not fit neatly within the silo of the Straw Men they create as an easy counterpoint.
“You are a threat to their worldview, because you do not fit neatly within the silo of the Straw Men they create as an easy counterpoint.”
So true, Ike! At best, they now conceptualize me as exactly like them, but merely on the “other side”, equal but opposite, which makes them real live Straw Men.
And it’s amazing how the “leader” continually tries to convert me with purely groupist arguments, especially involving his thinking that I want to be in with the allegedly correct Group/Cult simply because this is his desire.
It’s so strange: once he said ominously, “You know, only 1% of people think like you.”
So I simply said, “You just made that up,” because that’s exactly what he did, and that was my only point.
He dropped the sequence at that point but several weeks later he tried the very same “argument” again. So this time I merely asked him if he was trying to flatter me. He discontinued the discussion again.
Stunning!