On Control

I want to share something about control. There's internal control, and there's external control. Control is binary. There is a one, and there is a zero. There's assent, and then there's no signal. The essence of control is to isolate information down to the point of it being binary. That is control, and there is an internal aspect and an external aspect. The internal aspect of control is called self-control. The external aspect goes by social control, propaganda, or perhaps occultism, psychiatry, science, and so forth. Then, there is the union of internal and external control. That is important.

Enlightenment is where external control meets internal control. It's like two electric circuits connected by a wire; really, when you connect them, they are one circuit. That's union. There is no enlightenment without control, both internal and external, because without control there would be no clarification of concepts, no transmission of purity, no essence of the divine. You need control to have enlightenment. With control, you are controlled by Buddhas, and you control yourself. Everywhere there is nothing but control. And with this control, both internal and external, comes the transmission of purity which purifies the mental continuum to the point where it can continue on its own without further guidance. That is the ultimate point: clarifying information, purifying data, ruling out the decay of existence that marks the ordinary, unenlightened state.

In the Internet, we have transmission of data, and we have streaming. Streaming is like transmission of data, except there's more control. The pathway of data becomes one circuit, to the point where the two computers are indistinguishable, and then you get music coming through the wire. You can't have live music over the Internet without streaming. Control is what makes it stream.

When we receive a teaching, it doesn't matter if the teaching is secular or religious or what-have-you, there is a great deal of control. Language itself is control. When someone says something, we can't help but experience that thing. In some ways, this can be traumatic; someone can say something which triggers something in us that makes us feel uncomfortable, and we don't like it because we feel we have no choice. But in other ways, it is quite useful. Mutual control through language is what makes us so powerful as human beings. It's what builds societies. The trick to avoiding the trauma is to be open-hearted. Sense the essence of the word entering your mind. Feel its emotion. Feel the totality of it, and all the energy and light and soul behind it. Feel what it means to be that word. It will still control you, but the control is open-sourced, and you get to contribute, too.

That's something that Westerners, traditionally, have had a hard time accepting. Control is always two-sided. If you seek to control, you will always be controlled. Control is control. Control of others is others' controlling you. Control begets control, from node to node, point to point, everywhere on the network. It is never one-sided, as much as we may want it to be.

Consider the United States of America. It is a very powerful country. What makes the United States so powerful? Because of all the control. But America is a democracy. The citizens of America control the government, and the government controls the citizens, who control the government, who control the citizens. All this control is what makes us so powerful.

Now you may be wondering if there is something beyond control. Of course there is. Once you've achieved control, you can simply allow the energy to radiate throughout the nodes of control, providing love, inspiration; inspiring dialectics of power; granting crowns and relieving others of the oppressive weight of the same crowns. Once union between the nodes of control, being two, (internal and external), has been achieved, you have a blossoming of creative energy which can spill into the universe and settle among the Earth. This is the meaning of control. It is its ultimate end. If you hang onto control, you get a headache. If you loosen up, once control has been achieved, you achieve grace.

A lot of people are against the concept of control. I am not. However, I do understand that an extreme of control causes headaches. Control is necessary and important, but best to let it arise naturally, as the product of open-hearted investigation, inner and outer, into the nature of the world. Perhaps it may even be better to let the whole world control you first, before seeking to control the world. But once the control has been achieved, being open-hearted and loose and letting go returns us to that state of nature from which the control arose in the first place.

On the Legitimacy of Israel as a State

I questioned, in a Facebook post, the legitimacy of Israel's self-proclaimed right to exist. It seems to me, anyway, that God did not give Israel to the Jews, but rather England did. And I think Palestine is the main test of Israel's right to exist.

The way Israel is treating the Palestinians is not justifiable. Israel isolates them from the outside world. It would be better if the Palestinians could leave, or become a part of Israel. But this is impossible. Why? Because Israel sees it in their best interests to isolate them. The problem, of course, is that the Palestinians probably have a more legitimate claim to that land than Israel.

Israel is forced to battle Palestine. Peace is impossible for them. Why? Because if they make peace, the Arab states will take advantage of a weak stance and attack Israel one way or another. I believe this is the case. Also, I believe that there are Arab states who might ultimately win in the conflict (if peace were made) which are worse states than Israel. States like Syria.

But really, all this is a battle more for the State of Israel than for anyone else. Israel was founded on questionable principles. The right of an ethnic-based State to be formed by an external oppressor because it's in the Bible is questionable. The right of any ethnic-based state to be formed is questionable. If Israel has any shred of legitimacy to its existence, I think the true test will be Palestine. Also, I think Israel fully realizes this, which is why they are in so much trouble about it.

Israel has very few options. They can't exterminate the Palestinians. They can't let them emigrate to Israel or elsewhere. They can't make peace with them. They can't fight them too hard. They can't fight them too soft. There are no choices for them. And the way they behave in Palestine is very similar to the way a failing regime behaves when its legitimacy comes into question. They imprison people without cause, place them in concentration camps, incite violence to legitimize violence, spend more money on security than research, and so forth. I've never been to Palestine, but from what I've read of the situation there, it's like a concentration camp. It's very similar to psychiatry. A failing regime grasping at straws to ward off its inevitable defeat.

I've had experience living in a concentration camp kind of existence. And when you're inside the concentration camp, sometimes it's a difficult decision you have to make whether to threaten or use violence or not. Because sometimes an oppressor will only respond to violence. This is a fact. I had to threaten to stab hospital wards with a pen in order to force them to bring food to my seclusion room. The decision was part of a long series of pressures I put on them (this one being the only truly violent one), which probably resulted in enough food to survive. Barely.

But oppressors all ultimately act the same. They inevitably spend all their energy on bolstering security rather than gaining knowledge or helping people. This is why fewer and fewer people choose to be psychiatrists: the pay really isn't very good, the training is exhausting, and the fact that they will be pigeonholed into an existence where they must oppress people every day really makes it hard. Why is the pay not so good? Probably because psychiatry prisons are locked down tighter than military compounds. They spend all their money on more and more traumatic seclusion rooms, rather than actually helping people, or gaining knowledge. Why don't they spend money on knowledge? Because as research comes out about psychiatry, it shows them that they're all doing it wrong; that psychiatry is an illegitimate institution.

And the fact that these oppressors act the same, when they're not bolstered by an external oppressive force, indicates that they all eventually cannibalize themselves in the end. So the smartest strategy for someone who is NOT living in a concentration camp system is non-violence. It is to put political pressure on the oppressors, forcing them to cannibalize themselves, without resorting to violence, and thereby legitimizing their oppression. The problem comes when your motivation is bad. People with bad motivation will collect up these victims of oppression and pray on their sufferings to the point of inciting them to violence. It will legitimize both oppressors, until they go to war and one oppressor is defeated. All oppressors act the same.

In a lot of ways, America is behaving the same way. But I'm not sure that the outcome for any of these oppressors is set in stone. I feel America will survive. America is a legitimate state with a troubled history of oppression. That's how I feel. But in order to survive, America has to do soul searching. This is what is happening with the Occupy / Tea Party movements. This is happening internally within the Republican Party, I'm aware, and may also be happening in the Democratic Party. Obama has made surprising decisions, such as the decision following the will of the people not to go to war with Syria. Even this decision may have been a mistake, but it's an example of soul searching.

The problem for Israel is that I'm not sure they have the luxury to be able to do soul searching, surrounded as they are by all these Arab states who do not believe in their right to exist. America is a world superpower, very rich, and having the most powerful military in the world. We can do soul searching. Allowing Israel to do soul searching for the benefit of Palestinians, unfortunately, is not very much on the to-do list for these Arab states. A lot of them are very authoritarian, and rely on strong security forces. And the problem is, these security states require some kind of propaganda to keep their publics supportive of the current regimes. Palestine is a good propaganda point for any dictator in a Muslim majority state.

So really, the right for Israel to exist is less of a test for Israel as it is a test for Arab Muslims. Are these Muslims going to point to the passages in the Qur'an which say that Jews will be hiding behind rocks and the rocks will tell them to kill them? While conveniently ignoring the passages enjoining us not to dispute with the People of the Book except by means better than mere disputation? Or are these Muslims going to work to promote more and more functional democracies at home, so they can deal with Israel intelligently? This is the test. Arabs as a nation have a right to exist on their own land, of course, but many of their states, I feel, are as illegitimate as Israel's or more so. The fate of Israel rests on the fate of Palestine. And the fate of Palestine, and Palestinians, I feel, rests on the ability for Arab Muslims to combat oppression in their own states so they can restrain their own militants from attacking Israel, and allow Israel to sort out its right to existence on its own. If Israel is purely an oppressor, the more it becomes isolated from support from the outside, the more they will cannibalize themselves. If not, they will survive, and peace will prevail.

Degenerate Times

I think it is important to note a couple of things about Buddhist prophesies. First and foremost, a prophesy is not a death sentence. We in the West are so particular about details that we often think of prophesy in the strictest possible terms. Thus, we see it as equally prophetic if Buddha prophesizes that we will live to be 10, as if I or someone prophesizes that my dog will eat a bagel at 2pm Eastern Standard Time next Monday before taking a walk. But Allah is greater than that. We can't simply confine prophesy to strictly worldly terms without any room for freedom of choice.

The two prophesies I would like to mention are Buddhist prophesies: the prophesy of degenerate times, which I believe dates back to the Buddha himself, and the Kalachakra prophesy.

In the prophesy of degenerate times, it is prophesied that our life-span will degenerate gradually over the next thousand or so years until we live to be only 10 years old. Then, there will be a 7 Days War, which of course will last seven days. It is said that the slaughter will be so great that afterwards humans will be so rare that when they encounter one another, they will kiss each other on the mouth. And after this 7 Days War, people will be so profoundly affected by the killing that they will vow never to kill again, at which point the life-span will increase to 14 years.

Gradually, over the period of a couple thousand years, people will renounce evil after evil, and the life-span will increase until it reaches 80,000 again, which is what it was before people began to degenerate. To this, I will add a couple of senses of my own: people I think will be drinking Boyds Coffee, and some will be doing Yamantaka practice. Those were what have been revealed to me through valid cognition and observation.

Now, there are a couple things to note here. As I said: a prophesy is not a death sentence. If someone were to ask me to sum up my philosophy while standing on one foot, I would tell them: it is possible to use the energy of degeneration to one's advantage. That is the prime focus of everything I've been seeking to expound upon for my entire life, and I suspect insh'Allah it will be until I die. I can't imagine me trying to teach anything else, what with my peculiar experiences. And it is an important fact.

All prophesies, including the most damning, are empty of inherent existence. So on some level, we don't know fully what they are talking about. Will the Earth be a desolate wasteland, devoid of life, after the 7 Days War? Will it be like the movie Mad Max taken to an absolute extreme? I contend no. The prophesy, I think, applies mainly to humans qua humans. It does not apply to humans qua yakshas, humans qua nagas, humans qua devas, and humans qua Buddhas. In addition to this, the prophesy applies only generally. People will probably live to be as old as maybe 30, or even older, during these times. And while human-to-human contact may be rare, a survivor human may well encounter many nagas, devas, and Buddhas in his or her quest to find other humans. The Earth will not be a desolate wasteland, but will remain rich with life. This is my opinion.

Furthermore, we have to understand an important point regarding degeneration. It is not our fault that we will live to be only 10 years old. And, we will still have brain technology as is being developed even today to make our lives more meaningful. A wandering 10-year-old after the 7 Days War may well make contact with another human over Facebook telepathically using brain technology.

The other point regarding degeneration leads into my discussion of the Kalachakra prophesy. According to this prophesy, in India, a Muslim will rise to power and claim to be the heir of an Islamic prophesy. A vast force, led by Buddha Manjushri, will then descend from the heavens, engage in holy warfare with this Muslim and his followers, and defeat them. After this, all non-Indic invaders will be routed from India, and humanity will begin to recover from the degenerate times.

As you can see, the two prophesies are related. They both refer to the point at which society ceases to degenerate. The relation is important, because it points to the very heart of the nature of degeneration. I recently became a Muslim, in addition to being a Buddhist, and my intent is to learn the very heart of this religion, as it is important to me. (I have had more intimate connection with many more Buddhas through Islam than through all my 15 years as a Buddhist.) Obviously, then, I am against the view that the Kalachakra prophesy prophesizes the downfall and defeat of Islam. But I don't think the prophesy is inauthentic.

From what I've observed of Muslims today, the ongoing trend seems to be that while they are practicing their religion, they are subtlely involved in what I would call "the cult of the white water." Ordinary water, as a metaphysical substance, is a metaphor for emptiness. In other words, emptiness is like water. It dissolves all things. It is clear. Many creatures live in it. It is vast as the sea. It forms rain. It carves mountains. And so forth. But what color is water? Well, ultimately, water is clear. However, it is also very highly correct to say that water is white. When it freezes, it is white. As it moves about, it froths at the tips of waves, and reflects lights, and ends up becoming white.

Muslims want to be like white water. They want to purify themselves to the utmost extent, become fully distilled of every little stain, and rub themselves clean all the time. They want to be at the tips of the waves, reaching into the void. But one thing they may perhaps overlook is that water is also black. It is equally correct to say water is black as it is to say it is white. Why? When water is gathered together densely in one place, if you peer into its depths, it is black. In a way, water is as black as it is white, but no less pure.

The West, for myriad historical reasons, seems to be deeply involved in "the cult of the black water." The West likes to examine physical things to their depths and uncover their deepest secrets. It also is far less concerned with purity, and riding the tips of waves, seeking to deeply immerse itself into physical phenomena.

What happens when "the cult of the white water" meets "the cult of the black water?" The result is the 7 Days War, which will culminate in at least some small realization that really, water is clear. It may manifest as white, or as black. But ultimately, it is clear. Following this, I suspect life will be much like the famous Andy Warhol movie Chelsea Girls: one side black, one side white. And the result will be purity. Clarity.

I suspect that with regards to the Kalachakra prophesy, Western countries, particularly the United States of America, will play a very important role with regards to the cult of the black water, in answer to India's cult of the white water. Manjushri, in my opinion, will probably come from America.

It is not good to become overly involved in either the cult of the white water or the cult of the black water, because water is clear. However, recognizing and honoring water manifesting as black or white, or as rainbows, and so forth, is important. Light refracted in water, or reflected, or absorbed, still remains light. And ultimately, we are beings of light. My ideas, as they stand now, have to do with blackness. I feel this is important, because too many people are overly concerned with white, while we have a natural tendency to avoid blackness. This is a mistake.

It is a human mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and as equally dangerous as any mistake, potentially costing real people their lives. I suspect that today many people in Pakistan are dying unnecessarily because overly religious Islamic zealots want their society to be pristinely pure and white in color. The Taliban won't let people listen to music, or make art, or do pretty much anything, because they want to wear robes of white. It is so dangerous to be a Muslim today, I feel, because of the resistance to experiencing Western society, which is the dominant and globalized form of society in the world today. I'm worried that concern with issues such as playing music, or drawing representative art, will condemn foreign muslims to poverty and powerlessness. Why? Because it is impossible to move the hearts and minds of the people without making movies, and you can't make movies without drawing pictures and writing music. Period.

Purity is important, but it is not that important. We have to remember that good Muslims are like doctors, and that they do not come to the healthy, but to the sick. And anyway, it is impossible to be one hundred percent pure. Frankly, the fact that the religious people most concerned with purity are the ones who do the most damage convinces me that purity is sometimes a worse evil than sin. If this isn't true, then why are so many terrorists going around calling themselves Boko Haram? The lesson from this is what I consider to be my most important and, hopefully, enduring contribution to moral knowledge everywhere. This is why, I'm certain, I have lived my life. And there is far greater to share and more contributions as well. I'm not always the best at keeping the faith, but I hope my message has reached at least some people in the right way. That is my wish.

The Super-Rich Are More Rich than They Need to Be

Society is degenerating, partly because people who could be accumulating wealth if given the opportunity do not have the opportunity. This is because money is being syphoned to the super-rich, instead of growing among the poor and middle-class. The very wealthy accumulate wealth without regard for the greater good of the economy, which is becoming more and more suitable for small businesspeople.

However, part of the problem is the attitude of the poor and middle-class. Throughout my life, I've observed the attitude of others with regards to changing the world. With rare exception, everyone I've come across simply has no wish to change the world. I don't know if this is because public school beats it out of them, or if it is because of a hereditary attitude that has been promulgating itself since the time when people would be hanged, crucified, or burned for trying to change the world, or perhaps if it is just a personal lack of conviction in their own ideas. Whatever it is, I think it is a problem. Part of the reason the rich can get away with accumulating wealth that should've been ours is because 99% of people are at a loss for what to do with extra wealth when they get it. Maybe a new home theater system. A Winnebago. A trip to the Bahamas. Start a business? Make a film? No, no. That is for people who want to change the world.

The super-rich are going to become more meaningless over time, because our cultural consciousness and economy are becoming decentralized, making centralized wealth less important. But what will replace our major corporations if nobody wants to change the world? They will be replaced with a bunch of mindless sheep begging to be invaded by people with the chutzpah to actually do things. I hear complaints about how Americans aren't accumulating wealth like they used to. I complain about that, because I tend to get stuck in the economic doldrums spending all the money I get on rent and utilities. But I complain about it because I actually have ambitions to change the world, which cannot be realized without extra wealth. Unfortunately, I'm a minority. Most people could care less about accumulating extra wealth, because they are more concerned with living comfortably and quietly smothering themselves with their own down pillows.

I don't care if you want to be a follower rather than a leader. We need followers just as much as we need leaders. All I ask is that if you are going to be a follower, at least try to follow people who are changing the world, rather than just paying a salary. Follow people who challenge you. Follow people who reward enterprise and good decisions. Follow people with a conscience, and with vision. To survive, society needs to constantly change. And it won't change unless we change it. People who refuse to change the world, even if they're not natural leaders, aren't doing anyone any favors.

On the Indestructability of Things and the Destruction of the World

There are two conditions which must be met in the conceptual praxis of a thing in order for it to be indestructable. It must be a) focused, and b) concept-agnostic.

"Focused" means that the thing has a conceptual coherence with is not overly loose. The conceptual coherence of the thing does not let loose of itself and dissipate. It does not wander, freehand, all over the place, refusing to alight on any kind of an identity. In other words, there must be no internal will or forces which lead to a diffusion of conceptual characteristics. There must be a sense of overriding conceptual unity and coherence.

An example of this kind of diffusion would be shattering a plate. If you shattered a plate, the plate would be destroyed. Plates, therefore, are not indestructable, because they can be shattered. A plate is "focused" because it is created as a work. It has an internal coherence. It is round, it has artwork on it, and it was created using specific techniques. All of these elements came together to form the plate. That is what gives it its focus. It is not, therefore, indestructable because it lacks focus. Rather, it is not indestructable because it lacks concept-agnosticism.

The term "concept-agnosticism" involves a very specific set of words. "Concept" involves an idea with a sense of relatively strict internal coherence. Implied in this word is the idea, mentioned above, of "focus." Concepts always have focus. A thing, in order to be indestructable, must not only be a concept, and hence have focus, but it must also be concept-agnostic. The choice of the second word here is very important.

I could have, but did not, choose the term "a-conceptual." A-conceptual things are things which strictly negate any sense of being a concept, or having concepts. They are non-conceptual. Such things may exist, but the attribute of being non-conceptual is not a primary facet in its indestructability.

I could've also chosen the term "anti-conceptual." This is a different concept altogether. To be anti-conceptual, a thing is opposed to any kind of conceptual coherence at all. It isn't merely that it lacks the attribute of being a concept, but that it repels whatever forces would have it become a concept. To my knowledge, the only things which bother to be anti-conceptual are annoyingly cliche New York artists.

The choice of words, here, are very specific. "Concept-agnostic" implies a certain geometry of related ideas, which work together to make sure that the "focused" and "conceptual" nature of the thing in question remains existent. We could return to the idea of the shattered plate. A shattered plate has lost its focused, conceptual nature. Now imagine if the plate were, in fact, concept-agnostic, in addition to being focused. Whatever the means which attempted to shatter the plate would have introduced a conceptual idea to the plate, but since the plate is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup, this means of shattering the plate would not have actually destroyed the plate.

So we can understand a thing's "concept-agnosticism" as a sense of openness to new conceptual ideas with regards to its internal conceptual makeup. The idea is that the thing in question is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup. This, of course, allows external concepts which talk to it to contribute to, rather than destroy, its own conceptual makeup.

Naturally, concept-agnosticism is important with regards to the indestructability of a thing, but it is not the whole thing. The thing must also be focused. Simply being agnostic of one's internal conceptual makeup does not allow one to be indestructable, unless something about it defines the thing as an actual concept. A thing which is not focused is not a thing at all, and therefore it is meaningless to apply any kind of attributions to it, or identify it at all, even with regards to its internal concept-agnosticism.

Now, to relate this to the end of the world.

The hippies believed that everything had to be completely concept-agnostic. My opinion is that this aspect of the movement can be traced not to the idea of Prajnaparamita and Buddhism, but to the influence of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (and perhaps also to certain aspects of the Hindu yogic tradition, though I haven't studied that very much). The Golden Dawn were a group of occultists who came about near the end of the 19th century. However, by all appearances, in the course of their studies of the occult, these folks became frightened of the significance of their own discoveries. As a result, they moved more and more towards a strict insistence on concept-agnosticism, and respect and reverence for imaginary deities which didn't really exist. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Golden Dawn has since fractured and fallen apart. They were not indestructable, because they had no focus. (It's important to note, I think, that modern Paganism and Neo-Paganism, as well as most Wicca, and other magical orders, are descendants of the Golden Dawn.)

It's not surprising that studies in occultism would lead people to become frightened of their own discoveries. There is a well-established link between magical practice and psychosis. Crowley (as it appears) drove his first wife insane, and she ended up in a mental hospital. People who take magic seriously often fall prey to the psychiatrists. The reason is the link between psychosis and magical practice. And the reason for this link is the obvious similarity between psychosis and power. The purpose of magic is to gain primary, mental control over the external world. Wiccans will deny this, and anti-Illuminati sentiment among Wiccans is very strong. But really, they don't know what they're talking about.

The exact same thing can be said about people who practice pedophilia, or Ritual Satanic Abuse, and so forth. Such people recognize their attraction to little boys or girls (or whatever), and they discover the correct way to exercise their desires and "get away with it," but they become afraid of the significance of their discoveries. The karmic result of this is magical suffering and/or psychosis.

Naturally, we can relate the idea of magical practice itself to the creation of the world, or at least to the creation of a "world order." But we also have to relate all this to the destruction of the world. Hopefully, we can all understand the link between magical practice and psychosis. And now, we may be able to understand the creation of a "world order" to psychosis as well. In my vast experience with psychosis (which I have experienced to a great degree and still experience from time to time), the most important thing to do to heal yourself from its grip is to kill yourself a little bit. If you're feeling psychotic, the only way to heal is to kill yourself with something like alcohol or sleep medications. Naturally, you don't have to physically die, but we all know what alcohol and sleep medications do: they destroy the ability of the brain to hold onto itself. If you introduce this sort of drug into your system, you'll begin to lose control of your mindstream. This is essential to healing from psychosis, because the essence of psychosis is too much control over your own mindstream.

Psychiatrists, unfortunately, might claim that there is no difference at all between psychosis and magical practice. This is not the case. There is a difference, but the difference is subtle. Magical practice is first-mental control over the external world. Psychosis is mental control over your own mindstream. (Yoga, too, is different. My understanding is that yoga is primarily external control over one's own mindstream.)

In terms of personal experience, we can identify two broad categories for each phenomenon (magical practice and psychosis). You can have magical practice which is natural, and magical practice which is suffering. Likewise, you can have psychosis which is natural, and psychosis which is suffering. I've already explained the way to heal from the suffering form of psychosis (by killing yourself a little bit). The way to heal from the suffering of magical practice is similar. You have to break things up a little bit, externally. Now I don't mean you have to destroy things. All I really mean is that you have to get a little dirty. You have to invite in a little bit of dirt, and allow a modest and measured amount of "probing" from other beings external to yourself. You have to make changes, compassionately, in a way that doesn't hurt people. In other words, if the words in the books you read begin to look more like shadows than words, the solution is to let other people read them, and then discuss it. Or to read different books.

If you look back over my blog, and if you're friends with me and read my personal correspondences, you may notice a recurring theme of myself calling for the destruction of the world. If you analyze the reasons why I'm saying these things, the picture should become clear. I call for destruction of the world when there is far too much control involved in the way the world works. That is why the world must be destroyed. Now I don't indulge in conspiracy theories, and I don't believe that anyone who attempts to control the world must be killed, or anything like that. However, it's obvious, if you think about it, that the compassionate thing to do when someone has too much control over the world is to destroy the world a little bit. Otherwise, it looks too much like suffering—suffering which is relevantly similar to psychotic suffering.

You may also jump to the conclusion that I'm talking about "The Illuminati." That is, when I call for the destruction of the world, the attack is directed at the upper echelons of whatever secret organization you think I'm referring to whenever I talk about "The Illuminati." This is nonsense. There is no such thing as an organization that has only a single member. And in any organization, some members are more advanced morally than others. And in any case, there are different kinds of organizations who call themselves "The Illuminati." And regardless, I may not even be talking about such groups as The Illuminated Seers of Bavaria or The Freemasons or the O.T.O. and so forth. I could just be talking about a specific coven of Witches, or perhaps scientists, cult leaders, or psychiatrists. It's obvious when I'm talking about the destruction of the world (synonymous here with the destruction of the "world order") what I'm talking about is the destruction of the controlled world order of whoever it is that is creating a world which is identical with a world of suffering.

As a matter of fact, whenever I say these things about the destruction of the world, it's probable that I'm talking about psychiatrists, or rapists. Rapists have the potential to cause people to become psychotic. Psychiatrists dedicate their lives to committing genocide against people who are psychotic. A rapist will call in psychiatry in order to snuff out someone who they've raped, so that their voice is never heard. Or, psychiatry, on its own accord, will sniff out someone who is psychotic (perhaps because of previous rape) and due to their hateful nature snuff them out on their own. Each group, the rapists and the psychiatrists, have created their own, neat little world order, and each world order must be destroyed, to the extent to which is enough to cease magical suffering.

The problem, in all cases, with each of our "world orders," is a lack of either sufficient focus, or concept-agnosticism. To use my own world order as an example, if I elect to completely forget about trauma, and forget about my own psychosis, and to give up on my ambitions regarding my sociality and possible future family life, career, and so forth, I will lose focus. If, on the other hand, I retain too much contact with people who try to control my life, or if I do too much to control all exigencies regarding personal finances, creation of artwork, and so forth, I will lack concept-agnosticism.

Why Everyone should Study the Occult

I define an occult object as a cultural (or personal) artifact which carries a great deal of power. We don't need to get into talking about "magic" or "energy" or anything superstitious like that. We also don't need to examine secret societies, such as the Freemasons, and their secret initiation rites. Secret knowledge is not necessarily occult, and the occult is not necessarily secret. (A better term for this kind of thing is "esoteric.") It suffices to simply state the truth: that certain objects carry a great deal of psychological power. The power in these objects derives, I think, from the extent to which they reflect something about ourselves, and the depth to which they reflect it.

The most obvious occult object is a word. A word, of course, immediately conjures up an experience or thought, without our even thinking about it. This experience or thought is something inside us, reflected by the communication inherent in a word. Words, therefore, are occult objects.

The problem, though, with occult objects is that the meaning they express with regards to their reflection of what's in our minds is not necessarily accurate. For example. Usually, growing up, I've always sided with political liberals. And as a lot of people know, I'm definitely very anti-psychiatry. So, naturally, I was quite confused to discover that most liberals favor increased psychiatric treatment of the mentally ill, while conservatives are perfectly content to leave treatment to the birds. Being fundamentally opposed to psychiatric treatment of any kind, I found this state of affairs very frustrating. However, there is a definite cause. The cause, I think, can be traced back to the occult.

This is the unexamined liberal philosophy regarding psychiatry: "We need to favor psychiatric treatment of mental illness because it tends to reduce symptoms." Let's unpack it a little more: "We need to favor a scientific, behaviorism based treatment of mental illness which involves third-person empirical studies of the human mind as reflected by human behaviors, because the results of such treatment reduce the behaviors of the mentally ill which frighten us." If a liberal were to really examine this statement, he would come to the conclusion that it logically implies the following: "Let's scramble up the brains of the mentally ill with a knife and turn them into drooling idiots because at least then they don't shout as much." Wait... where did we go wrong? That's obviously horrifying. There must be a mistake somewhere. However, according to the liberal philosophy, mistakes of this sort aren't really a problem. I've actually heard a hospital nurse make this remark, "They made a lot of mistakes, back then, but they didn't really know any better."

It baffles me that anyone could reasonably believe that scrambling up a person's brain with a knife, in full, scientific knowledge of exactly what the brain actually does, could possibly be a morally justified act. In any occasion. In order to understand why a liberal could come to such a monstrous conclusion, it took, for me anyway, a great deal of meditation on liberal philosophy. But I'm fairly convinced the reason can be traced reliably back to the occult, and to illustrate how, it may be best to start with the occult objects involved.

One form of political liberal moral philosophy (in this country anyway) involves the following analogy. A correct moral choice is like choosing the exact midpoint between two polar extremes—one being good, the other being bad. The bad extreme is analogous to the color black. The good extreme is analogous to the color white. (Naturally it's not necessarily as simple as that, but for the purposes of this argument, the image is relevant.) Thus, the occult object representing a liberal's moral decision-making in this context is the following image:

Another logical deduction from this image comes from psychology. Psychology tells us that the "grey area" between white and black is not easily identifiable, and that you cannot tell the difference between subtlely different shades of grey. Only when you hold up two different shades right next to one another can you easily tell the difference. Thus it follows, using our analogy, that the correct moral choice is never easily identifiable. Two possible courses of action can only be distinguished in hindsight, when we are able to see them side by side. Because of this, the correct moral choice for the psychiatrist is to distinguish what is obviously wrong (euthanizing all the mentally ill), what is obviously ideal (completely curing them of all undesirable behaviors), and proceeding to make an ad hoc choice of some grey area in the middle (scrambling their brains with a scalpel).

The conservative position derives from different ideas, originating in Christianity. To a conservative, the soul is the final authority. You must always stand for what is right, and what is right is distinct from what is wrong. There is no grey area between polar extremes: there is simply what is right, which involves the sanctity of the human soul and the responsibility for self-care which goes along with it, and what is wrong (pretty much everything else).

In this case, the conservatives essentially get it right. Right and wrong is not a middle way between two polar extremes. Rather, it is a positive choice arising from even-handed deliberation and impartial consideration of all options. If you can identify a polar extreme, naturally, both extremes are almost certainly wrong. However, it does not follow that the "grey area" in the middle is necessarily right. The correct choice is a positive and clear choice, which usually indeed happens to reside somewhere "in the middle," but only for the somewhat dubious reason that both extremes are wrong. The occult artifact cited above probably derives from the heady over-obsession the ancient Greeks had with mathematics, and the ape-like biological instinct to avoid dark places. It does not in any way derive from honest investigation, meditation, or deliberation. It's simply an image we've carried down through generations, but which doesn't really reflect the truth.

Now not all moral failures stem from occult sources. Also, not all occult objects originate moral failures. Moral mistakes are simply what they are: mistaking one thing for another. People often mistake women for sex objects. But it does not follow from this that either women or sex objects are occult objects. (Though sometimes, they are.) However, it is possible for occult sources such as the above to account for many moral failures. For instance, it also accounts for the moral failure of sacrificing freedom for security. Or, choosing a presidential candidate based on "electability." It also accounts for the moral failure of heedlessly donating a percentage of money to established charities, like the Susan G. Komen foundation and others (a phenomenon derisively called, I think, "serial activism"), rather than taking responsibility for your own community and making a positive contribution through individual authenticity. Again, not all occult objects cause damage. (Obama's logo, and campaign slogans, for instance, have done a lot of good.) But this particular one does in fact cause damage.

I think we can clearly conclude, then, that we should all take at least a modest casual interest in the occult, as defined above. We should become acquainted with or create powerful objects, and examine why they have the impact they do on our minds. Naturally, it isn't always important to everybody. Some of it can actually be rather psychologically dangerous. However, certain moral failings in our culture will never be uncovered until a good number of people seriously examine the occult, and a great number have at least a modest casual understanding. It isn't enough to simply look at occult objects, either. We have to understand how the occult works, why it works, and where the potentialities for moral failure lie. Naturally, through serious investigation, it is also possible to uncover the potentiality for positive and wholesome good. Again, not all decisions directly involve the occult. Some moral decisions, in fact, require purposefully ignoring the occult. But the fact that sometimes morality does involve the occult implies that, though it seems to be an area which our culture has (for understandable reasons) somewhat neglected, it is an important aspect of a good education.

Why Time Travel Exists (or not?)

Proposition: If you will it to exist, time travel exists. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Why? Because if it is possible for time travel to exist (and I'm pretty sure it is), then someone will eventually create the technology if there is a will to do so. If YOU IN PARTICULAR will it to exist, then you will eventually be one of the customers of the time travel service, there having been a will for it to exist, which means that it exists. If you honestly, truthfully, and sincerely wish time travel to exist, it will exist.

If you don't will it to exist, it doesn't exist. Or if your will is insincere, clouded by delusions or destructive thoughts, it doesn't exist. Why? Because there is no reason for it to exist. Why would anyone want a time machine to exist if all it would be used for is to destroy the universe? Time machines don't exist to destroy the universe, but to SAVE the universe. Otherwise the universe wouldn't exist, and the time machine wouldn't exist, which means time travel wouldn't exist.

Imagine: time travel is invented in 30 years. You want time travel to exist for YOU. So you will it to exist. You spend time researching how to get access to the time machine. The research eventually bears fruit, or it doesn't. But you have a TIME MACHINE. So you have infinite time to do research, which means it will eventually bear fruit. Even if the research takes longer than the length of your life, it will still bear fruit. Because you have a TIME MACHINE. So you do research for your entire life. The research travels back in time, back to the beginning. You continue the research from where you left off. And so on, infinitely.

How does the research find its way back to you? Because the research is instrumental in time travel existing, since there has to be a will for it to exist for it to exist. The purpose of a thing is to exist relationally to everyone. The time travelers have no choice but to send your research back in time, because if they didn't, there would be no one to access the time machine, and therefore the time machine wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't exist.

Therefore, if you want it to exist, it exists.

What if time travel is invented after your lifetime? No problem. You'll research how to gain access to the time machine. The actual time it takes for time travel to be invented doesn't matter, because you have a time machine. So it exists.

Why Enemies are Blessings: Re. Morgan Freeman and Lanza

I'm glad Morgan Freeman wrote the response he did for the shootings in Connecticut. Because I completely disagree. And, actually, my disagreement has solidified my resolve to a) not kill every fucking body I see, and b) not kill myself. (Death, by the way, is not an "opposite to life." Another post for another day, perhaps.) The argument went a little like this:

Freeman: http://www.dailypaul.com/266479/surprising-message-from-morgan-freeman-he-blames-the-media-for-ct-shooting

Me: You're full of shit.

Freeman: Yeah? Why's that?

Me: Because you're spouting the same sort of crap that every cynical psychiatrist does. You want more "mental health research," and like any "mental health researcher," you're looking for the essential quality that makes people essentially and fundamentally bad people from the very start, so you can kill it, quarantine it, sedate it, and obliterate it from the human race.

And to top it all off, you're saying the essentialist quality has to do with desire for fame. FAME! Which shows that you, like most other Hollywood celebrities (I wanted to say "hacks" but that's going too far—in this case, anyway, there's actually evidence against that claim), you believe that:

1. Everyone wants exactly what you have.
2. While it was divinely ordained for you to have it, it was not divinely ordained for 99.9999% of the world's population to have it.
3. All the problems of the world would be solved if everyone just gave up on their dreams and stopped wanting what you have, and instead, adopt a submissive position and accept the crumbs that people like you allow to drop off the table.

Freeman: Well, I read your position, because like every Hollywood celebrity in the world I keep up with the writings of Nathan Foster. It seems like you claim here that you understand the inner workings of school shooters. You say, and I quote, "I have these kinds of thoughts running through my head at least 20 times a day...."

You go on to claim the following: "[W]hether or not the objective world is an evil place where everyone deserves to die will be entirely beside the point. It is quite possible, theoretically, that everyone in the entire universe will rise up as your personal enemy." Taken in conjunction with the post about "Absolute Eclectic Morality," It would seem that you, sir, not only understand the shooter, but empathize with him, and perhaps even agree with him. There is actual evidence, in these three posts, that you believe everyone deserves to die.

So what's stopping you? If you think you deserve fame, and you know killing a bunch of people will get you fame, and you don't think that it is necessarily ethically wrong to kill a bunch of people, why don't you do it then, and gain as much fame as you could ever hope for?

Now this thought is what really crystalized my position, and it illustrates the value of enemies. (Not that Morgan Freeman is a mortal enemy of mine, but he does have a point of view which I completely disagree with, and in this case, that is enough.) The rest of the conversation:

Me: For one, if everybody didn't deserve to die, they probably wouldn't all eventually die. And for another, while I may, from time to time, hold the belief that everyone deserves to die RIGHT NOW, unless I actually have the ability to kill every single person in the world—not just a handful of people in this or that place, but literally everyone—I'm really just tooting my own horn. Everyone is going to die anyway. Why do I need to speed up the process?

And besides that obvious negative point of view, there's a positive reason not to kill everyone as well. There is a possibility that they have something to teach me. See, I'm a firm believer that situations of ignorance are ripe situations for new and meaningful knowledge. As it says in the Bible, "Many are called, but few are chosen." It's perfectly okay to be chosen, or not to be chosen, to be the one who kills everyone in the world. And while it's not certain that there's a reason why I'm not that person, there's a possibility that there is such a reason.

Which leaves me with two options. 1) I should've been chosen but wasn't. In which case, I have an opportunity to root out the real enemy and deal with that spirit. Or, 2) I should NOT have been chosen, and wasn't. In which case, I had something to learn, and it's better that I wasn't chosen.

Freeman: Great, so with your manic/depressive psychosis and acceptance of others, you're going to choose the other option, and off yourself in the basement?

Me: I'm glad you brought that up, because no, I'm not. I'm just like everyone else; I'm going to die eventually, and there's no reason to speed up the process. And there may be an opportunity to make a difference.

Freeman: You seem to be making the argument that living in this world is completely ephemeral. The only reason not to actually kill yourself, or anyone else, for that matter, is based on distant probabilities that perhaps they have benefit to the world. This is also evidenced by your insistance, in your response ("My Perspective on School Shootings"), that to end school shootings, we should train in discovering other-worldly goddesses, rather than human relationships here on Earth.

Me: I do NOT make the claim that life is ephemeral. I DO, however, make the claim that where you live your life is ephemeral, as long as you can make out goddess-Buddhas. If my body here on this Earth is killed, I'm fine with that, as long as I can find a place somewhere else where I can make out Buddhas. The choice is completely meaningless.

Freeman: If the choice is meaningless, why not try your luck with another body in another world, rather this one, which obviously causes you so much pain?

Me: Obviously, Morgan, you don't keep up with my writings as much as you claim, or you wouldn't have missed this post, in which I claimed that it is precisely the decisions which are meaningless—for example, Coke vs. Pepsi, Planet Earth vs. Planet Venus, human-form vs. goddess form, etc.—that are the most important. And not only did I make that claim, but I considered it such an important claim that I advanced the further claim that it is actually the basis for a just and creative society.

Hopefully you know, by now, that I mean exactly everything I say. And if we take the eclectic view of my philosophy, you'll understand that I am completely committed to a) NOT killing myself, and b) NOT killing others. This is a profound vow which, on many days, is like choosing to drink a specific cola-flavored drink. But many days there's actually a moral reason to follow it.

Clarifications of Buddhism: Nonviolence, not Anti-Violence!

One of the problems faced by American Buddhists today, I think, is that we are too peaceful. Many of the teachings of Buddha indicate a strong central value of peace. But to many, this kind of peace simply means inaction.

Instead of trying to be grossly peaceful, we should try to be subtilely peaceful. We should have a deep and meaningful sense of peace.

Consider the Dorje Shugden controversy in Tibetan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden is an enlightened, wrathful protector whose worship The Dalai Lama has outlawed. He outlawed this practice, according to Wikipedia, because he read a story about Dorje Shugden saw, wherein the deity saw a bunch of Gelugpa Buddhists studying Nyingmapa Buddhism, and so he slaughtered them, because Dorje Shugden is a Gelugpa Buddhist and wanted to maintain the purity of Gelugpa Buddhism.

I can definitely understand the pressing need for Tibetan Buddhism to be adopted by Westerners, and I can definitely see how Buddhism may not have been so easily introduced if His Holiness didn't adopt such a firm perspective. Far be it from me to criticize the Dalai Lama.

But honestly, what's so bad about slaughtering people? Slaughtering people is something human beings do, and we need to recognize this. We can't just take our human nature lightly. There's an important lesson in our violence.

In my opinion, if we're going to slaughter people, we should do so in a mutual hatred stemmed from mutual respect. As Sonny said in the classic Dog Day Afternoon: "The guy who kills me... I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." We shouldn't kill people dispassionately, leaving them confused about why they are victimized for no apparent reason, and leaving us with a spiritual crisis because we don't understand our actions or the meaning of our lives. If we kill people, it should be because we fucking hate them. And because they fucking hate us. Period. End of story.

The Maoris, whom I have studied a bit, built a well-developed warrior ethic based on this idea. They are warriors. They hate people, and they kill them. They also send them medics to lovingly heal them up and make them strong and ready to fight, not because they love them, but because they hate them and want to fucking kill them. In this deep hatred is a profound feeling of love. If a Maori wants to kill your fucking guts, you should take it as a compliment.

But if an American wants to kill you, unfortunately, it's probably because his boss wants a little higher of a profit margin. Understandably, as Americans, this leaves us a little disoriented. Should I identify as an American, despite this desperate cynicism, or should I adopt a wholly new culture? Being American is thus difficult for us. However, unfortunately, this difficulty in being American, due to people's natural tendency to overgeneralize and miss the point of things, results in an unwarranted extension of the idea of restraining violence into the territory of anti-violence, which disregards not only the cynical American approach to violence, but the wholesome Maori approach as well. In this way, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

So if Dorje Shugden wants to slaughter people, so what? He's enlightened; he can do what he wants. We should be less concerned with whether or not slaughtering people is justified, and more concerned with opening up to the other, and being receptive when the other opens up to us. There are teachings we must learn from others. And we Buddhists have wholesome things to contribute. Being anti-violent is actually a kind of closed-mindedness.

If we decide to be nonviolent, that's great. But how does this apply to others? This is our moral choice. Not theirs. It is far more important to be open to the ideas of others. And here's a crucial point. When we are open to others, and their wishes, belief systems, and so forth, we will begin to see the actual basis for nonviolence, rather than our mere projected basis for it. We will begin to see the most appropriate way to express our inner wishes, and we will see that regardless of violent intent, on either side of a dispute, if we are truly open to each other, the most equitable and intelligent way to resolve the dispute will come to light. And this way will probably (though not certainly) have no violence. In other words, the resolution will certainly be non-violent, but not anti-violent.

Moral codes are not dogma. Moral codes are a system of restraint that we apply to develop a sense of higher importance. Dogma, on the other hand, is the belief that a certain moral value has an essential quality by the virtue of which it is completely infallible and must be followed in every circumstance without fail. I tend to think instead of nonviolence as a guiding moral principle, we Western Buddhists tend to adopt anti-violence as dogma.

The Problem with Psychiatry in Three Quick Arguments

I've composed an open letter to psychiatrists which sums up, in three linear, deductively valid, logical arguments exactly what is wrong with psychiatry. Previously I was wondering how deep the rabbit hole goes; this is precisely how deep it goes. I'm mailing this to psychiatrists, and I want a response. I think I deserve one, and I hope others, especially those directly harmed by psychiatry, can see why.

Blueprint for a Just and Creative Society: Part 2

The two sides of the coin described in the previous article have to do with creativity and justice. I can summarize it like this: 1) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice doesn't matter, it is important to make a choice and stick with it. 2) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice is important, it's best not to choose between the institutions themselves, but rather choose the most ethical point of view, and the institution that happens to be most in accordance with that point of view. Choice 1 makes society creative, choice 2 makes it just.

I think it's also important here to touch on one particular choice in the second category that we must make as a society. The choice has to do with a kind of unity. When we make choices of the first category, it is important that we as a society do so in a context regarding sociocultural institutions, agreements, understandings, and so forth that we can trust. While it's important that personalities do not get all mashed up, we have to have some common ground which invites us to view other personalities, and for other personalities to view our own. This gives meaning to everyone, regardless of their choices. (I'm using the word "personalities" here instead of "people" in light of the statement that we form our identity, or our personality, according to the loyal choices we make that do not matter.)

In order for this to happen, we have to be able to trust one another. For there to be common ground, or a level playing field, we have to agree on certain codes of conduct, according to each person's differing ability to accept things. There are a number of these common grounds, like the fact that one dollar is worth the same everywhere in the U.S., the fact that arguments can't escalate to the point of lethal violence, or sexual violence, and so on. The most important of these, of course, is a legal system we can trust to institute our just demands.

But there's another aspect to this as well—an internal aspect. We can't simply rely upon external things like laws and financial institutions to ensure that all our interactions are positive. We also have to have an internal sense of trust for each other, and an internal sense of goodwill. We have to truly have warm-hearted, good feelings for one another. Love and compassion. Then we can get into fights without really fighting. And anyway, if we don't have these feelings, no number of laws can cover every contingency. We have to trust that we can trust each other.

Thus we should be able to have multiple different personalities, some of which radically opposed to one another, in all aspects except the ones which are important, in which case we should be in accord. And these personalities should interact, through the medium of social exchange which we can trust as an ethical baseline. We must all have a sense of trust for one another, as well-founded as it can be. If this isn't possible, neither is a just and creative society.

A Silver Lining on Wisconsin: My Analysis

The results of Wisconsin's recall election are understandably upsetting. However, there is some silver lining. We can't judge too quickly that American democracy is dead, because the richest 1% is, perhaps, not as monolithic and negative of a force as we may think.

Yes, the richest of the rich spent $63 million to buy the recall election. The bad news is, that's a lot of money. The good news is, that's a LOT of money. In fact, it is so much money that, I would argue, as long as activists continue to fight for democracy, buying elections like this is a) unsustainable and b) not necessarily effective.

The Voters

There are around 5 million people in Wisconsin (Wikipedia). Around 1/2 of them voted (Huffington Post). That's 2.5 million votes. Walker only won 4% more votes in this election than his 2010 election (Huffington Post). That means, all that money spent was worth around 100,000 voters. That's about $630 per voter. (If you count all citizens in Wisconsin, it's around $315 per voter, but according to what I was told by Democratic Party campaign officials, most campaigns don't even bother to spend money on people who never vote.)

Now keep in mind that the only counties which did significantly better for Walker were the Republican counties (Huffington Post). So that means the voter pool is even smaller.

Of course arithmetic like this may not mean much, but it should give us some kind of ballpark idea of how much money must be spent to buy every single important election nationwide. If people continue to mobilize like they did in Wisconsin, it will force the richest of the rich to spend a LOT of money, probably in the hundreds of billions, every couple of years. Simply multiplying half the American public by the $650 figure gets us almost $100 billion, and this figure assumes, of course, that Americans cast 150 million votes.

And note that this doesn't assume that Americans will cast 150 million votes in a single election. No, it assumes something more like casting 150 million votes in EVERY election. Every two years, voters must decide state senate, state house, gubernotorial, federal Senate, federal House, and Presidential elections, not to mention judiciary elections. And each of these elections is important. Wisconsin proves this, if nothing else. And the more public offices voters must consider, the more money must be spent on each voter. The $650 figure only applies to a single candidate in a single election.

Now for some more down-to-Earth data: My reading of a study by Gregor A. Huber and Kevin Arceneaux ("Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising") is that you're probably not going to get much more than 8 or 9 percentage points no matter how much advertising you use. Nate Silver also suggests that there is a diminishing return on advertising, as people eventually find it annoying, as well as the deleterious effect of the perception that a candidate is buying his office. Of course the effect of the advertising probably also depends on a large variety of factors, including the effectiveness of the ad campaign, the likability of the candidate, and so on. But this is important, because it means, in theory, there are some elections that money simply cannot buy.

There are other variables, too.

First of all, Walker's campaign is a recall campaign, not a general election campaign. This is important because, as the New York Times tells us, 60% of people believe that recall elections should only be held because of official misconduct, and 10% believe that recall elections should never be held at all. Understandibly, these people were more likely to vote to keep Walker in office. If this were a general election, the results might be different.

Also, lest we forget, Walker and his legislation had to get pretty brutal to hold onto his seat, and he may face indictment for corruption (Current TV). All things considered, this is by no means a landslide victory for Walker. And he had to outspend his opponent by at least 7-1 to obtain this far from decisive victory (MSNBC).

Patrons of Our Democracy Store

So far we might have assumed that corporations and the 1% are some kind of united, monolithic Republican force. That every single 1%-er will cough up his or her fair share of the hundreds of billions of dollars they need. But this may be giving them too much credit. The Sunlight Foundation and Forbes and New American Gazette show us that not every rich person is necessarily political. And of those that are political, not all of them are Republicans. And corporations respond to the demands of the public more often than we may think, because they are more interested in making a profit than buying an election most of the time.

And even of the monolithic Republican contributors, it seems highly unlikely that they can or want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every couple of years. If they wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, they might as well just pay taxes and leave elections alone, because it will likely cost about the same, and it's less dangerous. Why is it less dangerous? Because it's less likely to produce large-scale protest movements.

Street-Wise Democracy

First of all, it's important to note that the Wisconsin and Occupy protests are getting it right. They're permanent, non-violent, and large. The question is, of course, will they have any effect. According to Paul Schumaker ("Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands"), either community support and intra-group support individually will predict a positive outcome more than either agency, elected-official, or media support individually. According to Schumaker and Michael O'Keefe ("Protest Effectiveness in Southeast Asia"), some factors correlated with positive response include whether the regime is democratic, and whether the group is permanent or whether it's large. In other words, the Wisconsin protests have everything going for them.

Conclusion?

I recognize that the information I've presented is not very conclusive, largely because of its speculative nature, and because the different studies seem to be measuring different things. For example, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies seem to be studying the policy response of the government, while the advertising studies seem to be measuring election outcomes. Also, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies do not measure the interrelatedness of the various correlations.

But we can be sure of one conclusion: giving up is NOT the proper response. Protest movements may take time, but they are effective. One thing the data clearly do not show is that deep media influence necessarily trumps protest movements. There is a silver lining: We may win yet.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 2: Seduction

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Seduction

This is the easy one. Everybody knows about this. There are two parts here: 1) You might be enticed to do things you don't want to do that will hurt you, and 2) you might be enticed to do things you do want to do that will hurt you.

In the first, I'm talking about pornography and death. An unmonitored child (and the fact is, whether you like it or not, every child is unmonitored at some point) WILL eventually access pornography and death. I did myself as a child. (Well, pornography. Not too fond of death.) I tend to think there are natural (or if not natural, cultural) barriers in humans against doing things that are evil, like having sex with young children or killing someone for sport. But the fact of the matter is, a couple of bozos out there will at some point decide to rape kids and kill people—and put it on the Internet. And as meticulous as Google is about weeding out the negative images out there, I myself, through no fault of my own, have come across fecal-play pornography and a corpse in the street with knives all over sticking out of him. I searched for completely unrelated terms, and those images popped up. You can't fight it: it will happen. Only you can figure out what to do.

In the second, I'm talking about scams. The Internet has ubiquitous access. This means you can use Google+ to access new friends and business contacts. However, it also means you may access a scam. Obviously, a scam will hurt you, even though you may want to participate. That's how scams work: They make you want to participate, then screw you and it hurts. The thing is, though, that at least partly due to the nature of the Age of Aquarius, these scams are becoming more insidious. I myself was part of one for a while. I saw an ad that advertised, "Free MacBook!" I knew it was probably a scam, of course. But the ad was in Facebook, and I found it hard to believe that Facebook would allow something illegal to enter their site. So I decided to check it out. I was clicking along, and it asked me if I wanted trial versions of products they had to offer. I clicked yes, thinking that "trial" implies "free." But I didn't read the fine print. The fine print said, essentially, that if I kept the product and did not act to cancel my contract, the site would send me monthly supplies of the same item, whether I asked for it or not, and charge my account the exorbitant prices they asked for the stuff—mostly useless crap like vitamins for pets laced with caffeine. I got myself out of the thing, but only after spending a good sum of money for no good reason except curiosity.

Curiosity may lead to disturbing things. Some may argue that it's better not to have access to any scams, pornography, or death, but I think the positive aspects of the Internet outweigh the negative. Ubiquitous access, when vetted properly, can be used to advance one's career and enrich one's life. Turning Art is a great way to access emerging artists. I love it, though it costs a lot. But hey, so does art.

Principles of Openness

A while ago I did some philosophical grunt work trying to nail down what it means to be "open" in the style of Occupy, open source software, the Internet, etc. Here's a paraphrase:

Everything should be open. Including all societies, groups, corporations, governments, etc.

What does it mean to be open?

• No undue extensions of authority
• Everyone has a chance to participate
• Nothing of substance is secret

What is an "undue extension of authority?" Any authority which violates the principles of open authority. Here are those principles:

• Either the authority must change,
• or the people in authority must change.
• And when a change is made, the choice must not be limited in any way.

What does this mean? It means that if you create a position of authority, like say, logo designer, it must be a temporary position. If it is an office like the presidency, not a temporary position but permanent, the person who fulfills that office must change. There must be some kind of formal mechanism for ensuring that change does occur when needed, for instance term limits, or votes of no confidence, etc.

In substance, if someone wants to be in a position of authority, that person must be allowed a reasonable pathway to do so. If the position of authority rules out anyone arbitrarily, that is an undue extension of authority and violates the principles of openness.

What does this rule out? It rules out monarchy, because the person in authority (i.e. the president) does not change frequently. Rather, he's allowed to serve for as long as he wants without any change.

It also rules out nepotism or the "revolving door" for congresspeople, because when a congressperson is hired as a lobbyist in return for policies of deregulation, for instance, that position of lobbyist is not open to anyone—it is offered specifically to the congressperson. Ideally, the position of lobbyist should be open to any person or group, so that all people get their voices heard in congress.