Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

Welcome to my blog!

Posted:Apr 19, 2019 9:23 pm
Last Updated:Apr 20, 2019 5:34 pm

Reaction of the rich to the Notre Dame fire teaches us a lot about the world we live in .......CARL KINSELLA

Yesterday, the world's eyes turned to Paris as Notre Dame cathedral burned.
It was clear within minutes complications due to the building's age and density of heavy timber would severely hinder attempts to put out the fire. Still, it was shocking to see iconic spire down, succumbing to the fire as easily as a matchstick house.

Indeed, watching this ancient temple engulfed in smoke and heat was a frightening reminder there are many forces out there render us powerless to save something dear to us.

People worldwide have meaningful connections to Paris. It is the most-visited city in the world. As such, people have memories of Notre Dame, memories were dusted with ash and debris in yesterday's horrific scene.

As is often the case, those nightmarishly frustrating contrarians were everywhere, taunting the mourners — remind everyone the church was just bricks and mortar. Presumably these diehard deconstructionists also argue art is "just paint on a canvas" and their children are "just smaller people who look like and live in my house."

Notre Dame

Still, none of cynicism could stem the mournful tide.

Within hours of the spire coming down, two of France's wealthiest families — led by François-Henri Pinault and Bernard Arnault — had pledged no less than €300million in funding for the restoration effort. The city of Paris was also able to mobilise €10million.

Arnault is the CEO of LVMH, the world's largest luxury-goods company. He is the richest person in Europe and the fourth-richest person in the world according to Forbes magazine, with a net worth of $91.3 billion, as of this month. Perhaps the best-known brand overseen by Arnault is Louis Vuitton. Handbags, suitcases, you know the ones.

By comparison, Pinault is worth a paltry €30billion. He's more of a Gucci man, and he also owns Stade Rennais FC.

Between them, they have significantly more than several European states — such as Croatia, Serbia, Slovakia or Slovenia. If you had €3,000 in your bank account right now and you donated a tenner to the restoration effort, you'd be giving proportionally the same amount as these two.

Something to think about.

Perhaps an overlooked part of the discussion is the financial role the Catholic Church could in the restoration. Nobody outside the Vatican truly knows how much the church has, but in 2012 The Economist calculated the Vatican's operating budget in the US alone came to $170billion. It stands to reason, then, the global figure would be much larger again.

Pope Francis has confirmed he is praying for all those affected by the Notre Dame fire. is to say, he is putting his hands together, rather than in his pocket.

This will as no surprise to anyone who has ever had to raise a few hundred or a few thousand euro to renovate a church in suburban or rural Ireland without the help from the Vatican's bajillions.

Notre Dame

It would be incredibly cheap to suggest it is in some way wrong to give for the restoration. There is a value transcends simple economics in restoring testaments to civilisation. Better Notre Dame remains a symbol of European history than €300 million rests in a billionaire's bank account.

But the immediacy and magnitude of their response tells us something very important about the society we live in.

If two men in a world of more than 7 billion people can provide €300million to restore Notre Dame, within six hours, then there is enough in the world to feed every mouth, shelter every family and educate every child. The failure to do so is a matter of will, and a matter of system.

The failure to do so comes from our failure to recognise the mundane emergencies claims lives all around us every single day. Works of art and architectural history and beauty rely on the ingenuity of people, and it is people who must be protected above all else.

Brick and mortar and stained-glass might burn, but they do not bleed, and they do not starve, and they do not suffer. Humans suffer. Everywhere in the world, from Paris to Persepolis, people are suffering. But their suffering is every day. It does not light a front page, and it does not inspire immediate donations from the world's wealthiest men.

France currently counts 140,000 homeless people — 30,000 of which are children. A 2018 report by the Secours Catholique revealed in total there are around 8.8 million people living below the poverty line in France in 2017. This means they are living on an income of less than €1,026 a month, and many of them live on considerably less. One in every eight French people live in poverty. Despite all of this, France remains the sixth richest country in the world, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The next time someone tries to pretend like you to choose between homelessness or immigration, nurses' or a tax cut, a children's hospital or a motorway, remember this moment. The is there a click of a finger. It just isn't in our hands.
Posted:Apr 14, 2019 4:14 pm
Last Updated:Apr 15, 2019 12:03 pm

Posted:Apr 13, 2019 11:33 am
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2019 2:00 pm

by Gabrielle Blair.

A s a mother of six and a Mormon, I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. When I hear men discussing women’s reproductive rights, I’m often left with the thought that they have zero interest in stopping abortion.

If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.

I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.

Don’t believe me?

Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

As a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.
“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

Great question. Modern birth control for women is possibly the most important invention of the last century, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women include migraines, mood swings, decreased libido, depression, severe cramps, heavy bleeding, aneurysm — and that’s just a small fraction of them.

Discouragingly, a promising study on a new male contraceptive was canceled in large part due to… (wait for it)… side effects. To be clear, this list of side effects was about one-third as long as the known side effects for commonly used women’s contraception. There’s a lot to unpack in that story alone. I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But, men, I’ve got good news. Even with the horrible side effects, women are (amazingly!) very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be, but that doesn’t keep women from trying. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment — sometimes multiple doctor’s appointments — and a prescription. They’re not always free, and often not cheap. Some are actually trying to make female birth control options more expensive by allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover them. In addition, contraceptive options for women can’t be easily acquired at the last minute. In most cases, they don’t work instantly.

The pill requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. Again, the side effects can be brutal — and not just in rare cases. Despite the hassle and side effects, I’m still grateful for birth control. (Please don’t take it away.) But it’s critical to understand that women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy.

In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men — i.e., condoms. They’re readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective and work on demand, instantly. They don’t cause aneurysms, mood swings, or debilitating cramps. Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. They can be easily used at the last minute. I mean, condoms are magic! So much easier than birth control options for women.

As a bonus, most women are totally on board with condoms. They keep us from getting STDs. They don’t lessen our pleasure during sex or prevent us from climaxing. The best part? Cleanup is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as jizz drips down our legs.

So why would there ever be unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, it’s very, very common for men to pressure women to have sex without a condom. It’s also not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro tip: That’s assault.)

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Because, for the precious minutes when they’re penetrating their partner, not wearing a condom gives them more pleasure. So… that would mean some men are willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career — so they can experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure. Is this for real?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.
Imagine a pleasure scale, with pain beginning at zero and going down into the negatives. A good back-scratch falls at 5, and an orgasm without a condom is a 10. Where would sex with a condom fall? A 7 or 8? So, it’s not that sex with a condom is not pleasurable, it’s just not as pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10.

Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk in order to experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure.

For the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control option built right in: the pull-out. It doesn’t protect against STDs, it’s an easy joke, and it’s far from perfect. However, it’s 96% effective if done correctly, and 78% effective in practice (because it’s often not done correctly).

Still, many men who resist wearing condoms never learn how to pull out correctly. Apparently, it’s slightly more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partner’s stomach. Once again, men are willing to risk the life, health, and well-being of women in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for roughly five seconds during orgasm.

Think of the choice men are making here. Honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth to disassociate sex and pregnancy. We’ve taught them that their pleasure is of utmost importance.

As a general rule, men get women pregnant by having an orgasm. Yes, there are exceptions — it’s possible for sperm to show up in pre-ejaculate — but in most cases, getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men. But men can get a woman pregnant without her feeling any pleasure at all. It’s even possible for a man to impregnate a woman while causing her excruciating pain, trauma, or horror.

In contrast, a woman can have nonstop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists simply for pleasure, not for creating new humans. No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

A woman can be the sluttiest slut in the entire world, she can love having orgasms all day and all night long, and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly. Though our society tends to villainize female pleasure, women’s enjoyment of sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men’s enjoyment of sex and irresponsible ejaculations do.

Let’s move to the topic of responsibility. Often, men don’t know, don’t ask, and don’t think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy. There are often zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never even know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation. If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation either. He may never know there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

If the woman does tell him he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him is child support. Our current child support system is a well-known joke. Only about 61 percent of required payments by men are actually made, and there are little to no repercussions for skipping out. In some states, failing to pay child support doesn’t even affect your credit.

If a man does pay child support, it doesn’t come close to what is required by a woman in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Let’s talk about abortion. When the topic comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. Never once do they consider the man who caused the unwanted pregnancy.

If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.
If we’re discussing abortion law — and not how to hold men accountable for irresponsible ejaculations, and the unwanted pregnancies caused by them — we’re wasting our time. Shift the conversation. Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop debating whether or not to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.

What would that look like? A real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy. What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering…

… as forcing a woman to go through a nine-month unwanted pregnancy?

If you consider abortion to be murder, consider this thought experiment: Would you be on board with having a handful of men castrated to prevent 600,000 murders each year? If this argument sounds too provocative, could it be that many of us have a hard time wrapping our heads around a physical punishment for men? We seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women. Perhaps we care more about policing women’s bodies, morality, and sexuality than we do about reducing or eliminating abortions.

Here’s another prevention idea: All males in the U.S. could get a vasectomy when they are ready to be sexually active. Vasectomies are very safe, highly reversible, and about as invasive as a woman getting an IUD implanted. In most cases, there’s some soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but that’s pretty much it for side effects. (Take a moment to remember that female contraception options, used by millions of women in our country and billions across the world, have well-known side effects which can be brutal and severe — and yes, also include soreness.) If and when a man becomes a responsible adult, finds a mate, and wants to have a baby, the vasectomy can be reversed and then redone once the childbearing stage is over. Each man can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case.

Don’t like my ideas? That’s fine. I’m sure there are better ideas, and I challenge you to suggest your own. My point is we need to stop focusing on women if we’re trying to get rid of abortions. Think of abortion as the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy. To stop abortions, we need to prevent the “disease” — meaning, the unwanted pregnancy itself. And the only way to do that is by focusing on men, because irresponsible ejaculations by men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancy.

Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?
If you’re a man, what would it take for you to never again ejaculate irresponsibly? A loss of money, rights, or freedoms? Physical pain? Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?

Men mostly run our government, and men mostly make our laws. In theory, men could eliminate — or drastically reduce — abortions within months without ever touching an abortion law or even mentioning women. They’d simply need to hold men accountable for irresponsible ejaculations, and legislate accordingly.

To reduce or eliminate abortions, stop attempting to control women’s bodies and sexuality. Because unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.
Posted:Apr 8, 2019 11:43 am
Last Updated:Apr 11, 2019 8:22 pm

Goddess Kālī Swallows Jordan Peterson Whole 
Smashing Fleeting Visions of Culture and Behavior in Favor of the Infinitely Possible
By Josh Schrei

Until yesterday, I had entirely avoided entering into the fray around Canadian Psychologist Jordan Peterson, nor had I really subjected myself to much of his online content. He speaks about hot-button topics that I don’t always feel inclined — or qualified — to comment on. I know a lot of people have already put him through the shredder, probably more articulately than I can.

I also generally try to avoid the ‘left/right’ polarity as much as possible. I don’t see it as truly relevant political terminology anymore, and it’s so charged and polarized that I think ultimately this terminology is going to have to be discarded if political progress is going to be made. With regards to Peterson, there are people I respect who can’t stand the guy. And there are people I respect who find his ideas interesting. I was content to simply be neutral on the topic, and I did that mostly by avoiding him.

Until yesterday, when I saw a clip of him speaking about the Indian goddess Kālī.

It gave me pause, because one thing that people on all sides of the opinions-on-Jordan-Peterson spectrum can usually agree on — even if they don’t agree with his conclusions — is that if nothing else he is well-studied and smart.

I may not feel it’s my place to enter into a debate about his position on the use of trans pronouns and whether or not that should be legislated. However, I do feel qualified to take a position on what he has to say about Kālī. I’ve studied her for many years, I’ve read her relevant texts, I’ve been to her major and minor temples across the Indian subcontinent, I have had dialogues with temple priests and householders, and conducted podcast interviews with PhDs who’ve written entire books on her.

And there’s no getting around the fact that 99% of what Jordan Peterson said about Kālī — in two lectures — was wrong. And I mean just plain wrong, from a factual perspective.

I’ll explain how in just a moment, but what inspired me to look a little deeper into Jordan Peterson after this was not so much that he was wrong, it was that while he was in the process of being wrong he was conveying, through voice and gesture, an absolute certainty that he was right. Like for him the permutations of the goddess Kālī were child’s and anyone within earshot should be wowed by his knowledge of obscure Indian goddesses. It’s nice I guess to have a captive audience of mostly 18-year-olds. Raise your voice, wear a tie, and make a few bold gestures, and suddenly whatever you say is right.

Well if the guy was capable of exuding such certainty when speaking about something that he had no idea about, how did that translate into other areas of his work, I wondered? How did this type of myopia color a worldview that he presents — often and vigorously — as absolute truth with that type of professorial certainty that shuts down question or dissent.

Let’s start with Kālī. You know her, right? The mother goddess with the protruding tongue, wreathed in heads, wearing a skirt of limbs? The swallower of time, she is sometimes called. For Tantric practitioners she is the absolute reality itself, that force which transcends life and death, space and time, the supreme consciousness. Her form challenges her devotees to see all of this wheel of life and death, all of it, even the uncomfortable stuff, as sacred. She is adored by millions of people. In Kerala, her rituals involve trance-mediumship, dance, and music. For those in Bengal, she is right at the center of their spiritual and material life. They see her intimately, as a mother who is always present, both fierce and tender at once.

I’m going to talk about her a lot more in future episodes of this podcast, so I’m not going to go into too much detail now.

First of all, Peterson doesn’t know how to pronounce her name. He calls her Callie, which rhymes with Sally. In this day and age, if you’re going to be a Western professor purporting to expound the mysteries of a goddess who is actively worshipped by millions of people, who is studied by academics, who is sung to by devotees, who is written about by scholars, you should probably start by knowing how to say her name.

In one lecture, he compares an eight-legged version of her to a “spider” a fairy-tale vision of evil as she “traps the unwary.”

She dwells in a “web of fire,” he says, and represents the “sum total of all fears.” Which sounds like a great Jungian interpretation, until you realize that it bears no resemblance to how Kālī is actually viewed or described in India.

Kālī is all about “how to deal with threat,” Peterson goes on, about humans “trying to come to terms with the category of all awful things.”

And yet, the Bengali poet Ramprasad sang hymns of love to her, and the saint Ramakrishna would go into ecstatic trance merely at the mention of her name. How can this be? When devotees sing to her, she is called “the oceanic nectar of compassion” and “full of grace,” “whose mercy is without end,” the “vessel of mercy” herself.

Yet for Peterson, she’s an “embodied representation of the category of frightening things. Some poor artist was thinking of ‘how do I represent destruction…’” he surmises, when speaking of her origins.

The central image that Peterson references in both of his lectures is not a standard vision of Kālī at all. It is a Tantric statue, perhaps even Buddhist, almost definitely Nepali or Tibetan (it is difficult to see in the video). Yet Peterson skips the entire foundational introduction to Tantric iconography and the fact that Tantra is a major world religious tradition and that its challenging iconography is a vehicle through which the individual meditator can access certain states of consciousness and files the whole thing under one moniker — fear.

Then he says one accurate thing. That there is in fact ritual sacrifice that takes place in honor of Kālī.

He goes on to talk about sacrifice, in a pre-Joseph Campbell colonial-era anthropologist kind of way. He speaks of the human realization that we could bargain with the future, which he extols as a “major development” for human beings, but in doing so he also wittingly or unwittingly categorizes sacrifice and ritual — and all things Kālī — squarely in the realm of the primitive. The implication being that yes, that was a step along the way (what “way?”) but we’ve grown a lot since then.

People “sacrifice to what [they’re] afraid of in hopes that good things may happen,” he says. This skips, of course, the centuries of high meditative texts to Kālī, the vision of her as twelve vibrational aspects of consciousness, each of which can be accessed and refined over time, it skips the entire corpus of devotional literature to her. It skips all this in favor of a particular vision, which is central to Peterson’s worldview. A neat polarized version of reality in which the old trope of /light/order and female/dark/chaos is actually — in his mind — hardwired into human behavior and therefore male societal dominance is a natural expression of male “competence.”

Kālī, of course, smashes this vision in half. She is order itself. She “dwells within the order” and is “at home in the yantra”. She is not evil, she “destroys evil.” Yet Peterson’s descriptions ignore all this and sound a lot like the accounts of British colonists who first encountered Kālī in 18th century Bengal.

The fact that Peterson, like many early anthropologists, is incapable of seeing ritual as anything beyond “transaction” because he comes from a culture that centers transaction above all else is indicative of the core problem with Peterson’s worldview. It’s late capitalist thinking, presented as hard human truth.

Material transaction — “I’ll give the gods this corn if they make it rain”— is one small aspect of ritual, but it is not in any way the only or most important aspect. One could say it’s possibly the least interesting aspect of ritual, and for those who actually understand ritual and its permutations, this is a western dumbing down that has far more to do with the detached scientists that were viewing the ritual than the ritual itself in context.

For example, the gaining of a transcendent state of consciousness — in which the practitioner is privy to intuitive vision — is far more interesting and important. That ritual could actually be advanced technology for propelling human beings into the trance state so that they can see reality more clearly eludes most anthropologists because to understand this one would have to understand why a society would want to center the trance state. We’re not a society that values meditative states. We’re a society that values material transaction.

This is just one example — the inability to see outside of the prism of modern western capitalist culture leads Peterson to make vast assumptions about human nature and present them as static, in the process ignoring history.

What Peterson presents as inherent to the human being — male dominance and a success hierarchy based on who’s better at making money — is not in fact inherent at all and is a symptom of modern culture. Every good anthropologist should know this. While I agree with him that hierarchies present naturally within social structures, and that hierarchy is not inherently a bad word, what and who those hierarchies center is not in fact written in stone. Many of the agricultural empires that have come to dominate the world over the past several thousand years have indeed centered men, conquest, and stuff, with women falling unfortunately under the category of property. This centering of material domination as the primary human purpose has also led human beings to the verge of environmental collapse within just 1% of our history.

This calls into question Peterson’s entire vision of competence. To buy that men are in charge of the world today because they’re inherently competent you have to buy that the current global culture reflects anything akin to competence. To call a society that has no idea what to do with its own trash and that hasn’t even factored its own environment into the equation for success ‘competent’ is, shall we say, inaccurate. Stand four of the world’s top leaders in a row — Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un — and I guarantee the first word that comes to mind is not ‘competence.’ So no, Jordan, the top of the hierarchy is not dominated by the ‘competent.’ The Mongols ra*ped their way to the top of the hierarchy, and so did countless others before and after them.

I’m not going to use the P word. I agree with Peterson that the word ‘patriarchy’ is vastly overused by the left and has strayed far beyond its actual definition to somehow encompass ‘all bad things.’ But it is difficult to argue against the fact that the culture of conquest and material accumulation at all costs has led human beings into a very serious situation, and therefore when forging a vision for what defines human success we may want to look more at what actually lasts than what has gotten us into the mess we’re currently in.

Not all societies have centered male forcefulness and material accumulation. I have said before on this podcast that it is more and more important for us to remember that there are other models of human behavior and to look at societies that have centered very different things than us. Or, as I heard a Czech Member of Parliament once eloquently express, there is nothing inherent to the human experience or makeup that dictates that late-stage capitalism is the only vision of how we can be.

Australian Aboriginal culture has lasted for 60,000 years ( times longer than large-scale human civilization and 2,000 times longer than the United States) and centers, as Ethnobotanist Wade Davis reports, accessing the dreamtime and preserving rather than changing the surrounding environment. The San people of the Kalahari similarly center the trance state, in which they access n/um — the vital lifeforce which is used in intricate and effective healing ritual. The San have lived mostly uninterrupted for 50,000 years. One could easily say that — given the timeframe — these peoples’ measurements of societal success are ultimately more relevant than ours.

This isn’t to idealize hunter-gatherer culture, to attempt to ‘go back to how it was’ or to say — as some agenda-driven scholars have claimed — that the 300,000-year history of homo sapiens is a history of peace-loving matriarchs that were then crushed by the invading patriarchs. This is a view lacking evidence and nuance. It is rather to say that for the vast majority of human history, the accumulation of capital was not centered as the sole purpose of human existence. In many societies, there were other more transcendent and more intuitive success metrics.

So why are these other visions of human success important in the context of Jordan Peterson? Because Peterson’s entire vision of humanity is based on the success metrics of late-stage capitalism. Powerful men who dominate and rise in the hierarchy are ‘successful’ because of their ‘competence’.

His definition of Right and Left — in which Right is hierarchy and Left are those who are dispossessed by it — is driven by this limited vision. It’s a definition that is antiquated to say the least — Donald Trump was elected by the dispossessed, and they weren’t leftists. There are plenty on the political right who are dispossessed by the current order. And in fact, there are arguably more on the right who despise authority and big government and favor ‘rebellion’ than on the left. Meanwhile, there are plenty on the left who organize into “successful” hierarchies of their own.

So why would Peterson stick to such a limited vision? Because it fits into his narrative of Right//Successful/Hierarchical vs Left/Female (or at least female driven)/Dispossessed/Chaotic. And he bends all things to fit his model.

So — artists have a hard time making money, he tells Russell Brand in an interview, because of their brains. Yeah, or — artists have a hard time not because of inherent brain chemistry, but because our society doesn’t center art. The artists of the Chauvet caves probably found themselves right at the center of society 35,000 years ago. The Vedic vision of the cosmos was that art, order and ritual were three organic aspects of one universal whole and artists (and visionaries) were right at the center of that. In our culture, anything that is not specifically intended for the generation of capital is not centered and therefore those who do not center their lives around generating capital are not ‘successful.’

But that is our culture, and the truth is that our culture is very young— what Peterson deems as inherent is in fact not inherent at all. There is nothing about human wiring that says that this is the only way.

I think there is value to having someone as intelligent as Peterson in on these types of conversations. I also think it is good to challenge the increasingly static vernacular that the left presumes the whole world should unquestioningly adopt, immediately. Therefore, if he were just a little different in focus, I could see having Jordan Peterson around as a really good thing.

You see, he positions himself as the guy who’s actually talking about these issues whereas — in his view — the left is just shutting down conversations. He’s willing to say what a lot of people are thinking but won’t say (Really? Laws around words?) If he were truly the bridge-builder he says he is, that could be a real positive.

But he’s not — and this is what Russell Brand picked up on when he labeled the ‘mischief’ he saw on display in Peterson. Peterson likes poking at the left, he likes painting the left as unsuccessful misfits. He likes bolstering the egos of his right-wing fan base. He likes tapping into certainty, and rightness, and maleness, and the perceived power that comes with all that.

And — probably of most relevance — he’s smart enough to know that there’s more money to be made in jabbing the left than in truly being a bridge builder. He’s making a (good) living taking the low hanging fruit that the extreme left offers him and spinning it into some kind of global crisis, when the real crisis is the very polarization that he — quite knowingly — promotes.

By the time I got to his ‘white privilege doesn’t exist’ talk — in which he engages the most insipid of academic tactics to bring the conversation entirely into the realm of theory rather than paying one drop of attention to 500 years of brutal history, he had completely lost me. He is married to a vision, and will bend worlds to promote it, but the vision isn’t based in reality. It’s based in politicized machismo.

Which brings us back to Kālī, who is also the unfathomable, that which has not been defined or written or is even perceivable. The passage of time that her very name invokes will see which ideas for human success last and which are crushed under her feet. The Petersons (and Schreis) will come and go, and how humans will shift and adapt to urgent necessities in environment and society remains to be seen. Many isms and modalities will doubtlessly be left aside along the way. Kālī is known as the one who “smashes opposites,” who destroys polarities. This, more than anything else may be what we need right now. My view is that left and right will come to be definitions of the past. My view is that there is a place for the artist, and the visionary, and for the dreamer, and for those dispossessed across the political spectrum to come together in shaping the future. Ultimately, the barometer for success that a divine mother like Kālī — mother nature herself — might appreciate, isn’t how ‘competent’ we were along capitalist lines, but how we were in relation to one another and to her — how well, in the end, did we love
Posted:Apr 3, 2019 10:22 am
Last Updated:Apr 7, 2019 7:43 pm

According to the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, based on Carl Jung's work, I'm an INTP........I thought it might be fun if we shared our types.....might help us understand each other a bit more.....i think we did this before and there was very little response, but I thought I'd try again...........
Posted:Apr 1, 2019 11:35 am
Last Updated:Apr 2, 2019 8:45 am

FDR did die in office in ‘45 and the 22nd amendment came in ‘47 but Congress started the legislative process in 1944 prior to his death so that he would not be reelected,”

"The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortez’s back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: “Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential -year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy."

“In March 1947, a Republican-controlled Congress approved a 22nd Amendment, with an exception that would exclude a president in office from term limits during the ratification process.”
Posted:Mar 31, 2019 7:32 pm
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2019 2:03 pm
Posted:Mar 29, 2019 4:54 pm
Last Updated:Apr 1, 2019 7:18 pm

Adam Schiff, speaking before the House Intelligence Committee meeting on March 28, 2019:

"My colleagues might think it’s okay the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think ’s okay. My colleagues might think it’s okay when was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, the president’s son did not inform the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse foreign help — no, instead son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

You might think it was okay he took meeting. You might think it’s okay Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took meeting. You might think it’s okay the president’s son-in-law also took meeting. You might think it’s okay they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s okay their only disappointment after meeting was the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s okay. I don’t.

You might think it’s okay , when it was discovered a later they had lied about meeting and said it was about adoptions, you might think it’s okay the president is reported to have helped dictate lie. You might think it’s okay. I don’t.

You might think it’s okay the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for or debt forgiveness. You might think ’s okay. I don’t. You might think it’s okay campaign chairman offered polling data, campaign polling data, to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think ’s okay.

You might think it’s okay the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s okay , later day, the Russians in fact attempted to hack a server affiliated with campaign. I don’t think ’s okay.
You might think it’s okay the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back-channel of communication with Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think ’s okay.

You might think it’s okay an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s okay a senior campaign official was instructed to reach associate and find what hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent.

You might think it’s okay the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s okay he lied about it to the FBI.

You might say ’s all okay. You might say ’s just what you to do to win. But I don’t think it’s okay. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt, and evidence of collusion.

Now, I have always said whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of crime was to the special counsel and I would accept his decision, and I do. He is a good an honourable man and he is a good prosecutor.

But I do not think conduct, criminal or not, is okay. And the day we do think ’s okay is the day we will back and say, is the day America lost its way.

And I’ll tell you one more thing is apropos of the hearing today. I don’t think it’s okay during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow would make him a fortune. According to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s okay he concealed it from the public. don't think it's okay he advocated a new and more favourable policy towards the Russians, even as he was seeking the Russian's help, the Kremlin’s help, to make .

I don't think it's okay his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for than collusion and it's called compromise. And 's the subject of our hearing today.
Posted:Mar 26, 2019 11:50 pm
Last Updated:Mar 31, 2019 9:13 am

How to conquer right-wing bullies: It’s not a debate — so stop taking their bait

Yes, they’re dog whistling for racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and antisocialism but those are just overtones. We shouldn’t be distracted by them. The dog whistle’s fundamental tune is simply “Join us. We’re Gods. No deed too dirty for us deities.”

The US has recently discovered its Achille’s heel and it’s in the same spot as it has been in every civilization, a weakness for tyrants, people who God, pretending they’re masters of reality instead of having to adapt to it.

The weakness is in each of us. Who wouldn’t want to be master of reality? Life is uncertain. There’s way too much world, especially now. It’s a relief to think you’ve finally found your infallible focus, a crusade in which you’re the solution.

Most of us know to exercise our appetite for self-deification in fantasy, for example, identifying with superheroes in fiction. But some don’t. They pretend in real life and soon end up with a following among those who can’t, won’t or think they needn’t distinguish fiction from reality.

We make a grave mistake in thinking the self-deifying have a mission. They’re convinced by the sound of their own stridency they care about making things better. The evidence is they don’t. Their crusades are just an excuse for playing god.

It’s the same mistake we make over and over. It’s a mistake to think Stalin or Mao were Communists, Hitler was a nationalist, Robespierre was a liberal or Trump is a conservative. Tyrants are just self-deifying. Though some for the mission they stay for the self-deification. They’re gloataholics, addicted to self-aggrandizement.

Self-deification is a drug. Its delivery system is righteous indignation; righteousness makes them feel like authorities on what warrants indignation, indignation enables them to forget their fallibility. Self-deification is like granting oneself a wild card and a trump card.

Wild-card: Because the solution, I can do anything I want. It’s all for “the cause”.

Trump card: What I do will always be smarter and better than anything. If I win a genius saint. If I lose, a genius saint martyr.

Playing god is so simple any idiot can do it: Never apologize, always out-scold anyone who questions you. The shy will shy away, the conscientious will get confused, the gullible will join you.

Self-deification is the cheap easy alternative to conscientiousness. Just pretend you’re at war, fighting for the ultimate good. If you’re fighting for the ultimate good, you’re free to do whatever’s necessary. Freer still, the self-deifying pretend they’re fighting for the ultimate good and do whatever they want.

MAGA is actually GAWA: Get Away With Anything. ’s Trump’s draw. His supporters don’t realize it but they’re just in it for the self-deification. They don’t just support Trump; they want to be him.

They think they care about making America great again. They’re really just addicted to righteous indignation. It’s obvious from the way they abandon supposed missions as soon as they’re unable to milk them for the gloataholic buzz.

They promise no promised land. You hear no vision for future American greatness. Getting there is the gloataholic’s fun, the idiot’s delight of wild card trumping.

Once hooked on self-deification, there’s no alternative to sticking with it. The crimes mount; the enemies gather. They can’t show weakness or their whole house of wild card/trump cards tumbles. The US is now being held hostage to leaders who know if they ever let down their posturing they’d spend the rest of their lives in jail. They’re just hoping to run out the clock.

We make a mistake taking their bait as though they care about their causes. We’ve got to stop projecting our concern about the future on them. For them, it’s a shortsighted addiction to declaring themselves victors. ’s what has us led by the nose into the weeds. To give their concerns the benefit of the doubt is as dangerous as taking a psychopath at his word.

We should focus instead on their dog whistles’ fundamental note. Expose their self-deification. Their only response would be more self-deification, proving our point.

The lesson to take from our country’s flirtation with tyranny is simple. We must guard against self-deification dressed in any mission – left, right, spiritual, religious, atheistic, philosophical, whatever. way we could get on with our adaptive lives and continue to god in fantasy without causing social cancers – righteously indignant wild card, trump card cults of whatever flavor pretending they deserve to rule reality instead of having to adapt to it.

by Jeremy E.Sherman from Alternet
Posted:Mar 25, 2019 3:27 pm
Last Updated:Mar 26, 2019 7:49 am

I have a lot of fcebook connections with my home-town in Norway, a well as family and friends in other parts of the country. I have my keyboard set so I can switch between English and Norwegian with one click..........I also watch the Norwegian news networks........I have seen quite a bit of controversy over Clean Energy Generation.......There is a lot of falling home-town runs on electricity generated from a swift river that empties into the fjord ......including an Aluminum plant, which takes a large amount of both water and power. Most people areOK with that, because their power is cheap and the fish are safe.The windmills, however, are more controversial. They are also experimenting with rafts that have turbines that generate electricity. We are experimenting with that as well, here, where there is a lot of tidal turbulence. Our tides go up and down about 15 feet and the many islands cause the water to be forced through narrow channels
, the the tidal action increases as you go North and up near Alaska. it fluctuates 25 feet............but having large turbine rafts all over the coast has it's own drawbacks

The following is from Energy Canada...."🚘⚡️Norway is charging ahead with electric cars. Oslo will become the first city in the world to install wireless charging systems for electric taxis. By 2023, all taxis in the city will be zero-emission and by 2025, all new cars sold in Norway will be zero-emission.

Norway has the world’s highest rate of electric car ownership. Last year, almost one in three new cars sold was electric. Not only do electric cars cut emissions, they also significantly cut fuel and maintenance costs.".

To link to this blog (sparkleflit) use [blog sparkleflit] in your messages.