Archive for November 15th, 2005

Loneliness

A friend of mine said that my special talent was that,

“Things jump out at you that other people don’t even notice.”

That is a formula for loneliness.

I ended the article below called “Idealists” with these sentences:

“The further down the chain of ideas you go, the less you matter.”

“The farther down the chain of ideas you get, the more important you are, the more you get paid.”

“And that last sentence is the key to my whole world view.”

“That sentence, the one before last, is the one I have devoted my entire life to. ”

You could not write a formula that is more guaranteed to make you a lonely man than that.

One of the funniest lines in movie, “Analyze This” was when the Mafia boss was walking with a psychiatrist and said, “There are some guys watching us. We have to get over there behind cover.”

The psychiatrist asked him, “How do you know that?”

The Mafia boss answered, “I’m a criminal. It’s my JOB to know that.”

A lot of people are repeatedly astounded at how I predict things or how I know somebody is lying or how I know where somebody is REALLY coming from. I appreciate their marvelling at it, and REMEMBERING it.

But when they ask me how I did it, what I really want to do is sigh and say, “Where in the HELL do you think I spent the last fifty years?”

By the way, even people who have know me for decades and who REMEMBER that I was right when they and everybody else said I was talking nonsense, STILL tell me I am talking nonsense.

This, again, is a formula for loneliness.

They are living in a world in which the Real Somebodys who were always wrong before are the onoy topic of conversation.

If you have spent fifty years learning things and you are at the Calculus stage, explaining arithmetic to people, over and over, is a good thing to do as a teacher. But you are still lonely. You would like to talk Calculus with somebody besides yourself.

I worked out a formula that no race-mixer can break.

“Every respectable cosnervative has to agree that ther is this RACE problem. But this RACE problem only exists in white countries. Every respectable conservative insists on third world immigration into ALL white countries and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands is more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but no on insists Japan or Taiwan has this RACE problem needs to be solved by massive third world immigration and assimiliation.”

“If said that there is this RACE problem exists, and it can be solved by massive non-black immigration into ALL black countries and ONLY into black countries, it would take you about half a second to realize that what I call anti-racist is actually anti-black.”

“And you wouldn’t aska black man why he is against this. Every sane black man would be against a genocide program against blacks”

If every commentator knew he would run into THAT brick wall very time he did an interview, the whole discussion of race would change overnight.

BUT only I know how to do this. One of our public figures SORT of uses it. But he wants it to sound like he is Up With Things. So he refers to “the ethnic cleansing of the white race.”

Boy, that sounds so up-to-date, so newsy.

And OLD.

You have to make your message sound NEW, not make yourself look like somebody who is Up To Date.

When you throw in terms like “ethnic cleansing” it turns off a very important switch. It is part of hte usual debate.

I had to write several paragraphs to explain this. I have to write several paragraphs to explain EVERYTHING.

I can talk about Wordism until there is blood on my typewriter, but people are going to KEEP going back to their own forms of Wordism.

Lonely? You betcha!

I like the idea that, while all the other talks were going on, Joe had hit on the implications of “People don’t notice.”

I live on the IMPLICATIONS of things that are obvious. I have not the slightest interst in the fact that the Deputy UnderSecretary of Something Big is secretly doing something else. But everybody around me wants to talk about him, because they know that he will be fogotten next year. You have to show you know about that right now, while people still knows what you are talking about.

Everybody else has a Homeland. That Homeland is called Now.

I always took it for granted in the 1950s that the same fanatical segregationists would be fanatical integrationists tomorrow. If I have to explain how I knew that in my teens, it makes me even more lonely.

Everybody else has a Homeland called Now. I live in a cosmopolitan world of time, of which Now is only a passing phase. I am no more a citizen of 2005 than I am citizen of 1965 where the hippies live or 1944 where the Greatest Generation lives.

I do not live where thoo who start their talks with, “Modern” or “Traditional” or The Latest News
reside.

I do not read the papers to have something to talk about. I talk to me about things the newspapers cannot imagine and don’t have any reason to think about.

I live alone.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Richard and Peter

Richard, there was nothing polytheistic at all about Mazdaism.

You do not have to be worshipper of some version of Jehovah to be monotheistic.

Zoroastrians were as monotheistic as we are when Jahweh one of the tribal gids telling his own people not to worship any of the others.

Richard, you are still trying to shoehorn the world into the Old Testament.

First you say Zoroastrianism was not the problem in All-Important Judea at the time. Absolutely no one knows what Zoroastrianism meant in the place at that time. All reference has been censored, aka, “interpreted” out. You folks never mentioned it after Iran fell to the Moslems.

For many years, there was a desperate denial that Gilgamesh was written so long ago, because the Jews OWNED the Flood, you know. So naturally the titanic Persian Empire was totally unknown to a people who were closer to it than to Rome and the ancient people the Gilgamesh beloned to were just scratching their itches until Moses came along.

It’s not a theological expression, but:

Yea. Right.

Who were the enemies of the Hellenes, right back before the Battle of Marathon?

Well, gee, whiz, it was them nonexistent Persians! They were Zoroastrian then.

I’ll tell you something you can’t dig out of the OT: the Persians destroyed temples, not just because they were the enemy, but because they were PAGAN.

Sound familiar? It was a habit Christianity INVENTED centuries after the Persians did it.

In fact just shortly before Iran was conquered by the Moslems the Persians and the Jews, AGAIN, engaged in a joint attack on Byzantine Christians, aka, Hellenics. The “real” Jews, like the Philistines, found their allies against the Hellenics in Persia over and over and over.

And, yes, they did know that Persia existed.

On the Persian/Parsee/Farsi/Pharisee connection: The plan of the temple in Hieru-salem (I’ll fling that out there) is exactly that of a typical Zoroastrian fire-temple and built, according to legend, by King Cyrus of Persia.

When one perceives that the Persians predicted the coming of the Savior (Saoshyant), that the Zoroastrian priest-kings (Magi) knew where to find him, and were the first to worship him, it all begins to come together.

It also makes perfect Mazdaist sense that the Lord would choose the darkest corner of the world from which to RISE.

This means that the “Christ” hailed in the oldest Greek version of the OT was not the national hero of a kingdom of this world, but was of the kingdom of Heaven — just as in Zoroastrian scriptures. And unlike Mithras who appeared cosmically in eternity past, this Savior of the kingdom of Heaven appeared in HISTORY, and so the Magi were there following his star from the east.

A secondary consequence of this knowledge that the groundwork of Christianity (and so too of our civilization) was laid in polytheistic Mazdaism may be that respect of Woden’s lore might not be in competition with Christian revelation.

Comment by Peter — 11/12/2005 @ 5:15 pm | Edit This

Bob, The Pharisees were the “super” Jews. Zoroastrianism was not the problem in Judea at the time. Hellenism was and the Pharisees hated Hellenism with a pure hate. The Saducees were the heretics who had bought into a lot of the paganistic belief swimming about the middle east at the time.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Comments

Joe’s Comment on Loneliness

Joe wrote about an eighty-year-old woman he met who was so desperately lonely that she cried when he hugged her.

I am not a nice man, so let me note that she did this to herself. Her husband died in Nam and she never remarried. St. Paul would certainly approve and most people consider this very romantic, My One True Love and all.

But if you are going to be Idealistic and Romantic, you have to live with it.

There are MILLIONS of lonely unfulfilled women today who were big on the omens Lib Movement in he 1970s. THe motto of Womens Lib was, “It is as important for a woman to paint picture as to have a baby.”

Well, they got their picture now.

The Church has forced many a woman to live her entire life alone because she married a man who ran away. There was only One Sacred Unbreakable Bond of Marriage, and if that requires women to live and die alone, that just shows how idealistic it is.

If I had a straight choice between being having the agony a Mafia Don caused for others or the agony a Woemn’s Lib leader caused, I would not hesitate to the Mafia man. But none of this bothers the Mafia Don or the women’s libber one little bit.

If I had the choice of being the priest who forced a woman to live our her youth and her age in loneliness or an outright murderer, I would be the murderer.

Both of our last Democratic presidents, like Gautama Buddha, had one obligatory child so they could claim to be parents.

To my mind, one should either have two or more children or none. I have seen too many people who had one child who died. They took on all the emotional baggage of being a parent, and the slender thread broke.

They don’t get over it.

My feeling is, from knowing these people, that one should either be a parent or not.
If you are the sort of person who needs marriage, then be married and if your partner dies, marry again.

Take it from one who has fought for causes all his life. Being an idealist, doing things for others, these things carry a price. These are not games for children or men who run around in dresses and don’t get married or ugly women who want to make it political.

Don’t run around being Otheworldy and then get upset when the world makes you pay for it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment