Black Coffee in bed:

Now shes gone
And Im back on the beat
A stain on my notebook
Says nothing to me
Now shes gone
And Im out with a friend
With lips full of passion
And coffee in bed

That song means nothing to me, but the opposite does:

My wife hasn't left me
I'm such a loser
A stain on my notebook
Is talking to me
Now she's yelling at me
I don't have any friends
Lips full of vodka
And coffee in front of my computer

The response to the AC is useful, once again.

First, the AC, then my response:

Models, descriptions, and guides do not explain motivation, in this case for making cheese. Fun and profit, and cheese, for some, are what stimulate the pleasure center of the brain, not the models. Those are only the yellow brick road to cheese heaven. It is the path to happiness. But you still aren't approaching the reason why people follow that road. I am under the impression that you believe that politics is driven by...politics. So, does the recipe motivate the cheese maker? Well yeah, if he like to experiment, or whatever. Or is it the desire for the final result?

You draw a good map. But that's all it is. The real job is convince people to follow it. The legend on your map does nothing in that department. You are not showing why people make their choices. It is not political, I can assure you.

And please explain how voting for a person you don't like because the ones you do aren't on the ballot is in any way, shape, or form a "rational" decision. If you noticed how the recent voting went Europe, you will see it went down exactly as Reich describes, though only slightly less extreme. It also describes how the radical right acquired its power over the last thirty years in the US. Reagan's election makes his point. And you know what? Obama's too. His speaking out of both sides of his mouth is playing us like a fiddle. Fascism is making a comeback because of irrational behavior. Really never went away. It just went a bit dormant for time. All this crap about "no choice" is just that, a donkey cart full of manure. You all will do anything to absolve yourselves of any culpability. You won't get away with that with me. It is the single biggest issue at this point. It's your monster. Either control it, or kill it. Don't come to me with "Oops, too late to do anything now". Like ol' boy said on SNL, "FIX IT!" YOU fix it. Nobody's gonna do it for you.

-----------------------------------------------

I am under the impression that you believe that politics is driven by...politics.

If you want to be an idiot, simplifying and distorting an idea until it's simple to ridicule, then be my guest.

In more detail, politics is driven by morality which is driven by frames which is driven by metaphors which is driven by politics.

It is a circularly driven process, because there is a feedback loop. The feedback loop is based in biology. It gets stronger with iteration because of the biology of the brain.

You continually harp on getting to the biological basis, but you're too fucking stupid to see it.

The feedback loop is strengthened by this process because the brain circuits, made of neurons, are strengthened when they are used.

Using the metaphor strengthens the circuit in the brain that responds to the metaphor. I'm not being abstract here. I'm talking about real neurons forming connections in response to thoughts. It's all basic science.

And please explain how voting for a person you don't like because the ones you do aren't on the ballot is in any way, shape, or form a "rational" decision.

That wasn't the formulation of the problem. If you are going to form a political group with a unique agenda, you have two choices: keep the agenda uncompromised and form a tiny party with no hope of winning anything, or to pollute the agenda and form a coalition with a larger party that only shares a part of your goals, and perhaps none of your moral values.

The rational decision, if one hopes to have an influence on the candidates that run for office, is to form a coalition.

Reich was an interesting person, but he was a student of Freud. Freud's ideas are not scientific in any manner. Reich was an interesting crank, but he hardly had an explanation for all human behavior. At best he can explain only mechanisms related to fascism, but I am explaining all political rhetoric with a unified theory of political morality.

OK folks, there's this anonymous coward who keeps strongly and urgently disagreeing with me. Now, he's actually useful here, because he brings up a lot of questions, and highlights a lot of places where he just doesn't understand what I'm trying to communicate here.

So, I'm going to re-post two comments from an exchange, in hopes that his questions are useful to all of you in understanding these examples of political rhetoric that I'm posting.

For context, if you have a bunch of time, you need to read the Wikipedia entry on Wilhelm Reich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich and you should read the full text of his book "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" which is available here http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

----------------------------
First, the anonymous coward:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257825&cid=28224969

Re:Orgone? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05, @12:27PM (#28224969)

No, not to annoy you. It's to get you out of your political rut, and to understand the biological nature of everything we do and are. Later on I will find your those very same "liberal" morals in quotes from people you won't want to believe. And the motivations behind them are the very same that Obama and the people who voted for him carry. I wonder if you consider love(of yourself, your other, your life, all life) to be a moral value, being uniquely human..because it is notably absent on both columns A and B. Which one of your moral values will serve to tear down the barriers to a gratifying sex life? Which one will make work a pleasurable, gratifying part of our lives, instead of a burden or an "obligation". In fact which one of your values can even put the two into the same sentence? You just won't get it as long as you keep this wall up between you and your natural self. You won't get it as long as you actually believe that society is separate from the individual. To tell you the truth, you're being just as closed minded as Mr. P himself. The sameness of all your politics extends way beyond the republican and democrat. Your words are different, but you both believe you know how to tell people how to live their lives. I'm not sure if either of you understand that the 6,000 years or so of conditioning precludes our ability to live free of state/religious control at this point. The solution is here, but you gotta rip down the barriers you put up.

"Those who know the living function in the animal, in the newborn or in the true
worker, be he a mechanic, a researcher or an artist, cease to think in those terms created by party systems.

"Ignorance of the character structure of the human masses again and again results in sterile explanations." -- getting the hint yet?

So great, Obama can motivate the liberals and Rush can motivate the conservatives. So what? It's just saying, "I'll buy, you fly". Let's see either one draw people from the other side. Try to get a teetotaler to go buy you a bottle of wiskey. Or the pope to get you a hooker. Then I can say you/they know something we don't. Otherwise you're just stimulating feeling the person already has. Which is how politics works. DUH! The "victim" has to have moral beliefs for the politician to have any effect on them. And there's nothing like fear and hate to put that "morality" into a person's soul. They come up behind you, and BOO!. "Wanna prevent that from ever happening again? Buy my spiel(usually anti sex), and I will protect you". You're going through all these mental gyrations without understanding the real mechanics behind it. Too many abstractions(distractions) me thinks.

Orgone? That's what got him locked up, and there he died, not in Germany, but in the good ol' USofA. And the government, that's the American government, literally had his books burned. The whole affair was pretty disgraceful. Just goes to show fascism isn't about politics or nations, it's about normal, natural desires. It's everywhere.

----------------------

And then, my response:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257825&cid=28225577

Re:Orgone? (Score:1)
by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) on Friday June 05, @01:11PM (#28225577) Homepage Journal

Later on I will find your those very same "liberal" morals in quotes from people you won't want to believe.

If people don't conform to archetypes, then all you will have proven is that people are human. Plus, I've already addressed your statement another way, but you're awfully stubborn it seems.

I wonder if you consider love(of yourself, your other, your life, all life) to be a moral value, being uniquely human..because it is notably absent on both columns A and B.

The category that belongs to is absent, but now that you bring it it I will address it.

The political parties are both notoriously coalitions. It's a simple fact that both the Republicans and the Democrats do not purely represent even a slice of a true political spectrum. But because of the mathematical nature of a "winner takes all" election, people are forced to shoehorn themselves into one of two parties.

One of the factions of the Democratic party is a group of people called environmentalists. They are distinct from other Democrats, like any political distinction, in their moral value heirarchy.

In particular, the moral value of stewardship is turned up very high on the environmentalists' moral value stereo equalizer, relative to other moral values. Stewardship is the value of taking care of the land and all living things that exist. It is a recognition that everything has a place and a natural purpose in an interconnected holistic world.

The other varieties of love come directly or indirectly from the liberal moral value of community, so don't need to be specially treated here.

Which one of your moral values will serve to tear down the barriers to a gratifying sex life?

The moral value of tolerance, which allows people the freedom to disagree with each other, but absolutely not to hinder another person's development. The primary value of community means that a person who contributes to the growth of everyone in the community is a good person. Community in combination with tolerance supports the idea that every person must become the person they were meant to be.

I notice that you haven't asked any questions about specific definitions of words. This is important, and since you haven't asked, you cannot possibly understand.

Community: (sense liberal) - a nurturing environment where every child can realize their full potential and grow up to contribute to the world around them. It follows that the only person who can decide their potential is the person themselves, so a community that a liberal would find good would be a community where people had the freedom to determine their own personhood.

Community: (sense conservative) - an authoritarian environment where everyone has a specific, immutable position where they can physically defend the domain from external threats.

The conservative definition of community derives almost wholly from their metaphor of a family as a physically strong father in authority, with the weaker elements of the family expected to accept his discipline. Discipline in that family model will raise strong children who are able to in turn take their place as a family authority. What you do only depends on your place in the family, not your desires.

Also note that I do not use the terms liberal, conservative, and names of political parties interchangably.

Let's see either one draw people from the other side.

Ah, now you're talking about the wonder of bi-conceptualism. We have a two-party system (I've already given my viewpoint on that) so we have bi-conceptuals to match. This is because physical structures in the brain form and strengthen in response to the two metaphors of the family that are common. The correct rhetoric activates the desired circuits in the brain, and the message is integrated into the narrative.

Getting people from the other side is as simple as using the established neuro-circuitry for your own purpose, while doing your utmost to let the enemy's neural circuitry rot and wither.

You're going through all these mental gyrations without understanding the real mechanics behind it. Too many abstractions(distractions) me thinks.

This is proof that you talk too much. I covered all this way back, and obviously you missed it. If you say "too many abstractions" they you are obviously ignorant of the direct mapping of abstraction (the competing metaphors of the family) to actual neurons in the brain. It's a direct mapping, so there's no need whatsoever to continually mention that fact. If you're paying attention, you know that when I speak of a particular kind of family, that I am speaking also of a very specific circuit of neurons in the human brain. It's not an abstraction or a neuron analogy. I'm talking about real brain cells.

So great, Obama can motivate the liberals and Rush can motivate the conservatives. So what?

So what? I'm not talking to Obama and Rush here. They already know this shit. I'm talking to people who watch the news and fail to understand the connections from that to the underlying moral beliefs. You can't see the bullshit unless you see the connections. And you continually harp on the uselessness of the parties, which although different, don't represent a direction that offers sustainable freedom.

Of course.

But when you try to tell that to someone who has no true understanding of what their "freedom keywords" actually mean in terms of morals, you can't be persuasive or instructive. It's not enough to tell people that happiness could be theirs. You need to make sure that the people to whom you are promising happiness understand that there are 6 different kinds of happiness, and there are different moral reasons for desiring each one.

Then they have to grok it. Only then can they form the new metaphors of a SUSTAINABLE family.

Now stop bothering me with all this shit. I keep telling you the same thing, and I still don't see your journal anywhere.

Fuck, I'm going to make a journal, featuring you. Next time you pop up with the same bullshit, I'll just give you the link.

This is the full text of the speech that Barack Obama gave after losing the New Hampshire primary. We'll highlight the segments that derive from liberal moral values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08text-obama.html

A refresher: the list of liberal moral values is:

community
education
cooperation
competence
tolerance
empathy

Liberal moral values are in bold

anuary 8, 2008
Barack Obama's New Hampshire Primary Speech

The following is a transcript of Senator Barack Obama's speech to supporters after the New Hampshire primary, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

BARACK OBAMA: Thank you, New Hampshire. I love you back. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much. I am still fired up and ready to go. (APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard-fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job. Give her a big round of applause.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, a few weeks ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here tonight in New Hampshire. No one could have imagined it.

For most of this campaign, we were far behind. We always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out, and you spoke up for change.

And with your voices and your votes, you made it clear that at this moment, in this election, there is something happening in America.

(APPLAUSE)

There is something happening when men and women in Des Moines and Davenport, in Lebanon and Concord, come out in the snows of January to wait in lines that stretch block after block because they believe in what this country can be.

There is something happening. There's something happening when Americans who are young in age and in spirit, who've never participated in politics before, turn out in numbers we have never seen because they know in their hearts that this time must be different.

There's something happening when people vote not just for party that they belong to, but the hopes that they hold in common.

And whether we are rich or poor, black or white, Latino or Asian, whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction.

That's what's happening in America right now; change is what's happening in America.

You, all of you who are here tonight, all who put so much heart and soul and work into this campaign, you can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness.

Democrats, independents and Republicans who are tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington, who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable, who understand that, if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there is no problem we cannot solve, there is no destiny that we cannot fulfill. Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

(APPLAUSE)

Our new majority can end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it.

We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success.

We can stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support. We can do this with our new majority.

We can harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists, citizens and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil and save our planet from a point of no return.

And when I am president of the United States, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

(APPLAUSE)

We will end this war in Iraq. We will bring our troops home. We will finish the job -- we will finish the job against Al Qaida in Afghanistan. We will care for our veterans. We will restore our moral standing in the world.

And we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election. It is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease.

All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All of the candidates in this race have good ideas and all are patriots who serve this country honorably.

(APPLAUSE)

But the reason our campaign has always been different, the reason we began this improbable journey almost a year ago is because it's not just about what I will do as president. It is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of the United States of America, can do to change it.

That's what this election is all about.

That's why tonight belongs to you. It belongs to the organizers, and the volunteers, and the staff who believed in this journey and rallied so many others to join the cause.

We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

(APPLAUSE)

For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.

And so, tomorrow, as we take the campaign south and west, as we learn that the struggles of the textile workers in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas, that the hopes of the little girl who goes to the crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of L.A., we will remember that there is something happening in America, that we are not as divided as our politics suggest, that we are one people, we are one nation.

And, together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story, with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: Yes, we can.

Thank you, New Hampshire. Thank you. Thank you.

--------------------

If there had been anything in that speech which was based in a conservative morality, it would have been in italics. But there's nothing.

That's a sign of a very disciplined speechwriter, who is clear on what moral values are important to liberals.

The set of moral values support a story that is commonly called a NARRATIVE in political circles. All communication in rhetoric takes place in the framing context, not outside of it. When speakers jump between narrative frames, their speeches are dissonant. The people listening cannot figure out what the speaker stands for, and they get the impression that the speaker really isn't telling the truth, or they don't really know what they believe.

When a speaker jumps between moral frameworks, between statements supported by different value systems, the audience gets a sneaky suspicion that the speaker is just telling them what they want to hear.

For the class: one of you, our favorite numbskull, would like to point out that I'm an Obama fan. I am, but this is unimportant. I could have presented a speech by Ronald Reagan here to illustrate the same thing. And sometime in the next HUNDRED journals outlining examples of political rhetoric that I intend to write, I'll probably show the brilliance of Ronald Reagan's political speeches many times.

For the anonymous coward: If you want to talk about Wilhelm Reich, get yourself a journal and log in. Stop leaving your Orgone turds here.

Don't forget to read back in my recent journal entries. Comments may have appeared since your last viewing.

Anyway, the next moral example to be discussed is from Man Coulter. This one comes up because our favorite numbskull, smitty_one_each, doesn't seem to understand the conservative moral value of physical strength.

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20041229

Tillman was an American original: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be. The stunningly handsome athlete walked away from a three-year, $3.6 million NFL contract with the Arizona Cardinals to join the U.S. military and fight in Afghanistan, where he was killed in April.

Just so there is no confusion, this is a photo of Pat Tillman, a picture of physical strength. No wonder Man Coulter was getting all wet over him. He's beautiful, is he not?

http://www.gerrymay.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/pat_tillman.gif

Ann describes links Tillman twice to the adjective "American." Before she knew that he was a flaming liberal, Tillman to her represented an ideal of manhood, a personification of what it means to be a good American. And the photograph shows almost nothing of Tillman but his physical strength. That aspect of him even overshadows his handsomeness.

Conservatives value physical strength because it directly supports winning a physical struggle.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/06/02/romney_assails_obama_on_national_security/

"Arrogant, delusional tyrants can not be stopped by earnest words and furrowed brows," Romney said. "Action, strong, bold action coming from a position of strength and determination, is the only effective deterrent."

Instead of reducing defense spending, as a proportion of total economic output, he said the United States needs to spend much more, restoring full funding for the missile defense system, modernizing the American nuclear arsenal, and rebuilding the military to keep pace with China's rapid military buildup.

"For a fraction of the money that was spent on various social and domestic programs, Washington could have given our servicemen and women the tools they need to defend us for a generation," Romney asserted.

Romney's words draw from the conservative moral value of physical strength.

Physical strength supports the primary conservative moral value of winning in an obvious way.

The metaphor is with a family where the father is physically strong and can physically defend his family from threats. Anything that interferes with the ability of a father to protect his family is immoral in his worldview. The father at the head of the family doesn't get any help. He's all alone, and the survival of the family depends upon his strength. If the father loses the battle, the entire family loses.

"Of these four competing strategies, notice that only one includes freedom. Only if America succeeds will freedom endure," Romney warned. "Do not imagine for a single moment that China, Russia, and the jihadists have no intention of surpassing America and leading the world. Each is entirely convinced that it can do so."

Conservative value #1: winning

"The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity's interests, while our failures nourish monsters."

I CANNOT believe that the California Court today upheld the Proposition 69 outcome which by a simple majority+1 ballot made it illegal for Blacks to marry Whites, and for ANY Mormons at all to get married.

This is ridiculous. If Mormons cannot get married just like everyone else, then we're not really America, are we?

I urge all of you to help overturn Proposition 69. Mormons should be able to get married just like everybody else. And it's nobody's business if a black man wants to marry a white woman.

Goddammit, I jack off 6 hours a day looking at dog-knot porn. If I can see that everyone should be equal before the law, why can't the supposedly "moral" fucking church people?

I'll just give the answers away. These are the top moral values for both liberals and conservatives. Most political positions and rhetoric derives from these core values:
conservatives:
winning (top value)
physical strength
discipline
punishment

liberal:
community (top value)
cooperation
competence
tolerance

Also some will be interested in this:

Profane MuthaFucka
busheatskok@gmail.com
(shown without obfuscation)
http://www.rightbias.com/
Karma: Excellent

On my front page today:

As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot you are eligible to disable advertising

Thanks Rob, Pudge, and Jon Katz (may you find a bunch of dumbfucks who will buy your stupid books) it was my pleasure. Really.

Morality is the general category identified as the basis of all politics, but that's a big subject.

Need to tighten that up a little, so everybody knows what is specifically meant. I'm narrowing this to moral values instead of the entire broad category.

What is a moral value? A moral value is used as a discriminator. By itself it's not good or bad, but it can be used to evaluate goodness or badness.

Moral Value: Industrious. The opposite is lazy. Hard-working people are good, lazy people are bad.

Not a moral value: Blue. If you like the color blue, this is not relevant to goodness or badness. You cannot identify good people by asking them if they like blue.

So a moral value is a category of things which can be used to discriminate between good or bad persons.

But, not all moral values are relevant to politics. The question now is WHICH moral values define which political positions? This is where you have to think like an anthropologist. Hit the big ones - list three for conservatives, and three for liberals.

The foundation of all politics is morality.

Before you make any political decision, you must first have your own moral priorities in mind. When you draw up that budget, you must know what you consider to be important and unimportant. This is all based in your own moral values.

Now, define morality.

And people, try to think a little like anthropologists here. The morality that you learned at your father's knee isn't going to be the same as your brother's. Describing your brother's morality in terms of your own is not helpful in understanding your brother's morality.

Before an ignorant git decides they are opposed to raising taxes, what must they decide? That taxes are bad in some way.

Before a prison is built, what must be decided? The prison is needed. And why is the prison needed? Because not having the prison is harmful. Not having the prison has a bad consequence.

Before a citizen approves a millage to pay for educational facilities, they first must decide that education has importance.

So then, what is a characterization of all of these political decisions?

What is the foundation of all politics? Answer below.

An example of the kind of shit logic that Jonah Goldberg uses in his stupid book "Liberal Fascism":

1. Nazi is shorthand for National Socialism.
2. Socialism is a left political philosophy.
3. Therefore the Nazis were leftists.

Using this same logic:

1. USSR is shorthand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
2. Republic (the root of Republican) is right there in the name
3. Therefore the Republican Party is Soviet.

No further refutation of "Liberal Fascism" is required. The entire book is filled with that same logic, impressive only to children.