Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
I will comment on evolution and parasites below. My comments are not based on being a researcher or anything formal like that, but I think you will find them distinctive and logical and easy to substantiate.
Before I get in to that, I am relatively new to the “CD Autism” facebook group and the “MMS” protocol. I am not the parent of an autistic toddler, like so many on this group. I do however experience some symptoms that border in to Aspergers and my wife does even moreso.
I have been using CDS for several weeks (along with my wife). I am generally quite pleased with the results and in fact I just minutes ago did my biggest experiment so far, which was several drops of CDS in several drops of water, which I left in my mouth for quite a while before swallowing, like to let it soak in to my gums and under my tongue.
For millions of years, humans have evolved along with a large quantity of gut organisms, including bacteria and parasites. Generally speaking, a healthy person will have small populations of a huge variety of gut organisms.
Absence of parasites does not equal health or fitness. However, when parasites leave the intestines for other tissues, that tends to be a very different situation. That is a sign of an already unhealthy organism, like with an inflamed “leaky” gut.
With HARSH vaccines (containing large amounts of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, and so on), gut parasites can retreat to other tissues, such as the brain. That is a VERY different situation than the symbiotic relationship between certain parasites and mammals that has been evolving for millions of years.
So, if protocols for removing parasites clearly produce favorable outcomes, then that is sufficient reason (at least for me) to continue protocols like CDS (or Castor oil & Neem oil, etc) to dramatically reduce populations of parasites. However, not only could it be unrealistic to think of eliminating all parasites ever, but it could also be unfavorable.
In my research oinline, I found yesterday the topic of Helminthic therapy. That therapy, which is also well-documented, (like the recoveries from autism on this group) is the intentional coloinzing of the gut with worms to promote better health, especially in regard to auto-immune conditions.
So, we could categorize bacteria and parasites in regard to what pH levels support that particular species. Generally speaking, as I understand it, the idea of “good bacteria” and “bad bacteria” are basically a distinction around the issue of pH. The proliferation of “bad bacteria” could be simply a RESULT of unfavorable pH levels (which can be balanced by CDS/MMS as well as internally-manufacured glutathione, dietary anti-oxidants, or simply grouding electromagnetically to the earth, which is the source of free-flowing electrons which humans evolved to physically touch constantly- with the new technology of rubber-soled insulating shoes only having been popular for a few decades).
So, what if adding vaccines can radically alter pH and other important things? What if the cultural promotion of ultra-sterility and anti-biotics means that a small variety of gut organisms can surge to huge populations, rather than a variety of organisms all in relatively low populations?
What if parasites are not so much the original problem, but a symptom? If we take a large population of humans and expose them all to the same organisms, a variety of outcomes is likely.
In the case of something like the Black Plague, the presence of certain oils apparently allowed for some people to be unharmed by exposure to the exact same pathogens that devastated over 50% of the population of certain European nations. So, the vulnerability to the pathogen is a sign of PRE-EXISTING sub-optimal health.
The natural order vs presumptive arrogance
Have you ever noticed that some people may speak as if their own lack of familiarity with a subject is somehow evidence that the subject is invalid, incomprehensible, or worthless? Some people are generally open and curious about unfamiliar things while others are cynical and may even be threatened or paranoid by certain unfamiliar information.
For instance, a person may use the term “scurvy” and refer to scurvy as incurable. They may say “incurable scurvy is a demon that possessed one of my patients. I personally do not understand physiology very well, so when the patient displays certain symptoms, I just say that they have a certain disease or that the disease has possessed them (the disease has them). Further, if I do not know how to improve the health of the patient, then I just say that the demonic disease which has possessed them is incurable. No one can cure it now. Further, no one will ever be able to cure it. It is incurable. It is not merely unfamiliar or unexamined. Again, it is fundamentally incurable!”
That is not a very scientific use of language. That could even be called superstitious.
It is clearly presumptive, right? It is an imprecise use of language. “The incurable scurvy” is an interpretative construction of words made by a particular author or authority.
So, some authors not only take the risk of presenting interpretations, but also criticize contrary interpretations, even condemning or attacking contrary interpretations. Some interpretations may even be criminalized and systematically suppressed in inquisitions or other crusades of military coercion.
Does the condemning of an interpretation reflect confidence or worry? There are several ways that we could relate to a particular interpretation, such as with enthusiasm and openness or with fear and rage.
When someone dismisses something as uninteresting to them, that dismissal is about them and their priorities, not the topic itself. Further, when someone takes the time and energy to ridicule some idea (or some person or group referencing the idea), could that be because they are personally uncomfortable with the very idea itself? Because they perceive an idea to be a threat to a familiar idealism that they cling to in terror, they may ridicule something as “nonsense” or as “just a conspiracy theory.”
For instance, consider the idea that a particular government is powerful, stable, and sympathetic to my best interests. Might someone disagree with that? How would I respond if they did? Would I passionately defend the government of India in 1709 as “a good one” because all of the policies that I believe that government implemented were what I would call “good?”
Consider the idea that a particular government is primarily an instrument of private special interests distinct from that government (which could even have the power to destabilize a particular government). What about the idea that all governments systematically take actions that benefit particular groups of people at the expense of particular other groups of people?
What is the origin of governments? Are they more powerful than geology or biology or physics? Or, are the only powerful because of factors such as physics and biology and geology?
If governments are formed by specific people to promote particular outcomes, then what about after the formation of the government? Once a government has been formed, can new influences promote new outcomes through that same government?
What if a particular outside support (for a particular program of a government) declines or stops? Could that withdrawal of support effect the stability of that program? Could the extent of concentration on producing a particular target outcome decrease over time? Could any government program ever be totally discontinued? Could an entire government ever be conquered or simply disintegrate and collapse? Has it ever happened? Could it ever happen in the future?
Many people look to governments for security and guidance. Some are pleased with the results. Some are disappointed or even infuriated.
At various times, I may value the services or products that may be available from a particular individual or company or government. Maybe I wish to sue someone, so I hire a government court officer (a judge) to help me collect on a claim against the other party. To help me, I may hire a lawyer (who is an officer of the court/ government) as well as a licensed “process server” and even licensed mercenary thugs (deputy soldiers) to perform a property seizure or an eviction or a foreclosure auction.
In my experience, I have found that there are certain services for which it is best to go to a particular government. In other cases, governments (and their licensed government agents) either do not offer a particular thing that I value at all or there is some other provider that I prefer over that particular government/ licensed officer.
For instance, if I go to a government agent who tells me that scurvy is incurable, I may dismiss them as incompetent. I may even report them to an oversight agency. If the supervising bureaucrats do not “correct” what I perceive to be the incompetence of a particular licensed agent, I could reduce whatever confidence I had in that oversight agency. Any personal support of mine for that government program might decline.
Governments universally promote public confidence in that government. They value the support that sustains their operations. They seek to influence public perception so that the government is perceived to be stable, reliable, trustworthy, and generally worthy of support.
However, governments do not value everyone’s support equally. They value the economic support of the wealthy and powerful more than the support of children or inmates or enemy soldiers, whose support they may or may not consider relevant. If an invading government seeks to attract loyalty from the people of the newly colonized military target, they may create radio propaganda programs or distribute leaflets that condemn a certain opposing loyalty and promote compliance with the interests of the imperialists in the name of “national security.”
A government may dictate that all of the children in their colony must be familiar with a certain curriculum of propaganda called “history.” Education of children may be made legally mandatory (subject to fines or imprisonment). Further, education may be regulated by governments (whether mandatory or not). Governments can even fund education programs (through tax revenues) or even directly operate them (staffed entirely by government personnel who are trained and paid by the military government’s Ministry of Indoctrines).
Could certain interests wish to publicize the idea of demonic possession? Could those ideas include possession by the demons of incurable scurvy, incurable cancer, or incurable hypochondria? These ideas could be promoted through commercial advertising media or through public indoctrination camps. Could educationalists be trained to not only exclusively present the demonic possession model, but also to ridicule any contrary interpretations?
Remember, governments may be paranoid about public perceptions of credibility and loyalty. Institutions may systematically attack perceived threats to the sacred principles of that particular government or religion.
Some officers of a particular church or state may say “we are nothing like that other institution. That is blasphemy to even say! We TOLD you all that there is a total separation of mythology and science. Our science is not presumptive and thus it will never advance any further than it had as of 1967 when I personally received my doctorate degree in Infallible Scientific Models That Never Change Because They Obviously Do Not Need Refining. Therefore, I am clearly not a religious idealist. I am just loyally following the orders of my bishop, my archbishop, and of course, the daughter of God, her royal majesty, my Magistrate Court magi, the dictating dictator at the Supreme Imperial Temple of the Holy Government Tower of Secular Religion.”
Can any institution save humanity from science? Institutions can program humanity to be confused about science or to be loyal to certain presumptions. However, science is not institutional. When institutions such as the US military get involved in funding scientific research, they are doing so in order to classify the most useful findings as “top secret” and hide them from the general public.
The doctrines with which children are indoctrinated in institutions may promote a developing of the natural curiosity of the children in particular ways. They may get very interested in math or sports or music or brain chemistry or social dynamics.
Some people may study social dynamics and the possibility of an emotional dependence (psyhological, neurochemical) on the social approval of a perceived authority figure. Because of an interest in social approval, once a child is trained to expect social approval by demonstrations of skill or expertise in a particular field (such as hockey, auto mechanics, or finger-painting), then the child may protest the absence of the expected social approval.
“Why isn’t everyone congratulating me for being quiet and on time? I used to get certificates for attendance! Now, these people called managers seem to be actually expecting me to answer the phones when it rings. What is wrong with these people? They must be idealists! I can see right through them. They are just conformists who are trying to manipulate me by offering me money in exchange for my labor.”
For anyone who thinks of government bureaucracies as the authority on matters of scientific credibility, I can relate to that presumption. I was also tamed with social influences that led me to question my own observations and my own logical deductions. I rejected logic in deference to conforming to whatever “answers” would get me credit on a test. I also expected ongoing social support of my conformity to “the official version.”
As time went on, some people with whom I interacted did not value my repetition of the official versions (of science, for instance). I had faithfully memorized those versions in school (without true comprehension). Perhaps I argued with these skeptics and threw tantrums to test their low evaluation of my official repetitions. Perhaps they would cave in if I just yelled a little louder.
However, some people continued to suggest that my favorite models (those familiar to me) did not conform well with actual observed patterns. So, they were evaluating my favorite models as less than sacred.
That was not the end of their crimes. To extend their heresy further, they then suggested other models of interpretation which happened to conform precisely with actual observed patterns, but were not already familiar to me. So, I rejected these idealists and charlatans as obvious quacks and criminals. I initiated programs to protect the public from their interpretations (which openly threatened the perceived credibility of my favorite models of reality).
Then, these horrible villains suggested that I was arrogant in my dismissal of contrary models which threaten the sacred ideals of established scientific doctrine. They said I was afraid that my presumptions might be presumptive.
They condemned me by not agreeing with me enthusiastically. They then said that I invented their condemnation when in fact they argued that they had simply evaluated my favorite sacred models as “imprecise” and even “obsolete.”
Don’t these people have any respect for established scientific models of infallibility? Are they even licensed by the local Board of Mediocre Models (models that are generally consistent with some of reality most of the time)?
I am quite insulted by these disrespectful children who keep asking why over and over again. “Why do you say that scurvy is incurable if it has been cured thousands of times?”
These children clearly have mental disorders along the lines of lack of conformity to popular models of idealism. Their idealism is the wrong idealism. It should be more like mine.
How their mothers allowed them out of the womb without properly indoctrinating them in the holy idealism of our culture, I do not want to even speculate. They probably were not even properly cut out. They probably were delivered through the so-called birth canal.
That is NOT a canal. I know what a canal is, by the way, and that is absolutely not a canal. If you continue to offend me by your lack of sufficient enthusiasm for my tantrums, then I will show you some peer-reviewed journals in which a bunch of group-think worshipers all reference the so-called birth canal with an entirely different word.
I know science when I see it. Those words are NOT scientific. Those people should be ashamed, ridiculed, incarcerated, and medicated with mind-numbing drugs. Then they should be crucified, impaled, stoned, and resurrected. It is only right.
Rituals of human sacrifice are not related to capital punishment. Those two phrases are entirely unrelated. Stop arguing with me. In fact, please just stop reading this!
Why did you even learn the English language if all you were going to do with it was be arrogant and sarcastic and out of conformity with my sacred presumptions of how you would be, should be, and must be? Plus, how many times do I have to tell you to stop reading this? You are so stubborn. You are so rebellious. You are so weird.
I said that you do not conform to my presumptions. So, in punishment, I do not condone your drama. You do not even seem to be paranoid about whether or not I approve of you. Why not? What is your problem? STOP!
Science is the STUDY of the natural order. Science is not the activity of arrogantly condemning contrary interpretations and criminalizing them. However, part of the order of modern human civilization is the condemning and criminalizing of perceived threats.
I think that other people should not be so ashamed of themselves. I really just do not get it how they are like so ashamed, you know?
No, no, I am NOT frustrated. Listen to me for once, okay? I did not say that! I hate it when you always analyze me every time I am shouting at you like that is some kind of a big deal to you. Look, I am just saying that they SERIOUSLY need to stop being ashamed before, um, before it is TOO LATE….
I mean, what if they start to over-react? What then? Have you even THOUGHT of that? What if they start being all DRAMATIC for no GOOD reason?!?!
I mean, what are people going to THINK of them if they are ashamed about themselves the wrong way or for the wrong reason? What happened to all of the loyal perfectionists anyway?!?!
Where can I find a REAL perfectionist these days? I’ve been looking around for someone WORTHY of the title of perfectionist and I have been FORCED to conclude, despite my absolutely heroic optimism on the subject, that no one is truly DESERVING of the title of perfectionist. What a HUGE disappointment this whole idealism thing has turned out to be!
The author‘s point about “consumer spending” contributing to the job market is quite valid. However, what is the real point? Is the article about promoting practical clarity (that would be useful in guiding an individual’s choices) or just promoting a change in regard to political idealism?
If the best possible result of reading the article is a new opinion about “here is what OTHER PEOPLE should do,” then what value is that to me NOW? The closing comment is a political idealism that “what we need is to understand that we are in this together.” I understand all of the points that the authored references, but I have a different conclusion:
“What makes a difference for me is when I am being responsible. When I am being responsible and lots of other folks are so jealous of me that they also start being responsible, that may be what WE really NEED.”
As a reminder, a decade ago, I forecast the decline of the economy worldwide, and especially in the US and Europe (with publications starting in 2003). In 2004, I specified the issue of a pending rise in fuel prices (and explained why I forecast such a huge rise and exactly what the diverting of funds to pay for fuel would mean for real estate markets and stock markets- below is the last few years of the US stock market index for the “housing sector”).
A few years after my initial publications, when fuel prices hit $11 per gallon in parts of Europe, prior economic trends quickly destabilized. What has happened since then is precisely the sequence that I called “The DominOil Effect” in 2004.
The recent cries of “relief” that gas prices are back down below $3 are absolutely “on schedule.” People are simply reacting. They have no comprehension of the issues or of the “predictable and almost certain future,” which might be so terrifying to some of them that they distract themselves with arguments about which form of political idealism is the least idealistic….
So, I back up further now to explore “what creates jobs/earnings/revenues.” To answer “the economy,” like the other author did, is absolutely worthless. Let’s explore a bit further.
Demand for services (and goods) plus an available labor force “creates” specialization (like learning the skills of plumbing or video editing or building cabinets, etc). What “the economy” values (after being influenced through commercial advertisements, government mandates, and so forth) gets supported with funding. People who are most “in tune” with that demand can make the largest rewards.
For instance, in the 1850s in San Francisco, thousands of poor men flooded the area prospecting for gold. A few became rich from the gold they found. Most did not. The group that had the biggest profits with very low risk were *suppliers* who sold equipment to the men who came for the gold rush. Also, because there were so few women in the area, women who worked as waitresses, strippers, and so on were able to earn money that was far beyond what was available for similar “services” at the peak of the famous Las Vegas “sin economy” of the 20th century.
If the author wanted to offer a serious commentary on tax regulations, I deem him “way off target” so far. People like me who forecast the economic decline of recent years (and near future) have demonstrated competence and clarity. However, how many of our articles that promote “personal responsibility through personal adaptiveness” have you seen shared on your facebook thread lately?
We forecast the economic shift as well as forecasting the political reactions attempted rather consistently in the US, EU, and Japan - we forecast the economic change, the public reactions and political reactions to the same sequence of FUEL-PRICE DRIVEN changes. We also noted which government responses (which tax regulations) would be most de-stabilizing or most reliable for promoting economic health.
Further, while politicians in the State of Arizona argue over budget cuts, the State of Alaska has had record profits from taxes collected from the sale of oil at over $100 a barrel – even over $140 a few years ago. That state can afford to give out thousands of dollars per year to every single resident as a “dividend” simply to attract them to stay in Alaska. Why? Because the state of Alaska is eager to keep people there where the population can work to keep all of that oil flowing to the rest of the US.
The lack of maturity (and lack of responsibility) in how most people relate to financial change is something that radically effects what behaviors are practiced and what results are produced. Those who have demonstrated clarity, competence, maturity, and so on may get increasing attention from a select group of motivated individuals. What will motivate them? In many cases, fear is what will motivate people to consider that some of their presumptions may be inaccurate and even “expensive.”
The waves of fear seen in 2007-8 in the US and EU were just hints of what is to come. Let those who have the courage to be responsible and lead give up conversations for who to blame and “what other people should do.”
First, his article (I’ll paste it below) is obviously meant to stir passions and to polarize readers- even to terrify people and infuriate them. Here is the very short version:
Guilt is an important issue though. Anyone who is not mature enough to directly face the issue of guilt will be easily manipulated by Wayne’s emotional passions.
So, I agree that systematic redistribution of wealth is planned and also is already happening- but it is not just a “national” issue. The US is an empire and derives immense economic benefits from it’s military dominance far beyond the borders of the US.
People may talk with surprise about the US being in Iraq or Afghanistan for a decade. Why is that so surprising? Is it because some politicians and the media created the presumption that the military occupation would be brief?
Is that also what happened when the US established military bases in Japan or Germany? About 70 years have passed with constant US military presence in those places. In the beginning, did politicians and the media publicize the idea of a brief occupation? I don’t know or care.
Taxation is redistribution of wealth by military coercion. Taxation is not something that was invented recently or in the US.
The military could be rewarded with food, salt, land, and many other ways. A system of tithes (giving ten percent of productivity to the court system) was used to support the business of the court systems. Why did people give ten percent to be part of the system?
In modern times, when an Iraqi civilian pay taxes to the court system ruled by US interests, why do they give up their percentage of income? Could the threat of coercion be a factor in the compliance of the masses? If a court system stopped issuing garnishments or arrest warrants, would that effect compliance rates?
The courts used violence to produce compliance. They dictated tax rates. They also dictated what form of payment would be accepted for payment of taxes. That is the origin of currency.
I’ve addressed all of this extensively elsewhere. Basically, the armies of the ruling courts created exclusive access to gold mines, then declared gold the sacred substance for the payment of taxes. The armies could “sell” gold to the masses (at exchange rates dictated by the ruling courts) and then the masses would pay their “tax debts” to the soldiers in the form of gold. In other words, the soldiers left with the gold and the sheep or wheat that the “Taxpayer” had used to “buy” gold from the soldiers.
Correctly, some Hebrew prophets noted that the gold itself was not the issue. The violence of the tax-collector terrorists was always the root of the authority of the court system, not a small chunk of metal that was otherwise useless to the average civilian.
To me, even if Wayne is sincere, his content is not “high value” to me. For one thing, there is a tone of desperation (despair) and hints of animosity, resentment, & even contempt.
On the subject of health care and Obamacare (the primary focus in Wayne’s commentary), if you want to promote your own health, go ahead. The FDA is not stopping me from promoting my own health. Maybe they publicize myths that promote the commercial interests of certain lobbying influences, but what is unusual about that?
TV ads promote certain specific interests, too. Idealists may respond with outrage to the fact that TV ads promote the interests of the business who is paying for the ads, but those idealists may be fools.
I have not read Wayne’s book and I doubt that I would. If he promotes valuable adjustments that people can make, then so be it. I have been promoting a set of simple steps since my first publication in 2003. In my 2004 publication of “The REAL U.S. Deficit: OIL!” I detailed the coming rise in fuel prices in the US (and elsewhere), the reasons for it, the predictable consequences of it, and how to benefit from it (including accurate assessments of market risks).
However, most people remained loyal to ridiculous presumptions about real estate markets and stock markets and fuel prices. They lost huge amounts of wealth (to people who were more committed to prudence). That “redistribution” (toward the prudent and away from the foolish) naturally will continue… and indeed I expect it to accelerate dramatically by early 2014.
Those who are complacent may have feared the insecurity of straying too far from the mainstream herd. They may have feared the guilt of simply admitting their self-interests and promoting them. They may have been terrified or at least ongoingly frightened (paranoid). They got the results that perfectly fit their behavior.
If people are ashamed of promoting their own health and finances, that may explain their complacency (and even repulsion toward unfamiliar methods or ideas). When I suddenly lost the ability to walk in 2007 (through what could have been called “incurable” Multiple Sclerosis by agents of the state who are relatively ignorant of physiology and pathology), I was motivated to explore unfamiliar methods and ideas. My solution cost less than $10 and I recovered the ability to walk overnight (along with the disappearance of severe insomnia, mental haziness, and so on- OVERNIGHT!).
So, when I read commentaries from authors like Wayne, I see their presumptions and their logic. When I see their presumptions and their logic, I assess how much value it might have for me. I took the time to make this reply not because of interest in Wayne, but because of who sent me Wayne’s commentary.
Wayne claims to be a patriot and savior and hero and good guy. I am not so concerned with those titles or any other titles. I am interested in health and in wealth (which can be very good for the health of my kin and descendants).
If you want the emotional experience of having a new savior (and to always be looking for the next savior), then you may be interested in reading Wayne’s book. If you are simply interested in things like health and wealth, those subjects have much more value to me.
In promoting health, we may even be given the opportunity to sacrifice past shame and guilt- with no resentments- through forgiveness. Worshiping the presumptive idealism of the programming of psychological warfare is detrimental to your health. Wayne preaches a religion of fear and contempt and desperation. I say to beware of it.
I propose that salvation REQUIRES forgiveness. Further, after your personal “salvation” from shame, there is still much else to be done.
“Help thyself, and God will help thee” – George Herbert, 1651
“Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” Quran, Chapter 13:11:
Or, do not help yourself and instead respond to intimidating threats of the guilt you should feel, according to Wayne. For fun, count below the number of times that Wayne shames you, his reader. Not very respectful, is he?
WHY OBAMACARE IS A FANTASTIC SUCCESS by Wayne Allyn Root
There are two major political parties in America. I’m a member of the naïve, stupid, and cowardly one. I’m a Republican.
How stupid is the GOP? They still don’t get it.
I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago (“The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide“), and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that ObamaCare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy.
The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT.
Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism.
This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism.
It’s not a failure, it’s Obama’s grand success.
It’s not a “trainwreck,” ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.
Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky — a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intentions.
To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class.
The GOP is so stupid they can’t see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack.
The tell-tale sign isn’t the disastrous start to ObamaCare. Or the devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- bringing on a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.
The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Obama administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop ObamaCare, “terrorists.”
There’s the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that.
They are calling the reasonable people…the patriots…the people who believe in the Constitution … the people who believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed…the people who want to take power away from corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt…terrorists?
That’s because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class…are calling the patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public.
ObamaCare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts:
1. ObamaCare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream — redistribution of wealth.
Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote for Democrats).
Think about it. If you’re rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own health care costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people’s costs too (through massive tax increases).
So you’re stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.
2. ObamaCare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government.
Think about it. Even Obama’s IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can’t possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless.
Bingo. That’s how you make middle class people dependent on government. That’s how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.
3. As a bonus, ObamaCare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs.
Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.
4. ObamaCare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP.
Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by ObamaCare.
Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? Small Business.
Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can’t write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the “mother’s milk” of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo.
That’s the point of ObamaCare. Obama is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.
5. ObamaCare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful.
It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of ObamaCare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Obama and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets.
By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Obama and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign.
Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Obama and conservative groups?
Now Obama hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.
6. ObamaCare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers.
That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes — thereby guaranteeing Obama’s friends never lose another election, and Obama’s policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he’s out of office.
Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism.
This isn’t a trainwreck. It’s purposeful suicide.
It’s not failing, it’s working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what he’s doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting.
Oh and one more thing…Conservatives aren’t “terrorists.” We are patriots and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls, America is lost…forever.
Wayne Allyn Root is capitalist evangelist, entrepreneur, and Libertarian-conservative Republican.
He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee.
A historical summary…. Something of a series of comments, but with a theme:
The US extracted huge amounts of oil since the late 19th century which was used for things like the steel industry (some of which was exported) as well as refining the oil for fuel for things like invading Europe twice (WW1 and WW2). First, the leadership of the UK had used diplomacy to obtain US support for the formation of the USSR. Then, “certain parties” lent large sums of money to the UK’s “new colonies” (the US and USSR) to create massive military-industrial complexes in the US and USSR (the two global superpowers which also were the #1 and #2 producers of oil in the 20th century).
Not only did the US and USSR fight the wars of the UK, but went in to debt to the UK in order to afford the economic costs of the various wars (and the cold war rivalry of the two UK client states of the US and USSR has been enormously profitable for the Crown, especially the huge amounts of foreign-sourced borrowing by the US). It was a series of huge diplomatic victories for the British Empire which is still very vital today.
As time went on, the US eventually (around 1970) began importing oil to consume even more than was produced here in the US. But that is relatively trivial. Further, the US continued to spread it’s wing of the “Anglo-American” empire with a web of military bases in places like Germany and Japan (and later Iraq and Afghanistan, etc).
The idea that the US empire is in decline is an odd idea. Try selling that one to the average Iraqi (or to a Hopi living on the reservation).
The US empire has varied in the speed of its expansion. It may even contract on occasion. However, like the British Empire, it is far from “weak.”
Larger global patterns sometimes involve sudden and radical changes to regional politics. However, the sudden changes can take decades to set up.
The KGB‘s enduring “demoralization” propaganda has reached new popularity with such programs as the Tea Party, “the Occupy movement,” and of course the classic “underdog heroes” of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, who propose such idealistic jokes as “abolish the Federal Reserve” and “gold is more important than fuel and nuclear missiles.”
Again, consider that the US is a “client state” of the British Empire, like Israel (see Balfour Declaration) and the USSR. When the perception of the US public is desperate enough, then “solutions” can be advanced like the New Deal and WW2. People are more receptive when they are panicked.
The Anglo-American Empire is thriving. The advancing FEAR of poverty of the masses in the UK or US is trivial in regard to the future thriving of US military imperialism.
By the way, most people in the US have no idea what “third world poverty” is like. Shame, not “abject” poverty, is the near future for much of the US middle class. The neurological havoc produced in the US through such chemicals as Aspartame is an immense success for those who wish to dull the masses.
The demoralization programs of the KGB have been hugely successful. The decline of the US middle class is about to accelerate. The arrogance and naivete of US idealists has been cultivated for decades by the KGB (and similar interests).
The paranoia of the US middle class keeps them from looking closely at simple economic realities. The complacency of the masses in the US is “epic.” They distract themselves with politics and pop culture rather than face the simple realities of their own economic alternatives. “While Rome is burning, the middle class gathers loyally to play their violins.”
Anyway, this fellow featured in the below video claimed to be a defector. I will simply say that I consider that a questionable claim. However, the general commentary that he made seems quite consistent with actual events.
JR’s comments are below. First, here is MS’s comment and the image she posted on facebook:
I’m not impressed by directors/writers using sex, violence or graphic drug use in movies, tv, etc for making an impact and getting higher viewing. I think it’s a cheap cop-out.
A true director’s/writer’s (artist’s) message is strong enough to get across in a subtle, graceful manner. There is certain class to the subtle-ness that seems to be less and less available these days.
Presumptive idealism can produce much confusion. Perhaps that is why so much of the programming of churches, schools, and the mass media is to promote various forms of presumptive idealism.
From the daily weather report to 90-minute advertisements called movies, the true “message” is not what the viewer or reviewer remembers about the presentation. The true message is the influence on future action.
For instance, Miley Cyrus achieved significant publicity recently in the US through certain antics. Did she personally plan to cause controversy and bring attention to herself to boost her public notoriety? Or, was that not her own plan, but the plan of her choreographers, managers, and so on?
It does not matter really who planned it. If 92% of the people who have heard of her expressed condemnation of her recent “controversial” performance on TV, that is a lot of people who were talking about her. The fact that many were criticizing her is relatively trivial. Her fame increased.
The media adores celebrity scandals and exhibitionism. Why? Because the public responds to them. The public tunes in.
In a contrary case, a lady who hosted a cooking show (named Paula Deen) was in a different kind of scandal. She was fired. Why? It was not actually because a long time ago she used a particular word (“nigger”), but from the way she and others handled the public relations.
Maybe she was “targeted” or “set up.” Maybe the media or others sensationalized her story just for ratings.So, now let’s get back to the ideals of under-representation and misrepresentation. How many major movies feature autism? (I think of only 1: Rainman… or maybe we could count Forrest Gump as well). However, I recently read that the rate of autism has quickly gone from 1 in 10,000 to… 1 in 54 (in the US).
Is there ANY group that is proportionately represented in movies? Are movies for documenting reality? Are “the people” demanding more documentaries while avoiding fiction and fantasy and cartoons?
Why are only 42% of the main characters of cartoons animals (and what SEX are the animals?!?!?)? For every human on this planet, there are approximately 5,023,837 animals of other species. Therefore, my ideal could be that 1 in every 5 million movies should feature humans as the main characters. (However, vegetarian and vegans fiercely argue this point with cannibals, who say “let’s have LESS movies featuring plants as the main characters and MORE movies featuring humans!”)
The reality of idealism is that there is always going to be some representation to condemn as not the “right” representation. Idealism fixates on a particular presumptive model of what should be and then goes around looking for exceptions to that model, then condemns the gap between the model and reality as a problem with… the underlying reality (not simply noting an imprecision in the presumptive model).
Ideals are not idealism. Idealism is a way of relating to particular ideals as the best or even as the only right ones. Idealists ARGUE over ideals. They argue, generally, because of a panicked confusion about ideals.
Why would I condemn Miley Cyrus or Paula Deen or the mainstream media? Because I fear the experience they bring me. They may disturb my illusions. I may be so terrified of the realities that they present that I launch into a tantrum of condemnation.
I experience a panic that I glorify as “rescuing reality from reality.” I go from general paranoia that someone may challenge my presumptive idealism… to a full-blown panic of pre-emptive strikes against those who violate the holy idealism that I worship in naively arrogant idolatry.
I may fear criticism. I may fear that people may criticize me.
How do I cope with my self-rejection and shame? I project it on others. I seek to embarrass them and humiliate them. I focus on how reality should not be how it is.
How do I justify that? I fixate on some popular form of idealism.
Maybe I am a female. In that case, I can “defend my gender” heroically (by vilifying someone or some group and attacking them verbally).
Or, maybe I am a Protestant. In that case, I can look for some Catholics (or Muslims or Jews) to criticize and then liberate from their awful idealism by bombing them (with curse words of course- not like those horrible soldiers who dropped bombs on innocent civilians that one time).
Or, maybe I call myself a nigger. In that case, I can look for some people who also call me a nigger to condemn for calling me a nigger.
So, to all of my fellow Protestant female niggers out there, first I want to congratulate you all as the best Protestant female niggers. (You are the best because you are Protestant female niggers, which is the best thing to be).
Also, I have a confession. I am actually not a Protestant female nigger.
In reality, I am not even a cartoon character. I am just a series of shapes on your screen. I am little letters forming words that your eyes read and your brain interprets.
You filter all of these little shapes through your persona and through the idealisms that your persona pretends are the best ideals of all. However, there are no “best ideals of all.” No ideals are any better or worse than any other. They all are just models of what is better or worse (and all of them TEND to be “self-justifying” as in “self-celebrating”).
The ideals of “victimized underdogs” are always under-represented and misrepresented. For instance, in 83% of auto-biographies, the author focuses 2.83 times more than they should on their own personal history than on my own personal history.
Why aren’t there more movies (or at least books) about me personally? Why don’t people line up to pay $10 to watch a 90-minute interview of Miley Cyrus asking me to tell her about my wisdom and my intelligence and the sexually revealing sandals that I am wearing because it is warm wear I live?
Why isn’t Miley Cyrus sharing her fame with me? Why is she hogging the screen? What about her is the most wrong?
What about reality in general? What about reality is the most disappointing, frustrating, confusing, and infuriating? What part of reality should I sacrifice my life to worship with my attention?
What evil should I condemn as I heroically rescue the rest of reality from the part of reality that is the most unrealistic? Did you know that Paula Deen recently admitted to having sex a long time ago with the father of her children? She said “he was very impressive. You know what I mean by that, right?” Then she said “Yeah, he was actually a Polynesian with a very dark tan, but he sure was hung like a nigger!”
(By the way, that is not a reference to lynching / killing someone by hanging them from a tree. That was a verbal reference to the male sexual organ, like being “hung like a horse.” Female humans like Paula Deen apparently respond sexually to words and stories like in romance novels, rather than how male humans tend to have the most sexual response, which is to visuals, like charts and graphs that show dresses and bras- plus that filmstrip icon on the right is really HOT!)
“Agonizing requires language. So does condemnation, paranoia, shame, and also the experience that is the result of the behavior of agonizing, called agony.”
What is one of the most distinctive teachings of Jesus? Jesus taught that the path to heaven is forgiveness.
|… “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not
be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”
When I no longer use language to shame others, then I begin to see that shame is not fundamental. Shame is social. Shame is specific to certain contexts.
Further, it is inevitable that someone will practice a behavior that someone else shames or condemns (or fears). The shaming of past behavior is not to invalidate the importance of life, but an expression of the importance of life. Shaming is to promote the sanctity of life (at least according to some ruler).
Some behaviors may be so threatening to a social order that they are harshly punished by the powerful. In order to prevent harsh punishments, certain behaviors may be shamed through language. This is not to condemn the behaviors as being innately evil, but as socially important or sacred. Maybe substances are “biologically sacred,” like semen, and maybe only socially sacred, like the shape of a “Holy Cross.”
Is the human body inherently shameful, as some interpreters of the book of Genesis assert? Private nudity may not be considered shameful for infants (who have no language development and thus cannot understand shame anyway). However, public nudity even for infants may still be discouraged in some places, like outside in a snowstorm, hailstorm, or dust storm. In order to preserve the tender skin of the infant, clothing may be required. Parents who do not protect their infants from harsh weather may be punished, such as by the rulers even taking the infants and clothing them (or removing them from harsh weather). The infants may or may not be returned to the “negligent” parents.
Another example is sexuality. Because of the reproductive potential of sexuality, sexual practices may be shamed or sanctified. The power of sexuality is only important because human life is important.
In some cultures, public nudity of an adult female body (even a woman’s face) may be shamed as indicative of prostitution. Of course, prostitution itself is criminal in some cultures while part of the religious tradition of others (such as the vestal “virgins”).
Life itself is the source of sanctity. By labeling certain things as sacred or specially important, different cultures will have different traditions about what is sacred and what behaviors to shame and so on.
A popular regulation is the prohibition from murder (unlicensed killing of a human). Of course, throughout history, governments routinely kill their own citizens through capital punishment (like rituals of human sacrifice in the Aztec culture, or the Holy Roman Inquisition, or things like the the electric chair, impalement, stoning, or crucifixion). Further, governments routinely kill the civilians and soldiers of opposing governments, like when the US Military bombed two cities in Japan or when the Cambodian communists (the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot) slaughtered those loyal to the opposing local government which had previously ruled Cambodia.
So, the act of killing is sacred. Even the intentional killing of a human fetus may be criminal unless performed by a licensed agent of a state (as in whatever is recognized as a state by The Vatican or whoever controls the mass media or publishes books of popular historical mythology).
The criminalizing of particular behaviors is linguistic. Outside of language, there is so such thing as crime (or legality or illegality). Different cultures and regulatory systems will criminalize different behaviors.
There is nothing inherently criminal. It is not inherently criminal to pick up an apple from under an apple tree or to catch some fish in a pond. However, for someone “trespassing,” their mere presence somewhere may be considered criminal. They may be confronted by armed bullies who demand to see authorized paperwork licensing someone to be in that country or within the legal boundaries of those “property lines.”
“What gives you the right to pick up that apple,” the soldiers may ask of the slave. “You should not even be here! Get back inside of the barbed wire barriers of the concentration camp right now before we change our minds and kill you or torture you.”
So, we may learn to fear the systems of organized coercion in our midst. We may learn to respect their violence and the way that they use language.
When an empire invades a new colony, they may even make a particular language sacred (the only one legally valid) while criminalizing all other languages. That is what the US did to the Navajo in the 19th century, with Navajo criminals being sent to Alcatraz island for life imprisonment for the crime of speaking Navajo.
When we recognize the criminalization of behavior is contextual (social), then we do not condemn the person. We are not ashamed for innocently doing things that violated sacred regulations (like speaking in a criminal language or illegally picking up an apple from the ground). We may simply regret an action that was shamed by others (without us having an ongoing sense of personal shame). Without contempt, we respect the organized violence of the systems of intimidation and governing.
We may have been paranoid about “doing the wrong thing” or “saying the wrong thing,” and that paranoia shows intelligence. Paranoia in some degree is nearly universal. Civilians are programmed to fear their governments so that the civilians more obediently comply with tax laws and military drafts and so on.
Some civilians are also programmed to have contempt. They are programmed to be easily disturbed mentally and emotionally. They are trained in what to fear and what to shame. They are trained to argue or even kill in defense of their own hysterical paranoia as “the only form of hysterical paranoia that is right, holy, and sacred.”
This is not a mistake. Modern systems of governing, which originate with the Hebrew Prophet Noah, are specifically designed to rule all of humanity through organized coercion. Their methods include deception and confusion. Their oath-sworn priesthoods include judges and lawyers and deputy soldiers. They rule through violence in general and language in particular.
They train the masses in terror, confusion, shame, paranoia, and self-condemnation. That is their function and purpose. They favor the rulers through implementing and protecting systems for inequally distributing wealth from the masses to the rulers.
There is no form of central authority that is not fundamentally a centralizing or concentrating of power and authority. Those who do not understand the nature of language may argue sincerely about which form of violent justice is the most just or the least violent. Justice is defined (dictated) by the ruling courts.
In the Hebrew tradition, Noah claimed authority over all of humanity on the grounds that if humanity did not obey Noah’s dictates, then God would kill all of humanity. The same God-King ideal has been called “the divine right of kings.” Pharaohs and Emperors have claimed to be the legal authority because of a Divine plan that gives them exclusive right to use organized coercion.
The King of Kings is a phrase used to reference a ruler above the rank of local kings. For instance, there are various popes of the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, and the Coptic church. The popes are the ones who claim the divine authority to coronate (crown) kings and queens within their jurisdiction. The actual ritual of coronation is typically performed by the local archbishop (the delegate inferior to the pope).
The hell of believing in a future of eternal punishment is a common belief within the branch of the Hebrew tradition called Christianity (as well as Islam). The masses are programmed to think of themselves as fundamentally deserving eternal punishment because their nature is inherently “wrong” (linguistically discouraged).
How can the masses redeem themselves? They must follow the dictates of the priesthoods of Noah. They can come to a church and learn about the sacred power of language from a Catholic priest, who is said to have the power to give salvation to an individual, to forgive sins, and to enter heaven.
Of course, the Bible indicates that Jesus taught his students to “forgive the sins of others and you will be forgiven.” However, which has more practical power: the shapes of ink on the page of a Bible or the massive military crusades directed by the Vatican?
|… If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you
retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.
Ironically, those who shame others increase their own emotional disturbance through the activity of condemning. This is why Jesus taught “turn away from what is disturbing to you.”
“For to the pure everything is pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving… nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience is defiled.”
Titus 1:15 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”
If you wish to enter in to the kingdom of heaven, you must cease from any practices of agonizing or shaming. These practices disturb the natural state of contentment in to a state of paranoia, agony, or hell.
“ 3Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. 4Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. 5Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! 6And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. “
James 3:3-6, http://biblehub.com/kjv/james/3.htm
How could language be important? In particular, how could the specific ways that we use language be important? If we shift our relationship to language itself, how could that be valuable?
First, consider that language can be the source both of human society and of personal agony. Can you imagine society without a complex set of words to organize huge networks of cooperation? No?
Was language important in the construction of the building in which you live? Was it important in the distribution of the food you eat (or the cultivation of that food)? Was it important in the development of the modern technology that you use or for the mining of the minerals used in high-tech devices like radios, telegraphs, satellites, airplanes, and the electrical wiring in your home?
How about this: can you imagine a newborn human practicing the behavior of agonizing? If not, then why not? How about some other newborn organism of some other species? Can a dolphin agonize? A spider? A horse? An eagle?
Agonizing requires language. So does condemnation, paranoia, shame, and also the experience that is the result of the behavior of agonizing, called agony. None of these are innate to humanity. None of these experiences are possible for creatures that do not actively use language. Further, for someone who is clear about the nature of language, the practices of agonizing and shaming may lose momentum or even simply cease.
In the US, today is the celebration of Thanksgiving. Today, I am am thankful for language itself as well for a new clarity emerging in regard to language. The new clarity about language brings liberation from confusion about the nature of language.
How is that important? The new clarity about language also brings liberation from confusion about the linguistic origin of agony (as well as shame, paranoia, and condemnation).
Many words have been used to reference this liberation from confusion about language. Enlightenment, revelation, salvation, heaven, and grace are a few of them.
Do you have a sense that some words are more important than others? Do you consider some words to be more sacred or more powerful than others?
Considering that there are hundreds of distinct languages being used by humanity across the globe today, do you think that there is anyone who knows even a single word in every language? So, some words are going to be more powerful for you than others. In fact, some words will seem to you to have no power whatsoever because you do not even recognize them as words at all.
Further, there are dozens of distinct alphabets (as well as non-alphabetic systems of writing like hieroglyphics). Do you think that anyone could learn every single shape of every single form of writing that humans have ever used?
Which is the most sacred letter in any human alphabet? Which letter is most powerful?
People who speak English might answer “I.” Because that letter is used for self-reference (like “I am feeling great”), the letter “I” certainly has distinct importance to speakers of English.
However, consider that most of humanity does not know any English. Billions of people might not even know the letter “I” (which is also written as “i”).
Some Italians might even say that the letter “I” is very important because it symbolizes the numerical unit 1. Thousands of clocks have the Roman Numeral “I” near the top, right?
When counting as a child, I learned to make markings of a vertical line (like the shape of I or 1). I would mark up to four vertical lines and then make a new line through all four of the prior parallel lines. The new line would be diagonal like in the letter V.
What was the origin of the four parallel vertical lines and a fifth diagonal line? It was a visual “shadow” of the the simplest form of counting on fingers, plus a thumb.
How would I write a symbol for “thumb?” A relaxed open hand with the palm facing my face would make a shape like a V (between the thumb and the side of the palm).
If I was counting to ten on my fingers, I could cross my two thumbs and make an X. Other shapes that are easy to make with my hands are C and L. However, one of the very simplest shapes that I could make would be to extend a single “Index” finger, which I could record in writing as an “I.”
Why do I mention all of this about the letter “I?” To establish that the letter “I” has no fundamental importance whatsoever. It is just a code or a symbol. It represents something else. It is merely an indicator or reminder.
The only importance of I is relative to an individual human observer. The actual observer is obviously more important than the linguistic symbol for the observer (“I, Ich, Je, Yo” etc). The observer may or may not interpret some meaning for a particular linguistic representation (such as “I,” which refers directly back to the observer). Clearly, the letter I (or the sound of the spoken word “I”) does not mean anything to horses or spiders or earthquakes or electromagnetic storms.
In fact, language itself has importance only relative to a particular observer or witness. Words like heaven or sacred do not mean anything to a newborn, especially if the newborn is a duck or a cat or a goldfish or an amoeba, right?
So, I mentioned that we are talking about language as the source of agony. I mentioned that the linguistic behavior of agonizing is the source of agony. I did not mention yet that all that it takes to interrupt agony is to discontinue the activity of linguistic agonizing.
If I was going to talk about what in the Buddhist tradition is called “the Four Noble Truths,” then I might say more about the reality of agony, the cause of agony (which is the linguistic behavior of agonizing), about the removal of the cause of agony (which is to discontinue the linguistic behavior), and then also a few other items such as the correct way of mindful speaking and even the correct way of precise perceiving. However, I am not focusing on the Buddhist tradition as special or more sacred than any other.
I am more familiar personally with the Hebrew tradition (and the two more recent branches of Hebrew tradition: Christianity and Islam). The ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah warned about the mistaking of symbols as the things symbolized. In other words, it is not the physical book of written scriptures that is most sacred, but the lessons of what the scriptures record (which had already been an oral tradition of the Hebrews prior to the development of the Hebrew alphabet).
The written word for Divinity is not spoken aloud by orthodox Hebrews, not because the word itself is sacred in itself, but because what is represented by the word is so sacred. The word can be translated in to other languages and people could even argue and agonize about which word (or which language) is most “fundamentally” sacred.
That practice is called idolatry: focusing on the symbol rather than on what it symbolizes. Ancient Hebrews spoke about idolatry because it was a basic confusion among them; some people gave so much respect to the particular words or even to the sacred shapes like “the star of David” that the Prophet Isaiah labeled their practices as “vanity, foolishness, delusion.” Isaiah famously said that some people were worshiping only with their lips rather than with their hearts.
Other Hebrew prophets said similar things. In fact, the most famous Hebrew prophet, Jesus, specifically quoted the above warning of Isaiah (as recorded in Mark 7:6-13), while also referencing the prior Hebrew prophet Moses:
6But he said to them, “Isaiah the Prophet prophesied beautifully of you impostors, just as it is written: ‘This people honors me with its lips, but their heart is very far from Me.’
7‘And in vain they pay reverence to me as they teach doctrines of commandments of the sons of men.’
8“You forsake the commandments of God and you keep the traditions of the sons of men: washings of cups and pots and many such things like these.”
9He said to them, “Well you reject the commandment of God that you may establish your traditions.” 10For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”, and “Whoever reviles father and mother shall die the death.” 11But you say, “If a man shall say to his father or to his mother, ‘My offering is anything that you shall gain from me.’ 12Then you do not allow him to do anything for his father or his mother. 13And you reject the word of God for the traditions that you deliver, and many things like these you do.”
So, we began by asking how could language be important. One thing that is only possible with language is the idolatry of thinking of language as more sacred than life itself. In other words, we can reject the creations of God (or neglect them) in order to worship human symbols (like a specific sequence in a particular language).
The fundamental value of humanity does not cancel the value of language (or of religious traditions). Humanity is simply the source of the importance of language (and reverence for particular religious traditions).
Before we conclude, we will repeat something we read earlier. Let’s elaborate a bit on it.
“Agonizing requires language. So does condemnation, paranoia, shame, and also the experience that is the result of the behavior of agonizing, called agony.”
(Go to part 2 to continue reading: http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/the-power-of-language-from-hell-to-heaven-pt-2-of-2/.)