Posts Tagged ‘government’

The propaganda of centralized governments (about health)

September 2, 2014
“Land of the free” is just a slogan. Ask a Native American (who knows the real history of their tribe). However, if you ask an immigrant to the US who came from the Soviet bloc (for instance), they will also note that some slogans have a lot of truth to them.

 
Let’s talk about centralization and decentralization. First, let’s talk about systems for influencing public perception (as well as public focus and public behavior). These are systems for forming herds (and leading them, governing them, and regulating them, as in managing the herd of human resources).
 
Modern civilization includes a few institutions for influencing public perceptions. The oldest one that I will mention is “the church.” In places like Great Britain or parts of the middle east, the political leader (hereditary monarch) is also the official head of the religious intstitutions. The churches, whether government-funded or otherwise, focus on certain issues and ignore or dismiss others.
 

Another innovation in the influencing of public opinion was the printing press (and publications like newspapaer and magazines). Later, that became raido and TV and so on. Again, the media outlets focus on certain issues and ignore or dismiss others.

 
When these are government-regulated, like by the FCC, that produces a culture of a certain level of censorship. When the media is government-funded or government-operated, then every single program can be presumed to be government propaganda.
 
In the case of public schools, with virtually all schools government-operated in the US for the last century or so, then every bit of the curriculum is not only funded by the government, not only regulated, but entirely produced by them. Whether any particular school is a government propaganda program or otherwise, each school will focus on certain issues and ignore or dismiss others. 
 
With big, controlling networks that have a “common core,” there will naturally be a dramatic reduction in diversity of content. That is what common core means, after all, right?
 
 

So, centralization of authority ALWAYS corresponds to less receptivity to certain kinds of content as well as “bias” toward big funders. When there is a decentralized set of media outlets, then it can be challenging for a single “tyrant” to influence every single media outlet (or school or church). It is harder to censor or suppress information without centralized distribution and control mechanisms.

In particular, the “wire services” of AP & Reuters allow for huge numbers of media outlets to all program the masses with the same “curriculum.” Further, when there is a regulatory power like the FCC watching every move by AP and Reuters, then that effects content, too.

Plus, there are many cases of fabricated propaganda that governments create and then feed to the private media. Edward Bernays wrote about the deceptions that he used as a US government contractor to get the US public to be more receptive to the idea of invading Europe. He “sold” World War 1 to the US public. How? Deception was a reliable method (consistently effective). He made up emotionally-charged accusations and then had a big budget to get those stories published as “news.”

In WW2, while our allies the USSR were slaughtering tens of millions of their own citizens, they also massacred about 22,000 Polish people and blamed it on the Nazis. Because the USSR was our ally and the Nazis were our enemy, the US (and UK) media publicized the Katyn Forest Massacre as another Nazi atrocity. It was not.

Further, the idea of a massive holocaust in Germany is notable relative to the devastation conducted by the USSR in Ukraine and elsewhere. The popular figure for the total deaths in the German holocasut is 6 million.  Not only is that figure considered by many to be immesnely inflated, but it is still dwarfed by the series of genocide conducted by the USSR (the US ally).

But the US government’s “ministry of information” did not “feed” AP & Reuters stories about the genocides of our communist allies. Instead, the Katyn Forest massacre was blamed on the Nazis as well as a variety of emotionally-charged stories, like making soap from human flesh or using human skin for lampshades. If some of these stories were “recycled” inflammatory content created by Edward Bernays, they were not publicized for accuracy but for emotional impact.

So there are many layers to the issue of centralizing information. There are clear cases of falsehood like the Gulf of Tonkin “attacks against the US” that the US used to justify aggression against Vietnam. Basically, the US Navy traveled many thousands of miles to bring immense military power to the edge of Vietnam, then publicized a report of an attack against a US vessel, then “retaliated.” The report of the original attack was later admitted as entirely false, but the invasion itself did not stop because of that detail.

The current “official” version of the story is that the US Secreatry of Defense McNamara intentionally deceived President Johnson. However, some radicals assert that the US invasion of Vietnam was a choice made long before that, with the assassination of JFK to remove him as a “barrier” to the invasion. LBJ may have been ignorant and naive or may have just been smart enough to have a lower-ranking agent (lower than his rank) be the “bad guy.”

What about matters of health? Would commercial interests lobby for the creation of US government agencies to advance the interests of the lobbyists? Would the lobbyists try to influence their agency (the one that they created)  so as to protect the economic interests of the lobbyists?

If margarine sales depended on a demonization of saturated fat, could the commercial interests get the FDA to approve the use of margarine (whether safe or healthy or what) and also permit a demonizing of saturated fat? What if the lobbyists could get the FDA to do the demonizing itself and at the expense of taxpayers? That would be a great result for a lobbyist or PR firm, right?

The idea that the FDA or the CDC ever had any scientific credibility or integrity is an interesting idea. Where did you learn it? From the government-operated schools and government-regulated media?

Consider the allegation by the FDA that cholesterol is a dangerous substance. Millions of species of animal on this planet all have livers and all of those livers are constantly producing cholesterol, which can then be made in to estrogen and cortisol and vitamin D. How many of those animals are harmed by cholesterol?

The FDA can publicize the idea that all of those animals are harmed by cholesterol. That is not only false, but ridiculous. Even now, though, if you go to a grocery store or search online for cholesterol, you can find reference to “lowering cholesterol” as if that is a good thing. (What if there is extensive evidence that lowering cholesterol has huge long-term detriments?)

What is the actual issue that led to the demonization of cholesterol? Cholesterol is sent to damaged tissue to help repair it. So, there is a correlation between cholesterol and various kinds of medical conditions.

The FDA, as an instrument of lobbyists, publicized the idea that cholesterol caused the damage to the tissue. This is exactly like saying that the presence of paramedics CAUSES medical emergencies. It has no scientific credibility and never did.

However, demonizing cholesterol was recognized as a profitable promotion. This allowed for the creation of a new industry: toxic drugs to impair the function of the liver in regard to the manufacturing of cholesterol.

Some radicals assert that the FDA has always been an instrument of special commercial interests (created by them and directed by them). They say things like “the only thing the FDA has ever done is to conduct a war on science.”

However, anonymous sources within the FDA have issued statements saying “we operate only to promote the interests of you personally and of all of the other human resources that we manage.” Hillary Clinton recently said, “This is a huge relief to know, right?”

So, as to the issue of “holding the government officials accountable,” who will do that? Other government agencies? Really?

The wise thing to do is to “wake up” to the nature of governments. They are systematically violent and deceptive.

In the case of the 1979 Iran hostage situation, certain US politicians took actions to delay the release of the hostages to promote the campaign of Reagan over Carter. Among the leading agents of the operation were Oliver North and Caspar Weinberger. They illegally laundered drug money from central America and they illegally traded in weapons in order to convince the Iranians to keep the US hostages captive until Reagan’s inauguration.

North was later convicted (and sentenced) and Weinberger was indicted (plus 4 others) and awaiting trial. President GWH Bush had the legal right to interrupt all of those legal punishments and did so.

Marc Rich was not as well known. He was involved in illegal smuggling of oil out of Iran during the embargo of the late 1970s. After massive donations to causes “near to the heart of Bill Clinton,” Clinton also reversed the convictions against Marc Rich (which included tax evasion and fraud, etc).

Those are events within our lifetimes. Prior to our lifetimes, were governments less violent or less deceptive? Government propaganda all over the world may suggest that “our government, which is so unlike the evil governments of so many other places and times, has always been the best one ever.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

on the myth of “declining government honesty”

August 21, 2014
  • Daniel Fritschler Isn’t this [the reality of a long history of deception by governments] almost common sense anymore?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Not for those who are still operating from the interpretive models programmed in public schools.
  • Daniel Fritschler So they can’t see how other government’s operate and how even the history books speak of dishonesty and corruption when it comes to the American government. Maybe they do see it but are just afraid to acknowledge it…blind because of fear and not naivety? Maybe?
  • Daniel Fritschler I think in today’s day and age of technology either you have to be avoiding the truth of how systems or societies work or you are just cowered in a corner because of fear. Perhaps the third group just isn’t intelligent enough to put the puzzle together and view the big picture but I would bet most are.
  • Daniel Fritschler I mean you can’t tell me people conform because of their peers or pressure from others after high school(or just an imaginary or perceived threat) but they can operate from the real threat or the fear of knowing what the government is capable of. So the fear shifts from other people as in friends, acquaintances and/or family to an actual threat or the corruption of the imperialistic empire.


The myth of “declining government honesty”

August 19, 2014
  • The idea that the US government was previously more honest than lately has been a popular idea… for centuries. It is based of course on a particular perception about past honesty.

    Those who independently study the nature of government may encounter some simple facts about all governments. (Note that in order to distract the masses from independent research, governments often make it a high priority to program the masses with pro-government propaganda through indoctrination systems of schools which may be government-regulated, or even government-funded or, in the most extreme cases, even operated by governments.)

    The mainstream media is similar (though in the US, the media is not as socialized as the primary school system). If you care to research the history of US government pro-war propaganda, two good sources are War is a Racket by USMC Major General Smedley Butler (1935)
    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/…/major_general…
    and…

    www.rationalrevolution.net

    Throughout the years various men of military service have spoken up and….

    There is also this book from 1928 in which the nephew of Sigmund Freud (who was also the founder of the PR industry) details how he invented inflammatory anti-German propaganda in order to incite antagonism in the US public so as to reduce the resistance to the first US invasion of Europe (what later became known as “World War One”)

The roots of money and imperialism: The Prophet Noah

May 22, 2014

 

S.O. asked: “how come?”
J.R. replied:

The Prophet Noah said that unless the Hebrew tribes imposed a government court system on all of humanity, then a new apocalypse would destroy humanity. These court systems extorted wealth from their subjects and dictated the form of payment to be used to pay the invented debts that the government extortion rackets claimed from the masses.

However, it was not just guile and trickery that made this system so effective, but brutality and intimidation. The massacring of the Midianites ordered by Moses was one instance of slaughter that spread terror (and compliance) throughout the growing zionist empire. The Holy Roman Inquisition (with it’s tortures and crusades) is a branch of the same system of organized coercion. All governments have this same basic foundation.

On the glorifying of anti-government protests

April 24, 2014
A friend wrote to me about this article:
My reply:
​​
It is an interesting sequence. To me, it looks like a possible “set-up.”I read that the BLM apparently had a “leak” which resulted in lots of people knowing some BLM plans and then coming together to intervene. Did the BLM do that on purpose on orders from higher up? Was this another spectacle designed to inflame tensions?When most people comment on the story (on facebook), I see the two reactionary approaches of “the government is wrong” or “those rebellious people are crazy and dangerous and need to be subdued. Who do they think they are?” There is no real dialogue on the issues and no one is interested in anything but justifying their prior conclusions and publicizing their favorite opinions.

That author’s take is the same kind of thing to me. If this was a poker game, this was not a one-round game. This was, to me, an experiment by the Feds in regard to what reaction they could produce. I would not be surprised if almost all of the protesters have been identified and received increased monitoring (and even targeting).

The reality is that challenging armed government agents can go very poorly for the challengers. That point seems to be completely ignored in the comments of the story that you sent me. I am sure that he has knowledge of protests getting demolished in places like Ohio (in 1970 when 4 college students were shot by the US National Guard), the Ukraine, Africa, Cambodia, Israel, Arabia, or Teinanmen Square (and note that the photographed incident below actually was notable because it was so unusual that the civilian was not simply killed).

TANKMAN OF TIANANMEN SQUARE

The central point of George Orwell in the book 1984, which so many seem to miss, is that governments may occasionally set up events to draw out “protestors” to identify themselves to the government. Many “anti-government” authors are funded by governments (even if the actual source of the funding is hidden from the author). Some anti-government groups are started by the government (or inflitrated and then co-opted).

Anyway, here is what he said to glorify the actions of the protestors (and the text in bold is his emphasis, not mine):

BLM showed up with “lawful orders” backed up by two different (federal) courts. But the People did not perceive those order as being morally justified. Therefore, they chose not to recognize those orders as being lawful. As was the case at Bundy Ranch, Americans can and do think for themselves in such scenarios, and at any moment, they may decide that YOUR actions as a federal agent are grossly unlawful, immoral or unconstitutional. If enough people arrive at the same conclusion, you will sooner or later find yourself surrounded and possibly arrested by the People at gunpoint.

This concept does not compute with many federal agents because they were not taught the real roots of power in a free society. They are taught that a law written on a piece of paper is an absolute, irrefutable power which can never be questioned by lowly “civilians.” In reality, a law is nothing more than mutual consent of the governed. That consent, it turns out, can be invoked at any time if those who apply the law do so in a way that is egregious or unreasonable. All government power comes from the People, after all, and can therefore be revoked by the People if government becomes abusive or overreaching in its exercising of that power.

Laws mean nothing, after all, if they are not based on a sense of justice which can be recognized by the Common Man (or woman). 

 

Keep in mind that some times when a group assembles to protest the actions of the US as unlawful or unjustified, the US (for instance) does not stop. Did the US stop occupying Germany or Japan because of protests? No: 70 years later, troops are still there.

Did the US continue to the invasion of Vietnam even though some Vietnamese shot back at them? Yes, for many years.

What about Iraq? Did people really believe “we will pull out the troops as soon as I am elected” when some politician said that? Some people may be very naive. Some of the most naive may be some of the most vocal.

Anyway, with new technologies like social media, information (and photos or videos) CAN travel quickly. Those who USE that mechanism or at least RESPECT that mechanism may have a reduced reactivity to “social media” hysterias started by others.

lyrics: “what is a mastermind?”

November 3, 2013
What is a mastermind?
You ask “what is a mastermind?”
well how would I know
cause I’m just another fool
made from the public school mold
Same as you, same as me, same as almost everybody
We all say it shouldn’t be this way, but what can we do: pray?
Well, I even went to a Santa Claus church for a while
but their kind of circular logic never was my style
Some say they love the Bible, but they seem so scared of it
I quote one troubling verse to them and they freeze or flee from it
Shame is sacred to them which is fine with me
but they don’t want to admit it and that’s the irony
They’re scared someone might find out they’re scared
about someone finding out their religion is paranoia
 
They all say… be careful what you say
Or the devil may come to take you away
but I say… be careful how you say
Or the sheriff may come to take you away
Now I see the value in boogeymen and Santas
(to distract the kids and influence their actions)
We deceive them for their own good- that may be true
but is that deception an exception or the standard way to rule?
Which government teaches that their government isn’t
heroic and valiant and just and perfect?
Which religion teaches that their competition
deserves more authority and value and respect?
 
They all say… be careful what you say
Or the devil may come to take you away
but I say… be careful how you say
when you’re talking to the sheriff or the judge who heads the gang
Too many governments are violent and deceptive.
They shouldn’t be like that. They should be less competitive.
At least that’s what some politicians say
through the press release media propaganda campaign.
“My church is the only true one”
said every prophet in the history of religion
I get it. It keeps the subjects loyal.
Make them scared and guilty then trap them in a single coil.
Monopoly is the essence of their message.
If you want access to heaven, it’s quite exclusive.
But loyalty is the point of their theatrics
Do as we say or else… cause we handle the benefits
It’s like a government, with slightly different tactics
but so much is similar if you watch how they practice.
Take a crusade or holy inquisition
Coercion and deception govern. Now, do you get it?
They all say… be careful what you say
Or the devil may come to take you away
but I say… be careful how you say
when you’re talking to anyone who claims to be a savior
said the prophets of paranoia as they cast their spell.
“Hide your fear. Hide your shame. Hide your sadness and rage.
The only thing wrong with you is anything we don’t approve.”
Do I condemn them… shaking scared with contempt?
Or are all of these governing officers just my servants?
If accused of being the devil, do I defend in distress?
I neither confirm nor deny. “No comment” is my reply.
 
They all say… be careful what you say
Or the devil may come to take you away
but I say… for you it’s just too late, 
because now here I am.
 
What is a mastermind?
The mastermind is not the soldier who pulls the trigger
nor the officer who orders the shot.
The mastermind is the one who creates the puppets
and pulls the strings behind the scenes, all according to the plot.

The myth of benign government

July 8, 2013
The myth of benign government

 

 

 

 

Government House, Baku

Government House, Baku (Photo credit: indigoprime)

 

Governments govern human conduct as well as human perception. Many other organizations fit that broad description though. 

 

 

 

More specifically, governments are fundamentally violent. Governments influence human behavior using extortion rackets (of taxation and the invention of other public liabilities owed to the government, such as parking tickets, speeding tickets, and building inspection permits).

 

 

The Logo of Sindh Local Government

The Logo of Sindh Local Government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Governments coerce payment from their targets using relatively stable systems of organized violence to produce a redistributing of wealth. The redistribution of wealth by governments is always “inequitable,” with some benefiting more than others and at the expense of some more than others.

 

 

Governments organize a centralized diversion of access to resources to disproporti0nately benefit specific recipients (with subsidies, tax credits, benefits, grants, co-signed loan guarantees of groups like the FDIC, etc). The expense for these redistributions is also disproportionately from specific sources.

 

 

Seal of the United States Federal Deposit Insu...

Seal of the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It is primarily based on the the Treasury seal, especially the older version which was still in use in 1933. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

That systematic redistribution of resources is the primary purpose of governments. Ideals of “fairness” and “justice” shift over time to match with government programming: “who deserves the biggest disability subsidy? Who deserves the biggest reparation for racial discrimination: freed slaves or colonized natives?” These ideals shift over time, usually gradually, to justify the latest revenue programs, such as a $1,000 minimum fine for filing taxes late or a $500 minimum fine for driving a car with a cracked windshield or a $200/month fee for mandatory national health insurance.

 

blason du governorats

blason du governorats (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Finally, in order to increase the efficiency of their wealth redistribution programs, governments also influence human perception to increase compliance and enthusiasm. This is done through programming of the commercial media (licensed by governments) and through programming of the public school system (operated directly by government bureaucracies).
 
Obviously, the more people who are directly employed by government bureaucracies, the easier it is to produce compliance. For instance, when maintaining a nursing license requires proof of having filed taxes on time, the rate of compliance approaches 100%.

 

 

 

presumptions, expectations, blame, and… government currencies?

April 18, 2013

As we live, we naturally notice patterns and form presumptions, which we then make in to expectations. That is normal and functional

 

 

Lincoln memorial cent, with the S mintmark of ...

Lincoln memorial cent, with the S mintmark of the San Francisco mint. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

However, we then may experience a gap between our old expectations and our new experiences. We may even get so startled that we suddenly withdraw or abruptly push people away with blame and rage so that we have time to adjust to new experiences. We may crave what is familiar.  We may be so challenged by new experiences that we cling to particular expectations with such terror that we do not call them expectations, but “what should be.” 

 

 

 

The more terrified we are, then the more we feel threatened by any lack of enthusiastic agreement about our presumptive expectations. So, the more harshly we may push others away, perhaps blaming them for the gap between our presumptuous expectations and our actual experience. Notice the immense difference between “my expectations did not match the results” and “you VIOLATED my expectations and BETRAYED me!”

 

 

 

I call that latter experience the spirit of antagonism or hostility. As a method of promoting solitude and privacy by pushing people away, it is normal and functional… sometimes. 

 

 

 

Presidential Debate

Presidential Debate (Photo credit: NatalieMaynor)

 

 

 

However, it is also normal and functional for social networks to form in which there is a deliberate plan to discourage antagonism in general and behaviors of aggression in particular. These networks use premeditated aggression to regulate or govern outbursts of passionate aggression and antagonism. 

 

 

 

We call these groups “governments.” They are systems of organized coercion or organized violence, as distinct from less organized forms of aggression.

 

Naturally, various forms of government can conflict with each other, such as two nations conflicting or the federal and state governments conflicting (which can escalate in to a civil war), or when two gangs of young aggressors conflict over which group can have a recognized monopoly on the sale of marijuana on a particular street (like will it be only people licensed by the state government thugs or only people who have been inducted in to a particular paramilitary “citizen action gang network” or what)?

 

 

 

The Seat of Government

The Seat of Government (Photo credit: Ewan-M)

 

 

 

If governments regulate schools for children (or even directly fund them and operate them), then it is normal and functional for a particular dominant network of organized coercion to promote loyalty and compliance among the students trained through the programming methods that promote that government’s doctrines. Every nation has history classes that promote a particular ideology or mythology about why that  system is so deserving of loyalty and compliance. There are enemies and victims and of course heroes. 

 

 

 

There are special holy days to celebrate things like the anniversary of the founding of the governing system, holy days commemorating the birth and death of particular saints (like Washington or Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr.), as well as holy days for glorifying military veterans or for special rituals of flag worship (“flag day”). The students are trained to honor each of the holy days of the ruling system for the particular significance of that holy day to the overall ideology or conceptual model promoted through the system.

 

 

International Currency Money for Forex Trading

International Currency Money for Forex Trading (Photo credit: epSos.de)

 

 

Presumptions and expectations are not only promoted, but students are even tested for their ability to quickly parrot back ideological doctrines. The young human resources are trained in citizenship as well as particular disciplines that benefit the social network, such as warfare, manufacturing, and services that mitigate symptoms of a functioning immune system and other natural physiological complications of modern diets (AKA “health care services”).

 

 

 

Also, there is the very important ritual proceedings of courts of criminal and civil law. Those rituals are the most holy and sacred activities of any within each system of  organized coercion.

 

 

The court rituals dictate what currency will be accepted in the payment of invented tax debts due to the ruling operation of organized coercion. These money units or currency units are even more holy than the flag. While the money and credit may be distributed in coin, in paper, or in electronic accounts (like debit cards and credit cards and credit reports), the actual form of the system’s currency is not important (except to those for whom the currency is the most holy object in existence).

 

 

 

When ruling systems of organized coercion had monopolies on the access to gold mines, then gold coins were a convenient substance for controlling supply and then artificially ballooning demand by dictating that people pay the court officials in gold coin for their invented tax extortion liabilities. However, if a governing system had a monopoly on compressed carbon in the form of diamonds, that physical substance would be just as legitimate a candidate for use as a sacred object to be used with tight controls on supply and extensive “marketing” systems to produce artificial demand for the substance merely as a holy currency (not for some other practical or industrial purpose). 

 

 

 

What is the basis of such objects being used as holy currencies? The organized coercion of the ruling system is the basis of all artificial demand created by inventing tax extortion liabilities and then dictating an exclusive form of payment for those debt claims.

 

 

Flag of Peru

Flag of Peru (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

So, the system may train us to repress recognition of the above obvious historical details. We are terrified in to repressing antagonism by the system, and then we typically react with intense antagonism toward the system when we begin to realize the nature of the system. 

 

 

That reactive terrified antagonism is entirely normal, but is it functional? The system provides food, shelter, electricity, and all forms of modern technology such as the internet and radio and transportation networks, including traffic signals.

 

 

For which of the conveniences and amenities and privileges that the system presents to us should we blame it and curse it? For which violated expectation should we claim that it has betrayed us? For which gap between our indoctrinated presumptions and our actual perceptions should we be most frightened, most ashamed, most anti-social?

 

 

How rare it is that people within modern systems fully consider the implications of the ancient instruction “condemn not!” Well, look at all the people who condemn others for such things as… practicing “inappropriate” condemnation. What could be more hypocritical?

 

 

 

 

Mafia Governments and Government Mafias

October 18, 2012

Mafia Governments and Government Mafias

English: campaign item for 1968 Richard Nixon ...

English: campaign item for 1968 Richard Nixon campaign, appears to be a small paper trash bag, for use in automobiles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I will keep this post rather concise, but I’ll add a few supporting links/excerpts at the bottom. Note that this presentation will contrast sharply from whatever you may have been told in public school or through the mainstream media. If you have no skepticism about those institutions and their propaganda, this is probably not the right blog for you to read at this time.

Mafia (The Office)

Mafia (The Office) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon confer...

English: Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon confer with Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping, , January 1979. NLC-WHSP-C-09162-18A is the file number with the Jimmy Carter Library, Atlanta GA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Organized coercion rules the world, literally setting the standards or rules of human societies. Organized coercion includes the public extortion rackets of taxation and of government confiscation as well as the private extortion rackets of involuntary “protection insurance” and terrorizing people with stories of hell to get them to tithe every week and to buy indulgences for their shames and guilty pleasures, or the intimidating methods (approaching a mugging) that may be used by some drug dealers to produce “transactions.”

English: Bebe Rebozo, FBI Director J. Edgar Ho...

English: Bebe Rebozo, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Richard Nixon relax before dinner, Key Biscayne FL, 12/28/71 ARC Identifier 194750 / Local Identifier NLRN-WHPO-8146-03A Richard Nixon Library, Yorba Linda, CA Item from Collection RN-WHPO: White House Photo Office Collection (Nixon Administration), 01/20/1969 – 08/09/1974 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Governments are just stable, public forms of organized coercion. They are the “cover” for the real game (and the protectors/mercenaries working for the big players).

The big players (Rothschild, DeBeers, Rabin, Lansky, Kissinger, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc) create legal systems (new branches of the tree) to monopolize their pre-existing organized extortion operations (the trunk). They have the resources to impose systems like Apartheid as well as to “work” any legal system with million-dollar attorneys and million-dollar political donations (AKA “foreign aid”), so they can arrange for folks like Oliver North to be pardoned even after conviction for treason or murder or whatever. Or, they can remove disloyal bureaucrats by bullet or media scandal (as in the case of Mark Foley or Richard Nixon).

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the U...

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Note that Nixon was taken out of office not because of some action of his own, but perhaps simply because of a lack of loyalty. When there is a “management issue,” then the standard practices of “democracy” (illegal campaign tactics) can be publicized and the public goes in to an uproar about the “new transgression.” What is new about it? It is newly publicized, that’s all. These folks were crooks from the beginning- even if the public figureheads (the candidates) may sincerely be oblivious to all of that.

English: Monica Lewinsky, from her government ...

English: Monica Lewinsky, from her government ID photo by Office of the Secretary of Defense. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course, those publicity controversies about Watergate and Monica Lewinsky‘s Felatio-Gate and so on are just media shows though to distract from the basics. The basics are that the big players will never be prosecuted or even charged because they have too many connections within the DOJ and the CIA and the Mossad and the White House and the Vatican and so on. That means that someone like Oliver North, as well-connected as he was to Reagan, was a much smaller player than someone like Reagan himself- to the extent that Reagan even knew who he was working for.

Charles Jensen with G. Gordon Liddy & Oliver North

Charles Jensen with G. Gordon Liddy & Oliver North (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Reagans with Richard Nixon 1988

Reagans with Richard Nixon 1988 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Amongst their local regulatory duties, governments dictate (with the backing of their organized coercion systems of armies, court deputies, and secret service assassins) what form of payment will be accepted as money, creating a huge temporary bubble in demand for that form of “money” (such as gold- see http://one-evil.org/content/symbols_gold.html). Whether that bubble lasts a decade or a millenium, it is still a manipulated artificial bubble from the start. However, again governments are not the core of global imperialism and extortion, but branches of a much larger tree which are all connected at their trunk by the general pattern of organized extortion.

Salvatore Riina, the most powerful Mafia boss ...

Salvatore Riina, the most powerful Mafia boss of the 1980s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From the link above:

“what cannot be argued is that gold as lawful
money is written in the strictest of law possible within the Bible and
other texts as an abomination, as a false idol – yet is totally supported
and promoted by people who claim to follow its teachings.”

“Despite the fact that the Parasite Banker/Merchant families have used the “lawful money” trick of gold repeatedly and despite the fact of the
overwhelming evidence that such acceptance only strengthens their control on commerce, the truth movement of today is completely and utterly entranced, ignorant and spellbound as it was every other time since the days of the [early] Roman Empire and Julius Caesar.”

Mainstream Media Hard at Work

Mainstream Media Hard at Work (Photo credit: wstera2)

“The largest single holder of ingot/bullion gold of any organization for the past 1,000 years is and has always been the Roman Cult controlling the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church controls approximately 60,350 metric tonnes of gold, twice the size of the total official gold reserves around the world or approximately 30.2% of all the gold ever mined/produced. At current prices, it puts the asset value of the greatest treasure in human history at over US $1,245 Billion.”

Protest Rally Against Mainstream Media -   Tim...

Protest Rally Against Mainstream Media – Times Square, NYC (Photo credit: asterix611)

< That is down dramatically since 1945, and less than half of the
concentration of gold owned by the Vatican in the 15th century, when the author calculates they had their peak percentage of ownership of all of the gold that had been mined in the world as of that time, about 62%. >

Government House

Government House (Photo credit: slazgrc)

“This is the treasure that once again will be used to re-gain control of
the world under the “guise” of saving the world through “lawful money” in
2011/2012 unless good people can be woken up from the spell of the bankers and their gold.”

Some links: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/andie531/9-11-commission-attorney-tied-jewish-mafia

www.wariscrime.com/new/the-last-gang-in-town-the-state/

Mafia Music

Mafia Music (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dissolving the fear of logic and of clarity

July 1, 2012

Dissolving the fear of logic and clarity

Français : Logo de la société LOGIC

Français : Logo de la société LOGIC (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yesterday someone mentioned to me the idea of “being logical” as being one of many “functional qualities.” I consider it not just one quality among many but the essential foundation of functionality. Let me give you a short but striking example that can demonstrate what I mean by the importance of logic.

“The sunlight is never the sunlight including when she subtracted seven from a button of slowly hudteshged.”

The above sequence of letters and words is not logically consistent. It is not coherent. Without logic, there is little other functionality possible.
Even to just walk, the brain and muscles perform a specific “logical” (neurological) sequence of actions. Toddlers are training their nerves and muscles to perform the useful sequence of muscular actions to be able to walk instead of crawl. They use conscious attention to “logically” determine (through trial and error) how to balance as they move, exactly which muscles to exert when, and also how to stop their momentum and come to a motionless standing position.

Let’s not confuse “logical” with “requiring conscious attention.” I can walk without conscious attention on exactly how I walk, as I instead focus on where I am going, but that does not mean that the neurological activity of walking is “illogical.” Unconscious logic is still logic. Everything that is neurological is logical. Even the way that proteins are manufactured has a certain “logic” (pattern of functionality) to it.

Logic is the begining of "creative" ...

Logic is the begining of “creative” – poster (Photo credit: RabiD Son)

This reminds me of the root of the word logic as having the same root as the word “Logos.” Logic could just mean a particular pattern of functionality, a certain way of doing something, of producing a particular result. Logic ultimately means a certain way of doing something, like the logical process of an engineer will be distinct from the logical process of a chemist, though all patterns of logic are logical.

Even the “logic” of a “religious fanatic” or “political fanatic” will be predictable as in consistent internally. All anti-abortion protestors will focus on that issue even if it means ignoring anti-war protesting. All anti-war protestors will fixate or pre-occupy themselves on their favorite issue even if it means ignoring anti-abortion protesting.

Hysterical protestors of all kinds may all be hysterical, but even the hysteria is logical. Even someone who goes in to a panic whenever they ride an elevator does so though a very specific sequence. If, for some reason, someone who is hysterically terrified of elevators does not know that they are riding an elevator, they will not panic. Logic is absolutely required to produce hysteria. It is not the riding of the elevator, but a reactive belief about riding an elevator, that produces hysteria. If someone is tricked in to believing that they are riding an elevator when they are not, the perception or belief is enough to trigger the hysteria. (Note: perception = belief.)

Hysteria is not total the absence of logic. Hysteria is evidence of a particular logical presumption. Any presumption may be false. Any instance of logic may be faulty. Some interpretation may be a misinterpretation. However, can there be an absence of logic?

English: A logical fallacy. Statement 1: Most ...

English: A logical fallacy. Statement 1: Most of the green is touching the red. Statement 2: Most of the red is touching the blue. Logical fallacy: Since most of the green is touching red, and most of the red is touching blue, most of the green must be touching blue. This, however, is a false statement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In fact, can there be an absence of presumption? Presumptions do not replace logic. Logic requires presumptions.

Presumptions are are created through logic. Induction is the name for the logical process of creating premises or presumptions based on a series of observations and the construction of conceptual patterns (called presumptions or premises).

Deductive logic is the use of the induced premises in order to formulate predictions. Whenever a particular logical deduction does not predict an actual observed result, scientific logic involves a rejecting of the premise or presumption or hypothesis, which has been established as false by the observed results.
Hysteria or mental illness may correspond to people maintaining their disproved premise (their sacred ideology or idolatry) while rejecting their experience or trying to fix their experience to fit their premise (“how it should be”). Why would someone reject their experience in favor of maintaining a particular false premise? In some cases, that is actually the “only logical” alternative that they perceive. The limited perception (or even delusion) has to do with blind faith (blindspots), which is actually just mere belief, not faith at all.

Beliefs may lead us to “mislabel” things- to confuse one thing for something else. Such “misinterpretation” is still interpretative, logical, and presumptive. All interpretation is presumptive. All logic is interpretive. The distress of the hysteria or mental illness (anxiety, paranoia, panic, rage, etc) has a very rigid logic (often accompanied by neuro-muscular rigidity or tension)- not the complete absence of logic, but a certain particular level of logical development (or intellectual development AKA intelligence).

English: binary logical operations

English: binary logical operations (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Logic is essential (foundational). Clarity and precision and rigor and reliability are qualities that are possible through logic. They are refinements of logic. Everyone has logic, allowing for various degrees of development of any particular perceptiveness or sensitivity or clarity.

Logic is like visual focus in that logic allows us to focus on a particular issue. How quickly can logic identify the factors relevant to a particular possibility, priority, or circumstance? That is the issue of varying degrees of functionality. How quickly can someone identify the relevant conceptual presumptions or logical premises? In dealing with hysteria, how quickly can someone recognize the logic of the hysteria and interrupt or deconstruct it?

So, how important is logic? In exploring this issue, I cannot emphasize enough that “the sunlight is never the sunlight including when she subtracted seven from a button of slowly hudteshged.”

Even if the above sequence of words conformed to the standard rules of syntax, there is still the issue of the conceptual functionality of “subtracting seven from a button.” We could call that “nonsense.”

Further, the last “word” (hudteshged) was not an actual word. I could have simply finished the sentence with an obscure foreign word or some foreign lettering, or even some shapes that kind of look like letters, but are not, such as an astrological symbol that was later borrowed by herbalists and pharmacists and other “witch doctors”:

Could the above sequence of words be useful? Yes, of course, nonsense phrases can be useful for confusing people or distracting them. It is also valuable to recognize that language has only one logical function: to influence. Producing confusion can be a very effective method for arousing in people a mild state of anxiety or panic, allowing for them to be directed to “solutions” that they might otherwise avoid or resist if they were relying on their own direct experience and logical evaluation.

Further, inserting unfamiliar information might also be “distracting,” such as my reference to the Rx symbol. It happens to be an accurate reference, but accuracy is not required for a distraction to be effective. In fact, statements of obviously questionable accuracy or logic can be some of the most effective at distracting people. Note that right before the series of visual symbols, I presented a sequence of verbal categorizing that implied that “witch doctors” is a broader verbal category than “herbalists” and “pharmacists” which includes those two groups as subcategories. Typically, some people might question how appropriate it is to present pharmacists as a type of witch doctor, but by changing from words to unfamiliar visual symbols that present obscure information, one could call it a technique of distracting someone from the actual logic of the “witch doctor” categorization.

Why? Because people tend to use the term witch doctor to refer to “methods that do not work reliably” such as placebos. In the case of pharmaceutical drugs, they might “work” 80% of the time or even only 40% and yet still be considered quite valuable. We are indoctrinated to use the term “witch doctor” to refer to practices that are ridiculed by the “opinion leaders” of a particular culture.

When European physicians insisted that there was such a thing as scurvy and it was incurable, “witch doctors” offered foods that relieve the symptoms of a deficiency in Vitamin C. Because the information came from “witch doctors” (or because it was received by arrogantly ignorant “civilized physicians”), the information may have been dismissed or even ridiculed, criminalized, and so on.

I will come back to the subject of criminalizing the methods of witch doctors. Let’s return to the subject of language as an instrument of influence and the use of “illogical, confusing, nonsense” language as an especially effective method of influence.

I think of political language as a great example. “We need to raise taxes so that the public will be wealthier.” How logical is that?

Of course, most political communications are not so plainly ironic as the above statement. One may need to spread their analysis across a few sentences (or even a few years of time) to notice the various ironies (logical contradictions).

However, the idea that ANY government program or intervention is going to contribute to the net wealth of a nation rests on the basic presumption that “we should impose taxes to spend that money to increase the wealth of the public.” It is the basic justification of ALL government spending, right? It is never concisely stated, but it is presumed and implied extensively. By merely presuming it and implying it, again, the normal process of logical reasoning may be bypassed.

Consider a government program which requires all people to spend money (such as on health insurance). Technically, the total increase in public spending forced by that program could be much higher than the government’s cost in spending taxpayer money to produce the rest of the forced spending. That means a greatly increased amount of total consumer spending (and thus GDP), though spending is not wealth. Forcing people to spend money on something does not increase net wealth. Forcing people to spend money on a particular set of things merely redistributes wealth.

The wealth of private citizens will be reduced and the wealth will increase of the particular commercial group that successfully lobbied for the “rescue intervention.” While a particular group of beneficiaries of a government program (such as first-time home buyers) may benefit from a government program, there is no way for an increase in the spending of taxpayer-funded programs to produce an increase in the wealth of taxpayers. Taxpayer-funded spending cannot increase overall taxpayer wealth. Taxpayer-funded spending MUST reduce overall taxpayer wealth, though the tax revenues may come from a specific tax, like property taxes or fuel taxes or voting poll tax.

I recognize that there are other forms of government revenue besides taxes, such as fines, fees, and confiscation. However, citizen-funded government spending MUST reduce the overall private wealth of the citizenry as a whole. It is a logical or mathematical absolute.

I’m not saying that public schools do not benefit citizens. Of course government spending such as on public schools benefits many citizens. However, public schools will benefit some citizens more than others, such as the staff of those public schools.

All public spending will benefit some parties more than others. That is why lobbying exists. Sometimes a particular government program will benefit many people a little or a few people immensely. If there were not massive benefits available through lobbying, there would be no lobbying. To put it another way, if there were not massive benefits available through bribery, there would be no bribery.

Next, I want to clarify something about the nature of governments and their function. I’d like to emphasize that none of the following is a criticism of governments in general or of any particular government (nor of the activities of lobbying or bribery). For people who are willing to simply notice what is clear and obvious about governments, the following could be immediately recognizable as “the most logical analysis of government that I have ever read,” even if at first challenging to your presumptions.

Governments are inherently systems of commercial favoritism. They take from some groups to give to others. They systematically redistribute wealth inequitably. Some governments favor particular industries through direct purchases by the government and of course with their regulatory favoritism (outlawing certain practices while authorizing and subsidizing others): missile manufacturers, public education, homeowners, licensed medical practitioners, etc….

For instance, witch doctors are not penalized (and ridiculed) because they cannot “cure incurable scurvy,” but because when witch doctors routinely cure “incurable scurvy,” that can be very bad for someone else’s business and reputation. In fact, the entire linguistic premise of “incurable disease” is just a presumption, and one that has been established as being at least occasionally inaccurate if not always false. So, a group like licensed medical doctors may form a group (AMA) to lobby for programs that benefit their industry, especially to protect them from free market competition.

Likewise, homeowners may be favored by governments through a large set of factors, including tax regulations that favor homeowners as well as bail-outs explicitly designed to raise the price of housing. Government programs to prevent massive waves of foreclosure also maintain “artificially” high real estate prices. In some cases like these, the obvious favoritism of government to particular commercial interests is quite explicit.

Why might renters not support government programs that raise rents and redistribute wealth from renters to owners? Why might owners of concentrated amounts of real estate spend millions of dollars to lobby governments to take actions to keep purchase prices rising (or flat) and to keep lease and rent prices high? Because if governments stopped pumping taxpayer money in to programs that promote high prices, prices might fall dramatically.

So, how is it that so many renters and people who lease commercial space would passionately promote government programs that raise rents and leases (costing them money)? Government propaganda can be extremely effective!

The masses typically do not see the obvious, thanks to the loyal influence of mainstream media. Further, homeowners may not want to admit that their past unearned capital gains may be largely due to government programs to redistribute wealth toward people who buy homes. Given that those government intervention programs also have a history of suddenly collapsing like a house of cards, homeowners may be especially afraid to recognize the simplicity of the unsustainability of government interventions to raise real estate prices.

Governments systematically redistribute wealth from certain groups to other groups. Obviously, without governments, there is not a big consumer demand for combat helicopters and nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. It is also obvious that governments would want to be very intent on keeping those kinds of manufactured goods away from the open market. Governments may want to be the sole buyer of aircraft carriers. They may want a monopoly. They do not want just any nation or private party having a bunch of them, right?

That is because governments are not just any system of commercial favoritism, but systems of organized violence or organized coercion. They involuntarily redistribute wealth from particular groups (the involuntary underwriters) to other particular groups (such as the manufacturers of military technology).

Tax systems are systems of authorized extortion or racketeering. Those who do not participate are subject to various forms of punishment. Fines and the systems to collect fines are also systems of authorized extortion or racketeering. Governments are systems of extortion and racketeering  that authorize or license certain programs of extortion and racketeering and criminalize unauthorized systems as “unwelcome competition.”

When a crime syndicate offers “protection,” most of the protection is from other crime syndicates. In the case of governments, they protect citizens from foreign governments (some of which have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers and so on) as well as “domestic threats” (such as unauthorized extortion rackets).

So, I have jokingly asked in the past questions like “should governments be violent?” It is like asking “should rabbits be mammals?”

Rabbits are mammals. Governments are violent.

Many governments have added to their effectiveness and efficiency by conducting programs of propaganda, such as public education systems, which promote particular presumptions and patterns of interpretation (perception). Through such “mind control” programming, governments not only influence perception, but action and results.

Governments influence (program, govern, dictate) how people experience reality, how they interpret reality, how they react to their interpretations, and what actions or behaviors the population (herd) manifests. Some governing systems (such as thugs and gangs and tribes) may rely primarily on violence. Other systems use language more than violence, but with the threat of violence always present and however frequently reminded.

Further, governments are not especially distinctive in their use of violence and language to influence. Every individual and every social group influences others (even within the same species).

Mothers influence children, such as a mother rabbit influencing baby rabbits. Farmers influence the activity of crops. Hunters influence their prey. Influence is essential.

When people use currency, they do so in cooperation with a government which creates the purchasing power of the currency. The foundation of the purchasing power of every currency is that the currency is accepted for the payment of taxes and any other court-ordered obligations.

Governments declare tax liability in to existence. Then governments declare a particular form of payment as the only acceptable form of payment (“legal tender for the discharge of debt claims”). Then, governments enforce their declarations through organized coercion.

A currency is a unit of the organized coercion of the system of forced wealth redistribution (the government) that enforces the purchasing power of that currency. Currency has power because of the mercenaries of organized coercion (sheriff deputies, KGB, USAF) that enforce the value of that currency. In the absence of an effective military to enforce the value of a currency, the currency ceases to have any functional value, such as when the Confederacy was defeated by the USA and confederate dollars instantly became worthless (or even illegal).

Hysteria is not inherently evil. Violence is not inherently evil (including the violence of a plant as it spreads its roots in to the soil). In fact, hysteria and violence and evil are all just categories in language. Evil just means “extremely discouraged” as in something “subject to produce very unfavorable results, including through penalties and punishments.”

Language organizes perception. In other words, language governs perception. Because language governs perception, language also governs behavior and results.

The issue of Logos is important. We can relabel it as logic or language. Logic governs perception. The Logos governs perception. The Word has authority over perception. Labels govern perception.

The word organizes the world (perception), which organizes behavioral response (reflex), producing the results of the reactive activity. Labeling is interpretative. Perceiving is interpreting. Labeling is perceiving.

Perceiving is the organizing of attention. Language organizes attention.

However, why take my word for it? After all, I might just be trying to influence you through the use of language, right?

Instead of asking me if language can influence attention, perception, and behavior, I invite you to ask Santa Claus. I was told by sources I trust that he is an authority on such matters.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 754 other followers

%d bloggers like this: