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?
RQR wrote: “There’s something seriously wrong in American politics. There’s a lack of integrity among politicians, but there’s also a lack of integrity, civility, and good faith among the population. I’m not sure why it has developed or how to fix it, but it’s there…. It’s very weird that the Russians have led us to doing what we should have been doing all along in the middle east. And it’s disturbing that the Russians have illuminated a duplicity in American middle eastern policies. I just don’t like what I see.”
Many people in the US “do not like” something that they see / perceive. Some are disturbed by one or more perceptions.
Thomas Jefferson was once misquoted as saying this profound truth:
Roberto Trujillo (who was the dictator of the Dominican Republic from 1930-1961), actually did comment that “anyone who is unskilled at deception is not fit for politics.” Diplomacy is about keeping secrets, making subtle or overt threats, plus assassinating the characters or bodies of certain opposing critics.
some people take a position that integrity is somehow relevant to politics. I do not think Trujillo was “taking a position” (like that he would hysterically defend in an argument) so much as “offering a comment.”
Naïveté can be unfavorable in politics. However, naïveté can be very popular among the masses. People can gather together to glorify their group’s favorite form of naïveté.
People may cling to ideas about politics that were presented in indoctrination rituals in school (or mass media). I certainly did until I had a personal experience as a “whistle blower” within a bureaucratic monster called the US Department of Justice (in the mid 90s).
Is it possible that some rules are selectively enforced? Why was the indictment of weinberger nullified by a presidential pardon?
Unlike the pardoning of Marc Rich, whose wife was raising funds for Bill Clinton (and spending lots of “quality time” with him), the pardoning of weinberger appears to have been done “in the interests of national security.” To take weinberger to trial allegedly would have revealed too much about the Clinton-Bush involvement in certain smuggling operations involving Arkansas as the destination of certain contraband.
Political liberals tend to be people who are seeking social validation. That was certainly the case for me when I was a political liberal.
I had seen passages in the Bible that indicate that someone “will be called a good Christian if” they visit prisoners and comfort widows and feed the hungry and so on. So, as an anxious perfectionist, I went around doing some of those things and expecting displays of gratitude, congratulations, and whatever social encouragement.
My familiar group of idealists condemned the billions of Christians and other people who were not obeying the “biblical directives.” We celebrated our moral superiority and privately encouraged each other in our distant protest about what other people should also be doing that we were doing.
With suicide by gunshot, the number of annual deaths may be much lower than by medication or chemical poisoning. Or, the number may be much higher. But this is not about sympathy for hundreds or thousands of people.
Political policies are about power and control. To criminalize some act, such as the act of attempting suicide which is a criminal act, is not the same as launching a prevention campaign that actually promotes the mental health and financial stability of a population.
Governments are a lot like churches and have lots of policies and rituals that are derived from churches, but governments used violence in an organized way and in an open way that is distinct from churches. Of course the Jesuits have their famous network of assassins and The Holy Crusades have their Temple Knights on their conquests within their holy wars, but in modern times it is “regular governments” that are by far the biggest perpetrators of violence. Tens of millions of civilians were killed by the government of the USSR and the government of China in short periods of the 20th century.
Is it trivia if those slaughters were preceded by gun control policies? Is it trivia that instead of my public school history books focusing on those huge numbers of casualties that were performed by our Soviet allies, we are programmed to focus on much lower numbers from a nation that we are at least told was our enemy?
To me, it is actually all trivia, but some of the trivia is more intriguing than the rest. Ultimately, trivia is trivia. People who commit suicide (through whatever method) may get to be part of a statistic in a CDC report….
How about if you were a slave master and you had a whip and all of the slaves were bound in chains and had no weapons as well as no literacy?
Or, what about if you had chip implants in all of your livestock which allowed you to administer electric shocks to them and cause them intense or even paralyzing pain whenever you pushed a certain code on an app in your mobile phone?
If I was the ruler or tyrant of a system of gross wealth inequality, then I would want all of my subjects to be disarmed and dumbed down and hysterically loyal to me. If relevant, then I would train military forces of police and pilots and so on to protect my borders or expand them as well as to intimidate my subjects into compliantly laboring for the good of my empire and paying taxes and sending off their sons and daughters to die in the service of my “National interests.”
I would censor speech and I would criminalize the activities that I wish to monopolize. I would license guns only for the thugs that I had indoctrinated and initiated into the lower orders of my priesthood. They must wear an oath in order to serve as my priest or my minister or my officer or my agent.
Members in good standing of my privilege priesthood will have special protections and special rights. However, if One of the lower ranking priests and my religion of imperialism is accused of disloyalty and found guilty by our ritual review, they will suffer severe consequences.
Another wing of my Imperial priesthood is the oathsworn medical doctors. If they speak out against my vaccine policy or my dietary policy or my mandatory annual checkup policy, I will not just use my routine methods of moderate psychological torture such as solitary confinement. I will silence them.
In fact, I might even go out of my way to incite them in to displaying their disobedience, and then monitor them closely to see who is acting contrary to my standards of holy loyalty. I will regulate or rule. I will license. I will tax. I will govern. I will monopolize. I will criminalize. I will sensor. I will incite. I will silence those who speak without respect for tyranny and brutality and military superiority (if I so desire).
Also, out of my heroic loving-kindness, I will generously provide free school lunches to needy students and create a government program to put a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway. I will offer free education programs in which students will be given their choice of any of the three fields of study which I have approved.
Of course, only sworn members of my priesthood of teachers will be allowed to teach in the schools that I operate at the expense of the involuntary donors from whom I collect extortion taxes. Finally, prisoners will be supplied with a free pillow and a free movie every Friday night!
Governments operate schools and fund schools and regulate schools. Governments regulate media and fund some media and even operate a certain amount of media. For instance, the CIA hires Disney to produce TV productions of fake attacks using crisis actors. In most cases, private subcontractors are used rather then government employees directly creating the content of news programming.
I have studied the outside influences that led to the American Revolution. I have studied how other outside influences have competed with what was in operation 200 years ago or 150 years ago.
I sincerely expected them to review the incident and discipline the violator. Instead, I was promptly fired and I later learned that many other people who were employed at that facility and had first-hand knowledge of the incident in question were fired a few days later. The reason that they were not all fired immediately is because the facility had to secretly train around a dozen people to replace all of them before they could be fired.
I am not aware of any investigation of the incident ever taking place. ￼I did hear that the particular violator that I reported was later accused (but, as far as I know, never charged) of several instances of sexual misconduct involving female prisoners. That was not the type of policy violation that I reported, by the way.
I was also attracted to studying the treatment of Native Americans by the US government, including in recent decades. I strongly identified with victimized populations.
I learned about President Johnson’s involvement with mining on Native American reservations. I met individuals who had been incarcerated for the crime of repairing the roof on their house on the reservation.
I do not mean that they did repairs without a permit or contrary to building code. I mean that it was a crime for them to do any repairs to the roof. That was about 10 years ago and I do not know what the current laws are in regarding to the criminalization of repairing the roofs on certain houses in certain parts of certain reservations. I was clear that the entire justification for those regulations was to drive people off of those parts of the reservation so that uranium mining could be pursued.
While governments can simply threaten to arrest people who do not vacate their homes, this was not that kind of policy. Normally, like when an interstate highway is being built, homeowners whose property is in the way of the path of the construction will be notified of the fact that they are going to be paid a certain predetermined amount for the purchase of their real estate.
However, with the Native Americans in this particular case, the government program was designed in such a way that the natives would abandon their homes without any compensation, if I recall correctly. In most cases, simply by making it a crime to perform certain repairs, the government could document with before and after pictures a repair that had been made and then they would arrest and jail a person, then demolish their home and proceed with the mining. With some populations, the importance to the government of notifying the people of the criminalization of house repairs was not a priority. In other cases, governments put a lot of money into publicity campaigns to notify the public.
Incidentally, there is a government program which has spent around $3 billion to pay off victims of vaccine injuries. However, the publicity budget for informing the American public of the VICP program is basically nonexistent. The government has had the program for three decades now, and over 4000 compensation awards have been paid out, but that programs existence is more or less censored from textbooks and mainstream media because The existence of the program reveals the fact that the US government admits that there have been many deaths and severe injuries from vaccinations. In over 4000 cases, the average reward is over $750,000.
Why is there absolutely no media coverage of these easily verifiable facts? Perhaps it is not in the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical corporations to have that information publicize. Since pharmaceutical companies are a major source of advertising revenue for the mainstream media, we could expect that even without formal government censoring, major media outlets would still self censor.
Note that this case by which I mean this program is simply one instance of many. Operations of government are generally oppressive. It is rather trivial that, after taking thousands of dollars per year Per household on average, A few hundred dollars of that is used by the government for indoctrination programs or healthcare services that are obsolete.
If it were not for government protection of pharmaceutical companies and conventional medical practices, it would be common knowledge, just based on the casual conversations of people, that it is easy to produce cancer as well as reverse it. Through the public school system, students are taught to memorize unexamined ideas about science and to worship the idea of scientific inquiry, while almost completely avoiding the practice of scientific inquiry and critical thinking. Students simply memorize information and repeat it back on test without examining it, and then actually perceive themselves to be knowledgeable about science. When stated simply, The reality is extremely ironic and even hilarious.
Edward Bernays wrote about the deceptive methods that he used to incite what we might call “political conservatives” to at least tolerate the idea that the US government in the 1910s was going to borrow huge amounts of money from European banking interests to create weaponry and then go invade Europe using our oil reserves and our weaponry (as in warships and tanks) and sacrificing the lives of our young men. This created massive debts to European banking interests.
In 1913, 20 year contracts for the repayment of the massive debt were signed. Shortly before the repayment of the debt was due, the European banking interests recognized that the US government was likely to default and so those banking interest created a “rescue program ” which allowed for the US government to comply with certain rules in exchange for being extended additional loans for them to repay the interest on the prior loans.
Text books have limited space, so the vast majority of historical events are left out naturally. Also, the historical events that are reported in textbooks May contain large fractions of fictional propaganda.
We find the same thing in science textbooks with fictional propaganda about science that we do in history textbooks with the fictional propaganda about history. Since 1903, the Rockefellers have dominated funding for the publication of textbooks not only in medical schools but in all schools eventually. That influence was very important to their commercial interests.
Since so many pharmaceutical drugs and pesticides are derived from petrochemicals or crude oil, it was important to the Rockefellers to promote ideas that kept people using oil products and discouraged people from even being attentive to alternatives to oil derivatives. So, modern medicine became a system for pushing drugs that are made from petroleum extracts. Natural substances that could be grown anywhere and not easily monopolized were unfavorable to the business interests of the Rockefeller’s because those alternative substances (which had been popular for a long time and had a long history of scientific documentation to support their use) were cheap ways to promote public health. Those inexpensive methods for promoting public health were contrary to the business interests of the drug pushers who relied on addiction to expensive monopoly substances for their profit. Those are the same interests that continue to dominate media and conventional medicine with the Obama care initiative to take choice about healthcare away from the general public and place it into the centralized power of insurance companies and governments who are all funded by The Rockefellers and other international banking interests.
The masses are program to be obsessed about disease and also to be confused about the promotion of health and prevention of disease or even the intelligent treatment of disease. Indoctrination rituals relating to disease and health are very important to the business interests which lobby for textbooks to contain certain information and for that information to be presented in certain ways. The same interests dominate mainstream media.
it is all business as usual and has been for a long time. The Rockefellers don’t care if there are 20,000 suicides by gun in a particular year in the US or if there are 50,000 or 300. The issue has absolutely no significance to them.
The president is an agent of the international banking interests. When Nixon was not considered to be loyal to his masters, he was politely removed from office rather than being shot. The Rockefeller agents of Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig were placed into positions which allowed them to pressure Nixon to resign.
that led to Gerald ford being advanced from VP to president. It had already been arranged for ford to select as his vp the least powerful of the Rockefeller brothers, Nelson, Who had been assigned with a relatively trivial role as the governor of New York prior to his selection as VP.
Nelson was considered rather immature and ineffective and so he was given the glory of being VP. Realistically, there was some risk to the greater Rockefeller plan to have Nelson be so prominent a figurehead in which the media would be drawing attention to his family background. However, after being the unelected VP, we notice that Nelson Rockefeller stopped being in the spotlight and his influence and role got much less publicity then when he was VP or governor of New York.
For the past 25 years or so, I get a strong sense of what the new year will bring right at sunset on Dec 31. Call me crazy, but this year it’s a feeling of “discontinuity.” For those of us in the business world, that’s a great word (like “disruption”). Brings up images of innovation and shifting the environment in which problems arise. And disruption can be scary–black swan events like uprisings, natural disasters, and shifting borders of countries, ideas, tribes of people. Anyone have a similiar feeling? Is 2016 the year of discontinuity?
where there is terror and panic and denial, then condemnation (making wrong) is likely to arise as well as glorification (making right). Glorification may also be a way of actually turning away from simple direct alertness to the thing glorified.
Proceeding to your defense of Ted Cruz, I’m utterly baffled. Setting everything else aside, – a gold standard? This is just a ridiculous proposal – even Hayekians, among whom you count yourself, don’t actually stick with this argument. It’s utterly uncredible.
So I ask you what, exactly, are the “great insights” of Dave‘s OP with which you find yourself enamored?
This is historically false, Ralph; utter nonsense. The fact is that Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard in 1933:
(The more debts that they invent, the bigger the public demand for whatever forms of payments they declare to be valid.)
Through words, the oathsworn high priests perform rituals for the creation of debts and for the creation of public demand for the sacred object of that system of governing human activity and human perception (with that sacred object being used to discharge the debts that they declare or invent or create).
However it is not magic shapes of ink on paper that give a currency value. It is the military capacity behind those declarations of value. It is the ability and willingness to arrest and imprison and garnish and Levy and seize and auction.
Then, the priesthood declares that substance as the only one accepted for the debts that they invent. That declaration creates demand in the public. If there was already some demand in the general public for some generally useless chunk of rock, then public demand rockets (at least in the vicinity of that priesthood’s System of extortion).
Then, the priesthood declares that each ounce of gold once it has been ritually minted with the face of one of the local gods, is suddenly worth 100 pounds of wheat or 1000 pounds of wheat (depending on what numbers the priests mark on that particular coin).
I read this in another group and it’s PERFECT:
Regarding government control: We don’t need them to survive and they know it. And because we don’t need them, they can’t control us. Because they can’t control us. they fear us. Because they fear us, they try to make us out to be ignorant and backwards. Because they make us out to be ignorant and backwards, they underestimate us. Because they underestimate us, that gives us more power!
J R Fibonacci HunnThe comments from Kelly and Sara are very remarkable to me. On December 29, 1890, the US government (the army) slaughtered about 300 civilians at a place called “wounded knee” (apparently as part of a gun control initiative).
Did the US government “need” the ongoing tax revenues and labor of the targeted population? No, after the massacre, the US government continued to operate much as it had before. The government did not immediately collapse as a result of killing a few hundred people.
J R Fibonacci HunnDifferent? Of course! Totally different? I will refrain from requesting a discussion of details. I have no special interest in examining “extremist” assertions.
If I were to die in 10 minutes, that would have virtually no effect on the operations of governments in my vicinity. In contrast, if the court system and overall operation of government in my midst were to suddenly cease, my life would radically change. I respect the power of certain groups.
J R Fibonacci HunnTo some people, anarchism may mean contempt for any form of social institution, as in a contempt for modern humanity in general. To me, anarchism means the absence of a preference for any particular form of social institution.
I have a very casual and scientific or intellectual interpretation of anarchy. I’m not insulted by the existence of social institutions, such as the institution of marriage or the existence of court systems.
But none of that is really the issue that you raised in the original post. If you were attempting to shame others for the experience of fear in relation to the coercive power of a certain government operation, then I would consider that attempt to be a lack of respect for other people as well as a lack of respect for fear. Not only are there dangers that would spark fear in an intelligent person, but could spark people to explore caution and collaboration and courage.
We all begin life with self-respect. Eventually, most of us are disturbed from that mode of simple relaxation. However, we can return to it. Indeed, returning to it can be a massive attraction.
A complication (in regard to the innate experience of self-respect) is when we learn language. We may learn it from people who are fluent in language, but perhaps not wise or attentive in their use of it. They are habitual users of language, as in negligent and naive and even hysterically presumptive.
So, we inherit a kind of hysteria from them. They program us with hysterical uses of language. As we learn a language at a very young age, we eventually “catch” the contagion of their hysteria (and their hysterical paradigms).
How do we develop critical thinking skills? As we encounter different uses of language, we begin to notice a variety of contrasts, such as when people use language in panics of hysteria as distinct from using it with humble respect.
What is perfectionism? It is operating in language with a fundamental presumption that there is exactly one way to be which is the perfect way, with all other ways being inferior or even insufficient and shameful.
It is the extreme of anxiety and paranoia. Further, it is incredibly common.
Should people be exactly one way but not anything else? What if someone occasionally behaves contrary to how they were not supposed (presumed) to be? Should we simply update our presumptions about them or panic and then attempt to reform them through intimidation and ridicule? I might do whatever I might do, but what about what I propose that other people
(such as you personally) should do… or should not do?
I am reminded of the actor Christian Slater arguing with a Russian man named Rakovsky (who also had the same first name as Mr. Slater). Mr. Slater protested Mr. Rakovsky’s use of the letter K in the spelling of his first name: Khristian. Rokavsky shouted back that Mr. Slater was using the wrong alphabet entirely (with Latin letters) rather than the proper one, the Cyrillic alphabet.
So, which is the one “true” spelling of the first name shared by Mr. Slater and Mr. Rakovsky: Christian, Khristian, or чристиан? Which alphabet is the best? Which language is the very best of all? Or, are such questions ultimately just nonsense?
Perfectionism is the fanatical distress of sincerely believing things like that “there is only one true religion, which is political Marxism.” In that mode of tension and anxiety, even the slightest error must be exposed and invalidated. It is a mode of divisiveness and antagonism and terrified competitiveness.
Notice that language is inherently symbolic. Truth is not contained in language. Language can point to various truths and cultivate various perceptions and experiences, but there is no one perception that is “fundamentally more perceptive” than all of the others.
Ironically, from self-respect, there is respect for diversity. One’s own inner diversity is humbly respected. External diversity is humbly respected.
One can be open to unfamiliar ideas rather than hysterically defend against them. One can be relaxed. One can admit to not already knowing everything that might be relevant in the future. Once can be open to learning.
Is it possible for there to be a slight contrast between someone’s behavior and their own comments about their behavior? Is it possible to create a construction in language that is both contradictory and yet also without any contradiction whatsoever?
Contradiction is a fundamental reality entirely independent of language. Or, language is the only context in which contradictions are possible. Or, both are true and yet neither are true.
Is there even such a thing as a contradiction? If not, should there be?
When there is a linguistic construction with an internal conflict of logic (of contrary presumptions or premises), then obviously that is because irony as well as reverse psychology do not exist. However, when I pretend to need other people’s permission to practice self-respect, then that is either a conscious pretense (like a joke or a theatrical presentation) or a delusional hysteria. I may say that I will inevitably experience innate self-respect in the future, but only after the right person validates my inherent freedom from the need for external validation.
Please agree that my way of spelling the word “true” is the one and only true way to spell true. If you do not display sufficient enthusiasm, then I will be very offended and explode in to outrages of emotions that were already suppressed, but then deny that the emotions were already suppressed.
No, to clarify, I was not already confused. When I first realized that I was confused, that was the first moment of confusion. Prior to that, I did not know whether or not I was confused and even presumed that I was clear. However, that presumption was later revealed to be false. Nevertheless, you and your words is what confused me and I was certainly not confused prior to you confusing me because that would be shameful and embarrassing and humiliating and if there is one thing that must be avoided at all costs, it is a shift from terrified arrogance to calm humility.
In conclusion, yes, I am planning to practice self-respect in the near future. I will do it as soon as all of you people stop practicing perfectionism and hysteria and so on. In fact, I will do it right after everyone else agrees that I am their one and only savior and thus have compensated for being born extremely naive and now I finally deserve to experience innate self-respect.
One of the central points of propaganda for a government could be the idea that the particular government promotes economic productivity (rather than penalizing it / reducing it). Of course, governments always use coercion to restrict economic activity (to govern economic activity).
First, money must be spent on fees and fines and taxes. Second, time must be allocated to learning government regulations, some of which are very complex, and then following those regulations. In some cases, huge amounts are time and stress can be involved with the calculation of complex tax debts, like with record-keeping, filling out stacks of forms, and hiring specialists to deal with complicated tax regulations.
By imposing extra demands on the time and wealth of human populations, governments reduce the economic prosperity of the masses. For instance, each payment to a government by an individual or business reduces the amount of wealth available for discretionary spending. So, to varying degrees, different governments promote poverty, never prosperity. Specifically, governments concentrate prosperity by force, taking prosperity from the general population and then allowing qualified applicants to request a portion of other people’s prosperity which the government has accumulated.
How much is overall productivity reduced because of the coercive threats presented by governments? It varies.
Consider the market for tax attorneys, which would not exist without governments using coercion to impose taxes. Only because of taxation systems, some portion of the population ends up as tax attorneys (rather than in more productive occupations).
What riches do tax attorneys produce? They produce absolutely nothing. They may help to reduce the amount of wealth taken by a government, but neither the government agencies nor the tax attorneys are involved in activities that are materially “productive” (with notable exceptions, such as scientists involved in secret military research to build better submarines, for instance).
Without governments, those involved in the profession of tax attorneys would probably resort to exploring more productive activities. All of their time would not be spent protecting their clients from government programs of wealth confiscation.
To clarify, we could use the word government as a label for a group of people who consistently use violence in well-organized ways and who attempt to monopolize the use of violence within their area(s) of operation. As for exactly how various governments influence economic activity within their area of operation, we could review in detail each of the following: which economic activities they prohibit or criminalize or fine, which ones they restrict or license, which ones they reduce by taxation, which ones they generally ignore, which ones they subsidize, and which ones they compel many people to perform or purchase.
In summary, governments are operations of redistribution by coercion, not of production. Many governments are also conspicuously destructive, although many of the activities of destructiveness may be performed outside of their own internal boundaries.
Governments demand time and money from the governed populations, reducing the prosperity and productivity of those people. However, the existence of governments will also create jobs and occupational specialties, such as tax attorneys, soldiers, and military submarine researchers.
Organizing this presentation took time. Reading it took time. How might your future productivity be effected?
You could relate to governments in a simple way: they are simply operations that redistribute wealth by force. Some people relate to governments as sources of benefits (wealth). Some people focus on protecting their wealth from government confiscation programs. Some people do both, such as hiring tax attorneys to reduce tax liability while also bidding for government contracts or even lobbying for a government to increase subsidies of their primary industry.
Why do people argue over what government policies should be? That is an in issue of no great interest to me in this moment, but I will raise that question briefly to note the massive amount of time that some people invest in to producing nothing and instead arguing about what government policies currently are or should be in the future.
Have governments influenced you to their benefit? Have they influenced you to spend time and money in a way that fits their interests?
They probably have at some point. Now, however, you may invest time in interacting with someone who has a simple, clear perspective on governments. You could take actions to reduce your exposure to tax liability, to protect your wealth carefully, to increase your access to government funds, and even to generally manage your time in new ways.
All around us, many people continue to will do as they have been programmed and hysterically argue about the best way for a particular government to promote productivity or prosperity. I might be more likely to argue about the best way for the sun to promote darkness or for thunder clouds to promote silence.
An example of pain interpretation is when someone has a relatively minor injury, such as a scratch, but then later concludes that the itch or scratch develops into poison ivy rashes. The brain learns to associate the initial sensation with later developments.
There can be a social panic by a parent of “oh, Jesus, see you got in to some poison ivy! I told you to be more careful but now you have ruined everything. This is very inconvenient to me. You are such a burden.”
Based on past trauma, even small traumas from a neurological standpoint, what does the brain do the next time there is a similar scratch or itch? The brain signals high alert… Stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline flood out.
Oh but wait there was no pain until I *saw* the scratch and identified it. This is like a cut suddenly hurting much more right after I see it… As distinct from the time of the initial injury.
J R Fibonacci HunnHow do people attempt to interrupt displays of worry? By using affirmations, by arguing with others about trivia, by condemning aspects of reality in a “socially-respectable form of concern.”
but the core concerns that people have are often neglected… Which gets back to the Jung quote.
J R Fibonacci HunnHow do we get DHA in our eyes? Apparently the only way is from diet. A few million years ago there was a massive development in the evolution of life on this planet which was the innovation of a certain small Sea plankton making lots of this fatty acid called DHA.
I have consumed certain harvested seawater that has lots of that sea plankton. I have also eaten a lot of oysters and shellfish and other seafood that have a lot of DHA because they eat so much of that sea plankton or are so close in the food chain to it.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Interaction with highly-developed people can be helpful in bringing light in to spiritual darkness. In Buddhism, we can use the word “sangha” to refer to interactions with people who are at least interested in spirituality and introspection, although interest is certainly not the same as expertise or wisdom.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is more about how the issue is delicate. When I have experienced a traumatizing experience and developed social anxiety about a topic, then I may attempt to hide it in myself. If certain emotional displays are socially shamed as negative (typically, such as displaying grief for a boy or rage for a girl), then I may attempt to interrupt certain physical gestures or facial expressions or vocal tones. I bury the emotion to avoid being punished /attacked/ abused. That burying of “the shadow” is adaptive.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Then, based on those “symptoms,” we may gather with others in to support groups or seek counseling. The problem with so many counselors is that they are incompetent and just trigger the same old traumas, restimulating people rather than untangling and resolving issues.
J R Fibonacci Hunn What is the safest way to do that? In private, in a secure, safe interaction, plus surrounded by lots of comforts and conveniences (like on a week-long spiritual retreat).
Plus, the person with whom we are interacting needs to be one with whom we have no special anxiety arising. If our only relationship dynamic with them is “ally in accessing emotions,” that simplifies things.
It is harder to use (for these explorations) a spouse or in-law or co-worker… because I would probably hold some tension in relation to my future with them. I would be too anxious… even without being conscious of it. I might “state good intentions,” yet always my unconscious could complicate something that could be quite simple.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, there is the unique social context of a “ritual of self-development.” Then, there is the quality of the interaction with the ally (or allies).
The ally should be internally “open” (free from condemnation, hysteria, triggers). They should be personally capable of assisting, as in perceptive, skillful in communicating, able to gently and indirectly introduce topics as well as be direct and precise.
In other words, they need to be capable of being effective as an ally. Then, they need to be committed (willing). To attract the attention of an effective ally, people might pay thousands of dollars for that week-long retreat (or for a few months of training with, for instance, Byron Katie).
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, when someone is consciously present with me (whether by skype or in person) and then assists me in bringing attention to various emotions, then many chronic tensions may resolve “by themselves.” If I really respect the process of grieving, then whatever early triggers of grieving are in my personal history may not need to be untangled.
The issue is not the original event. The issue is relaxing the chronic physical tension with respect for the original adaptiveness of the coping mechanism.
It is not “bad” for people to bury emotions and develop social pretenses. It is a type of healthy adaption to a dangerous or unstable circumstance.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Anyway, I skipped this earlier in my replies to Nicky…. since as a child I might want to stop displaying certain emotions that have been socially ridiculed, then it becomes important that I cut off my attention to certain issues. I stop allowing myself to rest my attention on anything that MIGHT trigger the invalidated emotion.
J R Fibonacci Hunn When the US government made the possession of gold by US Citizens a crime in 1933 (inventing a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment AND a fine of what is now worth about $185,000), the reason that the announcement produced fear and compliance was because of the military dominance of the US government over the governed population.
J R Fibonacci Hunn That is denial. That is denying the rather obvious fact that the basic thing that governments do (as distinct from other organizations) is the concentrated use of violence in a very public way (as distinct from the violence of gangs which they often attempt to keep away from public attention).
J R Fibonacci Hunn When the US government dropped two atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, that was not to win that war, I argue. The war was already won. That was to demonstrate to the rest of the world (besides the Japanese) that the US was the dominant operation of tyranny on the planet.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, people are chronically traumatized through government programming rituals and even programmed with coping mechanisms (like to argue about how governments should be and then fight amongst themselves over what reforms are best and then how to produce those reforms). People are programmed to practice political antagonism within their own nation.
Competing political idealisms are programmed. Political antagonisms are programmed. The chronic “stalemate” is part of the design of governing systems for governing the governed populations.
J R Fibonacci Hunn People with restimulated trauma must look at ANYTHING except for the simple realities of government. They create tantrums and dramas and distractions and personal conflicts with their spouse.
Why? To avoid even noticing the issues that are really most frightening / dangerous.
J R Fibonacci Hunn People do not want to even address issues or topics that MIGHT be so intense to them that it overwhelms their repression mechanisms and results in the surfacing of repressed emotions. People create thousands of justifications for outrage AS A COPING MECHANISM to avoid the simple terror of government military dominance.
J R Fibonacci Hunn If someone does not congratulate me enthusiastically enough for my bravery in ridiculing some political opposition, then I may unfriend them. If they display some other form of hysteria than my own, then I ridicule them perhaps and hope that they unfriend me so I can go tell my buddies that very important story about “how immature some people are.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn One of my facebook friends is a big anti-vaccine crusader, which I certainly respect in general. I just wonder why that issue is so distinct for her. There are a multitude of ways which governments conduct chemical warfare on their domestic populations and singling out vaccines is something that I personally did myself for a while, but eventually I noticed bigger patterns.
J R Fibonacci Hunn … as in the multitude of programs for “governing” public health, as in keeping it within certain limits. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being optimal health, what if the government can have the vast majority of people have health that is between the 2 and 4 levels on the 1 to 10 scale?
J R Fibonacci Hunn “Because of the horrible consequences of our prior policies, we need more taxes to further advance our past practices and redistribute even more market share away from natural health services and toward increasing addictions to pharmaceutical intoxicants. We need to protect the practitioners of conventional medicine from the competition of more effective treatment methods.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, am I actually specifically concerned about government programs to reduce the health of the population? I have no specific concern with those kinds of programs. I see the bigger pattern of how governments operate. I am not currently employed by a government, but I have been and now that I understand the actual purposes (rather than being confused and anxious about defending idealism taught to me in school), I might go in to politics or “public service,” although I have no interest in that either. I just would not be in such a state of inner conflict about it as I was about it in the 1990s (when I was briefly a bureaucrat trying to “save humanity” through government programs which often did the opposite of “saving humanity”).
J R Fibonacci Hunn Briefly, I “blew the whistle” on some activities that were under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Justice. I sincerely expected a thorough investigation. Instead, I was fired… along with several other people with first-hand knowledge of the incident in question.
I was shocked. I was confused. In fact, I had already been confused for quite a while, but suddenly my confusion was as obvious to me as it might have been to others for a while.
J R Fibonacci Hunn What could I note as “a short version of the lesson that I learned?” First, loyalty can be very important in politics. Second, all written regulations are shapes of ink on paper. Humans either enforce those rules, ignore those rules, or carefully protect those who break those rules.
If the DOJ “occasionally” operates in ways that protect CERTAIN rule-breakers, so be it. Maybe they “almost always” enforce the rules as written and then the media and schools “just happen” to emphasize the cases in which the rules are enforced in accord with what is stated in the rules (whether that is 99% of the time or 1% of the time or somewhere in between).
J R Fibonacci Hunn An instance that I like to reference is when the US government attempted to disrupt the diamond cartel DeBeers. The government agents went to South Africa and presented the paperwork of a legal summons to a top official in DeBeers. The corporate officer promptly ripped up the summons in front of the government agents and said “you do not know who you are dealing with here. You need to go home and enjoy a holiday with your families rather than endanger yourselves by pursuing this court summons. Would you like some tea before you go?”
J R Fibonacci Hunn That investigation promptly de-railed. However, what happened when DeBeers did not like that General Motors was making “too many” synthetic diamonds” in a plant in Detroit? DeBeers hired some “goodwill ambassadors” to visit the GM plant and “make it known” that the GM policy of producing specific kinds of synthetic diamonds was about to change.
J R Fibonacci Hunn GM promptly revised their policy in accord with the “recommendations” of the goodwill ambassadors.” Why did Henry Ford stop making cars that ran on bio-diesel?
Certain special interests guiding the US government “made it known” that they had the power to make alcohol illegal. They created a constitutional amendment for “prohibition.” Ford stopped producing cars that ran on bio-diesel. People well-connected with political leaders in Washington, DC, amassed huge fortunes illegally transporting alcohol (because they had friends in the government agencies that enforced the laws).
When the prohibition of alcohol was reversed, why didn’t Ford resume building cars that ran on bio-diesel? Because he had been persuaded by the “political will” of certain special interests that “it was in Ford’s best interests to cooperate.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Who was behind the ban on alcohol? If I recall my prior readings correctly, it may have been a combination of the Rockefeller oil cartel and DuPont. DuPont was also on a campaign to make hemp illegal because hemp products threatened their monopoly on industrial textiles. The Rockefellers wanted to force everyone to use petroleum-based products (gasoline), so they had to stop bio-diesel from getting popular.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Also, oil-based derivatives are the core of the pharmaceutical industry. So, if cannabis oil was very effective at improving health (and if bad health was essential for maintaining a high amount of addictions to oil-derived pharmaceuticals), then maybe that is why lobbyists for socialized medicine are so often paid by Rockefeller-controlled charitable foundations.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Anyway, one more detail to address: when a government imposes a fine on a newly invented crime of “unauthorized possession of gold by a US Citizen,” they also dictate what form of payment will be accepted to discharge the newly invented liability (debt). When they invent tax debts (sales taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, etc), they also identify what form of payment they will accept.
That coercive power to impose debts on the masses is the foundation for creating public demand for currencies. How to increase public demand for a currency? Raise tax rates (or other fines/ debts) without increasing the supply of currency.
How to decrease public demand (purchasing power) for a currency? Decrease tax rates without changing the supply of currency in circulation.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Coercion (extortion) is the foundation. If a government says “we will exchange this piece of magic paper for 5 healthy bulls,” then that is the exchange rate. Whoever can change the exchange rate (like to 4 bulls per currency contract or to 6 bulls per currency contract) controls the purchasing power of the currency.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Who has that power in regard to the US? It is not the government. The government is an agent (servant) of a “higher power,” which in the case of the US has been the private Federal Reserve Bank since 1933. Of course, “the Fed” is itself “just another link in a much bigger chain.”
Our customized services:
|We offer financial programs for investment management, asset protection, & debt management
For businesses, we offer marketing through websites, search engines, email, & social media
Finally, we offer custom-tailored programs for promoting health & wellness.
What makes us more relevant?
We understand that what you value most in a service is knowing that it fits well with your priorities and circumstances (even as they change). Next, you value the identifying of a target outcome that triggers powerful motivation to keep you focused. Then, you value clear action steps that you will consistently take because they produce quick, obvious results to build momentum and create breakthroughs. You value knowing exactly what is most important to measure and knowing how to precisely measure it.
Which is more important to you: a recent major change in your health or loyalty to the ideas about health that you were taught to memorize in the 1980s?
Which is more important to you: a recent major change in the global economy or a familiar investment method that you know was very effective in the 1990s?
Which is more important to you: a recent major change in the local weather forecast or what the 10-day forecast said about tomorrow 9 days ago?
First, find out what is most important to you now.
Part 1) Imagine being a young child (with no presumptions or expectations) who then notices the behavior patterns of people nearby. What contrasts might the child notice?
For instance, many people could claim to be interested in a particular outcome, yet different people have different reactions when they finally get the outcome they say they have been targeting. What do their reactions signal?
After a young child gets fascinated by something and then eventually masters it, what is usually their obvious reaction to their new success? They display delight and pride, right?
Others, after success at some task, seem rather confused. They seem not to know what to do next. Soon, they may get anxious and seek a new obsession to chase, like they are distracting themselves from something. They are certainly not operating from the same mode of simplicity that is typical of a young child, are they?
When young children are practicing new skills, they may eagerly pursue a new obsession. If they do not experience immediate success, they simply keep experimenting, right?
Some people, such as young children, may seem very clear about what they value and they are not troubled by disappointing results. They are interested in favorable results and they realize that learning can involve lots of small mistakes or failures.
Others seem to be surprisingly frustrated, easily distracted, and frequently embarrassed. Eventually you realize that all around you are people who obviously are not really clear about what is important to them, yet they are anxiously pretending to be clear.
Instead of expressing your curiosity or perceptions to them, you
Repeatedly, they may passionately compete for social validation of the possibility that they are clear about what is important to them. They may repeatedly insist that they are clear, perhaps attempting to convince themselves.
However, they may also isolate themselves away from those who do not share their same focus (in regard to whatever they claim that everyone should agree is very important). What do they do after isolating themselves? Wouldn’t it be interesting if, instead of simply focusing on producing whatever outcome they say is so important, they neglect that issue and focus on their resentment for those who do not share their focus?
Part 3) Notice contrasting reactions to curiosity
If someone occasionally displays to them an embarrassing amount of curiosity, they may withdraw or even attack their “accuser.” Rather than simply highly valuing constructive criticism, they may react with panic, rage, and condemnation at anything resembling an offer of an alternative perception (or even an explicit “correction”).
They are trying to avoid humiliation (the arising of humility). Some of them continue in a state of suppressed distress (paranoia) for years or decades.
Part 4) Do you explore your motivations or avoid them?
Organizing from outside in:Which would be more important to you: a natural disaster like an earthquake disrupts all transportation in the local area or a plan that you made to get to the airport and get in a plane to leave at the originally scheduled time of departure? In other words, is your original plan more important than the circumstances that were the basis of that plan?
Most people give too much importance to their own past, including what they said or planned. When your circumstances rapidly change, that can change your priorities, right? So, your priorities are a function of your circumstances.
(These are my unfinished notes for the homepage of a website. At some point, I will have “calls to action” like subscribe or contact us etc….)
Self-awareness, humility, & courage
Is it a good measure of the accuracy of an idea to only consider how familiar you are with it already? For instance, when you were 2 years old, would you have rejected the concept of gravity simply on the basis that you were not already familiar with the word “gravity?”
Just because you might have been repeatedly rewarded for memorizing and blindly repeating an idea as “science” does not establish it as accurate. Just because lots of other people were also rewarded for memorizing and blindly repeating an idea (such that it is widely accepted by them) does not establish it as having ever been tested, confirmed, or even reviewed for logical plausibility. For instance, consider the plausibility of the idea that cholesterol is a very dangerous substance manufactured by trillions of livers in order to poison the rest of the organism. How reasonable is that?
There may be social institutions that are designed to interfere with self-awareness and natural humility. Instead, the institutions may reward conformity, arrogant presumptiveness, and fixation on programmed topics only.
Critical thinking may or may not be specifically censored, since there is no need to censor it really when the constant ritual is to memorize and blindly repeat ideas. Critical thinking can usually just be ignored or, if relevant, labeled as “disruptive” (and then disruptive participants can be drugged or simply expelled).
Some people may find these statements unsettling or even shameful. However, we can have the courage to find people who are emotionally stable enough to respectfully consider these ideas without panicking or erupting in to contempt.
Systems for governing or ruling human populations exist. If those systems promote certain outcomes, so be it. We do not have to “immediately rescue everyone” from the existence of systems of coercion and indoctrination. In fact, because of the effectiveness of certain systems of intimidation, many people will be extremely anxious about even admitting to the intensity of the social anxieties that are ritually promoted by certain systems.
The courageous option is to stabilize one’s self in self-awareness and overall functionality, then to selectively interact with others. Perhaps we occasionally present someone with a result (like a case study) and then invite them to ask for details if they are interested. If some people are not interested or even seem threatened by a particular idea, that may be of no special interest whatsoever.
As for the programmed idea of exhausting one’s self for the common good, that is a reliable program for self-sabotage. Do we really need anyone else’s gratitude for us? What if we focus more on expressing our gratitude for others than on competing for the gratitude of others?
Courage involves respecting the dangers of certain popular systems and also respecting our own innate interests. Do my favorite practices need to be popular in order for me to be satisfied with the results that they produce? Popularity of a method and my satisfaction with the results not only are distinct issues, but may often be contrary. In other words, if I am attracted to above average results, then average methods (the most popular or publicized methods) may be of little or no interest to me.
Today, I will stress the importance to me of high-quality communication, exactly how it is important to me, and what specifically makes some communications so much more valuable to me than others. I expect you to already be interested in this topic and to find most of what I say to increase your existing appreciation for communication, then perhaps also lead to increases in the quality of your future communications.
So how exactly do I measure the value of my communications? I associate certain results with my communications. As I communicate, I notice that I refine my behaviors as a result of my communications, and then the refined behaviors produce new results for me. So, how I perceive my communications to influence the overall quality of my life is how I value those communications.
My perceptions about the influence of my communication on my other results can be a topic of special interest to me. I can value precision in regard to my perceptiveness about how my communications are influencing the rest of my life. I can value communicating in ways that promote my own perceptiveness and that also expose me to the input of people that I deem to be unusually perceptive. I can even directly motivate certain select people to provide me with high-quality feedback, criticism, and coaching.
Communication is one of many factors in life. Again, it is those other factors which we can use to measure the value of any particular instance of communication.
Communication is actually not essential, at least not in the way that health, wealth, and relationships can be. If health declines far enough, then life ends. Also, good health contributes to most any other priority.
As for wealth, if wealth declines far enough, that can effect health as well as how free we are in regard to our time. Note that some of the most restrictive choices that people make about their schedule are in regard to concern or even desperation about scarcity of wealth. Most people who experience stress about their schedules can admit to originally constructing those schedules around money-related issues, like organizing time around saving money better or around earning money better (such as by getting a job or going to college to get a better job). Of course, some people also organize their schedules around promoting health or promoting high-quality relationships.
On the topic of relationships, communication is extremely important to many relationships. For instance, the flourishing of a genetic dynasty (biological descendants) not only can involve communication between a man and a woman, but between adults and the children who will grow up to be adults and eventually parents. Another way that communication is important is as a factor in how well we raise our children as well as how well we select mates for the production of children.
So, to summarize so far, communication can influence all of our behaviors and the results that we produce through those behaviors. If I notice which topics of communication are most magnetic for me, I can also notice whether I am operating in a mode of innovation, of casual retrospection, or of intense repulsion, frustration, or avoidance.
I can notice that my attention repeatedly returns to certain details relating to health, wealth, or personal relationships (including parenting or child-rearing). Do I want to create a specific new outcome? Do I want to calmly and carefully study some subject(s) with no pressure to immediately excel? Or, is there some result that I want to reduce, reverse, prevent, or avoid?
Next, what exactly makes certain communications so much more effective or productive in regard to consistently generating results that I value? First, there must be clarity in regard to desired results for there to be an organizing of behavior around effectively producing those results. However, clarity is often absent for many modern people. Some people report an experience of distraction, haze, numbness, confusion, or inner conflict.
In those cases, the only communication that may powerfully attract people in that stage will be communication that directly targets the promotion of clarity (perhaps along with related qualities like calmness, alertness, perceptiveness, and understanding or expertise in regard to any particular subject of interest). People who are experiencing an elevated degree of distress typically will strongly prefer resolving or relieving that distress before launching any new experiments.
If there is a background of confusion about the source of their distress, then there may still be obviously distinctive patterns of emotion and behavior in relation to certain topics or issues. Those topics or issues trigger a surfacing of pre-existing confusion or even distress.
For each person, there can be a specific sequence of inquiries to pursue as well as a specific pace that is appropriate for them at any point in time. Sometimes, a person will be more clear on what they do not want to do next then on what is relevant for them to do next. In a single short conversation, it is possible for someone to shift from a mode of tremendous caution to at least one point of clarity in regard to a relevant outcome to promote and a baby step to take in the direction of promoting that outcome.
So, inner clarity is essential for the highest quality of communication. When two or more people all experience a high degree of clarity, then high quality communication is most likely between them. Further, high-quality conversations often include a high degree of perceptiveness in regard to the other participants and their experiences and priorities. When, for each participant, there is inner clarity and interpersonal perceptiveness, then the next issue is the ability to effectively communicate ideas, especially concisely. When all three of those factors are present, then the final issue is the issue of interpersonal compatibility or devotion.
Compatibility means that the priorities and the abilities of the participants fit together well. When the various participants all spontaneously recognize an unusually high degree of compatibility between each other, then devotion naturally develops. Devotion can develop slowly or quickly.
This natural devotion based on obvious compatibility is sharply distinct from mere hope or presumption. We may add presumptions and hopes to an experience of devotion, but the devotion itself is distinct from any specific future hopes or expectations.
In the event of any conflict between loyalties or alliances, it is typical that only the most powerful alliance will remain. All lesser alliances may be sacrificed if they are perceived to be a possible threat to a more powerful devotion or bond.
In some cases, two people will experience a different degree of devotion toward each other. Devotion is based on perceptions and the precision of two different people’s perceptiveness may or may not match. Individuals can assess their own level of devotion as well as that of any other party. Also, individuals can assess each party’s devotion to competing alliances (or interest in forming new alliances).
When two or more people experience a sudden devotion to each other (with no conflicting alliances or bonds), then partnership naturally will develop. Long conversations will blossom with natural momentum. The frequency of interactions will tend to increase. Also, the depth or intimacy of the interactions can rapidly shift.
Further, when there is enough compatibility for momentum to build between two people, then that may result in each of those two people re-assessing the quality of their communications and relationships with any possible competing alliances. Certain existing alliances may be neglected or even sacrificed.
Also, it is common that as the connection between two people deepens, they may present each other with more and more intense challenges and tests. In other words, as their interest in a particular ally or partner increases, then the precision of their perceptions about that other person becomes increasingly valuable to them.
To review, the issue that makes some communications clearly more valuable than other communications is the issue of the new results that are produced in the lives of the participants through their communication together. Further, the spontaneous development of interpersonal devotion is the most obvious indicator of a history of high-quality communication. Contributing factors to that devotion include inner clarity, interpersonal perceptiveness, the ability to communicate efficiently, and finally the compatibility between the participants in regard to their priorities and capacities.