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?
Is it possible for the mass media and education systems to accidentally bias our receptivity to various ideas (and our value systems about what is important or what is trivia)? I say that it is possible for there to be accidental cases of biasing, but that the vast majority of the biasing could be the core purpose of their programming operations.
Do movie producers and movie directors “accidentally” conceive fictional stories and then publicize them to attempt to make $100 million from a movie? If so, then why not at least accept the possibility that there is for-profit deception in the systems of mainstream programming (media programming and school programming)?
I will resort to math to lay out 5 possible amounts of intentional deception in the media and school system: 0%, 1-33%, 34-66%, 67-99%, or 100%. Of those 5 choices, how much of the programming content do you personally think is INTENTIONALLY constructed to deceive the masses?
Is the temperature that is reported on the news really accurate? Of course! The vast majority of info is totally accurate (whether or not relevant).
But what if there were intentional programs not just to “poison our minds,” but to poison our actual water supplies and food supplies? Is that a paranoid question to ask? Given the fact that there are cases in which one militant group has actually poisoned the water supplies of an enemy, is it ALWAYS paranoid to test the quality of drinking water?
More crudely, will you lose your rights, if a majority of people aggress upon you? The answer is no. The robber, no matter how much people they have, comes back to rob you a thousand times. You are still in the right, Justice still on ur side.
When someone relates to a particular kind of thing as shameful, that is like a chronic tension or preoccupation for them. If they have suppressed aggression and then witness something hat they have been programmed to relate to as shameful, they will explode in contempt: “THAT politician is EVIIIIILLLL!”
Also, I have a discipline of knowledge, which I earned thru research and reading, and discussion. It is called negative rights. Do not reduced it to mere claims.
I do understand, this rights are infringed and defeated against the treat of brute force of the state.
I am an absolutist, but how to strategically and prudently get us to freedom is a totally another discussion.
One way, i think is by talking to people about what it is.
There are no virtues and good outcomes by adopting defeatist attitudes in in the face of what is dire.
I might recommend skepticism in regard to organizing one’s interactions around a narrative of “let’s all join together as victims against our common oppressor.” Maybe that is favorable at times. Maybe something else would be more favorable….
I opposed rule by majority. I Stand for nobody should rule. It is call Anarchism.
Please i am no Social justice warrior to pander for support, to overthrow power to gain my own power.
U are pre-judging me by a far margin. Please clarify with me, what do i think of something. I do not think i used words loosely. But, u seem to have another set of linguistics interpretation.
i.e. Many people can relate to the right to vote as a DUTY, like it is “wrong or shameful” to fail to exercise the right to vote. Others relate to voting with much less stress or distress, like simply as an option or opportunity.
I can follow a recipe and measure a particular amount of water to pour in to a bowl. The numerical measurement could be “half a gallon” or “eight ounces.”
Those are discrete “units.” Those are “objective.”
There are “binary” linguistic categories (dualities), but there are also spectrums.
Then, someone reads the label and says “bring me that gallon of distilled water.” They might be sincere, but they are not accurate. That is still only eight ounces. The water is still not distilled.
Is it important that she carries a sword? Perhaps….
But all we are saying, they are certain objective code all humans can agree. And it can be said to be objective. And this should be the basis of law.
Liberty is much more interesting, and more essential to get the word out.
In that same regard, all men need a code of values to guide them in their lives to pursue a specific value. What universal value is this? Once again, I invite you to hazard a guess?
It is within categories, like mammal and animal. Here is something close to a cat, but not a cat:
Further “objective reality” is symbol in language that means “everything except for language.” Language is the realm of subjectivity. No matter how hard you look for subjectivity “out there,” it is simply does not exist without some commentary being made on what is ***fundamentally non-linguistic.***
When someone kills
Is he a killer
When someone steals
Would you call them a thief
“You are a thief”
“You are a killer”
“You are a rapist”
On one level this is true
.. Our feeds, my feed, my page, your page, really is just a hall of mirrors.
What are your reactions
Biasness/ ignorance to close your EYE ✨👁 when it is not “perfect and pretty”
Notice what you Notice
We have the capacity to socially interact using language. We can make claims and accusations and labels.
So, When the warlords conduct rituals to formally label someone a rapist, they may exercise the power of punishing the convicted rapist. However, the warlords are always selective in who they accuse and who they punish. The warlords even define and redefine what they classify as rape (and different subcategories of rape, like “statutory rape”).
so, if Bill Clinton or bill Cosby is accused of rape, that might not be pursued by the warlords (or not far). However, a man named Miranda confessed to rape and yet was convicted and then still released (because the rituals of the warlords eventually resulted in a canceling of his conviction… not because there was doubt regarding his guilt, but because he was not informed prior to confessing of his “right to remain silent.”)
On the other extreme, merely accusing Bill Clinton or other high ranking people of rape can be very dangerous. People can lose their jobs over a politically unpopular accusation. Accusers can be blackmailed or “found dead after committing suicide with 3 shots to the back of their head.”
How does someone fire those last 2 shots? They do not.
The media and other powerful groups present labels like “suicide” which may be slightly imprecise… Kind of like the popular fables about Santa Claus might be slightly imprecise.
Consider the common reference “THOUS SHALT NOT KILL.” That was translated to English from another language. The translation “kill” is grossly inaccurate.
The prohibition is on murder, not killing. In the Old Testament, there are reports of a supernatural being who repeatedly kills huge numbers of people, such as through the great flood and the plagues used to enslave the Israelites. Then the being directs Moses and an army of 12,000 Israelites to invade and massacre the neighboring Midianites.
Within the same tradition, we see “proverbs and poetry” indicating that there is “both a time to kill and a time to heal, a time for war and for peace, for hate and for love.”
However, contempt can be a very popular “program.” So, some hysterical people will be terrified and ashamed by the great holy empire and so they will look around in a competitive mode for people to vilify.
From contempt, there is a Desire to present one’s own glory. For me to seem the most glorious, I may protest the activities of others with contempt.
“That tax collector is taking someone else’s property!”
“That movie actor is pretending to be someone he is not and that is deceptive!”
“That politician is reading from a script!”
“Theta athlete faked left but then went right with the specific intention to DECEIVE the opponent, which is EVIL and WRONG. They even intentionally foul the other team to prevent obvious scores!”
so, the masses are programmed with religions of hysteria and contempt. This is very valuable to the empire, so massive amounts of resources are invested in that outcome.
As for the common comments on the holy ideal of Justice, we might not know the origin of that word. Whatever the warlord dictates as “official policy” is justice.
Warlords invent crimes by criminalizing certain patterns of action (at least when involving certain people). Thomas Jefferson might have supported the right to this or that, but did he defend the right of his slaves to carry guns? Nope.
Human history shows that there are no universally-enforced standards. Rulers always oppress.
In the rituals of the US, it is valid for presidents to pardon convicts and suspects. So, when the accomplices in the assassination of Abe Lincoln were pardoned by the man who became president through that assassination (Andrew Johnson), that was legal.
killing Abe was a crime, but pardoning those involved in the killing was also totally valid within the holy rituals of that imperial system.
Governments are systems by which one group systematically rules over another. The prophet Noah declared his dominion over all of humanity.
That sentiment has been echoed by other people in the position of “king of kings” for a long time, such as pope Nicholas V in the 15th century. The claim for political superiority over all of mankind is probably even much older than the prophet Noah…..
Have you noticed that most children can easily be deceived? For instance, they can be deceived by conspiring adults who promote delusions about Santa Claus. He is a magical being with psychic powers that is constantly monitoring their behaviors (for obedience or disobedience to the directives of the social authority).
A child may presume that certain people in particular will be sincere and precise in their communications with the child. Further, lots of people who are all presumed by the children to be sincere and experienced can all repeat the same ideas or doctrines about Santa Claus with so much apparent confidence that the children never examine the logic of the assertions.
So, what if people of all ages are told that an eternal celestial being named Saint Peter is monitoring their every thought from heaven and keeping an account of their behavioral conformity to determine whether they will earn eternal torment or eternal reward? In that case, isn’t it possible that some adults will actually experience anxiety about being allegedly monitored by the all-seeing “eye in the sky?”
What if some adults also wear a cross on a necklace or put up a painting of The Holy Shepherd who is always watching over them from inside the frame on the wall? If people are programmed to associate that painting or that necklace with a particular story, then they could be reminded of that story every time they see that magic shape of that cross.
It is the shape that symbolizes a gruesome case of torture and a public ritual of human sacrifice. In fact, there have been many crucifixions, although one specific crucifixion is extremely famous. In fact, even Saint Peter was crucified, but that one is only moderately famous. (Saint Peter apparently requested to be crucified upside down because “he was not worthy of being crucified in the standard position of head up and feet down, because that was the position in which Jesus was crucified.”)
After Saint Peter was crucified and died, some legends indicate that he would have met Osiris, who had been monitoring him from the North Pole and keeping an account of his conformity to the behavioral ideals of the local cult. As for who met Osiris (after Osiris died) to let him know whether he would be assigned to heaven or hell, apparently Osiris is credited as having first told that story, so he was the first “holy scorekeeper” and there were no others prior to him.
Eventually, there were some ridiculous accusations (by someone claiming to pretend to be Santa Claus) that Osiris simply made up the story about being able to know everyone’s every thought. Perhaps he was just trying to promote anxiety and distress in the naive.
Others have suggested that it is reasonably easy to notice when a dog looks guilty as well as to manipulate a human in to revealing whether or not they have a guilty conscience. Therefore, Osiris did not really need to be constantly watching in order to assess someone’s sense of self-worth. He just needed to be perceptive.
So, an organism’s health can be compromised by curses, such as the programming of intense distress about conformity to a set of behavioral ideals (with some behaviors being glorified and some being vilified). The logical premise for glorifying certain actions is because they would not otherwise be performed as often without being glorified. The logical premise for vilifying certain actions is because they otherwise would be performed more often unless vilified.
Some social conditioning is mild (producing alertness and caution and perhaps an eventual understanding of the logic behind various behavioral guidelines). Some social conditioning is intense (producing hysteria and paranoia and shame and agony).
The result of some of the more extreme forms of social conditioning is that the targeted organisms will be indirectly programmed to agonize. They will agonize over what is the best thing to do and what is the best way to do it. Their agonizing will not result in taking objective measurements, but always by comparing their experience to an external authority (with favoritism given to the external authority as a means to invalidate or obscure their direct experience).
They will agonize over avoiding the social recognition of their shame. They continuously invalidate certain types of experience as shameful (as well as invalidating various past incidents as shameful). When they invalidate certain types of experience as shameful, we may notice it more as they show contempt and animosity toward some villain or traitor. However, they may also have had that same kind of experience in the past (or even currently).
Next, we will explore the topics of fear and faith. That will bring us to a new respect for the experience of shame.
Briefly, what I mean by faith is simply an openness to reality. In contrast to how I am using the word faith, I notice that many people seem to relate to the word faith as a possible solution to fear.
Instead, I do not relate to fear as a terrifying problem to be solved. I do not relate to fear as a shameful problem that ideally I would totally prevent (for myself and others).
That kind of hysterical fear of fear is extremely ironic. It is also a chronic state of mental instability with constant paranoia about the most shameful thing ever: fear.
However, all that distress might be rather delusional. Fear, when it reaches sufficient intensity, naturally produces alertness and caution and even courage. All of that can be very valuable.
Generally speaking, I even have faith in fear. I am open to fear being relevant and valuable. Precisely perceiving risk or danger is a useful ability that is worth developing.
Certainly, it is possible to sincerely perceive something to be dangerous or threatening when it is not. However, which is worse: to be extremely cautious and drive very slowly… Or for a driver to close their eyes and step hard on the gas pedal and race in to an intersection without looking to see if the traffic light is red or yellow or green (or if there is a stream of huge trucks speeding in from the left and the right)?
Many people have been socially programmed to experience a rather delusional shame about fear. They may relate to faith as a possible method for overcoming fear (or for pretending not to still be afraid and to hide their anxieties socially from others). But they may be talking about a very desperate hope, not faith.
Their “faith” is anxious and easily threatened. It is extremely vulnerable so they defend it furiously.
I know it because I have experience with “having” that type of “faith.” It was a coping mechanism for distracting myself from certain stressful realities and even for entertaining some comforting fantasies.
There can be value to that kind of faith. That is a terrified kind of faith in which people may even attempt to withdraw from all possible sources of fear. If mere comfort is the goal, then to rehearse comforting fantasies would be a relevant strategy, right?
But with “real faith,” there is no constant distress about avoiding all possible threats. From real faith, I am open to possible threats and assessing them precisely.
If I have any presumption which does not fit with what I observe, I am open to altering my presumptions. I am not desperately defending my presumptions as if they are not presumptive.
Faith is inherently about presumptions. If I know something with absolutely certainty, that is not called faith. Faith is when I operate as if something is true even without any clear evidence that it is true.
I am open to increased precision. I am open to correcting inaccuracy.
I am not insisting that my presumptions are not presumptions. I am not rejecting contrary evidence and ridiculing the threat posed by logic and skepticism and critical thinking.
so, when I say faith, I do not mean a fixation on a particular word or sequence of words as “the most important of all words.” I do not just mean “a faith,” like a set of concepts or doctrines to worship as the only ideas worthy of attention or respect. I also do not mean a statement made as an affirmation or claim.
I do not mean “faith in words.” I mean something quite relaxed.
This faith does not require anyone else’s validation. It does not correspond to panic over the possibility that others might be skeptical of it or even reject it.
My faith does not rely on words. However, my faith can include a variety of practices that involve words. I can use a particular sequence of words in a ritualistic way, including things as simple as consistently saying “I love you” to particular people when we are departing from each other.
Why is this kind of faith so rare? Why didn’t I have it for so long?
more related topics:
On rituals for promoting social anxiety….
Obsession with approval
Expectation of consensus
Discomfort with scientific inquiry
(Especially of the most popular dogmas of popular pseudo-science)
On the worship of diagnostic labels as demonic pathogens
Could someone please explain to me the differences between :: capitolism, Imperialism, and slavery… (yes I understand they all exist in their own categories, but humor me anyway… please)
“If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” Vladimir Lenin
“But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” Josiah Stamp.
When Moses directed the Israelite army to slaughter all of the Midianites except for 24,000 virgin girls, who were captured and then distributed among the victors, that could be called slavery / enslavement.
However, if they had allowed even a portion of the Midianite adults to remain alive and maintain a social order in which the Midianites had official power (even as puppets), that would be colonization / colonialism / imperialism.
As for capitalism, that is a system in which a select group exerts military dominance over the rest of the governed population and allows formal ownership privileges to at least a large fraction of the population. Those who have wealth that is backed by the military force of the government can be recognized as having “property rights.” Those people who at last have the legal capacity to directly own property (like in contrast to people who are legally “minors”) can be said to “own themselves,” although there may also be a legal category of slaves.
There is always some inequality in terms of military dominance by some people over others, although capitalism allows for private individuals to have property rights, while in communism, the small centralized group of formal decision-makers do not allow individuals to make any claim of private wealth. In that case, the governing system formally owns everyone and everything. The “wealthy” within communism are the “trustees” who direct the massive concentrations of “the common wealth.” They command the armies and live in the 8,000 square foot palaces and have servants and security guards.
As for Lorenzo’s quotation of Josiah Stamp, that is a more poetic use of the word “slavery.” As for the possibility to “create money and control credit,” I am aware of no fundamental difference between bankers doing that and a group of congressional high priests doing that. My comment there may offend many libertarians (or others), but that is no concern to me.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, taxpayers are not slaves. The ruling extortion network is simply claiming 20% or 60% or whatever portion of the income of the taxpayers. Further, the taxpayers may be allowed to do many things that slaves cannot, such as to leave the country and never come back.
Think of military personnel. In history, many soldiers have been “drafted.” They would also be legally penalized for failing to report to an assigned deployment, so they are more like slaves. They are not legally free to simply leave the region, which most taxpayers are.
J R Fibonacci HunnAny nation that imposes a military draft can be presumed to be either fully communist or pseudo-communist, since mercenaries will actually consent to be hired as soldiers (or law enforcement officers), while drafted soldiers are only becoming soldiers under threat of force.
Even a typical police officer can quit with a standard 2-week notice. Soldiers either are forced in to years of servitude or agree to a specific number of years of servitude.
Leaving early is possible, like by medical discharge, but uncommon. It can be requested and if the ruling warlords approve it, so be it. Otherwise, “going AWOL” can result in the “fugitive /escaped slave” being pursued, kidnapped, and confined.
Realistically, enslavement is something that we might relate to as frightening. When the King of Denmark knows that the Swedish troops are invading and approaching the castle, the King may be concerned about being enslaved.
Caution is rational and intelligent. The hysterical shaming of caution (and the invalidating or negating of fear as “inherently negative”) is of course a manifesting of extreme distress / anxiety / panic.
Lorenzo Saraullo: I didn’t even know who Robin Givhan was when I quoted her, I just thought it was poignant, then I found out she’s a “elite” fashion critic, whatever! Why should anyone be offended by your pointedly phrased observations is far beyond my understanding. To me any form of servitude is slavery, notwithstanding the concession of certain rights (even Roman slaves were allowed to marry and have children), it all depends on how broad or how restricted one’s definition of the term is.
Many are ashamed of social inequality. They have been programmed to think of servitude or slavery as embarrassing or shameful.
Obviously, when worker bees sacrifice themselves for the queen bee, there is a social contrast between the various roles. When puppies compete with each other for a limited number of teats, that is because they value their mother more than their sibling. It’s natural.
Humans, however, have developed a type of behavior called language. Delusions can be programmed in to the “socially inferior” so that they view their own social inferiority with shame, saying things like “social inequality is just WRONG.”
So, they are programmed or cursed with shame. From shame, hysterical contempt often manifests, which is just an externalizing of the inner shame with which they have been programmed.
J R Fibonacci HunnLanguage is a type of social behavior, You can call that a theory if you like.
Creatures that have been socially isolated for their entire lives may invent symbols, but we inherit language socially and we use it socially. I am not aware of anything especially controversial about most of what I have shared here.
J R Fibonacci HunnAny self-aware creature can make assessment of their own social influence, then of the social influence of others. There will be contrasting amount of social influence, whether small contrasts or huge contrasts.
I was referencing a hysterical way of relating to one’s own social influence. Those who are ashamed will likely avoid contact with those of lesser influence, because they are terrified of being around people who are jealous of their greater social influence. There will also be contempt for those of greater social influence.
Basically, shame involves programs to demoralize a targeted population and cripple them socially. In many cases, it works great for that purpose.
The whole point of socialist schooling (and communist indoctrination rituals) is to stabilize the system of extreme social inequality. There are some privileged “servants” who are groomed to be military officers in ROTC and so on, but for the most part, the core issue is demoralizing the masses and intimidating them in to worship of “the holy state.” As long as they are almost all compliant, then placing them in to jobs is a secondary issue.
Service to the greater good (the elitists) is glorified, like glorifying soldiers for massacring civilians (especially in far away places). Self-interest is systematically shamed. Again, on the whole, the system to demoralize the masses and promote hysteria and chronic hyperventilation is rather effective. That is why it has been growing for thousands of years, right?
The children in the photo above were the employees of a seafood-packing plant in Baltimore, Maryland (USA) in 1900.
George Orwell is a famous British author. He was a worked for a British government media outlet, the BBC, during World War 2 as a war correspondent. His wife worked in the Censorship Department of the Ministry of Information in central London. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell )
After the war, he wrote one of the most famous pieces of anti-propaganda propaganda in recent history, titled “1984.” That composition was soon made in to a TV movie by the BBC. While the radio broadcast of Orson Welles’ “the war of the worlds” caused more hysteria in the US than most any other media stunt of the 20th century, the first televised broadcast of 1984 in the UK was one of the biggest media scandals in the history of the UK.
The first airing caused so much public outrage that… the BBC broadcast it once again the following weekend. Riding the wave of controversy, the viewing audience for the second airing was historic. The second wave of public outrage was even more enormous.
With the massive boost in publicity created through the BBC’s TV movie production of the book, soon, Orwell’s 1984 went on to be the best-selling book of the 20th century. When I think of government-sponsored anti-government anti-propaganda propaganda, I think of 1984.
One of the many famous ideas from Orwell’s 1984 was the idea that those who control the minds of the people today can influence how the people relate to the past now. Simply by programming people to relate to the past in particular ways, the dominant institutions of mind control can influence how people relate to the future. By influencing how people relate to the future, not only can institutions implement “mind control” programs, but “behavior control” programs as well.
Note that I think of “mind” as being another word for “linguistic behavior,” as in the activities of how people use language to interpret reality and form experience. We do not just experience what is external to us. In fact, we never experience what is external. Experience is internal. We experience our internal perceptions.
Those internal perceptions are not only perceptions of direct sensations, but also perceptions of any linguistic labeling of those sensations. We internally experience our internal sensations plus our internal interpretations of those sensations.
While sensations are purely internal to each organism, the linguistic interpretations are intrinsically social. Language is social. We are programmed with language to interpret our sensations in ways that are fundamentally social (and not intrinsic to those sensations).
So, we may be trained to label certain experiences as emotions. Among those emotions, we may be trained to label certain emotions as negative or shameful or socially dangerous.
We may be intimidated or traumatized in to suppressing the expression of certain emotions. We may even be encouraged to participate in social rituals of intimidating and traumatizing others so that they also suppress the expression of certain emotions.
The best way to disrupt the expression of a particular emotion is to suppress the emotion itself. It takes a lot of physical exertion to block certain innate movements of the tongue, such as the actions of crying or laughing or shouting. More adaptive than simply “holding the tongue” is to divert or displace emotions.
So, if individuals are trained to expect a repulsive social consequence for expressing fear (even displaying it in their facial expressions or gestures and posture), then they may learn to displace all instances of fear in to grief or sadness. “No, I am not scared… I am just sad… about… about….”
Once people are intimidated or bullied in to displacing fear, they learn to create a victimhood narrative. That narrative may be rewarded or ignored. If rewarded, it is likely to be repeated with expectations of future rewards.
A victimhood narrative is basically a pretentious rationalization for sadness or grief. Note that people naturally will have occasions in which they are actually victimized and so they experience a sense of betrayal that is beyond mere disappointment or grief or sadness. They may also share commentaries that correspond to whatever triggered their emotional response.
That would not be what I mean by a victimhood narrative. That is just being startled by a certain sequence of events and then suddenly withdrawing toward perceived safety. Someone can tell the story of all that without there being any pretense (with the entire thing being sincere). In other cases, there may be a distressed outrage about defending the idea of their sincerity.
However, in a simple, plain mode of retreat, someone can directly admit that they are in retreat. They will either retreat further or admit that they have been retreating (with no shame or shameful distress). They will certainly not hysterically argue that they are not retreating.
They may apologetically protest say “Of course I’m afraid! Of course I’m withdrawing! Of course I’m fleeing to safety.” However, they will not protest aggressively with “No, I am not afraid and how DARE you question the sincerity of my grief?!?!”
Someone who is actually grieving (like in despair) is likely to flee from most any confrontation or conflict. However, someone who is only pretending to grieve may be eager to seek out any rationales or justifications for a display of outrage or tantrum.
So, there are many forms of grieving, such as disappointment or regret or shame. Note that all forms of grieving involve “flight” from a perceived threat.
With mere disappointment, the withdrawal may be very brief, like “I just need a moment to catch my breath. That really shook me up.” With despair, the retreat is likely to done without any social announcement. People in despair would just definitively withdraw. At least as long as they experience despair, they are likely to attempt to avoid directly talking about the issues. “What difference would talking about this make?!?! Why bother?”
Also, someone who is intensely grieving may want to withdraw from being reminded of a certain detail of the past, including isolating themselves from any social interaction that MIGHT involve a reference to that “shameful” thing. We naturally attempt to avoid what still disturbs us or “makes us sick.” Eventually, the “tenderness” of the distress may subside and so a passing reference to a particular detail of the past might not cause any disturbance or hysterical panic.
In fact, something that may have been disturbing or shameful could eventually be “fully accepted.” The same subject that previously upset someone could become something that they can make relaxed jokes about, even triggering relief in those who are still tense about the particular subject.
So, in a victimhood narrative, someone is currently terrified of being socially “accused” of experiencing fear. They are in a state of chronic anxiety or paranoia.
They displace various instances of fear and habitually mislabel them as types of grief. They may even ridicule others who seem to display fear:
“Why do those police officers always buckle their seat belts? Are they consumed by fear? Don’t they know that caution is a sign of spiritual inferiority? I bet they even use turn signals while driving. I bet some of them even lock the doors of their homes. I saw one of those cowards wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying an assault rifle while doing SWAT team training. It was a just a training with no real gunfight, so why were those naive fools wearing real bullet-proof vests? Can’t they even read? If they could read, they would see that they were in a gun-free zone because the magic shapes of ink on that sign prevent guns from crossing from that side of the street over there to this side of the street.”
A victimhood narrative corresponds to a particular form of hysterical distress. The basic idea is that it will be safer to socially present one’s self as a victim (as in now and extending back in to the past eternally). Vilifying villains is a standard part of a victimhood narrative. Ridiculing certain other victims (as being “deserving” of victimization) is another common feature.
Again, I am using victimhood narrative only as a reference to a coping mechanism for pretending not to be experiencing fear. If someone vilifies a villain whom they specifically relate to as a threat, that may just be their sincere fear.
The idea of pretentious victimhood narrative involves a cover for an underlying fear. “No, I am not afraid of them. I just want all of those kind of people to be punished.”
The narrative can be very big. There can be huge fractions of humanity that are labeled as “the villains” and huge fractions as “the victims.”
People may not even identify themselves as a victim or potential victim. They just habitually vilify someone. In a way, it might be more accurate to use the label of a vilification narrative.
But when someone says “I am just so sad that those villains way over there are victimizing all those victims,” why is all the concern with THOSE victims? Are those the only victims in the world today (or at whatever point in time is being referenced)?
Or, are those victims simply the most convenient for displacing one’s one emotional distress? “Those people are afraid, not me” is a displacement of fear. Even “I am just afraid FOR them” could be a displacement of fear.
Am I afraid for thousands or millions of people who I do not personally know? Is that really a rationale, logical thing to say?
I might be afraid OF thousands of people, but if I am really afraid FOR someone, it would be one person at a time, right? If I am afraid FOR a family member in regard to their health, I might not displace the fear as “being caused externally.” No, my fear is MINE.
People who are ashamed of fear (which may be a lot of folks) are not likely to say “I am worried about the consequences for ME if that person’s health does not improve.” Some people openly “own” their fears. Some people displace their fears. Some deny having fears (and invalidate the experience of fear as if some emotions are more “valid” than others). In other words, some are terrified of or afraid of fear.
For them, “the unknown” or “the unfamiliar” could seem to be a massive threat, since they are pretending not to be afraid. They may be terrified that the pretenses of their “victimhood narrative” will be met with skepticism or, even worse, disinterest.
So, the first common displacement of fear is to anxiously say “No, I am not socially anxious about that. I am just sad.” People in that mode of distress do not relate to sadness as a form of fear. Again, all forms of sadness involve a contraction or retreat or flight from a perceived threat or presumed threat. We only withdraw from things that we perceive to be threatening or intimidating or disturbing, right?
The next common displacement is rage. “I am not sad, and I sure as HELL am not scared, you little bitch!” When there is shame about fear, then a common compensation is to focus obsessively on something that truly does not seem frightening. Then, one can gloriously and heroically prove one’s “courage” by taking on a “challenge” that one does not actually perceive to be particularly “challenging.”
At least, that is the typical pattern of another narrative.
Those who are ashamed of fear and compensate by creating a persona of “savior” need to find victims who are open to vilifying one or more villains. Then, the “savior” can rescue or protect the victims from the villains.
A less personal variation is the “reformer.” Reformers do not heroically save specific individuals from other individuals. Reformers gloriously save institutions from embarrassing injustices.
Reformers relate to a particular set of behaviors as “the only right ways to interact” and a contrasting set of behaviors as “ways of interacting that are inherently wrong or socially invalid.” They got those doctrines from institutions that were programming them to focus on certain facts (and fictions). Their focus was programmed in order to promote social rituals to glorify those specific institutions as “the best” or “the most holy” or “the most just.”
Naturally, the activities of the institutions are not entirely identical to the publicized doctrines about “how all institutions should be” and “how all people should treat each other.” Those doctrines are promoted to distract people from certain activities of the institution. Further, the masses are directed to focus on certain facts (and fictions) that are evidence that the particular institution is the most holy or sacred or just or good.
So, as people gain real-world experience with institutions (or interact with others who have such real-world experience), then there will seem to be “isolated cases” of corruption. It was that one incident or that one politician or that one party.
The system in general is still worshiped presumptively, but there are isolated cases of “negligence” or “misconduct” or even “shameful corruption.” At that point, reforms are not relevant because “for the most part, our system is perfect, with only isolated exceptions.”
Those folks just call for justice in regard to those specific isolated cases. The next stage develops when the number of cases of contrast between observation and doctrine is much larger. The corruption is not isolated to one case or one villain or one agency. Throughout history, agencies have at least had occasional instances of corruption.
Corruption is recognized as widespread across different individuals and groups and regions and periods of time. Maybe corruption is not essential to all large institutions (or else why bother with hysterical campaigns of reform)? However, the key issue is that the “reformer” is ashamed of the realities of corruption. They promote shame in others. They are demoralized and are coping with their demoralization by heroically reforming “everything.”
What fantasy of a future are they pursuing? After they heroically and gloriously defeat corruption and reform our inherently perfect system to make it even more inherently perfect, then finally they will have compensated for the various occasions in their past in which they personally violated their sacred principles of conduct.
However, there is no salvation for such savior and reformers. Their entire program to earn salvation is based on a misconception.
We do not need to fear social punishment for all of our past violations of codes of conduct and laws and so on. On the whole, most people do not really care what we did. If they really cared, they would ask or investigate (or interrogate).
It is not the business of most people to prosecute or persecute others for their behaviors. It is the business of court officers (such as cops) and the media, but most other people just do not really care.
There are way too many cases of people doing things that “they should not have done” to interest most people. Many people are looking for villains to vilify, but distant villains are the safest, right? Also, hysterical vilification does not involve much interest in the actual past. Fiction is perfectly suitable as justification of vilification and contempt.
Who is most likely to be targeted for vilification: someone who is unashamed and comfortable with simply keeping their mouth shut about something… or someone who is ashamed of what they did (or failed to do)? Which is more magnetic: someone who is likely to seek attention (like from the media) to make passionate statements to defend themselves and deny the accusations… or someone who prefers to avoid controversy?
When the ruling class is actually concerned about someone being “found innocent” in a criminal court ritual, haven’t there been a series of famous deaths to keep people silent? From clear assassinations to “accidental suicides in which the defense witness shot himself in the back of the head four times,” the ruling class has a history of using the government and media to demonize a particular target and then silence them by execution. Or, they just silence their military targets without demonizing them first.
However, most political assassinations truly are isolated cases… even when it is a few dozen MDs who were speaking out about the dangers of a particular medical treatment (before their deaths). The majority of cases of vilification involve people who are perceived to be vulnerable to social intimidation (like through the court system or the media).
Why do cops and prosecutors systematically target certain elements of the lower class? One factor may be that people in the middle class are more likely to effectively avoid conviction.
The Department of Justice needs crime or else why should the government extract wealth from taxpayers in order to continue to expand the power of the Department of Justice? “Winning” the war on crime would be horrible for certain business interests. Even if the taxpayers are successful at decriminalizing the possession of alcohol or marijuana, legislators can simply invent new crimes as long as there is enough lobbyist support, right?
So, we may learn to avoid our fear of social punishment (our shame) by displacing all distress in to grief or contempt. In contempt for ourselves and for the system, we may anxiously and desperately attempt to reform the system to make it how it should be. It is actually quite an arrogant approach (and often includes claims of spiritual superiority).
There are many ways to relate to the past. We can appreciate certain things that did happen or wish that certain things had not happened (that did happen). Also, if we think of the absolute simplest way of relating to the past, it would be to simply question “what happened?”
Even if I have asked the question of “what happened” many times before in regard to a certain incidence or sequence, can I continue to operate in a mode of curiosity or openness or respect? Or, is it inevitable that eventually I will reject the idea that curiosity may ever be relevant in regard to some subject… because I finally “really know” exactly what happened and so curiosity would be a… terrifying threat?
In some cases, people will form a specific commentary about the past and then relate to that commentary as if the commentary itself was identical to the actual past itself. However, the activity of forming a commentary is something that happens in the present.
We can form a commentary or make no comment. We can repeat a commentary that we previously made. We can reform an old one. We can cease to repeat one that we have been repeating. We might even question a particular commentary for relevance (which is to me a more important issue than even the precision of a particular commentary).
We can also notice that other people can form distinct commentaries about the same past incident. Some commentaries will mostly overlap with each other and some may sharply contrast with each other.
Notice that the past is never in conflict with itself. However, commentaries about the past can greatly contrast with each other or even conflict.
All conflicts involving the past are either conflicts that happened in the past or conflicts that are happening now about the past. If two different people or groups have formed contrasting commentaries about a particular incident in the past, then it is possible for them to engage in a conflict presently about their conflicting commentaries.
People may seek to defend a particular commentary. They may present evidence and seek social validation or encouragement. They may invalidate or ridicule contrary commentaries (and also to vilify the villains who seem to threaten their commentary… by failing to enthusiastically validate it).
When people are more interested in a particular commentary about the past then in the past itself, that is a state of tension or anxiety or even conflict or shame. They may be using the commentary to resist or suppress their own capacity to learn today from the past.
They may already be relating to the past as a present threat. They may form a particular commentary and then use that commentary to attempt to insulate themselves from the perceived threat of the actual history.
How is it that people might relate to past incidents (even that happened decades or centuries in the past) as present threats? Clearly, an incident that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago is not a present threat to an organism. So, what is it exactly that can relate to the distant past as a present threat?
The past is only a threat to a commentary that is designed to obscure the past or to hide it or invalidate it. The reality of the past is only a threat to a fantasy that conflicts with the past.
So, in moments of distress, we may form a commentary about some incident or sequence of incidents. That commentary on language must focus on certain details, de-emphasizing or omitting certain other details. That commentary may also include elements of interpretation or even fantasy or intentional deception.
The commentary itself is always adaptive to the perceived circumstances. In other words, from how we perceive our circumstances, we form commentaries about those perceptions. Are commentaries always fit with our perceptions.
How is it that a variety of people can have a variety of commentaries about the same incident that happened decades ago or centuries ago or even seconds ago? The variety of perceptions form a variety of interpretations or commentaries.
Am I open to having no particular commentary about some of the past or all of it? Am I open to respecting alternative commentaries? Or, do I hysterically resist the future as an eternal threat in which my deepest shames might be revealed? Do I live from a psychological state of eternal torment or hell?
If I have, then could I make jokes about that historical possibility? Consider that I could make such jokes and, more than likely, I will do so in the future.
The British Empire was the system in which the British East Indies Company was created. In 1830, “Jardine-Matheson & Company of London [inherited] India and it’s opium.” (Source: https://sites.google.com/site/opiumwars12/timeline )
To this day, networks of gangsters may operate massive plantations of economic slaves, then expand them, and even sell portions of them to each other. Obviously, we need an organization like the United Nations to rescue us from inequality, right?
It is easy to ridicule someone who collected donations because of how they spent that money (like spending it “the wrong way” according to my favorite political ideology). “Crazy charities” are an easy target, right?
Why the isolated contempt for THAT guy? Why do people seem to so value isolating as a specific distant target for their ultra-holy contempt? Hmmm….
Government, organized crime operations, and isolated thieves collect much larger amounts of wealth by force. Those organizations systematically concentrate power and wealth, keep people out of empty homes, and of course drive up the cost of building a home with regulatory restrictions. I could go on and on about their operations.
Oddly enough, I refrain from scolding the operations of violence and coercion known as government. Their method is to promote inequality by (nearly) monopolizing coercion. Simply put, they use coercion to discourage and punish the use of coercion by those who are not part of their network or gang or organization. What’s so strange about that? This is the same “new world order” that has been dominant since long before the Europeans “discovered The New World” (the American continent).
(The subject of drug addictions among the homeless was mentioned in a reply to the image that did not get copied when I shared the image)…
As for drug addictions among the homeless, when did drug addiction become such a big issue? Alcohol (and alcoholism) is not new, right? How about addiction to opiates?
The business of pushing drugs started as one of the most lucrative parts of the entire operation of the British Empire. The “opium wars” (starting in 1839) were the British Navy trying to repeatedly force China to allow the British to CONTINUE to import opium to sell to the Chinese. The US Navy (and French Navy) played a major part of the eventual British victory over the Chinese government, who were attempting to prevent the British opium traders from ruining the lives of individuals and families. After the British (and their allies) defeated the Chinese even more conclusively in the “second opium war” (ending in 1860), they even forced the Chinese government to COMPENSATE the British for costs associated with resisting the British colonial conquest.
In other words, governments created the industry of modern drug addiction. I could go on to the topic of addictions to prescription drugs, but I really do not have much interest in such details….
So, (back to the subject of ridiculing people who operate regular charities) have I ever made jokes about the Pope “speaking out against privilege?” I absolutely deny ever doing anything sarcastic because sarcasm is just wrong.
How about making jokes about the Queen of the British Empire “speaking out against poverty?” Well, the war on poverty is an endless war which requires the constant creation of more poverty (or else how would the profits derived from making that war continue)?
Are all wars for profit? Is “the war on drugs” a for-profit war? Was “the second opium war” a for-profit war?
Wars should NOT be for-profit wars because for-profit wars are for profit, which is wrong. Wars should be solely for destruction, not for destruction followed by pre-arranged “no compete” reconstruction contracts to companies like Bechtel.
Reverse psychological warfare is wrong, which is why it does not exist (even though it probably should). Other people should not condemn each other. Only I should condemn other people for the crime of condemning each other (especially if they do it the WRONG way).
General Cornwallis: “The fact that your naval forces are devastating our fortresses with cannon fire is not the reason that I am surrendering. I am doing it because I agree with you that a 3% tax on tea is outrageous and unjust.”
“Consent: how is this idea important?” I propose that understanding the idea of consent can be important in “releasing our grip on the doctrines that have been fed to us.”
Example: the army of the Empire of Pure Holiness invades the island of the Primitive Savages. The leaders of the army want the Primitive Savages to “consent” to a treaty of surrendering 95% of the island to the Empire.
So, Kalen is the general of the army and he interviews several of the Primitive Savages and notices that I seem really naive, so he identifies me as the “legitimate chief” of the Primitive Savages. Nicky, who is an independent anti-imperialism activist, protests that the Primitive Savages do not have a tradition of chiefhoods who have the authority to enter contracts on behalf of the entire rest of the population of Primitive Savages.
Naturally, Kalen completely ignores her protests, then gets me to sign a treaty in which I agree to represent the whole tribe in “selling” 95% of the island to the Empire in exchange for 20 light sabers and 2 x-wing fighters (which none of us have any clue how to use). I sign the treaty, then Kalen hires Ben to assassinate me before I tell Hillary Clinton about the various forms of bribery and blackmail and deceit that Kalen used to trick me in to signing the treaty. (Kalen had specifically said that he just wanted my autograph because he is a HUGE fan of my music.)
Then Kalen hires Brett to publish a slightly more glorious version of the above story to the masses. Later, Debb and David and Gretchen andJena will all be hired as public school indoctrination specialists to present Brett’s version of Kalen’s glorious liberation of the Primitive Savages from the evil tyranny of their notorious warlord, Chief Fibonacci. Young students will be rewarded for blindly repeating the doctrines contained in Brett’s curriculum.
“True or False: Chief Fibonacci was an illiterate villain who CONSENTED to sell most of the island to the Empire and we know that he was not forced to do so because right there at the bottom of the surrender treaty it was clearly written that the nearby presence of Kalen’s army of 1,000 X-wing fighters and 10,000 Jedi Knights was NOT a factor in the Chief’s decision to do what was clearly BEST for his people.”
(Note to Star Wars fans: I know that the Empire is not the side that has the Jedi Knights. This is not about accuracy here. The point is that if Brett’s curriculum says that something is true, then it is true because he is the High Priest of the Ministry of Intellectual Liberation.)
Now, where did the above story come from? I copied it out of an ancient text that I found buried in the dessert. (Not in the desert… In the dessert.)
Also, another factor might have been that Nicky wrote this in another thread:
“a cow doesn’t consent to provide milk for humans. It’s not whether the milk came from an animal (human or bovine) but whether the animal chose. It’s easy to poke fun at vegans because you have thousands of supporters who are also profiting off of the exploitation of animals, but at the end of the day it’s just you and your conscience.”
So, I raise the question of how important consent is. Also, what is the origin (and function) of a “conscience?” How is that related to “consent?”
If I consent to 3 different things, isn’t it possible that there are different degrees of duress / social pressure? Like in one case I conceive of something myself and then go present that idea to lots of other people as an offer to engage in a transaction, so perhaps there is no question of consent there. I simply offer an exchange with an explicit price (exchange rate).
In another case, I “consent” to pay a fine (for not buying government-approved health insurance) because I am being threatened with arrest and imprisonment if I do not “consent.” In another case, Hillary Clinton herself puts a gun to the head of one of my grandkids and shoots a bullet through the skull, then puts her gun up to the head of another of my grandkids and says “I would really appreciate your cooperation, Chief Fibonacci, in providing your signature on that piece of paper because I am a huge fan of your music.”
Eventually, back to what Nicky wrote, I replied the following to Nicky, which she might not have seen:
I personally think that the consent issue is not very important. If I was the grandparent of an infant, I would value that child drinking healthy human breastmilk.
Whether the [breastmilk] “donor” consented after being bribed with $100 or without any formal bribery, I might not care. Maybe I use blackmail to get the milk. Maybe I send in some government soldiers to collect 30% of the milk produced by all the human resources in my kingdom.
If my cat kills a lizard without the consent of the lizard, I also would have no issue with that. Maybe the cat eats the lizard. Maybe the cat just kills the lizard and ignores the dead body and leaves it there on the back porch for me to step on.
Even if the lizard gives consent to be killed and then left on the back porch uneaten, I did not give consent for that. So, I posted a sign that clearly states “cats are forbidden to leave dead corpses on this porch.”
(My lawyer advised me that next time I make a sign, do not leave any loopholes of ambiguity about live corpses. Just say “corpses.”)
So, what if I put up a sign on my gate that says “any government officer or deputy that passes to the north of this gate is consenting to the following contractual terms: you are requesting that I shoot you?” What if a deputy is blind or it is dark? Does their “consent” still legally bind them?
Court officers conduct magic social rituals to INVENT the idea of consent. They even say “that individual did not give LEGAL consent because _____.” Like… even if a person insists that they did give consent, the court may say “but they did not have the LEGAL capacity to give consent.”
Recently, I gave Kalen consent to eat 5 servings of Ben’s wild rice. Ben said “dude, what the fuck? JR cannot give you consent, Kalen, because that was not his fucking wild rice. You WILL pay me for that!”
Kalen then said “Oh okay, so how much do I owe JR for eating his wild rice?”
Ben calmly and politely said “It is MY wild rice, you fucking libertardian!”
But… what did the local warlord at the Superior Court of Supreme Justice say???
What if court officers say “that contract was not legal because _____.” Courts invent contractual obligations and rule some contracts “void” (never legally binding) and some “valid” (which means that the soldiers of the court can be hired to enforce that contract).
Brett, as you know it is your job to make all of the above very confusing so that the instructors of Kalen’s public school indoctrination rituals will know which “truths” to program in to the minds of the impressionable youth. Also, if Kalen is not satisfied with the quality and speed at which you produce propaganda, he will unleash Ben on you… or, even worse, Hillary “I thought I told you to keep your mouth SHUT” Clinton.
JR heads back to the topic of “whether it is a violation of vegan ideology to consume breast milk from a woman who gives it by consent:”
VS: Aajonus Vanderplanitz said that cancer is just the body’s inability to discard dead cells. So..no matter what we do, if we don’t provide a pathway for the dead cells to get discarded it does seem they would win out eventually.
Many people who do [a certain diet] dislodge a lot of toxins and then don’t provide an exit by exercise, sweat, whatever is necessary…So if one “believes” in the diet but does not DO what is necessary, then this is not rational thinking anymore. At the same token when one gets overtaken by toxins in the body it is very difficult to rationally think and or take the steps necessary….
PE:The dead cells are the cancer? Or what? I’m sorry i still can’t get it
What method could I use to produce cancer? Many people know that there have been instances of radiation exposure that have resulted in increased cancer rates. The specific issue with dangerous forms of radiation is that the organisms exposed to that intensity of radiation will have a large number of chemical bonds broken. It is kind of like they are standing in a wind of evaporated acid. The acidity keeps washing over them moment by moment. So, a huge number of electrons magnetically get “washed away” during an intense radiation exposure.
Imagine injecting a small amount of acid into a particular region of the skin day after day and year after year. Eventually, that would produce the effect that we call cancer as well.
Acidity and voltage are ultimately just about the balance electrons to protons. So, instead of injecting a small amount of acid (or Mountain Dew, which is extremely acidic), I could produce the same result in the skin of rats or the skin of any other organism by exposing the same region of skin to a small negative voltage current.
Or, imagine a horseshoe shaped magnet. If I put a certain region of skin constantly under The positive pole of a magnet, that would produce the same effect.
Since the flow of electricity always creates a magnetic field, even just laying my head right next to a wall where there is a alarm clock and electrical wiring can produce consistent and predictable results.
So, there are many ways to produce the electromagnetic outcome called a tumor. If a rat has frequent doses of intense radiation exposure (for its whole body) plus always puts a cell phone up to its left ear, plus always sleeps with the left ear next to their alarm clock, we start to be able to predict the effects quite reliably.
We can make things even more interesting by performing a few root canal procedures on specific molar teeth not far from that left ear. The original need for the root canal will be because of the electromagnetic radiation from atomic weapons and industrial accidents and cell phone use and neglecting to follow strict Amish rules about electricity (not allowed near any bedrooms / sleeping areas).
The electrical circuitry or nerve connections in those teeth will already be damaged. The body will not be able to repair all of the tissue as quickly as it is damaged. So, in reaction to that symptom or effect, a dentist may go in and basically do further damage to the electrical circuitry. However, the circuit or fuse that is related to whatever specific tooth will also be related to a series of other locations in the body and often the place where the electromagnetic sensitivity is greatest is an organ. So we can specifically predict which organ or organs will be the location where we have produced the electromagnetic effect called cancer.
Can we cure cancer by adding electrons (like with an alkaline substances like baking soda)? We can counter the effect.
(Regarding electrical conductivity) First, all fats are not the same. Natural fats (the fats that are natural for us to produce and are also part of our ancient evolutionary diets) are the insulators in every cell membrane. If people start consuming only “very low quality fats,” (like refined seed oils) then the body may do its best to use those fats to build cell membranes (like so the cell walls do not simply collapse).
Imagine that there is a window opening on a building and there is no glass in the window. Someone might stick a piece of cardboard there in order to keep out flies or dusty wind. However, of course the cardboard is not going to work like glass and no light will be going through that window opening.
Likewise, it makes a difference whether we are using fully functional healthy fats for cell wall membranes or whether our cells are basically throwing in anything of a similar shape that will prevent the whole cell structure from collapsing.
How would I “give cancer” to some cells on the skin of a rat? I just listed several ways in the comments above and all of them involve “disrupting the healthy electromagnetism of the cells.”
JR: I am not aware of any scientific merit to the phrase “cancer cells.” There are skin cells and blood cells and brain cells etc.
The idea of cancerous growth is apparently related to a rapid replication of cells that are not properly functioning. However, I have no interest in that.
Can cells be “cancered?” I believe that they can and further that there is no controversy about that.
Many people say ironic things knowing that they are ironic, such as “it is my time to speak, so you may not speak until I am done.” Even more ironic would be sitting in a library and shouting “no one shouts in this library!”
Distinct from mere irony is hypocrisy, which is a form of denial. To shout that “I am NOT shouting” is always ironic. However, someone can knowingly say an ironic thing.
But with hypocrisy, there is a lack of self-awareness or even a hysterical denial. There is typically a background of the worship of a social ideal about how people should act.
“I am a good person, therefore, when I say that good people never say the word SHIT, that is not what I said. Why? Because I am good and so when I say SHIT, I am not saying SHIT because good people never say SHIT and I am a good person! Now, let’s focus away from everything else except that those people over there are talking a bunch of SHIT about other people and condemning people, which I condemn because people should not condemn others. Those people are SHIT because they CONDEMN other people hypocritically and HYSTERICALLY and what is even worse is that THEY DO IT THE WRONG WAY.”
Now, let’s back up to a portion of a prior exchange….
“I have no issue with irony. I respect the sincere naïveté of hypocritical contempt.
It is just a form of distress. It is just an attack of hyperventilation demons. I can even sell you some very expensive drugs (derived from opium, of course) which are excellent for exorcisms of the demons of hyperventilation.
My miracle drugs can cure incurable possession by demons. The rituals of exorcism in my church are the only valid ones. In the name of Santa Claus, I command the demons to release you!”
JR that will work if the people believe in the ritual. Apparently witch doctors have almost as good a cure rate as western medical doctors.
I’m not attempting to shame you. The [prior] post is light hearted and in my own way I’m suggesting a little levity. It’s not all that serious. But in my levity I suppose there is some seriousness about these damn fabrications they run on TV.
(Personally I believe there probably are other advanced civilizations in the universe. But they had nothing to do with our space program. It was really stupid what they were saying about it.)
Stupid things on TV, huh? That reminds me that many years ago I was live on radio (several times a year) and I got nervous more than a few times and probably said a few stupid things on the air. With experience, my “on air personality” was perhaps less nervous and more smooth.
As for fabrications, I have some experience with the use of fabrications in the fields of law and advertising. I did not do a lot of criminal defense, but I am clear that the job of the defense law firm is to construct enough alternative explanations to create doubt in the mind of the prosecutors and the jury… even when the guilt of the suspect is not in question by the defense lawyers.
I am the kind of person that finds it rather odd that people criticize Hillary Clinton for “effectively defending” rapists as a lawyer. As for the string of “dead witnesses” who were scheduled to testify against Bill Clinton (regarding various extremes of sexual deviance such as pedophilia as well as many non-sexual deviances), I do not find that surprising either.
I have read the explanations by Edward Bernays of how he was hired by the people who wanted the US to invade Europe in the 1910s and what he did. Fabrications were the most efficient way to get people in the US to experience so much shame about the alleged crimes of the Germans that there was outrage.
After the emotions stirred by Bernay’s fabrications, there was greater willingness by people in the US to go in to immense debts to European lenders (creating the Federal Reserve’s wealth extraction program). Part of that was the income tax, soon followed by the other huge advances of national socialism of the 1930s in the US.
You may not know that taxing income is one of the essential 10 policies listed by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. All the other 9 are also in effect (either partly or fully) in the US and have been for many decades….
So, Bernay’s fabrications were so successful at promoting the first US invasion of Europe (“world war one”) that he was hired by Lucky Strike cigarettes to use similar fabrications to increase cigarette consumption by women in the US, plus by the DeBeers diamond cartel.
Bernays invented “product placement” and created 90 minute long advertisements for diamond rings that we know as “romance movies.” Of course, fabrication of stories can be extremely effective.
As for conspiracy theories that one large group of people would intentionally deceive other large groups of people, I was specifically informed by Santa Claus that there is no such thing as a theory. There are many conspiracies of course, but the word “theory” is obviously not even a real word.
As for you attempting to shame me, I did not say you were. I said “if.” I did say that my interpretation was that you were mocking me with the “photos of what people ought to eat.”
However, I might have found that amusing and “chummy.” If that was your intent, I did not “recreate” it that way as I read the little shapes on the screen.
In fact, I completely missed the joke at first. I was like “of course words are symbolic… did you completely miss the point of” (whatever I had been focusing on)…?
As for the cure rate of mainstream western doctors, feel free to provide stats. The stats that I see show a massive decrease in many fundamentals of health (not just rates of illness, but rates of “high functionality”).
So, that includes things like normal jaw structures, normal teeth alignment (and density), normal (20/20?) vision, and so on. Further, there is plenty of documentation on how to effectively improve all of those basic issues of alignment.
While western witch doctors are worshiping demonic possession by hyperventilation, practitioners throughout the world are RESOLVING the underlying issues. By proper breathing and proper positioning of tongue and teeth, the cranium sits in alignment on the neck. When the cranium must twist, even a bit, that not only creates headaches, but forces the neck and shoulder muscles to compensate.
The entire spine must twist, even if only by a few degrees, to compensate. When my wife had her top vertebrae properly adjusted, we found that the nerve to one of her ovaries had been impeded. How did we know? Because she was only having a period every other month and then started having them every month (among other changes that were even more immediate).
What kind of issues “magically disappear” when the tongue, teeth, and cranium are properly aligned? Imagine what happens when someone has severe damage to the spine: complete loss of the ability to move or even control their bowels. All of the things that “go poorly” when the spine is compromised go better when it is no longer compromised.
As an engineer (RQR has a background in engineering), I expect that you might appreciate the simplicity of a scientific approach to health and, like me, come to find so much of the demon worship of mainstream western medicine to be hilarious quackery. One of my favorite “demons” of modern medical hysteria is cholesterol….
and for those who think “cholesterol is a problem” and then panic, they might be interested in knowing the studies showing clear negative effects of taking statins (which, as far as I know, basically attack the liver, compromising the ability to produce cholesterol). One of the most common effects of taking statins is increased pain.