September 13, 2012




about words


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?

My Google Profile

Custom Home Builder & Remodeling – Atlanta & Macon

June 15, 2017


  Need a bid or estimate?

 Call us toll-free at (866) 865-2559.

Or, to send us a message, click HERE.

(lots of more of that one:)
a few more of that one:


several before & after pics of a historic restoration

on this page: https://www.butlerdesigncenter.com/projects/renovations/historic_house

pics of nice kitchen @ 5781 Kentucky Downs

another angle (before the faucet was fully installed):
his site:
Elaine G.

Tony Butler Home Design and Custom Builder
3638 Vineville Ave, Macon, GA
Write a review


3 reviews

Sort by:

Most helpful

Brian Johnson

2 years ago
Tony, Mark, and his team are a great team to work with for any scale residential building project you may have. Despite some schedule setbacks and miscommunication on my project, Tony’s firm was honest and forthright with the most appropriate solutions. This led to a beautiful porch/deck at the end of my project. Integrity is rare these days and Tony’s business model represents that. I recommend to anyone looking for any scale residential construction.


Nadine Beske

3 years ago
We finally got to the point where we can afford to build a small and cozy guest house in the garden. We had some ideas and after we hired Tony Butler Home Design we came up with some more! The crew did more than expected and managed to turn the small house into rather functional space! We love the result!


didy Carlsons

3 years ago
We love the bathroom and are really enjoying it! Thanks!

My top 10 reasons why reverse psychology does not exist

June 4, 2017

I am momentarily interrupting my recent “vacation” from posting new content to share this. The first section was written by someone else, then my reply is below.

I’m not religious. I am a nihilist (by several definitions of the word anyway), and I find myself being provocative towards preachy religious folks and those with a religious-like attitude in their moral/ethical philosophy (including secular humanists) sometimes, too.

That said, I kind of dig Jesus because he said ”I am not here to bring peace, but the sword’, and ”to turn brother against brother (family against family)”. The guy by all accounts was a straight up rebel in his time. The fact that those who seek to worship him are voluntary sheep (”we are the flock”) when he said to look within rather than without (at others, the flock), is ironic, and I dislike that kind of mentality, especially the martyr-glorification- his death.

I think his life as told in those books was pretty interesting, even if it were to be pure fiction. I take it with an attitude many take towards, say, greek mythology.

So, to JR, your attitude towards greek mythology (see last like in comment above) is rather unconventional, no? You seem convinced that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a story about extraterrestrials visiting our little planet, right? Question: what translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh would you recommend to me, knowing that I have from the very start (since you met me [several years ago]) been aware that every individual interprets words slightly-to-entirely differently?

In particular, the word ”god” is an interesting word for one. People often seem to be debating about ”god” (capital g or not) as though they are using the same definition of the word, when clearly, they’re not.

JR’s reply:

All of the ancient traditions intersect. I find archeology more interesting as a starting point because of the tangible evidence. Then, given all the “myths” that archeology has confirmed in the last hundred years or so, we also see a LOT of enigmas in many structures spread across the planet.

What “myths?” Many cities were mentioned in ancient tales that had no physical evidence until recent decades, like Troy, Jericho, and something like Mogadishu in India. For whatever reasons, many people hysterically rejected the possibility of those being real cities. Now, I am not aware of any serious controversy regarding various historical connections that are now accepted within mainstream archeology.

What enigmas? All over the planet are consistent methods for building very massive walls out of very massive blocks. The most advanced of these methods are still far beyond CURRENT mainstream technology (engineering etc).

So, conventional textbooks either ignore those walls completely or mention them in passing as having been built by relatively primitive Mayans etc.

my understanding is that the ancient (and modern) mayans and Egyptians and Japanese and Maltese (etc etc etc) all say “we did not build that stuff.” What do they say? “That stuff was already here when we got here. We have no idea how it was built.”

“Conventional” archeologists may even report those details openly. However, when the British monarch (who is allegedly a “crypto-Jew” claiming to be a direct descendent of Wodin / Odin / Mercury) is commissioning textbooks for the indoctrination rituals for kids in Australia or Canada or the various colonies operated by the British crown, certain details get emphasized and others get left out.

Next, as a nerd myself, I also notice that not only the stories but the words of various cultures clearly overlap. Take the word god and the phrase (god the father)….

Sanskrit: dyaus-pitar   द्येउस् पितर
Romanic: Jupiter (Jove)
Latin: deus -pater
Greek:theos (Zeus)
Hebrew: jiphath (sp?) / jhwh/ jehovah

Also, “Dispater:”
(Proto-Indo-European Dyeus Ph₂ter or “Zeus-Pater”)).
More references:

The greek words above just mean “God,” but the others literally mean “God the father.” That refers to Jupiter (or, as it would be pronounced in Sanskrit, Dyeus-Pitar / Jay-oos-pee-tar).

In all versions of the story, there is the titan or non-human Chronos / Noah / Saturn, who has three sons. I often refer to the fact that one of those sons carries a trident.

It does not matter to me whether the locals call that statue “Neptune or Poseidon or Shiva or Tseeva or the Devil.” The stories line up. Even the statues line up.

Next, I do not know of any intelligent rebuttal to Sigmund Freud’s assertion that the timeline and biographical details line up between the Hebrew Moses and the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmoses.

As for The Epic of Gilgamesh, I do not recommend any translation of it. Here is what I recommend….

Notice that humans go through a stage of “learning to get by.” In that stage, we will memorize things like “the right way to pronounce various words” and “the right way to behave.” That stage is about duplication and consistency.

Later, we may get to a point where our past loyalties are no longer working well (or are working so well that we can relax them). At that point, we get interested less in “pleasing everyone” in general and more interested in “what works for me.” We want to develop our perceptiveness and our skills of evaluation.
For some of us, we reach that stage while in a social context of dependence and widespread fanaticism, so we may add a stage of intensely rejecting some or all fanaticisms (usually one by one) and perhaps while retreating toward seclusion / privacy.
Some people may say that there are other stages. Some people may say that the ascetic who rejects society in a gloating but terrified nihilism is the pinnacle of spiritual glory.

I assert that there cannot be any other stages and therefore are not. In particular, the idea that any people (such as great britain’s Queen Elizabeth Windsor of the saxe-Goethe dynasty) have progressed to another stage of behavior and are attempting to retard the spiritual and economic development of billions of people is absurd and insulting and retarded.

Also, sarcasm does not exist because irony, hypocrisy, and reverse psychology are impossible. Everyone knows that the only people who believe in such myths are hysterical, retarded, racist, anti-semitic, psychopaths.

The two builders: an ancient lesson in humility

March 31, 2017

I have found great value in reviewing a variety of ancient literature. I’m inviting a discussion on the value that you have found in any of the writings of the New Testament (as in specific segments). Feel free to comment on the verses that I cite or to cite others.

Before I mention a few verses, I notice that a common factor between them is humility. For me, I learned early in my life to be very competitive for social approval and validation. I learned to attempt to project levels of competence beyond my actual competence.

How does that relate to humility? A simple, natural approach to learning would be just to be open to learning. There would be no obsessive resistance to other people being aware of my actual levels of knowledge or skill. I would want appropriate challenges, not things far too boring or far too difficult. If other people had input (warnings or suggestions), I would be totally open (at least if I had some confidence in the expertise and goodwill of that person).

At some point though, I developed a kind of paranoia or anxiety about other people criticizing my abilities. The flip side of that is a kind of addiction to getting compliments (or congratulations).

In retrospect, I recall a very basic fear. I feared abandonment (and craved reassurance). To some extent, all that may be a universal concern, especially for young people.

So, I did not want be to left out. Plus, a great way of getting some people’s attention was to claim to be better than them at something.

As a child, I started to think of how could I get to be “the glory” of my parents (or my teacher)? How could I contribute to their social status?

I would learn what was considered good and what was considered bad, then attempt to conform my actions and accomplishments to those standards. Further, I would present myself as “someone who evidences the excellence of my parents” (and resist any claims that I was in any way ever a potential source of disappointment to them).

Again, I think that most everyone experiences that kind of thing to some extent. However, some of us are more obsessive and anxious about these issues than others. Further, over time, some of us shift from a focus on “bringing glory to our parents” to being in overt rebellion toward them.

That reminds me of a few bible verses right there. “Honor thy parents” is one. Another is “I did not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword…. to divide a man against his father… against his own household…. whoever loves a parent or a child more than they love me is not worthy of me.”

That is from Matthew 10:34-37. See http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/matthew/10.htm

However, those are not among the verses that I have found so far to be the most valuable. One of those is quite famous: “rather than attempt to remove a speck from the perceptiveness of someone else, remove the log from your own perceptiveness.”

Well, let me just pause for a moment to note that on occasion I might have attempted to remove a possible speck from someone else’s perceptiveness (and yes even while my own perceptiveness was perhaps just slightly limited). Also, sometimes I politely offered to remove their speck.

But mostly I aggressively and condescendingly condemned their specks. I ridiculed and harassed people for offending me by either (1) failing to display sufficient loyalty to popular ideas or (2) failing to display sufficient contempt for popular ideas.

Maybe I should give some background to all that. In my efforts to be the treasured glory of my elders, I resisted the idea that I could ever be naive. However, if by some amazing sequence of events there was ever a reasonable doubt about my absolute mastery of any subject whatsoever, then that would be shameful.

Is it really so shameful not to be a master of all things? Not at all. However, after years of hysterically and fanatically defending mainstream hysteria and fanaticism, a common response is to then maintain the basic behavioral pattern of hysteria and fanaticism, but just in devotion to a new glory: the glory of shaming mainstream versions of hysteria and fanaticism.

Was I still a hysterical fanatic? Sure… but at least I was no longer shamefully a hysterical fanatic of the mainstream type. I graduated to being an *independent* hysterical fanatic.

The short version of that story is that being an *independent* hysterical fanatic can involve pointing out a whole lot of specks in the perceptiveness of others. It can be something of a “full-time commitment.”

However, I would occasionally notice that anti-hysteria hysteria was just not as much fun as I might have hoped. Fortunately, I was no longer obsessed with bringing glory to my parents. On the other hand, constantly heaping contempt at mainstream ideas and institutions… just was not especially rewarding.

Basically, it repulsed people. In other words, it led toward less socializing (more privacy), which I do greatly value.

However, in recent years, I just overtly value my privacy. That is much simpler than putting so much energy in to repulsing “shameful fanatics.”

I appreciate that I now live a life in which I have the discretion to withdraw toward privacy “more or less whenever.” So, for that, I am quite grateful.

The shift in my life circumstances has involved many other people. Day after day, I experiment with rediscovering and communicating my appreciation for them (and by the way one person in particular comes to mind).

Also, I am repeatedly grateful about the warnings against vanity, naïveté, hysteria, and fanaticism that I first found many decades ago in the Bible. For instance, in Mark 7:6-8, Jesus explicitly quotes Isaiah’s warnings on these subjects from the Old Testament. (See http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/mark/7.htm )

Over and over, warnings about contempt are made in the New Testament. Occasionally, I witness contempt on display (including displays of anti-contempt contempt on Facebook). The more that I witness contempt, the more grateful I am, including for the massive reduction in contempt that I have experienced in recent decades.

So, before I conclude, one more section of the New Testament that I respect a lot (on the subject of humility) is the parable of the two builders. One builder had good intentions and was sincere and certainly committed, but yet was naive, inexperienced, and foolish. Another builder knew that it was worth a lot of extra work to clear away the loose sand and dig down to the bedrock to build a house on that rock.

If you do not know the rest of that story, search online for “the wise builder” and then notice what happens to each of the two homes “when the storm comes.” I will move on to say more about the metaphor of clearing away what is on the surface.

Regarding all the presumptions and biases that I have been programmed to internalize, I respect them. I am humble about all the time that I have put in to “houses built on sand.”

I have defended mainstream dogmas and doctrines and hysterias and fanaticisms. That was my vanity (my concern for receiving social glory).

I have also competed to evidence how I was so gloriously collaborative (a “good” person). I have gloriously (vainly) displayed my contempt for competitiveness, although actually my contempt was itself the extreme of social competitiveness. I recognize that now.

I have certainly displayed contempt for some of the same mainstream idealism and pseudo-science that I used to vigorously defend. That was also vanity.

Is an obsession with social reassurance like building a house on sand? I get the connection.

As I divest from addictive habits of attracting reassurance that I am socially good (glorious), I get closer to the bedrock. As I stop resisting criticisms and complaints, I get to experience a hugely rewarding thing called humiliation (a.k.a humility).

On a foundation of respecting perceptiveness, I am grateful to find new layers of bias in my own patterns. I release my old hysterical “anti-bias bias.” I have biases. Some biases I respect as useful and some biased I question as potentially “optional.”

I build a completely different kind of “house.” Storms come (as in challenging developments). Some people panic and display contempt and then vigorously resist criticism or unfamiliar ideas.

I can relate to all of that. Unfamiliar ideas can be confusing.

For those who worship traditions and dogmas, unfamiliar ideas can disturb foundations built on sand. For those who passionately display their contempt for various traditions and dogmas, I can respect the intensity of their distress.

What if I dig down below vanity and learned persona and programmed pseudo-science. Will I find some solid bedrock on which to build a calm stability?

One who is already humble cannot be humiliated (or manipulated with flattery). Those who desperately grip the chains of vanity will struggle with denying their vanities until they have to good fortune to have their vanities collapse.

Ideally, may your vanities suddenly collapse in to a pile of laughter (or at least giggling). However, if your vanities in any way seem appealing to you, I totally respect that. Perhaps one morning you will wake up and some do those old familiar vanities will simply be… boring.

Intense repulsion toward vanity might be a sign of something. Hysterically displaying contempt for vanity might be a sign of something, too.

In the world of introspection, who is best suited to dig down through the sand of my biases and vanities to the bedrock of perceptiveness? Should I blame my parents or the teachers of my youth for failing to keep me free of vanity? I think it might be quite hilarious to attempt to blame them (at least now that so many of my old biases have been disillusioned). I will be sure to let you know how that turns out for me.

Beware of those who are convinced that they have no further capacity for naïveté. Beware of such extreme vanity. Respect humility.

on the nature of governments (and their statistics)

February 24, 2017

The last part of this post is the “juicy” content of mine. I am also including the interactions that led up to my “juicy” content.


JGH posted this:


JR wrote: Would it be important if the majority of firearm deaths (in the US) are suicides?


JGH:  Is it important how many people use their car exhaust to kill themselves?


MB:  Are there really 35k firearm deaths in 2014? Seems a bit on the high end.


JR: (to MB),  the CDC reports that in 2014, there were 21,334 deaths in the US by firearm suicide. FYI, I presume that the motor vehicle deaths stats are typically only for collisions / crashes.



MB: So if you subtract the folks who were going to find a way to kill themselves, leaves you with around 10k… So yeah… Alcohol, tobacco and firearms vs nabisco, Kraft, and coca cola…


JR: The number of people killed by “errors in the administration of medication by health professionals” is far higher than all of the above things combined. These are just statistics being used to advance political agendas.


JGH: Oh shit!


BE: They also include firearm deaths caused by people not allowed to own a gun, by regulation. But more regulation should work, right? 😉


JGH: Wonder how many car wrecks are from people that had a suspended license?


PW: They always use suicide to artificially inflate the numbers. Remove suicide rate and it’s another story. Remove gun access from someone who is suicidal they will use a rope, jump from a bridge, over dose. An engineered metal tool that shoots lead projectiles isn’t the problem with suicides. That’s why someone that reports as suicide gets a trip the hospital and gets lock down; They will use whatever.

So now that we’ve identified death as a concern, looking at alcohol related deaths maybe we should regulate that more as well? There are far more alcohol related deaths. Maybe reinstate the old progressive idea of total prohibition? If not, why? Isn’t mitigating death our objective or is this really just about making people not fear other people having guns?

DL: More strict gun control doesn’t work. More thorough weapons training along side a thorough mental evaluation, let’s say yearly would go a long way towards solving the problem.

FM: Why don’t they regulate alcohol? Never quite understood why that killer instinct liquid drug is not more regulated.


JR: They do regulate alcohol. They even criminalized it for a while, but there was far more cash flow for them to regulate and tax it than to criminalize it. The license to sell alcohol is over $10k per establishment.

No one cares about death statistics except for promoting political agendas. The number of deaths per year from abortion are far above all these things. But death itself is not the issue.

The issue is power. If the statistics are shocking to the public, then the government can present the stats in a campaign to regulate some new thing, like if traffic fatalities are high enough, then make a law about seatbelt use and fine people for not wearing them.

A slave owner makes rules to preserve the lives of the slaves because the slave owner benefits from the Human Resources. The governments that extract wealth from their Human Resources have the same basic concern, except with less actual interest in each individual.

To a slave owner with only 50 or 100 slaves, like Thomas Jefferson, he may know most of them by name. He wants them to be compliant and productive and orderly, so he feeds and houses them (like socialism) but also makes sure that they do not have easy access to guns or the keys to their chains.

Governments care much less about their individual Human Resources. The give each of them a number. They also train the youth to grip on to mental and emotional chains on their own (and carry them around everywhere), then send $10k or $20k per year to the government.

Did you kill another of the government’s Human Resources? That is a crime!

Did you kill a lot of enemy British soldiers in a war? Here is a medal.

Did you kill some Native American children and bring their scalps in to the government office as proof? Here is a modest incentive to bring in more scalps in the future.

Did you realize that the government put out a “hit” contract on a foreign leader, (who was probably democratically elected), then go out and assassinate the designated target? If so, there might not be a medal and a public ceremony, but there may be a very big payday. As part of the pay-off, the government might even cancel all of your tax debts or wipe out your seven felony convictions.

Ever heard of “Miranda rights?” That was a case involving a man with the last name of Miranda. He raped some woman and later told some police investigators that he did.

Eventually, he was released from prison (and his conviction was canceled) not because he was innocent, but because the investigators failed to inform him that he has the legal right to decline to confess even if he was guilty. How did the lady that he had raped feel about his conviction being overturned and him being released? I am not sure.

but let’s not talk like the government as a whole is interested in protecting each of us personally. Governments extract wealth from their Human Resources by force.

If the government can get away with criminalizing something and imprisoning a few million people for ten or twenty years, that is good for them. They can tax the public $40- $50k per year per inmate. The more that they can provide convincing justifications to extract more and more from their Human Resources, the better for their business. They want to keep their Human Resources dependent and compliant, right?

governments want the masses to be generally demoralized, but then boost morale a bit by celebrating how generous and brave the government is in regard to protecting the public from all these dangerous people who were arrested for things like unlawful possession of marijuana. The idea is that there is hope for salvation, and the government is that hope. Also, there is a general paranoia that if the government disintegrated, then how would the city water in the city of Detroit be kept clean?!?!

garage construction in Phoenix

February 20, 2017

On 2/17, I checked my ranks on Bing for phoenix garage builders and found 4 results on page 2 (the highest was #13). Today, 2/20, I have 5 results on page 2 (but the highest is 19, so my 5 are 5 out of the bottom 6 on page 2).

I added AZ to the search to make it phoenix az garage builders and now I only have 2 results on page 2, but they are 12 and 14.

The word order matters too because I have 3 on page 2 (highest is 16) for garage builders phoenix. For garage builders phoenix AZ, I have 4 (highest is 15).

For garage renovation phoenix az (a less popular search), I have 3 results on page 1, #1, #5, & #9. For garage addition phoenix az, I have 6 on page 1: 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, &10.

For garage construction phoenix az, I have 7, 8, & 9 on page 1. For phoenix az garage construction, they are 6, 7, & 8. For phoenix garage construction, they are 6, 9, & 10.

One city to the east is Scottsdale. For scottsdale garage builders on Bing, I had 4 on page 1 on 2/17.


The one in purple at the bottom was brand new on 2/17. That fell off the 1st page by 2/20 (so I now have only 3 on page 1).

On to Google, for Scottsdale garage builders, my highest result is #2. (Only 1 on page 1). For garage construction scottsdale, mine is #8. For garage builders scottsdale, mine is #3 (though that is a different page than when searching for garage builders scottsdale).

Back to Phoenix, for phoenix az garage construction & phoenix garage construction & garage construction phoenix az, mine is #4. For garage construction phoenix, mine is #3.

Also #4 for garage builders phoenix az, garage builders phoenix, phoenix garage builders. Oddly, for phoenix az garage builders on google, my highest page is way back at #12.


On “national” debts (& psychological warfare to promote agonizing)

January 23, 2017

On Jan. 21, 2017, DL wrote:

Obama added 9.3 trillion to US National debt in 8 years (10.626 to 19.961) & George Bush Jr added 4.9 trillion in 8 years


J R: Basically, they both doubled the prior debt in 8 years.

Here is a 100-year chart of PER CAPITA national debt (shown in logarithmic scale):

That 2nd chart suggests that “things recently are actually pretty close to the prior trends.” Other than world war 1 and world war 2, the blue line is pretty steady, right?
In fact, if we further update the chart to adjust for inflation, then suddenly the whole thing flattens considerably, too.

However, there are other ways to present the long-term data that do suggest cause for some alarm (or at least caution and concern). Here is a chart of US national debt relative to Gross National Product (GNP) – as well as some perhaps arbitrary analysis by the creator of that chart:

Michele Klingensmith WilsonIts still not clear to me who or what exactly we owe this money to?
Gretchen Bronson: We owe it to ourselves (as we wrote a blank check to the government to do good on our behalf).

21 hrs


J R:Oo- to answer Michele, I will disagree with Gretchen‘s above answer. Technically, as in legally, the debt is owed by the US government THROUGH the private banking syndicate of the Federal Reserve to all those who own US treasury bonds.

For instance, if Queen Elizabeth of England or a Saudi prince own $2 trillion in US treasury bonds, that is the creditor to whom the US treasury / US government owes the debt as specified in the contract.

(Further down, I say more about how that relates to US citizens. Briefly, as we all know, the US government extracts wealth primarily from a very large group of people known collectively as “US Citizens.” They are the main population that is targeted for the collection of the debts entered by the US government.)

J R (still):  More or less, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by European bankers (like the Rothschild brothers through their agent in the US, JP Morgan). It was created as a way for the US to borrow its way in to invading Europe on behalf of the lenders (including the German “Windsor” dynasty that had recently ascended to the throne of England. Incidentally, that family also included the kings of a few other countries in Europe).

That invasion took place and is now part of what we call World War One.

Gretchen Bronson Triumvirate of Evil: Rothschild, Rockefeller, & Soros
J R: The first wave of loans were 20 years in duration. By 1929 (16 years in to the 20 year loans), concerns increased that the US government was not solvent to repay the debts. Bond markets in both Europe and the US collapsed, as well as other markets (stocks, real estate, job markets).

J R:By 1933, there was a formal default (bankruptcy) as the US government was forced to criminalize possession of gold by US citizens, which meant the US citizens were forced to “sell” their gold to the US treasury in exchange for “Federal Reserve Notes.” In early 1934, those federal reserve notes were devalued by 41% overnight (actually, at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 31, 1934).

More details are here, plus some related historical documents: http://Az-Az-Az.com/1/1.php

Gretchen Bronson I was highlighting that as citizens we give away the ability to control national debt to the government and that we have little if any control over said debt ($19 Trillion).


J R: I invite you, Gretchen, just to think of it like this: I was hanging out with Vince Lombardi in 1983 and he and I made up that he and I personally controlled all land north of the equator between 19° latitude and 54° latitude. Then we announced that all of the people who happened to be in “OUR” territory owe us a 10% payroll tax and a 5% sales tax and a 40% income tax. Plus, by the way, anyone who dares to possess any gold in our territory (if not exempt under our rules) is subject to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $180,000.  [That is a reference to the image above, showing the 1933 criminalization of the possession of gold, with the $10,000 fine in 1933 being approximately equal in value to a fine of $180,000 in current US dollars.]

J R: Then, based on our claim of the debt owed to us by our human resources, we go over to some dudes who claim to rule over a particular band of the earth near the equator or south of the equator or whatever- not like we really care. Then we all write down some words on paper and organize some school curriculums and mainstream media programming to promote the collection of the debt claims that we just invented and imposed on our human resources.

We realize that if we give our human resources the right to vote and to control of a tiny fraction of the operations of our wealth extraction business, then that layer of democracy (on top of the ancient foundations of our extortion business) will increase compliance rates dramatically.

 3 · 19 hrs
J R: Another example would to be to imagine some crazy idea called the European Union in which some people in Greece agree with some people in Germany that the Germans now are retroactively cosigning  be liable for all of the debts that the Greeks have ever entered.
J RBut not it is not that the Greek debt is now just cosigned by a few German folks who personally sign the treaty. The idea is that a few Germans are claiming the authority to bind ALL Germans as cosigners- even people who will be born in Germany in 200 years or 20,000 years.
J R: Think of all government operations as acts of war. Among other things, Governments invent debts owed to them by their target populations and then proceed to collect those invented debts. Pretty simple.
4 · 19 hrs ·
Sean RyanDebt farming by imposing the use of debt-based currencies under compulsion of law is the single most profitable enterprise on the planet. So much so that by tolerating it we surrender control over our culture and our leadership.
J R: Sean, I question your use of a phrase like “our leadership.” Unless you put that phrase is quotes, I will presume that you are just echoing the programming of the mainstream.

J R: Currency is not the issue either. It is total trivia (at least in regard to the main issues raised so far).

Consider: If Vince Lombardi and I declared that you need to pay your debts to us with chunks of silver or gallons of cod liver oil (rather than with debt-based currency), that would do nothing to change the fundamental mechanism of the wealth extraction system, which is military coercion.

But if Vince and I went around trying to collect on those debts that we claim that all these people owe to us, people might refuse. They might question the origin of the claimed debt (allegedly owed by them to us). So that brings us to a key issue, which is not the words used in the propaganda, but the actual experience of intimidation (from perceived military superiority) which leads people to panic and then accept the ideas of the propaganda because their logical capacity has been crippled by adrenalin (intimidation).

So, indoctrination only works so well because of the [perceived or actual] vast military superiority of gangs like the free masons and the Jesuits and the USMC (no offense to veterans intended).

J R: There are carefully constructed psychological warfare programs that promote shaming and guilt because “the Human Resources are TOLERATING the fact that the world’s leading military organizations have better nuclear weapons than the general public (and flying craft far beyond what they publicize etc).” The use of a word like tolerating is absurd (except when we calmly respect the effectiveness of the indoctrination systems).
J R: You might as well say that sheep should be ashamed of tolerating the fact that wolves typically have sharper teeth and stronger jaws than sheep.
 1 · 17 hrs

J R: So, should I tolerate that the sun is older than I am? Sure. Should I tolerate that the moon has more mass than I do? Sure. Should I tolerate that Tom Brady is currently richer than I am? Sure.

Again, “tolerate” is a word that is sometimes used in psychological warfare to shame, to incite rage, to spiritually cripple. I will tolerate Sean’s use of the word tolerate. And I may be very condescending and antagonistic about it… or rather humble and casual.

Sean Ryan ….There’s no reason to be disempowered.


J R Fibonacci Hunn To me, you are the one who is disempowered. My immediate experience of power and influence is quite independent of any specific word choices, theories or doctrines (or a rejection or dismissal of such ideas). However, because of my present experience of power and freedom, I experience being totally free and “empowered” to entertain a wide variety of ideas. 😉
Sean Ryan I suppose I am confused about the message you’re trying to convey. I got the sense of a lot of futility– sheep cannot obviously change the order between themselves and wolves.

J R :  If someone has been programmed to be ashamed of the history of the US government and related enterprises (UN, UK, NATO, the tavistock institute etc), then they may have a sense of disempowerment merely at the knowledge of the continuing operations of those enterprises. I am no longer burdened by clinging “heroically” (egotistically) to such shames and contempts.

…or to the social salvation and the “holy glories” of “bringing down the evil empires.”

 1 · 14 hrs

J R Fibonacci Hunn In general, I was merely making some simplistic assertions about the nature of the US national debt and various business enterprises for the accumulation of wealth and social power, such as the Federal Reserve or Maryland or the EU or the Persian empire or the crusades or “the Gambino crime family.”

Take a label like “holy” and add it to the word crusades (to say “the HOLY crusades”), and that will change nothing of the history. Same if you say “the HOLY empire of the Medici crime family.”

The claims made by the people conducting those business enterprises are just claims. If the Apaches invade the Hopis and then say “the Hopis owe us 100,000 sheep as REPARATIONS to offset the cost of us to invading and slaughtering their warriors (and then placing our political puppets to rule the survivors),” then that is… perhaps a rather unremarkable event in the context of the last several thousand years of human history.

The recognition of divine will

December 26, 2016


When using a phrase like “divine will,” most people will immediately presume that I am thinking in terms of two isolated kinds of will, with one kind of will being divine and with the other kind of will being something other than divine. To a certain extent, that is correct (yet notably imprecise). So, to be more precise, there is a very inclusive category that I am calling divine will and there are distinct subcategories within that larger category, such as statements that people make about divine will or statements that people make about other kinds of (“less than divine”) will.

Divine will is a reference to all of what is actually happening. One of the things that can be happening is that various people will be talking about their own isolated will (“my will”). Their claims about their ego’s will or their social persona’s will may be in conflict with what is actually happening (or in conflict with other people’s statements about their personal will). Their whole commentary on “will” is based on presumptions about some fundamental reality to their own social persona or projected identity.

Beyond various statements about personal will can be the subjective experience of willingness or motivation. The experience of motivation is not a primary topic of this exploration, although it is notable to contrast any experience of actual motivation (as in actual emotion) as entirely distinct from what anyone may or may not say about their experience of motivation or will or intention or purpose.
So, when it is the divine will for someone to make statements about their intentions, then  that is what happens. Some fraction of statements about intentions may be made in distress or terror. Someone may project claims of intentions that they expect to be to their advantage to project. They may even attempt to distract from or deny other intentions that they expect it would be best to keep secret or unnoticed.

Divine will does not need to be spoken. Maybe people will say that certain actual things are “not divine will.” Maybe people will make comments about outcomes that are allegedly not present yet are somehow “divine will.” All the comments that are actually made must be divine will or else they would not be made.

Further, all instances of speaking (in regard to absolutely any topic) are divine will. Deceptive statements and misdirecting statements are divine will. Silent action (as in anything from unannounced breathing to unannounced typing) is divine will. Sincere statements are divine will, even when naive or delusional. Honest, perceptive statements are also divine will.

Simply put, the words “divine will” can just refer to a recognition of what is actually happening. If someone has been confused about something, but then reaches a new state of understanding, then say can say that they have finally perceived divine will.


Mass Memories Road Show at Umass Boston

Consider that a huge amount of social interaction is to suppress the recognition of divine will. Those in the lower-ranking positions of any social hierarchy, such as all children, may be targeted with the programming of various doctrines, value systems, and paradigms. Then, after a central committee agrees on some curriculum and programming to present, instructors can be trained and then paid to go out and present the doctrines in social rituals of indoctrination.

The children can be presented information to memorize. They are pressured to focus on the information and then compete with each other to blindly repeat that information with the greatest amount of consistency with the instructor’s delivery.


If we label the instructor as a science instructor, that does not make them competent in science. That labeling does not imply that the children will be verifying or critically examining any of the doctrines presented. Indoctrination rituals focus on memorization and blind repetition. The children are programmed with bias about what is important and how to relate to or label whatever they witness.

For instance, they may be taught of two verbal categories such as matter and energy. The materialist model is that matter is real and fundamental, while energy is one possible quality of matter that comes and goes.

Or, a child may experiment with sunlight, a magnifying glass, some dry wood, and some water. They may discover that the wood is just a temporary arrangement that is relatively stable. The wood does not burn if simply exposed to sunlight (in contrast to human skin, which can actually get burnt just from sunlight exposure).


However, if the magnifying glass is used to refocus or reorganize the energy of the sunlight- to concentrate the field of energy in a particular way- then the sunlight can radically alter the wood. The wood can ignite and then radiate as heat and light, eventually leaving some lines of rising smoke and a pile of ash.

Where did the heat of the burning wood come from? What created the energy of the flame?

The dry wood was always a condensed field of energetic potential (which was then reorganized in to a less condensed form, radiating as heat and light). Matter is just one possible state of energy.

For instance, electrons are just energetic fields. The atomic compound known as carbon is just a set of energetic fields temporarily bonded together. If a proton is added to the compound known as carbon, we can call that new compound nitrogen. But the carbon did not “go anywhere.”


There never was some fundamental presence of carbon. There was just a stable temporary compound that we can label as carbon.

The materialist model implies (or presumes without considering any other option) that there are many isolated fundamental realities. There is the reality of carbon and the reality of nitrogen, but the two realities are completely distinct. Unfortunately for devotees of that model, that model is rather absurd.

Carbon exists to the same extent that a fist exists. It is just a temporary arrangement. It can be disrupted by the removal or addition of a type of energetic field called a proton.

Carbon is only a form. It is not a fundamental thing.

In fact, matter is not fundamental. Matter, such as hard crystalline solids and liquid crystal plasma gels, is just a particular category of forms of something fundamental.


So, divine will can include the organization of the capacity for language. Through language, conceptual models can be formed which classify matter and energy as two fundamentally distinct types of reality. Or, energy can be considered a very inclusive term that includes all condensed material formations of energy, such as an ounce of uranium or a gallon of propane or a pound of firewood.

Energy is fundamental. All materials are just relatively stable fields of energy.

A pound of firewood is not a very concentrated form of energy. A gallon of propane is more concentrated (and also rather unstable or flammable or volatile). Other forms of energy are extremely stable, yet also extremely concentrated. Only a very specific kind of energetic interference will release the energy that is condensed in an ounce of a certain isotope of uranium. Different isotopes (forms of uranium) may have very different levels of volatility.

How do we know that uranium and carbon are not fundamental? Because there are different subcategories of each broad category. There are three natural isotopes of uranium, plus there is “depleted uranium” and so on.

There are also different isotopes of carbon, like carbon 12, carbon 13, and carbon 14. All of those are carbon, but each of them are distinct. They have distinct properties energetically and physically, such as mass. Only carbon-14 is radioactive (unstable).


So, carbon and uranium are categories of energetic formations. There are subcategories of various types of uranium just like there are various types of carbon.

In general, some energetic formations are quite stable, like the most abundant forms of the compound carbon (carbon-12 and carbon-13). Also, the isolated field of a proton is quite stable. Other energetic formations or fields are rather unstable, such as what are labeled as a neutrino or a positron.

Some formations are quite simple, like a chunk of coal or diamond. Other formations are amazingly complex, like an apple tree or a mushroom or a mammal or an international system of wealth redistribution.

In language, people can be programmed with the idea that their personal will is somehow isolated from or even contrary to divine will. There are a variety of experiences that someone might have and some of those can be selected to glorify and others to vilify or demonize or suppress.

In popular indoctrination rituals, children can be programmed to socially project submissiveness and conformity to social norms. If the FDA is glorified as an operation of unbiased political integrity and scientific infallibility, then the FDA can be used to pressure the masses to make certain presumptions about what is possible or impossible.


If the holy FDA announces that scurvy is a powerful demon that can possess humans, then the idea may be accepted simply based on presumed credibility (and repetition by an authority that is presumed to be credible). Really, the idea is being promoted through bribery and intimidation.


“Accept what the holy instructor presents and you will be socially rewarded with validation. Question what the holy instructor presents and you will ignored or even ridiculed or expelled, bringing shame and stress to your family. You do want our class to have the highest grade-point average and win the pizza contest, right?”


But is scurvy really a mysterious and incurable demon that possesses and then eats people? The social hysteria around the possibility of social persecution may distract most people from such an inquiry. We may be programmed that scurvy is terrifying and dangerous and incurable. If those details are “on the test,” then an effective indoctrination ritual will program the target population to fixate on only those details, obediently memorize them, then blindly repeat them.


The masses may be programmed in regard to how people should always be. For instance if people should always be honest, then it would be a serious accusation to claim that the FDA might be very slightly biased or even occasionally just a tiny bit imprecise in their published doctrines.

Through a phenomenon known as the Stockholm effect, a socially powerful group can impose its military and economic might on another group, often resulting in a display of submissiveness, loyalty, and even devotion by the oppressed group. If people should ever experience shame or social anxiety, then it would be a great violation of social expectations to socially display skepticism or curiosity in regard to the precision of the doctrines publicized by a holy tyrant such as those people doing business as the FDA.

Is it divine will for the FDA to exist? If the FDA exists, then that is divine will.

Is it divine will for the FDA to persecute those who attempt to challenge the social and legal dominance of the FDA? If that is what happens, then that is divine will.

Is it divine will for public indoctrination rituals to glorify holy rebels and then program the masses that, if they ever discover that the FDA is not entirely operating how people should always operate, they should protest and campaign and reform to make the FDA back in to how it allegedly used to be or otherwise in to how it should always be? If that is what happens, then that is divine will.


The masses are programmed to vilify certain patterns of activity or historical figures. They are also programmed to glorify certain social personas and then project those personas as their own. In other words, the masses are programmed to operate according to certain narratives or scripts or prescriptions or roles.


If people have been socially programmed that it is heroic and glorious to reform social institutions, then many will. If they have been effectively programmed to protest whatever patterns of behavior are defined as injustice, they will. If they have been effectively programmed to campaign for whatever is defined as justice (or even as “divine will”), then they will.


Should programming exist? Should rituals of social indoctrination exist? If it is divine will for something to exist, then it will exist, at least as long as it is divine will for it to exist.


The recognition of divine will is a rather simple thing. It is accepting reality as being however it is (without any bias toward how reality allegedly should be or any bias away from how reality allegedly should not be). That may be an extremely rare development, at least in certain modern cultures.

Why? Because if may be divine will that extremely effective methods of programming the masses are invented and implemented. The systematic obscuring of divine will may be one of the most obvious realities in regard to the observable results of various social institutions.


“Only a certain portion of what is should be. Only a certain portion of what should be is.”

The targeted populations are trained to focus on certain issues, to memorize and study those issues in programmed ways, then to blindly repeat various doctrines about those issues, then finally to expect social validation for their displays of loyalty and conformity to the holy doctrines of the dominant social institutions. They are given a script to memorize and a role to perform.

Note that classrooms do not have conflicting authorities. The central committee presents the instructors with the curriculum and the answer keys. The instructor simply validates answers that match the relevant answer key.

Another obvious sign that someone is deeply programmed by social indoctrination is a resistance to the fact that there are a diversity of opinions about a a diversity of topics. If there is a display of hysteria that some people apparently do not think that transgender rights is the single most important issue for all 7 billion humans on the planet, then that is a sign. Or, if there is a tantrum of ridicule to shame people who are totally ruining everything by focusing way too much on media celebrities or pro athletics or pop music, that is also a sign.


If there is a social projection of the idea that people should be a particular way and should not be a particular way, that is a sign. If there is a ridiculing of systems of indoctrination because “they should not exist,” that is a sign. If shaming others and bullying others should not exist, that is a sign. If there is a sincere hysteria about how taboos should not exist, that is the hypocrisy of a taboo against taboos.


Irony is not hypocrisy. If the pope stands on the balcony of a massive castle and says that both inequality and coercion are morally wrong and anyone who does not condemn both inequality and coercion will be executed in a holy ritual of public human sacrifice, that is ironic. It is only hypocrisy if the pope believes the script he is reading.


If an actor in a play screams that “dishonesty is wrong and people should not pretend to be other people who they are not,” that is ironic. That is a person pretending to be someone else. The entire context of a theatrical production is that it is all staged. It is all a pretense. It is all scripted. It is all fake.


However, if the actor does not know that he or she is just an actor, that is hypocrisy. If the one reading the programmed script does not recognize the script as a script, that is hypocrisy.


Divine will is a very simple thing. The recognizing of divine will may not be so simple. If the divine will is for the socially powerful to program the masses to obscure or vilify or deny divine will, then that may be exactly what is happening.


Once there was an actor playing the role of pope. The actor walked on the the fake balcony and said very passionately to the audience “people should not pretend to be someone that they are not. Theatrical productions not only should not use fake balconies, but should not exist at all. The FDA is a holy government agency that has an absolute monopoly on scientific credibility because the scientific method is a very mysterious demon that only possesses a very small group of people, all of whom are either FDA officials or have made massive bribes and/or campaign donations to those who regulate the FDA. Also, insincere parody is wrong and shameful and so only people who have been issued an FDA license for parody should be taken seriously as comedians. Unlicensed comedians must be immediately executed in public rituals of human sacrifice or else all of humanity will be harshly punished for eternity by a three judge panel composed of Santa Claus, Saint Peter, and the ancient Egyptian deity Ma’at, who also weighed the souls of the recently deceased to determine whether or not they would be allowed in to heaven (but for thousands of years before her name was later changed to Saint Peter).”
FALSE: Anubis was NOT the one who made the final judgment. The final judgment was made by the goddess Ma’at, who is known for her “scales of justice.”




Some modern temples of the ancient Goddess Ma’at (also known as Justitia, etc):








from embarrassment to humility

December 7, 2016


The following is a reply that I made on someone’s private wall (about grieving in relation to some “parental breakdowns”). For me, this is a REALLY valuable lesson:

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to feel embarrassment in relation to certain details of my personal history. Humiliation nourishes humility.

In regard to mating, I have been eager and naive. As a father, I have been delighted, furious, and many other things.

Culturally, most people are programmed in certain ways and so mating and parenting become a kind of trap. We go along “just doing what we should” and then we may suddenly recognize how unprepared we are for what we have “set in motion.” So, the cultural programming sets the trap (or sets lots of different ones), and then most of us eventually get caught (a little or a lot). That can lead to radical new practices like… requesting the assistance or guidance of mentors.

[This one paragraph is not from the original post] For instance, in a national socialist system like the US, what if elderly people are dependent on the government for social security benefits and then President Castro says “you must have paperwork to show that you are current on all your mandatory vaccines or else we will cancel your benefits?” Well, then most people who are well-informed will do what they can to minimize their inflammatory responses and then do what it takes to continue their benefits. Obviously, the government is not going to publicize the traps as traps. They may not even spring the trap until years or decades after it is set…. [back to the original post…]

I am glad that my son’s mom is as effective as she is, but I have also experienced guilt about many details. She has pushed guilt toward me, but I already had the desire for my son to have a certain kind of life (which he often did not). [If any guilt that she pushed toward me “landed,” then that would be because…] The guilt is rooted in the [not yet fulfilled] motivation (plus a fear of recognizing that I might still have some things to learn about how to fulfill on the motivation).

So, the guilt can be something that points me to my motivation… or I can follow the cultural momentum to blame others for my past experiences of guilt. “This should not be this” is such a fundamental coping mechanism of denial.

Whatever motivations that I have for the welfare of my son (or his mom or anyone else), those are what they are. Cultural programs about what those motivations should be are … also just whatever they are.

Instead of the guilt narrative of “this should not be this,” I can ask “what is it that I wish to produce?” Guilt is a signal of distress. Rather than simply pretend not to be distressed, I can recognize the appeal of calm and stability and security (and perhaps seclusion / privacy), then consider which boundaries I prefer to assert and maintain.

Often, the guilt is from “letting someone cross a boundary that I pretended not to have in order to avoid complications [or actually to avoid simplifications].” So, I am grateful for the embarrassment and guilt. I have been guilty of failing to hold my boundaries. So, the importance of establishing boundaries can suddenly “come in to focus” for me.

(Chapter 1…?) The cult of denial

November 28, 2016

“No, that can’t be possible.”

“Well that is a perfect example of denial right there.”

“No, it isn’t. I mean… maybe it would be in other cases, sure. But in this particular case….”

“There it is again.”

“Ok, whatever…. if you are not willing to have an intelligent conversation without changing the subject… because I do not even see how this is related to what we started talking about… then you are forcing me to end our friendship because you always interrupt me and you always want to dominate the conversation and never even let me finish what I was trying to… oo, yeah like that one time six years ago when we were talking on cell phones while I was driving through that area with bad reception and you kept interrupting and saying that the signal was bad and asking me to repeat myself. I hate that. So, yeah, your disrespectful attitude is just too frustrating. I can see that you obviously do not have good intentions here, so I am seriously done with you!”


“What? What do you mean by that? Don’t you realize how much I have put in to trying to… oh Jesus… you really like trying to piss me off, don’t you? Well it won’t work this time. Your little passive aggressive act is just over!”

“Anything else?”

“No. absolutely not! I can’t even stand talking to you. You are always such a bully. Plus, That one thing in particular about how people who are in a cult will always call the cult something else besides a cult does not even apply in this situation. You are not even using the real definition of cult.”

“How would you define a cult?”

“Oh Jesus, please Stop pressuring me. I don’t need to know the exact definition, but I do know that you are just pissed off about basically everything and trying to impose your views on me again. Like that thing you were saying about questioning established science: that is just insulting!”

“Ah, what I said about confirmation bias… okay.”

“Yeah, That was really offensive and insensitive and… and ignorant.”

“Was it?”

“And for you to say that the instruction of students in a science classroom is an indoctrination ritual is totally stupid. Sure, the central curriculum committee selects the subject matter to present to the students. That is obviously how it should be and you talk about it in a condescending way like there is some other better option. And of course the basic process is for the students to pay attention to whatever the teacher presents and then memorize that info and repeat it without critically examining the accuracy. I get all that, but YOU are missing the point. It is SCIENCE! Yes the students are getting rewarded for giving the correct answers that match whatever is in the answer key. No, the instructors are not actually personally verifying any of what is in the answer key. That is not their job though! So it is really arrogant of you to call it an indoctrination ritual. Again, it IS science!”

“It says so right in the title of the textbook, right?”

“Yeah and you just do not respect the important service that teachers provide. You would not be such a jerk about this if you were ever actually a school teacher.”

“Hmmm… hey, Do you remember the school that is just down the hill from the intersection of central and 7th Ave?”

“Yeah, across from the bank. That is the one where you used to teach, right?”


“But what does that have to do with anything?”

“The school?”

“Yeah, and you seem all fixated on the location like that is somehow important. Who cares? You can seriously ease up on the bragging about being a teacher. Maybe all that arrogance is why you don’t have more friends. Have you ever thought of that? Plus, if you knew anything, you would know that it was that school that had a scandal last year when a former student tried to burn it down. That school is an embarrassment and your constant attempts to distract me are so typical. This is why I can’t talk to you!”

“It must be frustrating.”


“Not being able to talk to me.”

“I didn’t even say that I am not able! It’s YOU.”

“So… would you say that you are annoyed?”

“Yeah uh huh! And you are constantly trying to upset me, aren’t you?”

“Am I?”

“See, you just did it again!”

“Did I?”

“Jesus, you are such a brat!”

“Well, I do my best.”

“And you don’t even deny it! You go around like you’ve never done ANY thing wrong. You act all superior. Ask any of my friends and they will tell you exactly what I told them: that you are an embarrassment.”

“And a brat, too, right?”

“So smug. And what really makes me furious is that you are always trying to compete with me and put me down. But I am so DONE with you.”


“Why are you smiling?”

“Am I?”

“Yeah, you are! Hell, you look like you are enjoying this. You don’t have a compassionate bone in your body, do you? You should really try some kindness for once! Oh great… now you are giggling. Typical. So typical…. what EXACTLY is so funny to you? I just can’t understand your… your stupid… stupid… ugggh your stupidity!”


the mainstream cult

November 28, 2016
Imagine that there is a popular culture which is so pervasive that most people do not recognize the various presumptions, doctrines, and dogmas which are standard in that culture. When people talk about how things should be, that is definitely it. When people make sweeping comments about how things really are, that is probably it, too.

You and I have been deeply influenced by it and so have your family, your classmates, your coworkers, and your neighbors. If you get frustrated about their fanaticism, that is it again. You have been programmed to expect all these fanatics not to be fanatical. Plus, you have held to that expectation fanatically.

So, the existence of your own familiar culture is most apparent either when interacting with someone of a very different cultural background or with a very young child. Have you ever been annoyed with how other people raise their kids differently than you? That is it again.

The key issue is annoyance. Under that is actually embarrassment.

If you were just an honest snob who preferred your culture over all others, then you would not be annoyed about violations of your cultural expectations. You would just be disappointed and dismissive with no drama.

The drama is all about distracting others from your embarrassment. For instance, if you can’t believe that so many people voted for a political candidate that you dislike, is that simply disappointing or is it a trigger of embarrassment and shame (and you can’t wait to tell “everyone” and “justifiably” ridicule the “ignorant fools”)?

That is a display of loyalty to your favorite subculture. You justify condescension because “those people are part of OUR culture and they should KNOW better?!?!”

At least, that was a popular presumption within your subculture. It was so popular that, surrounded by others loyal to that subculture, we avoid actually exposing our favorite presumptions and dogmas to, well, reality.

So when reality does not match the dogma, then drama erupts. And it is like we have no control of it. The drama just pours out like juice out of a squeezed lemon.

“How could reality be so disrespectful of my presumptions and preferences?!?! This is so embarrassing. Reality is so arrogant that it seems to think that I should update my presumptions just because my presumptions and reality do not match. I am furious with… whoever I can be justify blaming for this annoying and embarrassing tragedy.”

Sometimes there are actual tragedies. There are things that can trigger overwhelming grief (as distinct from guilt and rage).

But I remember once when I was pretending to be grieving and I was actually relieved. Two cops were standing in my kitchen (waiting for me) and one said to the other “did you see how relieved he looked?”

That “set me off.” I was furious. Why?

The circumstances were hugely stressful, but familiar. And those circumstances were shifting. And I was SOOOO relieved.

But I was not “supposed to be” relieved. I was supposed to be grieving.

So I politely invited the cop to refrain from undiplomatic chatter with his partner. Only I might have used a few curse words… and it might not have been polite or an invitation.

However, my display of fury worked. He “zipped his lips.”

I was simply embarrassed to be so relieved. They saw that I was relieved, which apparently surprised them. (If I said more about the background, then their surprise plus their relaxed chatting with each other might make “total sense,” although I will leave out any further details here.)

But me being relieved was not itself a problem. Me being embarrassed to be relieved was not itself a problem. Them talking about it was a problem for me. There were not only three people in the house at the time (the two of them and I) and for me to safely “escape” was favorable. For them to talk about me seeming relieved was more than annoying to me. It was terrifying. It was an indirect threat to my safety.

So, they zipped their “loose lips” and the situation proceeded as would be expected. The cops were apologetic and kept quiet.

I had instructed them in my cultural expectations and they conformed. Whether or not I was relieved, their official version of the story would be “it was all a bit tragic, but not especially notable.”

Or, maybe it was the end of something tragic and a new beginning. Maybe it was a huge relief… but YOU better not say anything about that unless *I* bring it up first.

Anyway, you know how millions of people are complaining about how “our culture should not be how it is?” That is, once again, just them displaying fanatical loyalty to a popular presumption.

Our culture is however it is. You can pretend it is a particular way and then filter your perception to maintain a fanatical glorification or fanatical vilification of it. You can respect it. You can be open to discovering it. You can appreciate it. You could be proud of it.

Or you can be dominated by it and chase the persona of the holy rebel who heroically makes it from how it should not be in to how it should be. You can even attempt to prevent any other cultural patterns from advancing.

We can post memes and parade down the street with signs that say “our culture should not be how our culture should not be.” Then we can argue with the fanatical idiots who mindlessly chant that “our culture should be way more like how our culture should be.”

Neither of those two groups are really doing much to cultivate any particular culture. However, maybe those folks are just relieved to be surrounding themselves with “like-minded” folks. Maybe they do not actually have a spontaneous surge of grief over a tragedy. Maybe they are just looking for justifications to display a particular emotion that they have been “nursing” (nourishing) for a while.

And that is all fine. A snob may “look down” on people “being dramatic.” We might even be impolite and condescending, but we won’t be especially interested in most other people’s opinions… because we are actually snobs. We are not just pretending to be like so many others (who then get all upset that other people do not agree with them and congratulate their superior culture).

Oh, and yes we know that in certain cultures it is hugely popular to say that the worst thing that someone could ever be is a snob. For us to quietly prefer our practices is a huge insult to those who are certain that their own sense of loyalty automatically obligates *everyone* to either fanatically support their favorite position or at least respect their position enough to fanatically argue and ridicule their favorite position. To generally show no interest in their opinion or even to dismiss their favorite issues as insignificant… that is a rebellion against the entire system of divide and conquer controversy that is programmed by popular media!

“Don’t you even watch TV? Don’t you know how popular this controversy is? Everyone has a strong opinion about this issue!”

Yes, I even have the TV on right now as I type this. Yes, I know that controversy is suddenly very popular, at least on certain TV networks. No, I do not think it outrageous how biased certain networks are lately. I do not think it is even unusual.

I’m not especially addicted to being outraged. How about you?

%d bloggers like this: