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?
A summary of my beliefs.. We’re self-autonomous individuals that are perfectly capable of managing our own persons and assets. What’s mine is mine, not yours.. what’s yours is yours, not mine. I’m responsible for myself.. you’re responsible for yourself. It would be wrong of me to force you to remedy the consequences of my irresponsibility.. It’s equally as wrong of you to force me to remedy the consequences of your irresponsibility. If we honestly need help we should be responsible and ask for it.. not try to force others to help us.
J R Fibonacci Hunn What I find hilarious about so many anarchist fanatics (and Austrian economics enthusiasts / libertarians) is their hysterical contempt for coercion (and predation). Of course governments are predatory.
If a governing system was voluntary, like churches requesting donations, then that is a system in which people voluntarily ally to internally govern their own households and activities. But that is just a congregation unless they get some armed thugs to impose an extortion racket on local business owners (aka sales tax / business license).
J R Fibonacci Hunn Is it economically predictable that pirates would perform acts of piracy (isolated incidents of predation)? Yes. For governments to ritualize predation and then indoctrinate their human resources about their predatory rituals is also “economical” as in profitable / effective.
J R Fibonacci Hunn I have respect for pirates. They are dangerous.
I also have respect for deputy pirates from the holy empire of piracy. They are even more tricky. They also go around programming the naive about “golden rules” and then intimidate people in to compliance by spreading stories about Santa Claus magically watching whether we follow the golden rule so that he can know whether to let us in to heaven, which is eternal except that it has not started yet.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Also, respect that hysterical and naive people may worship an idea of Santa Claus (or Saint Peter) that is keeping score on them to send them to eternal torture or eternal paradise. That is a powerful belief system if someone sincerely believes it.
so, respecting them means be alert to the possibility that if I expose someone “negligently” to the idea of propaganda, it could be upsetting to them (demoralizing- since “my parents LIED to me”). When the rulers want to incite a rebellion so that the cops can “retaliate” and “take preventive measures” by confining people to FEMA camps and implanting chips, then they can carefully trigger outrage and contempt among the relevant demographics of human resources.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Again, if the rulers are inciting the masses with SWAT teams in position and ready to “retaliate,” then they WANT the masses to lash out. In fact, if the masses do not lash out as planned, then some folks from the SWAT team can dress up as protesters and then start throwing water balloons at the uniformed SWAT team, justifying a “retaliation.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Jordan, Many people use the phrase “to awaken someone” to mean “harass them with terrifying information about the predatory nature of all governments, especially their own government.” Of course people get upset when their programmed delusions (denials) are challenged and the true target of the “war of terror” is recognized.
J R Fibonacci Hunn That reminds me that just yesterday I saw several full-grown Bears hiding behind some big rocks in a stream and then grabbing salmon right out of the air as the Salmon were swimming upstream. I think those are the same group of bears that messed up your backyard that one time and killed your kittens. We need to do something about those evil bears and by we I mean you.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Keep in mind that those are also the same bears that cornered your little sister last week and told her that it is wrong to eat bacon. We can’t just sit here on Facebook and let these bears use force against salmon and intimidate little girls, can we? Using force is wrong, so let’s take our loaded assault rifles and go have a friendly talk with those evil bears. I’m sure that they just need to be shown the superiority of Christian morality over their anti-bacon insanity.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Of course if they are not reasonable, then they probably just have rabies and we should put them out of their misery… Then stuff their corpses and mount them on our wall… You know, to defend the honor of your little sister and innocent salmon and stuff like that. I’m just so pissed that they killed your kittens!
Jordan Rockwell There’s a difference between initiating force and using defensive force. Force isn’t “bad” in and of itself. And.. harassing someone with the truth? I think not. It’s in my best interest and in the best interest of humanity in general to share the truth about the predatory and murderous nature of government.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Aggression is natural. For a lion to initiate aggression against an antelope (predation) or against another lion (territorial competition) is natural. Humans also can be quite competitive and predatory.
It is in your best interest, Jordan, to respect that humans can be competitive and predatory, then to be careful about things like erecting fences to keep out foxes and tax collectors and so on. Even better than just a fence is a few guard dogs or even an entire team of secret service thugs.
If you never physically leave your “homestead,” so be it. 😉
J R Fibonacci Hunn Not only can you hate the tax collectors and the cops and the other government employees and also people who get benefits from the government (food stamps etc), but you can even construct an excuse to hate me because I paid $2.73 of sales tax on my monthly internet service.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, on behalf of humanity, I invite you to first forgive me for ruining your life by paying sales tax for DECADES without getting your approval first… And then second I will repeat to you that I could really use your help forcing these pigs in to the slaughterhouse because I am getting low in bacon and this is basically an emergency.
Jordan Rockwell It becomes my business when others advocate that I be forcibly subjugated should I choose to not comply with arbitrary dictates I’ve never consented to. And regarding paying taxes..I think this quote from Roger is fairly relatable.. “Saying that a person isn’t an anarchist if he pays income tax, is like saying that a woman isn’t faithful if she’s raped. It’s victim blaming. Not everyone has the means to escape coercion and theft.”
MS wrote: Government is more worried about its citizens [turning against the government] than this never ending war on terror. We should rename that shit and call it what it is.
I have been researching really since 9/11 and all you really have to do is follow the money…. where it does and doesn’t go.
Governments govern their human resources, including the governing of the attention of the masses, the values of the masses, the actions, and so on. If you ever think “that should never be the way that it is,” then that is a program that has been installed to govern your values. That is programmed denial.
“Following the money” does not produce much real benefit. Instead I invite you to click this and explore the simplicity of what money really is:
But that [following the money?] is what opened my eyes to a lot of things. I don’t expect anyone to believe me. You have to do that for yourself. Money is a good place to start. I feel its the root of all evil.
Programs yes I agree. We all are [programmed?] to some extent. It’s a lot like the movie the matrix: “The very system we live in is a program.”
Most of us don’t know how to be your own person or own authority. It’s actually very scary when you first figure it out. But that’s how they got us. I refuse to live in fear anymore.
What would happen if we all decided to not place so much value on it? In my mind, that’s why money in itself the root of all evil. But there is hope. We don’t have to live that way……… I have been attacked for thinking this way, so bring it on
Panic is also a neurological state. It involves the suffocation of the brain cells due to a lack of oxygen getting from the bloodstream in to the Brain cells. Some people call it hyperventilation, which can be sudden or Chronic. For the vast majority of the civilized population, they experience nearly their entire adulthood in mild chronic hyperventilation, as in a near constant stress with occasional relief.
If Startled, instead of simply being afraid, they will jump right to an explosion of rage or a collapse in to grief and weeping. They are afraid of the display of fear, as in a shamed to be afraid.
The issue is “out there.” There is a problem and it is that villain who is victimizing me by Doing what should not ever be done.
They relate to fear as something that they should not have and it is wrong and so they seek to distance themselves socially from their own fear. They will find someone to blame for causing them the embarrassment of fear. They may say extremely ironic things, like “no it is not that I was afraid, but it is just that Jamie is how they should not be and THEY frightened me although I was not frightened. They tried to frighten me but failed. No, I am not upset that they upset me because I am not upset. This is just frustration, not upset. This is just bravery, not fear.”
“You are just embarrassed that your expensive Harley can’t even keep up with my Honda. You’re arrogant and greedy and your politics are hysterical and your religion is dumb and if I was you I would be very embarrassed that you paid $12k for that USED Harley.”
However, not everyone in the first category fully respects fear. So, We could subdivide different levels of respect for fear in to 12 grades or 33 Masonic degrees.
Next is the word evil. My understanding is of the word evil ultimately is derived from the idea of something that smells so bad that it would be disgusting or cause people to vomit. That is the source source of the word foul, as in a foul odor.
so, there are things that are massively repulsive and disturbing and disruptive. They are foul. The ancient word “vilis” is the connection between “foul odors” and “vile smells” or “reviling scents.” From that root of “vilis,” we get other English words like vilify, villain, and evil.
Now on to money…. So, there are some translations of ancient texts which in English go like this: the love of money is the root of all evil. Often, that is further misquoted as “money is the root of all evil.”
My presumption is that the main drawback of being part of the EU is that national sovereignty is reduced, plus the British taxpayers would be liable for sharing the debt load of the entire EU (including marginally insolvent “states” such as Italy and Greece and Spain and Portugal). That second issue may actually be the real key issue.
So it is basically the same kind of issue by which the US confederate states wanted to get out of the Union, or that India wanted independence, or that the Muslims of Pakistan wanted to escape from being dominated by the central government of India. The US independence from the UK is of course the same kind of thing as well.
Anyway, what about the good old days when the UK and the US were invading China to make sure British opium could be legally sold to the Chinese? Those Chinese wanted to keep out the opium and even to criminalize the activity of smuggling it in to China. Fortunately, the US Navy was there to unleash destruction in defense of the British right to import opium in to China.😉
Anyway, the US is under the debt load that the Federal Reserve arranges. Like all governments, it is simply a system for extracting wealth and redistributing it to the beneficiaries of the wealth transfer operation.
JR, you’re probably right in that Britain was carrying some of the load for lesser performing members. These regional or international organizations typically leave a lot to be desired. The EU is far more complex than simple free trade. And I believe the US is still carrying the biggest financial load for the UN. There are a lot of injustices in the world. My inclination is to more forward in creating a better world community, rather than withdrawing. It’s just a personal feeling about it.
I do not give much priority to slogans about “a better world.” This one is worthy of respect, in my opinion. We do not need to relate to it as “shameful” or “not good enough.”
Justice is derived from force. Justitia, the ancient goddess of Justice, carries a sword in one and in the other hand the scales. (Usually, she is also depicted with a blindfold.)
Her sword is what makes all the rest have any importance. I understand that all governing cults issue propaganda about how that cult’s definitions of Justice are the most holy.
JR, I’m not influenced by what you give credence to.
If there is no sword to your throat, then you can freely use whatever definition of Justice is familiar and comforting.
To Muslims, what is Justice for a woman dressed “immodestly?” Death? Whipping? A fine? Imprisonment?
What is the definition of “immodest?” Wahhabi Muslims differ greatly in their concepts of Justice from the majority of Muslims.
JR, look at your string of comments. Do you see anything funny about that?
As for my “string of comments,” I do not know your specific reference. I will say that the vast majority of things that I read on Facebook are ultimately quote hilarious to me (including all the things that I type).
[Next, RQR mentioned his wife, Gala, who is from Europe. RQR and I live in Arizona (USA).]
Well I have had two “overseas” mates (my wife and a girlfriend from Croatia). I think to mention that because the one from Croatia told me some interesting stories about “justice” from back in the days of Yugoslavia and then the “state of emergency” during the time of NATO’s “civil” war. After the war, the “new” nation of Croatia once again had another “evolution in Justice.”
Gala has given me a new perspective on the Cold War and the “Evil Empire” too. I think we are both wrong (Gala and I) and both right. There’s true in each of our perspectives. And there’s truth in the idea of bringing many of these governmental decisions back to a local level where people can have greater influence. And it’s true that, historically, humans have not been kind to each other. Every society has been guilty of sins.
When I look at it on a macro level, and being the Utopian that I am, I believe that science and technology are on the verge of providing a world of plenty for everyone. And (I believe) much of human cruelty and aggression comes from a fear of scarcity. If we can survive another 50 years or so, there will be no more scarcity in the world. As that happens, free trade, freedom of travel, and even a world governing body (perhaps an outgrowth of the UN) will naturally emerge. If we are not fighting over resources or threat of scarcity, then there’s not much left to fight about – or to fear.
PS: Even the wealthy capitalist, in his continual quest for “more”, is being driven by a fear of scarcity. Riches are a defense against not having enough – falling on hard times and being without resources. But that is not our future, unless we insist on holding onto fear.
Incidentally, I do not see the capitalist system as surviving in a world without the fear of scarcity. Nor will a large military be appropriate. Some form of socialism is inevitable.
Sins are invented. Before Moses sent the Israelite army to slaughter the midianites (except for the 24,000 Virgin girls who were spared and enslaved), the midianites were vilified for their “sins” of having women that were too sexy (immodest) and were destabilizing the marriages of the Israelites (distracting a husband from his wives). So, Moses and friends (12,000 soldiers) went and got some new child brides and killed all the rest of the midianites. Oh, and they also took thousands of shekels of gold and about a million sheep, donkeys, and cattle.
Side note: the first wife of Moses was a Midianite….
My proposal is that the Israelites slaughtered all of the midianites except for the 24,000 girls in order to control what semen went in to those wombs. I call it “hope for the survival of our legacy.”
And like the ancient Greeks I believe that everyone should have an abundance of plenty. Who will supply us with food? I do not know if it is robots or slaves, and the reason that I do not know is that I am focused on enjoying this delicious plum.
As for the advance of global communism and the UN, I think that if enough people can be led to worship the utopian ideals, then the advance will continue. Whether the system would sustain itself for eternity or collapse eventually, that has nothing to do with this delicious plum. So, in conclusion, “political salvation” and “avoiding Armageddon” are probably the two most popular ideas in the history of government cults.
Note: Look in the photo above at the bottom where the mermaids are squirting water from their boobs. That’s pretty cool, huh?
As for socialism, I think it is pretty clear that national socialism won. It is all over Europe and the US.
In fact, the specific design made by the Vatican (and their spokesperson, Hitler) is manifest in the EU. It is more socialist than nationalist of course, moving toward a more transnational communism.
Also, as a side note, RQR, my interpretation is that your entire commentary (including what I am calling your theme of “eternal salvation through politics”) is organized on fear. However, I think of fear as an entirely valid foundation for the organizing of behavior.
I am not afraid of it. Fear is the source of caution and so much innovation.
I do see lots of today’s behavior as being driven by fear. The military, financial and political power, Trump’s wall and whomever is ripping us off, in or out of the EU, who can navigate the south china sea, who’s first in space, the Rothchild’s controlling us, how big is your portfolio, the need to carry guns, who’s religion is best, immigration issues, etc. The problems are based on fear.
Or, fear is a solution, but some people may program you to relate to it as a problem. I find the idea that fear is (inherently) a problem to be hilarious.
“How do you solve the problem of fear? Do not relate to it with terror. That would be very ironic. The solution to fear is to experience the fear.” – Werner Erhard (paraphrased by JR)
Or, I could go down to the police station and go inside and scream profanities at the cops because they carry guns and they have a problem which is that they are driven by fear which is inherently shameful because the idea that fear is shameful is the holy doctrine that I was programmed to worship. Some of them even wear seat belts, which proves that they are afraid, which is how they should not be.
Once there is a social vilification of immodesty, then that opens up a social dialogue about how to define immodesty. Some groups, who are extremely ripe to justify violence, Will have a very strict definition of what is allowed and a very broad definition of what justifies an attack. They want all women to dress like a nuns. More moderate groups may define modesty more like the Amish.
Note that we do not typically hear about the Amish men beating their “disobedient” women. The Amish are more inclined to shun someone, and throw them out and refuse to ever interact with them for the rest of their lives.
Also, many communities have a formal policy such that when a young woman turns 16, they have a reduced amount of restrictions. They are allowed to experiment for a while and then are expected to formally consent to a lifetime of extremely strict regulations.
In addition to government programming at schools, another dominant social institution in my youth was the mainstream media. I believed that there were US soldiers returning from Vietnam and landing at airports where civilians had access and then the civilians harassed the soldiers and spit on them and screamed at them. Apparently, those scenes never happened except in Hollywood productions.
Is it possible that some group would want to program shame into the masses? Would they concoct media productions in order to shock the masses and create a divide between returning soldiers and the general public?
Edward Bernays detailed some of the methods he used in the 1910s to manipulate public perceptions using deception and media publicity. Since then, the amount of time invested in to constructing indoctrination programming for school children and the mainstream media has “increased.”
Liberals are worked in to an emotional frenzy about a variety of topics: vaccines, gun control, vote fraud, reforming corruption, etc…. Their social persona is centered on appearing to be considerate of other people’s feelings. They got that persona from a government program, right?
So, while inmates in Phoenix Arizona at “tent city” are warehoused outdoors in an area where temperatures peaked at 130 yesterday, these self-described heroic liberals are on social media ridiculing the insane statements of “unamerican imbeciles” like George Washington. Or they are doing something else.
But when people are systematically demoralized and shamed, they get addicted to avoiding certain subjects. While I may make fun of liberal hysteria, I certainly understand the sincerity and panic of being in the midst of such hysterias and intense anxieties.
Social authorities tend to respect the potential for hysteria in the general public. The following is a story from the Book of Numbers in the Bible (which is also in the Torah but as far as I know is not one of the stories about Moses that is in the Koran).
When Moses organized the Israelite army to invade the Midianites, the primary rallying cry was that the Midianite women were so sexually enticing to the Israelite men that it was disrupting marriages and weakening traditional family values, like that a man could have lots of wives as long as none of them were Midianites. (I was joking there. In fact, the first wive of Moses was a Midianite.)
So, the Israelites launched a surprise attack and slaughtered the entire population of Midianite males of any age, plus all of the Midianite females except for 24,000 young virgin girls. The Israelites captured those girls and distributed them amongst the soldiers and priests. They also kept all of the cattle and sheep and donkeys and thousands of shekels of gold that they collected from amongst the corpses of Midianites.
In other words, instead of allowing these sexy Midianite females to continue to disrupt society, Moses saw the prior disruption, however great it was, as an opportunity. There was an organized and structured policy for including the sexy Midianite females in to the Israelite society. They were taken as child brides or sex slaves.
They were systematically integrated into society. Instead of ongoing disruption, Moses not only massively increased the wealth of the Israelites by taking all of the wealth of the Midianites, but also created a structured distribution of Midianite girls. Since it was the central social authority that was distributing the girls, those girls did not destabilize the central social authority, but were used to increase the power. (What is on your wish list that you would like for Santa to give you for your obedient behavior?)
It is similar to a government handing out free education for free healthcare or even free housing or living expenses. However, unlike later programs of National Socialism and Communism, the program of Moses was more like your average instance of piracy or imperialism. He initiated a military draft and forced the young males of the Israelites to go fight and kill all the Midianites except for the virgin girls, then the government took all of those virgin girls and the gold shekels and the cattle and sheep and donkeys.
There is no mention in the Bible of how many Israelite soldiers died in this process, but it seemed quite effective at increasing the devotion of the Israelite masses to their warlord. A fraction of the “bounty” (or booty) was also delivered to the Tabernacle of the Lord God.
Which stories do we want to present to the masses to program them with awe and gratitude and devotion? Do we want to stir critical thinking and intelligent conversation, or do we want to polarize the masses in regard to the specific details of parting the waters of the Red Sea? Do we want them arguing about one emotionally provocative detail? Do we want to “tip our hand” in regard to the principles that we use to rule what they pay attention to and how they relate to themselves and other people? Do we want to rule them effectively (which may involve cultivating certain specific hysterias and controversies and scandals) or to make a point to avoid stirring up hysterias?
Below are several categories of triumph. You can browse through the stories and vote for your favorite. You can also submit your own stories.
Defeating an adversary
Overcoming an adversity
Shifting from a foolish risk to a favorable one
Questioning popular presumptions and creating effective habits
Normally, we could think of “defeating an adversary” as one opponent beating another. However, in my case, perhaps of the most challenging adversary that I have “defeated” is my own narrative of victimhood. Soon, we can explore exactly what I mean by that.
First, this triumph may actually be the most valuable for you to read, since it involves some humorous explorations of a variety of common ways that people may use language. Note also that there are times when it works very well to use a narrative of a victim begging for a savior! The triumph is not really over the victimhood narrative itself, but simply a relaxing of a persona or identity that has been anxiously formed around habitually being “the victim” (especially being innocently victimized by a villain). In fact, a big part of giving up a victimhood narrative can result from confiding in someone trustworthy about any incidents that one has shamefully kept secret out of terror.
If you read this section, you will read some examples of my own victimhood narratives, plus read about how I “defeated my internal adversary.” I will share mention of the conversations that I had that accessed the grief and trauma that I had been “avoiding” (sort of) through the compulsive practice of presenting an identity or persona of “professional victim.”
Of all the adversities I have experienced, one stands out to me as the most unusual. It developed suddenly and unexpectedly, plus I overcame it with a remarkable solution.
In short, in early 2007, I suddenly lost the ability to walk. I consulted a small variety of health care professionals and experts, but those interactions produced rather little insight or hope.
However, in a casual conversation with a financial client of mine, she asked how I was doing. I gave her a longer answer than she might have expected, telling her about the health problems I was having.
Oddly enough, she was familiar with other cases of people suddenly and mysteriously losing the ability to walk. Further, she invited me to invest a few dollars in to a method that had worked for other people.
It worked. In fact, it worked literally overnight.
After one night of the best sleep I had experienced in months, I woke up and could walk fine. With a few more days of strengthening both legs, I was even able to jog again. With time, my strength and endurance returned to being as good as they had been in many years.
So, for anyone who is interested in a recovery from the kinds of symptoms I just mentioned, you might find this section immensely beneficial. Further, you can expect some insights on (1) how the vast increase in overall prosperity in the last century or so has directly produced (not just allowed) a massive reduction in overall health, (2) what simple steps can tremendously improve the health of most modern people, and (3) why so many of the ideas and methods of mainstream medicine are so popular although they have no established record of producing benefit (and some even have established records of consistently producing harm, yet are still widely used).
Also, I’d like to point out that the person in the images just above is not me. Those are photos of a Medical Doctor in the US named Terry Wahls. I used her photos because her story is similar to mine, but with a few distinctive twists.
She was diagnosed with MS (Multiple Sclerosis) and began conventional medical treatment, which totally failed her. So, she used a wheelchair to get around… until she recognized a small variety of changes that she could make which might help her and then reversed her health decline and recovered the ability to walk.
I can mention several other MDs in the US who have faced severe health crises, then were disappointed after trying to treat their symptoms only through conventional medical interventions, yet eventually had “miraculous” recoveries not by attacking their symptoms (their body), but by promoting their health. In my “overcoming adversity” story, I will start with my own history and then detail some other remarkable cases as well as some published clinical research comparing some inexpensive and well-established practices with conventional methods that are so profitable that they produce huge marketing budgets which keep them popular. Note that I consider all spending on lobbying in particular to be part of marketing in general.
As a final footnote, for citizens who relate to large governments as potential “saviors” (as in defenders of the common good), it may be shocking to learn of programs like the VICP in the US. That program so far has extracted over $3 billion from millions of US citizens in order to pay for about 4,000 injuries and deaths that the US government has determined to be caused by the use of vaccines in the US. The vaccine manufacturers lobbied for this liability transfer in the 1980s because the cost of civil lawsuits was cutting so deep in to their profits. Why is that particular US government program so poorly publicized? Because what the lobbyists who sponsored that program valued is what they created. If you owned a company that manufactured vaccines, wouldn’t it make sense to transfer liability away from your company to taxpayers (and, ideally, also make sure that public attention was captivated by other issues)?
Monitoring risk can be important because then I can shift from bad risks to better risks. In other words, monitoring the quality of a few different investments can allow me to intelligently diversify away from poor bets toward good bets.
The specific event that I will detail in this section began with a gain of about 400% in a few weeks. However, that gain involved some high-risk methods (which also corresponded to a lot of stressful hours).
Just producing the big gain was not the triumph though. Another important part of the triumph was to withdraw a large portion of the gains and use that money to stabilize my life… for quite a while.
The investment profits were sheltered within a tax-exempt charitable trust. The trust used some of those profits to purchase a car as well as to cover all regular operating expenses.
Was this triumph good for my finances? It was. However, it also had some big costs to my health. But for me the essence of this triumph was about courage and hope.
I already had some serious health issues, so for them to get worse was certainly inconvenient, but what I needed most was time to reverse the momentum of my health. Further, I needed to be able to cover my living expenses in order to invest a lot of time in recovering my health.
So, yes, it was a very big gain in a short period of time. More importantly, it altered my own framework of what it was possible for me to do.
The financial benefit was discontinuous with anything that I had ever done before. Further, I alone had cultivated the network of participants (through online social networking). I alone had studied investment markets and developed my methods.
The triumph was not just the results that I produced. The core triumph was that I was absolutely clear that I could do again what I had suddenly just done.
This success evidenced a degree of competence and expertise, but certainly not mastery. I was not suddenly calmly confident calm either. In fact, I was not calm but quite elated.
But I had been elated before. Early in my experiments with investing, I had produced gains of 300% in a single week in late 2002.
However, in that case, I did not reduce risk after the big gain. I also did not withdraw any of the profits. I was elated but without any particular competence. Simply put, I had been lucky (like so many other people, like gamblers winning the state lottery). So, I was excited and hopeful. But that first gain in 2002 did not evoke courage. It simply sparked hope and then, when I lost all of the quick gains, caution.
In 2002, I had not been risking massive amounts of borrowed money (like the typical real estate buyer), but I had risked what was a lot of money to me. My quick gains followed by quick losses taught me caution.
By 2006, when so many investors had an excess of hope and very little caution, I not only had caution, but an increasing level of self-discipline and discernment. So, I recognized an unusual opportunity and I did very well.
I had started with curiosity, then hope, and then elation. But the gains from my earliest “investing triumphs” did not last long and so I developed caution. I studied. I experimented. When the markets for precious metals started to destabilize in April of 2006, I was ready to get in position and “scalp” a series of quick profits.
I could say that it required courage to even attempt all that. But it also worked.
And, when it worked, I had a sense of commitment that was new. That was distinct from the hope that “this might be possible.” It was the unavoidable awareness that “I just did that.”
I had been talking with investors for several years (since publishing my first investment market forecasts in early 2003). I was quite discouraged by what I considered their lack of commitment to producing safe profits. I had been writing for years already about the developments that later arrived in 2007 and 2008 and I realized that the vast majority of investors were going to stay with the methods that would produce massive losses for them.
Their lack of commitment to only taking wise risks did not stop me. In fact, it is reasonable to say that the extreme complacency and negligence of most mainstream investors is precisely the source of the most remarkable opportunities in investment markets.
When the masses are moderately wrong, being right produces moderate benefits. However, when the masses are extremely wrong, being right produces extreme benefits.
For me, caution began in 2002 when I first started researching some different methods for forecasting investment trends. Courage was certainly present by early 2006. However, after the big gains in 2006 (which were larger not only in terms of percentage, but total dollars), I experienced something distinct from just caution or courage. I will call it commitment.
To say that something can be done or that I personally can do it is not commitment. When I say “I like my results enough that I am willing to keep doing this even though I may have a lot left to learn,” that is commitment. It certainly was not mastery. But it was quite a triumph for me.
In 2002, I told almost no one about my 300% one-week gains. In 2006, I had alerted dozens of people in advance to the set up that I had observed in investment markets. Over the weeks, as the gains were compounding, more and more people were keeping track of my progress and going through their own sense of intrigue and hope and elation.
Again, this triumph produced a big surge in commitment for me. The commitment was not just to the activity of monitoring investment markets and concentrating on the most favorable risks. This triumph produced a surge in commitment to trusting myself. This was a new plateau of initiative and self-discipline and responsibility.
However, this triumph did not involve much teamwork. I was not partnering with a team of other people who had mastery of competencies that were complementary to mine. It was nothing more (or less) than a triumph in responsibly measuring risks and then courageously taking action. It was a real commitment to noticing what works well and doing only that.
There can still be failures and those will still be disappointing. However, when there is an underlying sense of spontaneous commitment (as in momentum), then delays or even disappointments are nothing more than delays and disappointments. Commitment is not canceled because of a challenge. Challenges simply cause us to refine our methods (to innovate, to learn) in order to continue to explore the underlying commitment.
Finally, this section is notable as perhaps having the most appeal to the most people. Some people will already be free of victimhood narratives, blessed with excellent fitness (and with a healthy skepticism about mainstream health care doctrines), and so on. So, maybe some of the details mentioned above will already be somewhat familiar to them.
Also, in a way, all of the above triumphs involve “questioning popular presumptions and creating effective habits.” Here, I will focus on that “unifying theme” plus explore how it applies specifically to my interactions with other people, as in relationships (including in my marriage).
This section covers many personal details, including several unusual things about me (such as being adopted and then meeting my mother). I cover a range of challenges that I have had in relationships in particular and life in general (besides those covered elsewhere).
I will give some background to some of the more unusual developments in my romantic history, including two relationships that featured someone who lived in other countries (1 in Europe and 1 in Central America) coming to the US to be my girlfriend (in the first case) and my wife (in the second case). In short, this triumph is the most subtle of all. It is not so concrete and objective like recovering the ability to walk overnight. This triumph is about being happy with my relationships with other people.
To clarify, this is not about being happy through my relationships. Many seem to relate to romantic relationships in particular as “my only hope for salvation from a life of unhappy victimhood.” Or we relate to “family” in general as “our shelter from a world that should be some other way from the way that it is.”
I can understand those kinds of outlooks because I am very familiar with them. But this section is about being happy with my actual relationships.
This is not being happy in spite of my relationships. This is not pretending to always be happy with every detail of every relationship. This is about being happy with myself (even as I interact with others, with relationships forming and transforming and in some cases dissolving).
How is this a triumph for me? Because I am familiar with contempt, resentment, shame, guilt, and arrogance. I have been witness to such things between other people, a “practitioner” of such things, and a target of such things.
To me, there are certain popular presumptions which are at the root of all of the patterns just mentioned. In fact, promoting certain presumptions (and certain related interpersonal habits) may be so valuable to certain “lobbyists” that they form central committees to create programming to promote those presumptions to the general public. They may even form new governments (or influence existing governments) in order to govern the public’s attention to certain curriculum topics or doctrines.
Once the public’s attention is governed, then certain models of how to think about the selected topics can be presented. The core of the programming may not be the subjects of focus, but the conceptual doctrines about those subjects of focus.
So, the attention of large populations or congregations can be governed, then they can be programmed in regard to how to relate to the selected topics. In other words, they can be indoctrinated with certain value systems.
We can recognize that there are several contrasting value systems possible because there are occasions in which there is a clear clash of two distinct value systems. Distinct large groups (such as all Democrats and all Republicans) may all agree to consider the exact same topic as important and both groups will seem to have an internal consensus about that topic yet be in total disagreement between the two groups.
Could it be that both groups have been programmed to relate to a certain topic hysterically, but with two contrasting forms of hysteria? Earlier, I mentioned the VICP program in passing. Is it “essential?” Is it “infuriating?” Is it “heroic?” Is it “embarrassing?”
In some cases, people may even dispute the existence of a particular government program because “I so dislike the idea that such a program exists that I will simply reject any suggestion that it does.” The more time and emotion that people invest in ridiculing the existence of something, the more awkward it would be to later admit one’s own hysterical naivete.
Now, consider that some of us may have been exposed to certain “fairy tales” about how people should be, how they should interact, how relationships should go, how important it is to get married, and so on. Later, you can read more about my thoughts on this, plus for now I will say that questioning popular presumptions about how relationships should be can lead to more precisely recognizing how relationships actually work.
Rather than being hysterically resentful of others for “them not being how I was programmed to presume that they will be,” I can respect however they actually are. Rather than being hysterically guilty for “not being how I was programmed to presume what I would do (and how I would feel),” I can respect however I actually am.
It is possible for me to be happy with my relationships, no matter how they are. Further, it is possible for me to operate in a mode of perfectionism or extreme victimhood in which I insist that my relationships are ruining my life. In other words, I can relate to my relationships as victimizing me.
So, this fourth section is ultimately about creating effective habits, including effective communication habits. That means recognizing existing habits and evaluating their results. Habits with great results can be ignored (or increased). Habits with decent results can be refined (or relaxed). Habits with any other results can be broken or interrupted.
We can assess priorities and results, then diversify away from the least rewarding, most costly investments. Unless people are willing to stop investing in what is not ideal, then there is no point in assessing how much better the other options may be.
The same principle applies to health practices. You cannot both be hysterically loyal to what is familiar and also open to learning.
In regard to the momentum of a particular narrative or persona, we can either question the conceptual presumptions or decline to question them. Some may even resort to denial and say “I do not have any conceptual presumptions because if I did then I presume that I would already be consciously aware of them!” People can be so hilarious.
Influence begins when I alter the focus of other people. Purpose is about being aware of the results that I am producing. Allow me to influence you by focusing with me on the subject of purpose a bit more.
Many people seem to relate to the idea of purpose as something that is generally clear prior to any activity. However, what is the purpose of breathing? Do I conceive of a specific favorable outcome, then analyze possible methods for promoting that outcome, then experiment with the various possible methods, then choose to breathe?
There is a purpose to breathing, although how aware I am of that purpose is a distinct issue from whether or not there is any breathing happening. When do I tend to be aware of the purpose of breathing: when I am not breathing well or when I am breathing well?
Imagine a sleeping organism. It is breathing fine. It remains asleep. It keeps breathing. It keeps sleeping. Hours can pass like that. (Or, in the case of hibernation, an organism can sleep for literally months at a time without ever contemplating the true purpose of breathing.)
In contrast, imagine another organism sleeping poorly and having difficulty breathing. If the organism’s breathing reaches a point of extreme ineffectiveness, is the organism likely to remain asleep? Or, will a suffocating organism wake up with a very clear focus on the possibility of improving the effectiveness of their breathing?
Purpose guides us whether or not we are aware of it. In regard to breathing, it can go well with no attention to it, like during a restful sleep. However, if there is some trouble with breathing, such as congestion blocking the airways in the nose, then some adjustment may be relevant.
First, the organism might sneeze. That can sometimes loosen up the congestion and allow for breathing through at least one nostril.
If that does not work, then the organism might simply open it’s mouth to compensate for the airways of the nose still being blocked. But what if that adaption does not work well either? What if there is some other issue, like the air is full of smoke?
In some cases, an organism will wake up because of trouble breathing. Further, the more trouble that an organism has with breathing, the faster that they might wake up because of something like smoke. It is their lack of adaptiveness (effectiveness) that could make them so sensitive to small reductions in air quality.
Someone who has trouble breathing may be much more aware of breathing in general than most other people. Further, if there is a specific circumstance that inhibits the normal potential for breathing to fulfill its purpose, then who is likely to notice that faster: someone who breathes very well and very easily or someone with below average breathing?
So I began by asserting that influence begins when I alter the focus of other people. We could even broaden the definition and relate to influence as any pressure (so that if I reinforce the existing focus of someone, that is still a kind of influence, at least in a very broad sense of the word).
If a temporary absence (like walking out of the room) results in any change in someone’s experience, then that is also influence, right? Maybe someone’s presence in some way reduces the potential for another person to innovate on their own.
With different people, we may experience some of them as causing increased alertness or stress and some of them as contributing to relaxation or ease. So, the departure of a person who seems soothing or calming might result in increased alertness. Likewise, the departure of someone might result in a sense of relief.
Of course, those effects can vary even among the same two people being around each other. I may find someone to be occasionally soothing or reassuring, occasionally stressful or annoying, and occasionally something completely different.
What is the purpose of breathing? Ideally, it increases the concentration of oxygen in the blood to proper levels and reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide.
What is the purpose of two people intentionally seeking each other’s presence across hours and weeks and even decades? There are a few possible purposes (and sometimes more than one purpose is active).
One possible purpose is specifically to promote relaxation. Maybe two people find the presence of the other reassuring. Maybe it is more of a “unilateral” relief in which one person is seeking relaxation and the other, perhaps a massage therapist or a professional flute player, is providing a relaxing experience to the other in exchange for a specific payment.
Or, consider a professional comedian. People who would like some relief from their experience of being uptight and stressed may value going to a comedy show or even just watching a comedy movie.
What do we call the type of breathing that often manifests at the end of a very funny joke? If someone’s foot gets tickled, what kind of breathing might result?
There are several words that all refer to the same group of behaviors: laughing, giggling, snickering, or chuckling. In general, people tend to value the experience of fun (and laughter is a behavior that we associate as a signal for fun). We like people that seem to us to be funny and amusing and humorous.
We like being around them. We like watching them on TV. We like talking to them. We even like talking about them.
However, there are several other purposes that may be attractive in addition to obtaining relief from stress through humor. Even if we like most comedians, there may be some that we do not like much and some that we like quite a bit. While we may very much like a comedian that we find hilarious, most of us do not watch the same comedian for 10 hours a day over and over.
We have other interests. We may value that “a good laugh” can quickly improve some aspect of our breathing, but what about when we are already relaxed? In fact, what if we laugh so hard that we value some time to recover from all of that intense laughing?
Laughing involves unusually rapid breathing. Rapid, forceful exhalations are labeled “laughs.”
Usually, we enjoy laughing. However, have you ever heard of “hysterical laughter?”
I do not mean just the act of laughing a joke that I experience as hysterically funny. Hysterical laughing is associated with people who are mentally unstable, as in hysteria.
There is a kind of laughter that is not just an occasional nervous laugh, but an ongoing sequence of intense laughs. In fact, if a comedian pretends to be overcome with hysterical laughter, we may find that delightful. But when someone spontaneously experiences hysterical laughter, there can actually be an element of distress or panic.
So, let’s consider hyperventilation. That is breathing out so fast that we begin to suffocate.
As we study this subject, we can be aware that the purpose of breathing is to create good balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in our blood stream, but sometimes breathing fails to work. Obviously, someone who is deep underwater and drowning cannot use breathing to fulfill the main purpose for which breathing was intended. Further, someone who is experiencing hyperventilation (including in the form of hysterical laughter) is not effectively fulfilling the purpose which breathing is designed to fulfill.
What do we need when we are suffocating due to hyperventilation? We need to slow down (or even simply pause) our rapid rate of breathing.
However, when someone is experiencing an “attack” of hysterical laughter or panic or asthma or apnea, then they may have difficulty slowly down their rate of breathing directly. They may spontaneously cover their mouth with one hand. Some people will even know to cover their mouth with a cup or a little brown bag, then inhale from the same air that they just exhaled. Why does that actually interrupt hyperventilation and prevent suffocation (death)?
Breathing is not just designed to bring oxygen in to the blood, but to remove carbon dioxide. However, if the carbon dioxide is removed too fast, that is actually what produces hyperventilation. (Carob dioxide is required in the bloodstream because that is what carries the oxygen from the blood cells to the tissues that surround the blood vessels, such as the brain cells.)
So, in order to breath better, quantity is not always better. Sometimes quality is the issue. Breathe precisely and carefully. Notice what works. With all forms of hyperventilation, people have plenty of oxygen in their blood and what they need is to slow down the amount of exhalation. They need to actually reduce the quantity of breathing in order to improve the quality or effectiveness of the breathing.
To cover their mouth, they can use their hands or a cup or anything else that results in them breathing back in a lot of the carbon dioxide that they just breathed out. Also, as their alertness and calm returns, they can greatly slow down their rate of breathing… not too far of course, but far enough to counter the “panic” that resulted from over-breathing / hyperventilating.
Anyway, consider that anyone who is trying to find “their true purpose” may actually be attempting to avoid it (to hide from it). Let your purpose(s) find you.
Also, if you think some purposes are in ANY way better than others, that could delay your recognition of a purpose that might be rather obvious to other people. First, actual results can be a rather direct indicator of purposes. Further, some results may be attractive not as something to continuously keep producing, but to produce once so clearly and intensely that we experience a clarity that is triggered through that extreme.
How can you find out what you do value? Getting it and then also losing it is one way. Getting the exact opposite result of what you value is another way.
Just like when the snow on the peak of a mountain melts and flows down to form a new stream, there is constant change in every kind of stream: streams of new customers, streams of income, and even streams of electric current. Of course, with any stream of water, the water levels will eventually both rise and fall. Old lakes can shrink as well as grow. Old currents can dry out for a while but then overflow, making a new branch of a river. Eventually, melting snow and flooding water can even carve a deep canyon out of rock.
Most people understand that canyons are not what makes a river. Rivers are what makes canyons, right?
But when we look at other kinds of streams, only a few people seem to understand that canyons only mark where water flowed in the past. With investing or marketing, would you rather use the most effective methods of the 1920s or the most effective methods of the 2020s?
So what exactly would I mean if I said that, even in investment markets, new water is more important than old canyons? Consider that canyons are like past prices. That is where the water used to flow.
Maybe I have five years of data for the past prices of a particular company’s stock (such as the huge insurance company AIG). How well does the price data from 2002-2007 predict 2008 (or 2018)?
The size of a canyon tells you about depth of water that has flowed in the past. But does it predict how much water is there right this instant (or will be there in 6 months or 6 decades)?
Canyon depth does not predict future water flow. Canyon depth only indicates past water flow.
Likewise, current market prices simply do not predict future prices. If “buying pressure” drops, then prices fall. If “selling pressure” pushes prices down and there is no “upward” buying pressure to match the “downward” selling pressure, then prices collapse. For instance, in April of 2005, the market price of silver fell over 40% in ONE DAY.
Was there a massive new deposit of silver discovered and then reported? No. All that happened was that buying pressure (the number of purchase orders) was smaller than selling pressure (the number of sell orders). So, prices fell. In that case, they fell quite sharply. In other words, there were a LOT more sell orders than buy orders.
Consider your local real estate market. What if 50% of the current homeowners all listed their homes for sale next week. Wouldn’t that lead to competition as the most motivated sellers competed to list their homes at a cheaper price than their neighbors? Or, what if there was an art auction where no one showed up to bid, but there was a long line of sellers who were all trying to dump their entire art collections?
The idea that price crashes are extremely unusual is very odd to me. When a grocery store puts an item on sale for 25% off, that is a temporary price crash. Exactly how unusual is that?
Have you ever seen an item in a grocery store that was marked “discontinued item – close out prices?” Or, maybe right after a holiday, some prices are dropped by 50% (or 80%) on holiday items.
Recent prices do not predict future prices (or not well). Sometimes the price change is very easy to predict (like after a holiday). Sometimes predicting a price change is slightly harder.
The idea that it is mysteriously hard to predict price changes is very odd to me (except when people are trying to distract from their lack of competence in regard to forecasting prices by discounting the idea that discounts can be easily predicted). To clarify, a discount refers to when a seller is willing to sell an item for a price that is lower than their recent asking price. If a seller can tell you what they are planning to discount soon (and why), then discounts are not just mysteriously random, right?
Prices rise and fall in trends. We can track trends in the prices that sellers ask (as in the listed prices). We can even predict future trends in prices (like by measuring trends in demand and trends in supply or inventory).
Oddly enough, many investors behave as if past prices are always reliable predictors of future prices. Those behaviors will reliably produce below average investment returns. In other words, the naive tend to be punished and the prudent tend to be rewarded.
In 2003 and 2004, I focused on two of the biggest issues that were emerging: the pending retirement of the baby boomers (especially in Europe and the US) plus a major change in global fuel markets that had begun in 1999. Not only did I use those two factors to predict the spike in fuel prices (which continued until 2008), but the secondary effect of that price spike: the collapse of housing prices and financial stocks (which was already starting by 2005).
As for the specific case of AIG, let’s quickly consider the canyon analogy just a bit more. They had been accumulating massive debts for years and, as their revenues declined, they became financially insolvent and they knew it. However, naive stock market speculators (including mutual fund managers and investors) were completely complacent in regard to the reality of the financial insolvency of AIG. Most investors did not know that AIG was in any trouble at all until AIG announced that they were filing bankruptcy.
Note that by filing bankruptcy, AIG was dramatically improving their finances by protecting themselves against their creditors (including the customers to whom they owed massive amounts of money). So, the bankruptcy filing dramatically improved AIG’s finances.
However, rather than spark a surge of buying, the bankruptcy filing had the opposite effect. The investing public had been so blind as to the financial reality of AIG that a selling frenzy began. People had simply presumed that AIG was solvent. The news that they were not solvent (and had not been for a long time) was a shock to the naive masses of speculators and gamblers who had invested directly in AIG stock or indirectly through mutual funds.
The naive had been looking only at the depth of the canyon without even thinking to check how much water was flowing through the canyon. Instead of recognizing the significant improvement to AIG finances that was produced by filing bankruptcy, most investors panicked. Further, most investors had never even considered the financial health of AIG. They had simply been looking at past price trends for stock shares of AIG. They were not even really investing in the business of AIG itself. They were just speculating (AKA gambling) on a possible continuation of prior trends of stock price appreciation.
Again, the naive tend to be punished and the prudent tend to be rewarded. Those who bought AIG when it was low and sold it when it was high were rewarded for their choices. Those who sold it for less than they bought it were punished for their choices.
Which is better for most businesses today: advertising in newspapers or marketing through search engines and social media? Even with some of the most expensive TV ads, like during the NFL Super Bowl, many of those companies are not just promoting a specific purchase, but driving traffic to their website, right?
The first computer that I used cost almost as much as a used car. Now, people can use the internet on a phone that they got for no cost when they signed up for their cell phone service. Plus, if they live in a city, they can go online through free wifi connections at local businesses.
When I first used a computer, there was no internet and modems did not even exist. In contrast, my grandkids will probably never even learn the word modem.
So what exactly could it mean that, even in marketing, new water is more important than old canyons? If I pick up a phone book from 20 years ago, I might find huge colorful ads from MCI or K-Mart or even from the same big financial institutions that were in distress by 2008. Lots of major airlines have also filed bankrupt in recent years: Delta, United, US Airways, and American Airlines.
Is it possible that their spending on TV ads and other ads could have been better spent? They could have focused more on marketing through the internet or even just lowered their prices rather than spend so much on big advertising budgets.
Some of the best marketing programs involve little or no out-of-pocket spending. In addition to updating webpages and providing facelifts to existing websites, I also promote select businesses for FREE. I create custom pages for them, get visibility on search engines, generate traffic to my pages, then forward to my participating businesses the exclusive inquiries (contact requests) that come from the custom web pages that I have made for their company. To clarify, it is more like a free trial, since the participating businesses agree in advance that once they are paid by one of the customers that come to them through my pages, then they owe me some agreed amount of compensation.
So the program costs them nothing. The only money they owe it is a fraction of the money that has already come to them through the program itself. I promote them for free (with no out of pocket cost to them), but once I provide them hot prospects and qualified leads, that part technically is not free. It just doesn’t involve any “investment risk” on their part. They simply entering in to a marketing partnership with me in which I risk some time in exchange for their promise of money AFTER my program has produced za new stream of cash flow for them.
Science is the practice of first observing patterns, then constructing models for the predicting of specific outcomes, and then finally measuring those various models relative to their conformity to actual results. If a model conforms precisely to reality, we notice that. If a model correlates reasonably well, we could even measure the size of the variation between expectations and observations. Fundamentally, science is about observation, experimentation, and measurement.
Note that memorizing a doctrine and then repeating that memorized doctrine back for social validation (like from a teacher) is not the practice of science. We could memorize doctrines about science in a class that we call a science class, yet still never perform a single scientific experiment in that class.
Fundamentally, science is a practice that involves repeated measurements. Publicity and indoctrination, in contrast, are practices that involve repeated promotion of a particular idea, typically without subjecting the idea to thorough testing and open criticism.
In fact, the more popular and familiar that an idea is, the more people can be expected to accept it without any examination (and even to hysterically defend it from skepticism and assessment). To further present a pretense of a scientific method, weak criticisms can be invented and emphasized, then ridiculed and discarded. If all forms of criticism can be categorized as being equivalent to a single weak criticism, then it is easier to program the masses to completely dismiss science in the name of science. Their prejudice against the practice of science can be quite extreme.
They may literally worship a particular model. Further it is often a model that they have never thoroughly evaluated or attempted to rigorously assess.
Often, researchers construct experiments that are specifically designed to confirm a particular pre-existing bias. That is still not what I would call scientific research. Scientific experiments are designed to measure exactly how precise (or imprecise) a particular model is. In contrast, much of mainstream “institutional science” is about creating evidence to be used in biasing the outcome of lawsuits and political controversies (like the approval of a new synthetic drug).
Of course, there is a meeting point between real science and real indoctrination, which is the scientific study of indoctrination. What is the best way to bias the masses? Which social rituals can be implemented on young adults (and even children as young as 5) to bias them toward the worship of particular doctrines?
In the 16th century, some major advances in the science of indoctrination were made in Rome, Italy. Below is an inscription over the entrance to a building which we could translate as the “City College for the Spreading of the Faith.” (Note that the word propagate means to increase or grow. The Latin root of propagation is “propaganda.”)
That building was used for the training of instructors who would then travel far away from Rome (even to outside of Italy to the various kingdoms under the rule of the Vatican) where they would conduct rituals in which they would all promote a curriculum that had been created by a central committee in Rome. The same basic model is used in all government-regulated educational curriculums.
Not only did the central committee create the indoctrination rituals and the specific curriculum, but they also ruled over their subsidiary kingdoms. Each local king was crowned or coronated in a ritual that was officiated by the supervising official of the Vatican. Note that the word supervisor means to watch over, which is the same root meaning as Episcopal (from epi-scope or over-see) and that is the root of the word bishop.
So, in the traditional model, there would be a variety of local rulers who were instructed and guided by their local supervisor or bishop. There were many levels of aristrocrat, from Count (the ruler of a County) all the way up to King (the ruler of a kingdom). Above the kings were other levels of nobility, such as Maharaj (great king), as well as the head of an entire empire, who would bear titles like “King of Kings” or “Lord of Lords” or simply “Emperor.”
In the case of Japan, there is a clear contrast between the “commander-in-chief” of the military (the Shogun) and the actual political leader, the Emperor (called Mikado or Tenno, meaning heavenly sovereign). In other imperial branches, the acting warlord or military commander-in-chief may have other titles, like President or Prime Minister.
Note that one monarch can rule over several Prime Ministers (like Queen Elizabeth rules over the prime ministers of her many colonies in Canada and Australia as well as in England). Each Prime Minister will be the supervisor over the local armed forces (army and navy, etc…).
Likewise, the Pope can rule over several monarchs. Again, it is the subordinate of the Pope who riutally places the crown on the head of each monarch, symbolizing that the Pope is not only above all the coronating bishops, but also above all the kings and queens who are crowned by those subordinate bishops (AKA “supervisors”).
So we have the military warlords or commanders-in-chief, then the regional monarchs above them, then the bishops above them, then the archbishops and finally the pope. Of course, I am using English words here. The same hierarchy of authority can be recognized in many languages. All governing systems involve titles and a rigid chain of command, like superintendent, then principal, then teacher, then instructional aide.
Of course, these heirachies are much older than the 16th century. However, what happened in the 16th century involved advances in the prior systems of spreading doctrine (such as weekly rituals and lectures) to a much more elaborate training program. In particular, a formal set of doctrines was published in 1566 and was called a catechism. That exact set of doctrines was used until 1992 when it was updated by Pope John Paul II.
Of course, there has also been monastic training for thousands of years and there have been armies and military training camps for thousands of years prior to that. In some cases, the training programs were rather informal and in other cases quite structured.
The Shao Lin temples in China are famous for being places where where Buddhist monks trained to be warriors. While the first Shao Lin monastery was built in the 5th century, the martial arts may not have been a major part of training until the 17th century.
The martial arts developed there were soon exported to Japan. Just as the Hindu practice of Dhyana meditation was scripted as Chan in China, it was scripted as Zen in Japan.
Not only did the martial arts spread to Japan, but new innovations and weapons were developed. Eventually, a group of trained assassins called Ninjas became a famous part of Japanese legends.
Even the word assassin has religious roots. In the 11th century there was an Ismaili Muslim named Hassan-i Sabbah, who liked to call his disciples Asasiyun (meaning loyal to the faith). He trained his spies to infiltrate in to enemy territory and ambush political opponents and kill them.
Modern organizations such as the mafia and the CIA may use similar tactics. Further, the use of deception in warfare and politics is nothing new, with the legend of the ancient Trojan Horse being one famous example. That is from about the 12th century BC (over 3,000 years ago).
So, one of the most important activities in many empires has been the cultivation of new soldiers. Those soldiers may simply taken from the lower classes and forced in to military service through direct enslavement (getting kidnapped or “shanghaied,” which is typical of child soldiers in Africa). Or, when the governing institution has more influence over the public, soldiers are summoned through a draft.
Then, they must be trained. Indoctrination is so important to the training of soldiers that the US Navy even uses the specific word indoctrination in the name of their Officer Indoctrination School (now called the DCOIC program).
See also: http://www.ocs.navy.mil/dcoic.html
What is the historical source of these indoctrination rituals and programming sessions? Some of their methodology and rituals are very ancient. However, some of the formal classroom practices were only developed after the printing press was invented in the 15th century. The word “press” is still used to refer to all forms of mass media, whether printed with a press, printed with an inkjet or laserjet, or not printed at all (like radio, TV, and electronic media).
After the mass printing of textbooks, rituals of indoctrination advanced rapidly from prior millenia. You can even find the content of a US Navy program online for free.
That is the powerpoint slideshow for the “Command Sponsor and Indoctrination Program.” It makes direct references to Indoctrination Coordinators who have “indoctrination responsibilities” in the presenting of “indoctrination topics.”
Consider that technology has recently changed quickly from the printing press, then broadcast media (like radio and TV), and now electronic media. Do the curriculum coordinators of the empire use books, broadcasts, and other media to indoctrinate select groups? What about for the indoctrination of the general population?
Why not begin the indoctrination of prospective soldiers (or selective service draftees) prior to bootcamp? Why not sponsor movies that glorify war heroes? Why not sponsor textbooks and classroom programming that suppress the rage of the masses, then promote intense debate among the young citizens (but not violence) over which country to invade next, the direct widespread animosity to certain “common enemies?”
Edward Bernays published reports of how he was hired by international banking interests to promote an invasion of Europe by the United States in the 1910s. He also reported on his methods, which included concocting stories with no factual basis to use to demonize the targets.
Did Germans really make lampshades out of human skin? The stories, whether partly factual or entirely false, created strong emotional reactions. Those reactions were more important than “accuracy” to the funders of the publicity campaign.
Soon, large segments of the public were sincerely calling for the US to send at least a small number of troops to invade Europe. After entering massive debts to European Bankers (with the launch of a private bank called the Federal Reserve), the US not only supplied soldiers to tip the scales of the latest multi-nation conflict in Europe, but went in to massive debts to manufacture the tools of war, and most importantly perhaps, to provide fuel (oil) for the invasion.
Most people in the US in current times will refer to that conflict as World War One. In order to repay the massive debts created to fund that war, a new constitutional amendment was even promoted to legalize the Income Tax (which otherwise would have been conspicuously “unconstitutional”).
“The roaring 20s” were a time of booming productivity and spending in the US. The problem was that so much of the spending in the US was based on aggressive borrowing, not accumulated wealth. As the US Government approached the maturing of the 20-year debt obligations owed to the private Federal Reserve bank, there was less emphasis on spending and borrowing and more on obtaining cash to pay back the debt.
The dumping of non-cash assets to obtain cash and pay off debts is known as a credit market deflation. If there is more borrowing than pay off of debt, that is an inflation of the credit bubble. When there is more paying off of debt than borrowing, that is a deflating of the credit bubble. That started in 1929.
In the spring of 1933, the US government formally defaulted on their 20-year promises to the private Federal Reserve. In order to come closer to paying the full amount owed to the Federal Reserve, the US Government criminalized the “hoarding” of gold by US Citizens, effectively forcing most of the privately-held gold in the US to be delivered by the public to the government.
The US government bought the gold at a pre-set exchange rate for Federal Reserve Notes. Months later, on January 31, 1934, the paper currency that the government had distributed to the public was formally devalued overnight by 41%.
While it is reasonably easy to research each of the details mentioned above, it is possible that some other version of the major events of the early 20th century in the US have been emphasized to you in the past. In fact, it is even predictable that certain business interests might favor obscuring some of the above details by completely ignoring those developments (or presenting them with a radically different spin or bias). Perhaps certain other stories would be emphasized (however accurate).
Recall that the emotions sparked by a particular paragraph in a history book might be of interest to the authors and publishers of that book. If students are presented certain details to focus on and memorize and then repeat back for social validation, they may learn to value “whatever is likely to be on the test.”
Is the accuracy of the memorized information important to the student? The tests in the classroom do not test for historical accuracy but only for conformity to the curriculum approved by the central committee.
Does the stated answer match “the answer key?” If so, the student receives social validation from the teacher. If the student provides no answer or any answer other than the approved one, then they receive social invalidation from the teacher.
When it was time to promote the next major US invasion of Europe in the 1940s, which was more important to the promoters of the invasion: historical accuracy or the emotions evoked in the general public? To simplify the question, whether or not it was time to promote another military invasion, which was more important to the “indoctrination coordinators:” historical accuracy or emotional hysteria?
Whether we use printed books or broadcast media, the core focus of a governing system is the focus of the masses. Direct or rule their attention. Next, program their values (including the assessment of fair pricing and their demand for various items such as gold or diamonds or gasoline). Program them with bias. Once the biases are drilled in, then train them to interpret or label using certain models of reality. If the biases and prejudices are deeply implanted, then there should be a hysterical defense of the popular biases (and total rejection of skepticism and scientific questioning).
Their minds will be controlled. Their attention and focus will be controlled. Their interpretations will be controlled. Their filtered perceptions will predictably produce certain intense emotional experiences. They can even be programmed in regard to how to respond behaviorally to their programmed perceptions.
The enemy makes lampshades out of human skin. Here is a fake photo of such a lamp. Here is another photo of a real lampshade made from human skin.
Next, right before the 5 cent movie, the government-regulated newsreel includes an audio broadcast featuring our own actor reading a script in which they pretend to be one of our enemies. They hysterically scream that we are the ones who took human flesh and made it in to lampshades (or maybe soap). Later in the same script (perhaps a few months later), our actor who is pretending to be our enemy confesses to falsely accusing us of making human skin in to a lampshade. They admit to faking a photo themselves and pretending it was a real skin lampshade.
The public is emotionally bombarded by each wave of the propaganda. They are driven to sympathetic grief, then defensive rage, and so on. Soon, they are eager to invade our next target and even to pay a higher tax rate to do so.
Backing up, that kind of intensive propaganda was simply not possible prior to motion pictures and TV. Consider how much slower the “propagating of the approved doctrines” would have been back when the only tool was a printing press to make newspapers and books and magazines.
There were even a few universities prior to 1566, when the first Holy Roman Catechism was created. Long before the printing press was invented, the first university in Europe was in Italy in 1088. The oldest educational institution that still operates today is in North Africa (Morocco) and was founded in the year 859.
What was used for textbooks? Most of the instruction was done by lecture and there was not a lot of assigned reading for many fields of study. Textbooks are largely a modern innovation.
Of course there were books prior to the invention of the printing press. However, they would have to be penned by hand. So, they were extremely time consuming to create and then to copy letter by letter.
Further, most university students would not have had years of schooling. Prior to the printing press, how common would it be for the average young adult to know how to read?
The methods of influence were more likely to be crude and brutal. If someone openly questioned the Holy Roman curriculum, they could simply be tortured in public and then executed in a very provocative ritual of human sacrifice.
Eventually, such practices were mostly replaced with intensive propaganda rituals. If young people can be programmed to literally worship their regional government, then it is relatively trivial whether or not they will make a public oath of allegiance to the king of kings in Rome.
In fact, the more that the average person thinks of their local governing official, the less that person thinks of those who supervise or watch over that local governing official. It must be very exciting to have intense emotions stirred up about who to elect as the county supervisor or even the prime minister of the entire kingdom.
If only the masses participate in voting rituals, then one of these centuries we may finally reform our system to better match with the propaganda ideals that we were indoctrinated to worship as the founding principles of our regional cult. Were those political ideals ever an accurate match for the actual reality of the historical foundation of our regional cult? In some cases, historical accuracy might not be as important as the intense emotions evoked.
The following content marks the return appearance of first-time guest author Peter Saint Nicolas. Mr. Saint Nicolas is a 22-time winner of the most prestigious award in the history of journalism, the Nobel Prize for Literacy.
This brief presentation will provide you insight into variety of ways that people use language. You will learn four contrasting patterns. Ultimately, these are four types of persona (ways of identifying one’s relation to the world).
First, we are making the world a better place.
Second, we are saving the innocent from one or more threats.
Third, we are showing the people the truth.
Fourth, we are governing the focus and the methods of the people.
Each of those are just patterns in the use of language. Anyone can use any of those patterns.
For instance, when someone is babysitting, they rule the focus and behavior of small children. But they also regularly volunteer at a museum as a tour guide, where they show visitors the truth.
Plus, when they spend leisure time with friends, they talk will argue intensely about why cigarette smoking is bad and tobacco companies are even worse. Finally, they make money by getting signatures for an emerging political movement.
So, these are modes of behavior. They are distinct personas or archetypes, like different scenes in a theatrical play. Or, they are like different roles performed by the same actor, like Indiana jones and Han Solo.
Will the character of Indiana Jones make any reference to Hans Solo (or to Harrison ford)? Only what is in the script of that role will be spoken by that character.
Harrison Ford (which is the name of the actor who plays the characters) can talk about his different roles, but the characters themselves will present a limited or compartmentalized script. If asked, they could sincerely deny being characters that are simply following a script. They would never construct that idea on their own. Their attention is deeply embedded in the stories within their script.
So now let us name these four distinct patterns in the use of language. The patterns could be named in a variety of ways, though for simplicity, I will call them the champions, the saviors, The wise, and the rulers.
The ones who are making the world a better place can be called champions. Sincerity is the foundation of their experience. They gather into groups with other champions to champion whatever cause(s) they can agree on.
Note that if champions ever happen to accomplish a particular goal, they will eventually adopt a new target of reform. They are not focused on producing a particular result, but on sincerely performing the glorious function of making the world a better place. They focus on each goal itself more than on their methods and the effectiveness of those methods. Further, the way that they focus on their goal is with intense sincerity.
They hold a model of how people should be and then they seek to conform their behavior to that model. If other champions have a significantly different model of how people should be, then a champion will either withdraw in disorientation or harshly ridicule the idea that there could be other holy models of how people should be that contrast with their own.
If we think of these patterns as developmental stages, the champions are just trying to be good people. However, it is almost inevitable that different herds of champions Will clash with each other. They are all competing for social glory against any other opposing groups of champions.
What will a champion call someone who agrees with them? A good person who is clearly intelligent.
What will a champion call someone from an composing group of champions? Those people are clearly naïve, hysterical fanatics.
Back to the idea of developmental stages, champions are gathering into social clusters of similar champions. Once the champions are solidly Allied in a stable group, then they as a group can begin to vilify one particular herd of opposing champions as The most urgent threat.
The champion is promoting the honor and glory of their group. The next stage of the Savior is defending their group against some threat.
Typically, the threat is a vilified group of opposing champions (or opposing saviors). However, there can also be non-human threats, such as a disease that threatens the species or a development that threatens the environment or planet.
Even when there is a nonhuman threat that a group of saviors is focusing on, they have a tendency to personalize the issue by scapegoating some group of villains. The villains are vilified as either taking actions that are counterproductive or as simply lacking in enthusiasm for the holy cause.
While saviors may maintain the same intensity of sincerity that we can observe in champions, the saviors add an elevated level of passion, typically in the form of rage.
The Saviors say “those other people should be doing less of the wrong things” or at least “those other people should be doing more of the right things.” They experience antagonism and distress that would be unusual for a champion.
The saviors look fondly upon some isolated group of champions as innocent victims that are vulnerable to the villains. Those victims need a savior!
Further, the actual focus of the saviors tends to be on the villains, not on the victims and the well-being of the victims. If the saviors could just destroy all of the villains, then there would be no more victimization.
The villains deserve to be resented and held in contempt and ridiculed. In fact, the villains deserve to be persecuted and destroyed.
So, because the saviors are so sincerely clear on who the villains are, they do not just glory in the goal of destroying the villains. The saviors actually focus on identifying which methods are most effective for intimidating and eliminating the villains.
Also, a savior may select a single villain as their primary target. Typically, they select someone who was at one time an ally of theirs when they were both champions. Now, their former ally has betrayed them and deserves to be intensely persecuted.
Of course, the behavioral mode of Savior is not actually about any particular alleged threat. It is about being a glorious, holy, loyal savior. In fact, focusing on loyalty may be the fundamental core of what it is to be a savior
So, in the event that a particular villain is eliminated or neutralized, someone operating as a Savior will naturally find a new threat. If there is nothing present that can reasonably be socially agreed as a threat, then it is the holy duty of those in the mode of Savior to antagonize some vulnerable group. In order to be a savior, there must be a villain that deserves to be persecuted and destroyed. There must be a perceived threat or else how can the Savior attract the social validation of any champions?
There is a kind of balance or symmetry between the mode of savior and the mode of champion. Saviors save the champions from threats.
When it is relevant for a savior to recruit champions and train them to be saviors, then they will. However, since saviors in general are competing for social approval and praises for glory, they do not want to many other saviors competing with them.
They want the champions to remain as sincere, helpless champions who cannot protect themselves. They want the champions to remain in need of a savior.
If the champions are not displaying hysterical terror about a particular villain or threat, then the natural tendency of a Savior is to point to some other threat that is (hopefully) Beyond the capacity of the champions to handle. Again, if the savior does not have any champions that are eager to be saved, then one option is to antagonize some target and incite a reaction that can be represented as a threat. The Savior needs the champions to be hysterically frightened (completely terrified) and for them to believe that the Savior at least might be able to protect them.
The third stage or pattern is a variation on the stage of the Savior. Those who identify themselves as wise are compulsively focus on spreading the truth about one or more issues. They are obsessed with waking up or enlightening the masses, which they relate to as naive and hysterical.
So, there tends to be a kind of arrogance and condescension displayed by these wise ones. Sometimes we refer to them as smart people (or as smart asses or even wise asses).
On one hand, they dismiss or ridicule the idea of valuing social validation. On the other hand, they hysterically seek to be socially validated by others who identify themself as wise.
They are the most holy champions because they are the champions of truth. They are the saviors of the masses from misconceptions and delusions and deception.
They see through the common hysterias (or at least one of them). They celebrate the superiority of their insight and wisdom.
Rather than protecting the innocent from an external villain that they sincerely perceived as a threat, which is the mode of a savior, they focus on an internal threat. They focus directly on hysteria and fear and delusion.
They are not protecting the world from any particular villain by attacking the villain directly. They may display contempt for some villain remotely, like by wearing a T-shirt or joining in a protest parade. However, they are unlikely to persecute a vilified villain in the intense and personal ways that someone who identifies themselves as a savior might do.
These wise ones value analyzing the psychological mechanisms of champions and saviors. They value gathering together with other people who are in their same developmental stage to collaborate in liberating themselves from popular hysterias and delusions.
In other words, they form a study groups to pursue truth together. As they proceed through this stage, they will shift from antagonizing The masses about popular delusions toward relaxation.
They get increasingly skeptical about sincerity, which they recognize as being totally distinct from accuracy or relevance. They also get skeptical about loyalty, which they recognize as being distinct from partnership.
They value independent thinking and intelligence, which can be quite threatening to those who glorify loyalty hysterically. They are cautious of being loyal to delusions or misconceptions.
Not only do the wise value effectiveness, but the issue of being selective about goals. In contrast, the champion is fixated on a popular goal with little concern for methods and effectiveness. The Savior is interested in being effective in their tactics, but they don’t think strategically in regard to prioritizing. They don’t question the holy goal. They are hysterically loyal to it.
The wise question priorities as well as methods. They raise the question of truth which inevitably leads them to the issue of relevance.
However, as long as they are hysterically preoccupied with the glory of being wiser than the masses, they remain stuck in a mode of arrogance. They still lack self respect and so they compulsively seek to be respected for their wisdom.
The champion compensates for lack of self-respect by seeking social validation for their sincerity. The Savior seeks validation for loyalty and sacrifice, as well as for affectively persecuting villains. The wise ones seek validation for no longer being champions or saviors. They seek validation with extreme irony: for the very glorious ways in which they invalidate others.
Is there another stage which is actually beyond hysteria (not just hysterically ridiculing hysteria)? Is there a stage in which the rulers simply seek to influence the focus of others, such as by directly speaking to them or by having a holy Central committee create a curriculum for rituals of indoctrination programming?
The rulers do not deny the fact that all instances of communication involve directing the attention of other people. Many who are not rulers may relate to some instances of conscious influence as somehow shameful. In other words, they are not very good at it and know that it is risky to influence others poorly, so they ridicule interpersonal influence and withdraw in to comfortable seclusion… At least for a while.
Do the rulers criticize and vilify other rulers for manipulating the attention of the masses? They might, but never sincerely. When a ruler vilifies or persecutes A villain for improperly manipulating others, their activity of vilifying some villain is a conscious manipulation of The attention of their audience.
When they condemn reverse psychology, they are not hysterical because they are not sincere. When they vilify acts of ridicule, they are aware of the irony of ridiculing vilification.
The rulers influence or govern or regulate others by controlling the attention and perception and behavior of others, or at least they attempt to do so. That is their goal and they develop effectiveness over time and through experimentation.
In particular, the rulers recognize the value of programming the masses to use language in particular ways. They train the masses to focus away from certain issues by labeling those issues as shameful or things that should not be. So, naturally they label many of their own favorite methods as evil in order to promote a monopoly on those methods.
They also train the masses to focus on certain possibilities that are not currently present, but that should be. In other words, they teach people to downgrade the present reality in favor of some set of ideals. People are programmed to value some model of what should be over what actually is.
The rulers can also present a variety of conflicting models of what should be in order to promote their strategy of divide and conquer. Fundamentally, the masses are programmed to be champions who discount reality in favor of some indoctrinated idealism. The reason that the ideals of the champions are so popular and socially encouraged is because the rulers have publicized those idealisms so effectively to so many people.
The rulers form cults. These cults monopolize the activity of coercion within a particular region in order to extract wealth from their human resources.
In congregations where private property is allowed, the rulers use systems of extortion and call it taxation. Where all valuables are claimed as the property of the local congregation, The rulers extract wealth by assigning jobs to the residents of their plantation or labor camp or prison culture.
The indoctrination rituals of the cult can glorify meaningless political slogans such as “equality through centralization of power” or “separation of church and state.” The state is not just their church, but their God and savior.
Again, to the rulers, all of this irony is recognized as ironic. They Are calm and alert and casual about These political slogans of their cult. They are not sincere and hysterical like the common champions and saviors. A ruler ridicules an instance of hysteria like the wise compulsively do, the ruler may use the same words from the same script and the same body language, but they know that they are acting. They do not suffer from the common delusion that their script is anything other than a script.
They present their lines, whether rehearsed or unrehearsed, and monitor the response of the audience. Does the audience seem to be emotionally triggered by a particular statement about what should be or what should not be? If so, the rulers will probably develop that conceptual theme further.
The rulers use language to rule. They rule the way that the masses use language. They use language to guide the attention of the masses. They use language to guide the habitual interpretations of the masses. They also use language to guide the perception and experience and emotion and behavior of the masses.
In every instance of communication, The rulers are attentive to their priorities and to the effectiveness of their methods. If they train the masses to have contempt for the idea of “the goals determining the methods,” they will do so attentively. With their purpose clear, they will experiment with different methods to compare the effectiveness of those methods. They will utilize whatever method they perceive to be the best fit for their priority.
Will they program the masses to experience shame if exposed to the exposed of conspiracy? Perhaps. The leader of a cult may come on television and talk at length about his theory of a conspiracy about some terrorist group conducting some terrorist act, but then condemn the ideas of conspiracy theories. The irony of presenting a Theory of a conspiracy and then ridiculing conspiracy theories is clear to those who write the script. Maybe the actor reading the Teleprompter script on TV does not recognize the irony, but the author does.
The goal of the rulers is to rule. They demoralize the masses. They program denial into the masses. They install cognitive paradoxes. They create rituals of trauma and then implement them, all with a very calm attention to effectiveness.
They program the masses to glorify sincerity and loyalty and of course compulsive honesty. The rulers define sociopathy and psychopathy and everything else.
If the masses worship demons named obesity or poverty or stress, maybe the rulers planned it that way. If not, the rulers will still be completely open to vilifying some villain as having planned it that way.
What those other rulers over there are doing is shameful and out rages and just really really sad. You should all be very outraged by it or very depressed and terrified or at least compulsively hysterical. Your life is really similar to having a job as a server at a restaurant. Basically, you need to focus on what you will experience after you die. So you must do the things that Saint Peter tells you are glorious because he is a magic eternal telepathic voyeur who is watching you right now from heaven and he is only going to give you a good tip at the end of the meal if you properly obey the holy commandments of Santa Claus. Also, if your performance is subpar, then you will be eternally tortured by constant agony over how to attract social validation.
Do not feel guilty. Only people who are extremely naive and stupid would feel guilt, so do not ever do that (especially not right now this very moment) or else you will either burst out in laughter or go directly to hell. By the way, you do not want to ever burst out in laughter because this entire message is impossible and forbidden and already self-destructed like three minutes ago.
Irony is for people who do not appreciate hypocrisy. Specifically, You really need to be more glorious than you are. However you are is fundamentally not good enough, which is why you should worship our cult’s model of how people should be.
Note that when I say our cult’s model of how people should be, I mean how people should fundamentally be. It is not just some linguistic model or some kind of script. And this is definitely not a cult. Cults are bad and shameful and deceptive and they brainwash people, so clearly our cult is not a cult because that could be pretty embarrassing, right?
Humility is humiliating. It must be avoided. What we desperately need is some loyal saviors to save the champions from humility by glorifying humility arrogantly. After all, it would make the world a much better place for us rulers… I mean for everyone.
Anyway, there are 4 different primary stress responses. Those are flight, such as crumbling in to submission and sending out a distress signal, which is the disappointment and grief of the champions. Next is fighting, which is what all holy saviors do, especially the glorious martyrs who die for our cult in exchange for promises of eternal social approval. Third is freezing, which is basically what the wise do because fleeing is useless and fighting is quite dangerous (especially when confronted with troops of thugs who carry assault rifles and wear bullet proof vests to protect them from protesters, since protesters in a parade are almost always firing guns as part of their parade).
What is the last of the 4 ways to respond to stress? What is left after fleeing, fighting, and freezing? There is also faking.
In other words, use language not out of hysterical pre-occupation with truth or sincerity or loyalty, but as a tool. How is language a tool? It can be used to influence the attention of others. It can be used to influence their models of reality as in the way that they relate to the world (or interpret their life). It can be used to influence their behavioral responses to their programmed interpretations of what they have been directed to notice.
Language should not be like that. Language should be the other way.
Never ever ever say anything that might offend someone. People who offend other people are ruining everything.