Empires promote certain patterns of language


The importance of language is easy to underestimate because language is so common to us that we do not often actually focus on it directly. We can quickly review the function of language in general and then start to address how language can be important for you in particular. We won’t go far in to your own personal momentum in the use of language of course, but you may recognize below some of the primary patterns in your own linguistic rituals that you developed through exposure to schooling and mainstream media.

So, what does language do? Why do people use it? How is it different from other forms of communication (such as waving your hand or smiling)?

What is language for:
Language directs attention, which directs perception (which is an interpretation of actual sensory inputs that are filtered and then assembled in to creative narratives using conceptual labels). Our response to those subjective perception results in action. So, language organizes behavior.

Why do people use it?

People use it to organize attention (including the attention of other humans), to influence perception (as in experience), and to inform action (to form patterns of behavior). Again, people organize behavior using language (among other things).

How is language different from other forms of communication:

Language is a set of verbal signals in which the sequence of the signals matters. In other words, these are three very distinct ideas:

The boy kissed the girl.

The girl kissed the boy.

The girl and boy kissed.

What is the difference between those series of words? The first two examples have the exact same words, but a different sequence. The sequence changes the meaning.

This is a very important issue. The full meaning of a statement is only accessible at the end of the statement. Until the statement is over, the relationship of the prior verbal symbols can be changed.

The girl and boy kissed the baby’s cheeks.

The girl and boy kissed the baby goodbye.

The girl and boy kissed their dreams goodbye.

The girl and boy kissed goodbye in my dream.

How is language used in an empire?

Language is used in an empire to control the minds of the masses (and thus also their actions and the results of those actions). This can be done through religious institutions, through schools, through mainstream media, and in other ways.

Specific patterns of language can be presented repeatedly to the masses. Certain patterns of language can be socially rewarded (to various extremes). Certain other patterns can be punished (to various extremes).

Further, the same patterns in language can receive different consequences based on the identity of the speaker. How old is the person who says it? Are they female or male? What is their personal background (such as ancestry)? Are they an official member of an exclusive group (such as an oath-sworn officer of a government)?

Imagine that a famous comedian like Eddie Murphy or Kevin Hart says “Hey, you know that I plan to keep my own gun collection, but I agree with you that we need to keep guns out of the hands of some of these low-class niggers who are running around acting like they are in some remote jungle in Africa or even the inner city slums of Oakland. This is Beverly Hills, nigger! You kind of people can’t just walk down the street here carrying a rifle and expect the niggers on the SWAT team to ignore it.”


Or, imagine that Thomas Jefferson is on campaign to be elected as President of the United States of America. He is at a gathering of white male land-owners (the only category of people who have the right to vote in the USA at that time). He raises his arms, then raises his voice and proclaims that “all men are created equal and have the right to bear arms, except of course for my nigger slaves. Don’t be ridiculous!”

So, who says something can matter in regard to how the language is interpreted. Obviously, who it is that witnesses the communication can also matter as to how the language is interpreted by each witness.

Can the witness speak the language fluently? How well do they understand the context in which the speaker is speaking?
How have they been programmed to interpret language? Are they filtering with a priority of identifying “possible threats?” Are they looking for possible threats only to them personally (like threats to their physical safety) or also looking for possible threats to certain ideas that they worship as sacred?

For instance, are they attempting to preserve an idea of the USA as a “good” nation (or even “the most honorable nation in all of human history”)? Further, are they attempting to promote a public perception of themselves as a “good person” or even a “good citizen?”

Has “good citizenship” been encouraged throughout many years of educational programming? Do they have rigid tensions about repressing certain emotions because “people should not be like that?”

Are they obsessed with a binary categorization of ideas as either “what should be” or “what should not be?” Are they obsessed with a binary categorization of people as either “how people should be” or “how people should not be?” (as in either A or B, but never both)

If so, that may be a sign that they are still operating according to the training drills used in mainstream schools. Their experience is a chronic physical tension in which maintaining a constant flow of reassuring social validation is an ongoing compulsion for them (as distinct from simply minimizing exposure to social punishments).

They frequently announce their loyalty to various sacred ideas of how people should be and how people should not be. They display passionate sincerity (and even hysterical paranoia about anyone who questions their loyalty). They openly display their willingness to engage in verbal arguing or physical combat in defense of the sacred ideals which they have been programmed to worship. Those intensely-defended ideals could include their ideals of “what kind of a person I should be/ I am” and the opposite category of denial: “what kind of person that I am not / should not be.”

A radical contrast to a binary categorization is a spectrum in which more precise measurement is possible. For instance, a simple binary grading system would be “either Pass or Fail.” There would be only two letter grades: P or F.

A slightly more complex grading system would subdivide a passing grade in to four levels. This adds to the psychological appeal of a very high grade: A (or at least B) is better than C and is of course much better than D, which is almost a failing grade (an F).

How about another context besides school grading? For simplicity, an oath-sworn officer of an empire may rule that someone is either legally sane (as in competent or liable) or not legally sane. Such simplicity (with only two linguistic categories that are mutually exclusive) can be efficient, especially if sorting through large numbers of human resources or other livestock.

However, someone else may have more interest in a specific case. They may attempt to much more precisely measure neurological functionality along a wide spectrum of possible ratings. For example, they may create a multi-digit rating (with possible scores from 0.0 to 50.0) called an AQ, which is short for  “Autism Spectrum Quotient.”

They may use other similar ratings as well, such as a numerical ATEC score (Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist) or Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) or  Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) or even a score on a  Relationship Problem Questionnaire (RPQ). Which scale(s) do they use? Where do these scales come from?

Most importantly, how are the various scores used in the rituals of the empire by the different oath-sworn officers of the empire (such as Medical Doctors, Judges, Lawyers, and even certified teachers)? Also, how do any people outside of those formal imperial functions use these scores? For instance, how do parents relate to the various scales?

To re-introduce a prior idea, what about the idea of citizenship? Are there different behavioral expectations for children in public schools who have “typical” levels of neurological capacity and for children “who have autism?” Do some children ever get rewarded for the same behaviors that would be punished in other children of the same chronological age?

We may know that schools get financial rewards for classifying students in ways that receive much larger cash flow for the schools. Is it possible schools also operate in ways that promote the outcome of higher levels of autism in students?

For instance, do the schools give free food (at least to some students) that contains large concentrations of neurotoxins like Aspartame (nutrasweet)? What about highly-processed grains that were grown with the heavy use of neurotoxic pesticides, and then were made it to seed oils and seed syrups (which are substances that apparently have only been consumed by humans starting in the 20th century)? What contents are added to the drinking water of the students?

We may know that the rate of childhood asthma is also increasing. What are schools doing to slow the increase of asthma or even reverse it? What are schools doing to encourage asthma?

In my own studies of the physiological process labeled “asthma,” I have seen extensive evidence of a variety of very simple (and inexpensive) interventions that are reported to reliably reverse asthma completely. Some people label asthma incurable (alleging that because they personally do not know how to remedy asthma, then no one else possibly could either).

But is something actually “incurable” just because a certain group of people are ignorant of how to produce or reverse those symptoms? What if asthma can easily be produced, but that group of people just does not know how? For instance, what if particular methods of social intimidation always produce a restriction on “optimal” breathing?

What if chronic physical tensions alter the total airflow of any organism (human or otherwise)? What if chronic physical tensions also alter the specific orifice through which inhalation occurs (as in through the nose or through the mouth)?

The simple reality is that the health of the individual students in a public school is not a top priority. As an extreme example, what does a school do if one student dies during the first few weeks of summer vacation? What consequence does that death have on the practices of the institution?

The institution is generally not responsive to the individual results of students. What alters the practices of the institution? If the regulations for federal funding of the school create a new category of student that receives a much larger budget per student, then could that influence the daily operations of the school? Could the school suddenly get interested in assessing any students who are identified as candidates for a categorization that increases funding for the school?

Back to the subject of asthma, how easy is it to produce? How easy is it to reverse?

In regard to autism, how easy is it to produce? How easy is it to reverse?  Also, what methods can we use to precisely measure ease / difficulty?

If the long-term health of a specific student is of no particular interest to a school system, what about the overall “citizenship” of the herds of students that are involved in that institution? If a school suddenly has a major breakdown in discipline (the conduct or compliance of the students), then what? Will that change produce a response from the school itself or even the school district that manages the specific school?

With regard to a topic like the safety of students from gun violence at a school, how likely is a school to invest in purchasing a few weapons for a few staff members (and training those staff members)? What deterrence could result from having several faculty members visibly carrying weapons?

Or, would a school invest in a metal detector and then hire some security staff to operate it and force all students to walk through it? Would companies that profit from the sale of metal detectors have any interest in promoting that result?

What about a very expensive program to remove all firearms within a region of several square miles (or even several hundred square miles) from any members of the public (from anyone who is not a member of the proper oath-sworn priesthood of the empire)? Would some parties benefit disproportionately from such a program being adopted? Would gun manufacturers be expected to oppose such a program?

Would a school invest in clarifying to students the nature of language? Would they teach everyone particular ideas or slogans about how language works? Would they intentionally promote certain perceptions about language?

We know that mainstream schools operate according to regulations and curriculum created by central bureaucracies. Those who rule over the school employees direct the instructors to focus the attention of the students on particular issues in a particular way.

Students may be trained to categorize Thomas Jefferson as one of the early Presidents of the USA (for instance). Who was the very first President? Indeed what is a President? What is this thing called the USA?

Such information may be considered important by the rulers. They may reward students for learning such information and then loyally repeating it back to the teachers orally or in writing.

Do schools want students to understand how to produce asthma or reverse asthma? It is not in the curriculum at all. However, students must all be trained to sit down when the bell rings and then memorize the name of the first President of the USA.

Consider the idea that in the USA something that is very important is “the separation of church and state.” Are students encouraged to identify similarities between the USA and various religious institutions, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the cold-blooded ritual human sacrifices of the high priests of the Aztec government?

If a student asks intelligent questions that reveal logical inaccuracy in the holy slogans that are worshiped in an empire, will that be rewarded or punished? Does a “good citizenship grade” require the suppression of any statements that question logic? Are demonstrations of logical thought punished or rewarded or simply ignored?

Conformity is typically rewarded. Specifically, conformity to the behavioral directives of the empire is rewarded. Of course, the behavioral pattern of conformity in general may be ridiculed.

boot camp

“People should not blindly conform. Isn’t that right, class? I can’t hear you, niggers! So, the next time that I ask you a question, you will shout your answer so that everyone in a half mile can hear you. Now, what I said is that people should not blindly conform because blind conformity is bad. Isn’t that right, class?”

How is intimidation important in school systems? How is blind conformity important? How is it important to prevent logical questions that are outside of the interests of the empire? Can the masses be frightened with such intensity that they avoid logic (at least in relation to particular sacred ideals that the masses are trained to worship)? Do they ridicule those who raise questions of logic in regard to those sacred ideals? Do they demonstrate personal animosity and a willingness to punish, harass, or physically attack non-conformists?

If logical questions arise in a few individual organisms, that may be trivial to the empire (or perhaps only very occasionally important). However, the mere arising of logical questions is not disruptive to “good citizenship” in schools. What is disruptive is the voicing of certain questions of logic.

As long as the students do not display intelligence in a way that disrupts the empire’s purposes, they can have whatever private thoughts they like. Just do not express them during any of the holy rituals of the public indoctrination system.

So, if certain questions of logic are shared in private communications, the empire does not register those communications as relevant (important). As long as the religious ideals of the empire are not openly questioned, the empire simply continues with the momentum of the pre-ordained curriculum.

Does the empire religiously promote any ideals as sacred? Of course not. That would be like a church and in this empire there is a total separation of church and state, which is why our empire is better than all of the others, which are really nothing like ours.

Also, deception is very bad. People should not use deception ever because if they do then Santa Claus will not reward them with any virgins when they die.

In fact, if anyone has ever used deception in their entire life, they should feel extremely tense about speaking because if they breath out loud in a way that other people consider inconsistent with the holy ideals of the totally non-religious empire, that could lead to chronic physical tensions in relation to breathing, causing them to bring upon themselves the demon of asthma, which could possess their lungs and then attack their brain with panic and cause hyperventilation and even social anxiety, which is very bad. Fortunately, not only have I never used deception, but I have never been deceived, especially not by any members of the oath-sworn priesthood of a military empire.

The girl and the boy kissed the muddy boots of the drill sergeant, right after shouting in a pre-programmed rhythm: “Sir, yes sir, we love you, drill sergeant, sir!” Unfortunately, the lips of the boy and the girl slightly touched while they were kissing the muddy boots, so the two of them hated each other forever because it was so traumatizing that while they were doing the unimportant activity of kissing the boots of the high priest, their lips touched in a way that resulted in the slightest experience of pleasure arising in each of them. This was very surprising and morally wrong, especially considering that they had different skin color and were from rival neighborhoods. Therefore, that is why the boy and the girl had to invest huge amounts of energy in to socially condemning the other (as a “rebellious violator of proper military conduct”). This mutual repulsion served to avoid any further experience of pleasure, which obviously can be very disruptive to military training and missions.
In closing, here again are two quick statements from the beginning of this piece. Now that you are near the end, let’s see if the new context that has been created in the many paragraphs above gives a new sense of meaning to the same sequences of words that you read near the beginning.

What is language for:
Language directs attention, which directs perception (which is an interpretation of actual sensory inputs that are filtered and then assembled in to creative narratives using conceptual labels). Our response to those subjective perception results in action. So, language organizes behavior.

Why do people use it?

People use it to organize attention (including the attention of other humans), to influence perception (as in experience), and to inform action (to form patterns of behavior). Again, people organize behavior using language (among other things).

Here is a comment from Facebook on the above article:

  • Jacob Lieberwirth wrote: It mentions in the article that one result of tension is a distinct breathing pattern. I did not see it mention that on the other hand, practicing a different, slower, breathing pattern can also affect the tension to lessen, however. Thanks regardless, interesting read, J R
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn wrote: Slowing the breath may not itself alter patterns of physical tension. However, for most modern people, to slow their breathing by at least one half would dramatically improve neurological function.Because logic and intelligence is so disruptive to the operations of public indoctrination systems, it is a natural adaption that not only would students use rapid, shallow chest breathing (rather than belly breathing) because of the social anxiety of the classroom ritual, but any practice that reduces oxygen to the brain will allow the student to endure the boredom of the classroom without being distracted by intelligent questions about the logic of the sacred ideals programmed through the classroom rituals.
  • Slowing breathing would increase the sensitivity to physical pain and physical tension, which again is contrary to the purposes of the publicly-regulated indoctrination programs. However, slowing the breath also reduces inflammation in the brain, so pain is both more easily perceived in the short run but also reduced (even within 90 seconds) simply by reducing the pace of breathing, especially exhalation.
  • Finally, here is an article that focuses on breathing as it relates particularly to the digestive process and ease of elimination (and thus constipation), however the same mechanisms that are mentioned in the article are also influential in regard to the functioning of every single organ and tissue in an organism:https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/what-causes…/



  • Nice, hadn’t tried that one yet (the ‘air hunger’ method), was doing the ‘gradual’ version. Effects are indeed more immediate, thank you!
     Also just fyi, this correlates with my experience of amphetamines (which elevates breathing levels, plus it takes away the desire for food, meaning very little food intake over 24 hours), which caused a case of fecal impaction (severe constipation). Also creates lots of tension. Makes sense in this context.



Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: