Posts Tagged ‘condemn’

What is the best way to shame others for shaming others the wrong way?

June 6, 2015

JK wrote: “Unfortunately we live in a world where profits come before integrity….”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “Integrity” is just a PR spin to promote profits / competitive advantage. The masses are programmed to obsess over integrity and experience a type of anxiety called guilt. Deception is central to governments and many big businesses.
    Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs · Edited
    • Jaguar Kukulcan Somehow the masses are blind to the staggering lack of integrity in their governments and big business. There is none so blind as s/he he will not see eh . . .
      Like · 1 · 14 hrs

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Schools and media program the masses to presume that integrity is important to governments (and churches etc). The indoctrination can be quite misleading. Further, it is rare for someone to ask exactly how / when is integrity important.In the U.S., a

      military officer named Oliver north is famous for lying to the government, then getting convicted in a criminal court, and then getting pardoned by the U.S. President. Governments regulate crime. They do not prevent it and they could not if they tried. Governments define crime (and generally the same activities that governments perform would be punished as criminal if performed by private citizens… Well, unless you are close friends with the president…).

      Like · 1 · 13 hrs · Edited

    • Jaguar Kukulcan Agreed! AND . . . who amongst us was taught at home to have real integrity? Even the best parents were lying to their kids at times. And encouraged their kids to lie too even in small ways. Who wants their kid to respond to a neighbours question “how are you?” with “I’m pissed off that I’ve got a cold and I’m coughing up great gobs of gunk” hahaha We say “I’m fine thanks, how are you?” Mundane example but points to the way we legitimise the lies we tell to ourselves and others . . .
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Wait… Are you saying that Santa Claus did not bring me those presents and my parents intentionally deceived me about it?
      Like · 1 · 1 hr
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn With language, there are lies, which means intentionally deceiving. The bigger issues may be the things that my parents actually believed and told me were true, but my parents were wrong about even though totally sincere.
      Like · 1 · 1 hr · Edited

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Some people condemn lying. Some people punish it with perjury laws.In other cases, honesty is punished. For instance, some military officers are fired (or worse) for mentioning details that the social system prefers to be kept secret.

      Like · 1 · 1 hr

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Lying is legitimate. Punishing lying (shaming it or criminalizing it) is also legitimate. Punishing honesty is also legitimate.The one who thinks that legitimacy is anything more than a perception (usually involving the approval of a particular social institution) may be “lying to themselves.” Those who have been trained to worship delusions hysterically can be categorized as “pretty much everyone.”

    • hahaha shocking isn’t it (about Santa)

      It’s a big subject for sure! And I agree with you!

      I love this quote by Don Miguel Ruiz:
      “I was a perfect little child. I was innocent, and I ate the lie that I am not what I should be. I believed that I would have to work hard to become what I should be. This is how I learned to create my story, and because I had faith in the story, the story became truth for me. And the story, even if it is full of lies, is perfect. It is wonderful and beautiful. The story is not right or wrong or good or bad – it’s just a story, that’s all. But with awareness, we can change the story. Step by step, we can return to the truth.”
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Only in language are there such concepts as perfection and imperfection. If someone is interested in truth, perhaps they will relax the common hysteria about language.Before language, there was nothing but truth. To look to language as the pathway to truth is delusional.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Many delusions are programmed socially. Hysteria and paranoia and social anxiety are the foundations of modern civilized society. Social anxiety is instrumental to an orderly society. People must be interested in learning the rules of society and then be anxious about following those rules, right? (Or about keeping any violations of the rules discrete.)“What should be is more important than what is” is a fundamental hysteria. What should be is socially programmed using the language of hysteria.

      How society should be is a hysterical idea. Notice the hysteria with which people use that kind of statement.

      “How I should be” is the foundation of shame. In hysteria, I can relate to others as if my expectations are holy and as if some aspects of their experience could be an insult to me (a threat to the surfacing of my inner hysteria and paranoia), so I resent and condemn and gather with like-minded people to complain about all the humans who I find the most insulting (threatening).

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Is it good for a parent to intentionally discipline their child by shaming them? It is Almost inevitable. Embarrassment is a normal experience. To intentionally embarrass someone is also very common.My commentary is that to intentionally shame is mu

      ch better than to do it without knowing one is doing it. To shame others can be effective. It is “nothing to be ashamed of.”

      However, what could be more shameful in a religion of hysteria but to intentionally promote hysteria and shame and paranoia in another? Good thing that the Santa Claus thing does not promote paranoia because promoting paranoia could never be effective at influencing the behavior of children (or adults), right?

      why are we told “what should not be?” To hide certain parts of reality from us. We are programmed to experience shame and outrage whenever we notice something that we are told should not be. Eventually, that leads to us “going blind” to many of the basic realities of how our society works (for we have been told how society should work, which also is an indoctrination method for distracting us from reality with slogans to worship). I got an A in my government class because I memorized all the political slogans in the textbook and repeated them back on the test. I have been rewarded for copying the government-approved political slogan and then repeating it and calling it “the truth” on a true or false test.

      Of course, questioning the holy truth as taught in the sacred school of our religion is a shameful thing to do and will result in getting detention or getting expelled. Our empire is the most holy because it condemns imperialism as something that should not be.

  • Doc Murdoch we need a revolution….
    Like · Reply · 27 mins 

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Ah, yes, Doc reminds me of the hysterical slogan of the revolucion eternale party from Mexico. No matter how life is, we must hysterically relate to it as something that we must change so as to save our children from reality. Now we just have to agonize and exhaust ourselves over figuring out exactly which way to rebel, since obviously most of the people who promote a revolution are saying hysterical things about what kind of revolution we need. It sure is a good thing that Our group of holy snobs is nothing like those naive, self-righteous herds.

    Save the children from Santa Claus! Deception is shameful! Hysteria must be prevented by panicking over which form of hysteria is the least hysterical!

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Those who are ashamed of an empire will insist passionately on their favorite reform campaign to make the empire less imperialistic. Who programmed them to be ashamed of certain details of imperialism? 😉

 

lyrics: witch hunt specialist

March 7, 2014

I used to resist           tension
I used to resist           stressing
I used to condemn     what I would resist
I used to pretend        I was not that which
I would resist

Now I can witness       tension
Now I can witness       stressing
Now I can respect          what I can witness
Now I can accept           yes I was that which
I would resist

If you reject me in    all the right ways
then I will love you    or that’s what I’ll say
If you accept me     will I then panic
If you respect me    will I dismiss it
as ridiculous

Don’t       tell       me       that there is nothing more

I          need      a goal        to focus toward

I          must     achieve       the next reform

I          will        perform     a miracle

or I will invest my whole life

in the path of self-rejection

I promise to make up for me (eventually)

I promise to become what I should be

I promise to stop this self-rejection

just as soon as I have earned that

My excuses are the reason why

I am the way that I choose to stay

Other people are the problem yes

That’s why I’m a victim of circumstance

 

I used to reject           tension
I used to reject           stressing
I used to condemn    what I would resist
I used to pretend        I was not a

witch

hunt

specialist

 

 

The courage to withdraw condemnation

May 5, 2013

Condemning certain things is very popular. Every group has their taboos.  

A Day in the Park with Barney

A Day in the Park with Barney (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For instance, a small child may enjoy a certain televised cartoon, but then a few years later condemn it fiercely. “Only babies like Barney the dinosaur! I am a big boy now. Anyway, you are such a liar because I never REALLY liked Barney. I was just PRETENDING!” 
 
However, the child may not recall some of the highlights of their past loyalty to Barney. There was demanding the Barney shoes (with a three-minute long shrieking tantrum in the middle of the aisle of the store), or demanding the Barney board game (mentioning it no less than 142 times in a single week close to Christmas one year), or demanding the cereal with Barney on the box (“Hey, did you pour some of the other cereal in to this box to trick me? I can tell that this is not the REAL Barney cereal! Gramma, daddy is being SO mean to me and trying to trick me”).
After all, the most that the child watched a single episode of Barney was 109 times. The total number of episodes watched may have barely broke 1,000. Clearly, the child never really liked Barney. (And isn’t that the same child who later had a subscription to Playboy magazine for 4 years “but… only for the articles?”)
Old Playboy Magazines, Brooklyn Flea, Fort Greene

Old Playboy Magazines, Brooklyn Flea, Fort Greene (Photo credit: Shawn Hoke)

So, it is totally normal not only to form taboos, but to adopt the taboos of other people, and even to eventually discard them. By the time a young man is loyally subscribing to Playboy (and probably reading EVERY word of every issue- several times), he might no longer be quite so hysterical in any condemnations of the cartoon Barney. “Yeah, I watched it. So what? I believed in Santa, too. Who cares? If I ever said I hated Barney, whatever….”
The temporary condemnation of Barney corresponds to a transition away from an addictive obsession with Barney. Condemning something could be a temporary mechanism for transitioning out of some established pattern of behavior. The more intense the attraction to something, the more energy would be invested in resisting it (ridiculing it, condemning it).
At one one stage, condemning Barney is a mark of maturity (social development, intellectual refinement). “Big kids” may almost universally condemn Barney- replacing their addiction to watching Barney with a new addiction to condemning Barney. However, at a later stage, the “addiction” to condemning Barney also gradually mellows and then subsides and then the original intense reflexive condemnation is simply forgotten.
“Oh, the TV show Barney? Yeah, of course I have heard of it. I used to watch it regularly. What about it?”
Barney and Friends season 1 title card.

Barney and Friends season 1 title card. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Barney Gumble

Barney Gumble (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, what I had in mind to write about when I sat down to write this was in relation to my experience as a father (in particular as the partner of my my son’s mom). I will do that. I am also going to write a bit about an exchange that happened since I started writing this.
First, for any of you who are not already aware of this, I used to condemn the sequence of events that led me to being “estranged” from my son’s mom. Today, I had been relaxing (resting) and then had the thought “what if my condemnations about how the romantic relationship fizzled (or… to be more precise, train-wrecked) were unimportant?” What if those past condemnations are trivia now? What if the way the relationship went is even trivia now- in the sense of just one historical sequence among many?
Maybe my tenacious sincerity at condemning how the relationship went was a cover for my rather simple preference to exit the relationship. Maybe the sincere tenacity of my condemnations were to BRING ABOUT an even more extreme disconnection than the prior stages of disconnection.
A little background is that my son’s mom and I lived together for a few years, then split up, and then got back together (including for weeks or months at a time) MANY times across the next SEVERAL years. We first lived together in early 2000 and the last cohabitation was in mid-2010 (when I moved out, at her request, less than a month after she had finished helping me move in with her again after she had gotten jealous of my involvement with another woman and pursued me).
So, I have been grieving the dissolving of the romantic relationship with my son’s mom. When I was grieving, I held grievances or grudges against her. She still “might” be holding some against me. In fact, I held grudges against her FOR “unfairly” holding grudges against me. Talk about ironic hypocrisy, right?
I sincerely and tenaciously condemned how the relationship ended (by which I mean that I blamed her for “ruining everything”). However, what if “deep down” I actually wanted the relationship to end but I was just afraid to admit it? What if I “sabotaged” the relationship, then tried covering up my sabotage by blaming her and condemning her? What if it “did not look good” to just say “well, now even though we have a child together and… thank you very much, but now I want to move out?”
In that case, a person with those concerns and priorities might have done… exactly what I did. Someone just like me would have said… exactly what I said. Anyone who did and said what I did and said would have got exactly the kind of results that I have experienced. What a shock!
Basically, do I need to continue to condemn how that relationship ended? Am I over my attachment enough to stop condemning the disappointment of the ending of the attachment?
Well, once I saw an episode of Barney in which a fuzzy purple dinosaur (the kind that is very safe to have around small children) sang a song about how he used to hate bicycles (back when he was too small of a dinosaur to ride one). He said that he admits that he was just jealous of the bigger dinosaurs who could ride bikes. So, he said that he hated bicycles and ALLEGED that his pre-existing hatred of bicycles was the only reason that he personally did not ride them- but of course he could if he wanted to- but again just to emphasize the CENTRAL FACT is that he did NOT avoid riding bicycles for any other reason but simply because he hated bicycles- nothing at all to do with his alleged skill level in riding.
Playboy magazine December 1972 cover featuring...

Playboy magazine December 1972 cover featuring the last illustration work of Haddon Sundblom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Anyway, that reminds me of a conversation that I was having recently about how when a guy is really attracted to women but secretly quite terrified of them, he may “go gay” for a while (or even permanently) so as to avoid the “complications” of a committed sexual relationship with a female (possibly even pregnancy). Now, you may think “I am only saying that because I hate faggots and would secretly like to gather a bunch of them together inside of Westboro Baptist Church and then lock them inside and burn it down.” However, consider that in my own case, while I did not “go gay,” I did “go celibate” for a while. Why would a healthy man CHOOSE to avoid the “complications” of possible pregnancy by EITHER “going gay” or “going celibate?” Well, if the man is already a father of children and the man’s relationship with the mother of his child or children was traumatically terrifying to the man, and something that he ABSOLUTELY does not wish to EVER repeat, then there are at least two SAFE methods of never again conceiving a child: either to get a vasectomy or to get a life sentence in maximum security prison that only houses males.
Wait… that was not what I meant to type. Vasectomies are not even 100% reliable (and I am absolutely SURE about that). Further, the two safest ways as a man to not have any children are to not have any sex, or at least not with a woman (even if they have been taking birth control pills).
I have even thought of intentionally looking for a girlfriend much older than me (several years ago) who would be “safe” in regard to pregnancy because of her being post-menopausal. Obviously, that is quite different from engaging in homosexual activities- but not really all that much!
Cow butt

a big butt (Photo credit: Valerie Everett)

What else can a guy do to avoid pregnancy (without “going gay”)? He can start romances with women that are SAFE because of some circumstance, such as a 4000 mile geographic  gap.
In fact, I did that. However, then she came to visit. The “relationship” only lasted several more weeks.
How about starting a romance with a married woman? Well, again, that is far more “realistic” if the woman is local. In my own case, this “great idea” was only so great at 2000 miles and, again, lasted a few weeks when geography was no longer an issue. 
 
Oops- I have actually gotten involved with married women twice. The first time was also short though. In both cases, the separated wives ended up getting back together with their husbands. But the first time, I did not even have the extra barrier of 2000 miles.
 
 
So I am not in the mode of condemning Barney or condemning people for condemning Barney or condemning anything else. I also admit that I find women attractive. A lot of them. Maybe not most of them, but really quite a LOT of them. 
 
Let me be more specific. Perhaps dozens of them. Maybe even hundreds. In fact, that reminds me of this one time that I was reading an article in Playboy about how a recent scientific survey indicates that most men find the sight of a naked healthy female body to be slightly more intriguing than a poster of a stuffed purple dinosaur.
 
But stop trying to distracting me with references to stuffed purple dinosaurs. I told you that I am totally over that phase. I am totally neutral now about Barney.
 
Remix (A-Lot)

Remix (A-Lot) (Photo credit: Brett Jordan)


Now, as for women with big butts, well, like Sir Mix-a-lot says in his only famous song, I cannot lie. I like big butts. (I am pretty sure that we all know that I am talking about the butts of female humans here, right?)
So, people condemn things that they want to distance themselves from- like things that are painful to them, terrifying, shameful. Maybe they even use harsh condemnation in order to intentionally terrify others- to intimidate and harass them. For instance, if Sir Mix-a-lot has any teenage daughters, then, you know what, I bet he could lie- or at least focus on big butts in a different way than just “liking” them.
He could say “Hi, you young ladies are not old enough to wear that kind of clothing out in public. I do not like big butts in this case. Well, I may like them, but I want to protect these particular big butts from the attention of boys and so I want those big butts well-covered right away and all the time in public until you are least 21. Look around and you will notice that our living room is not a rap video set! So take those big butts back to your wardrobe closets and get some long skirts (below the knees!) over those big butts before I have your gramma come over here and give your big butts a whipping.”
I (LOVE) BIG BUTTS

I (LOVE) BIG BUTTS (Photo credit: gingerbeardman)

Don't insult the cook

Don’t insult the cook (Photo credit: kevin dooley)

I think we have a follow-up hit in the making here. After all, it has been about 2 decades since that song came out, right?
“I still like big butts, but your gramma’s mean. It’s all her fault you don’t own tight jeans. Your knee-length skirts are all you need. Now get dressed for church even if you’re not going.”
Okay, it can still use some work. I’m thinking Lady Gaga, Nikki Minaj, and Beyonce can appear in the video, except actually wearing clothing like a normal person would wear. See how ironic that would be?
Playboy, January 1985

Playboy, January 1985 (Photo credit: MattHurst)

Now, earlier I said I had another example about condemnation. It was someone on facebook condemning the US Federal Government’s programs to disarm the civilian populations of  a particular geographic region. No, this was not about disarming the civilians of Iraq- I think almost all of my facebook friends supported that. No, not about disarming the Palestinians or the Jews. No, not about disarming the US military or the local cops (no one wants them totally disarmed and how exactly would that kind of law be enforced anyway)?
To be precise, these folks on facebook were condemning US government plans to disarm THEM. What they said was something like “we encourage US soldiers to uphold their oaths to uphold the Constitution and disobey any orders to disarm civilians by force.”
That is understandable, right? These people want to keep their guns and so they want soldiers to disobey orders to shoot at them for keeping guns. They condemn the thing that scares them. Nothing too surprising yet, right?
So, then I bring up the issue that cops and low-level soldiers and high-level soldiers and politicians all may have sworn very similar oaths. Some of them may have sworn oaths to the mafia or the Jesuits as well, but that is a different issue. Let’s just look at the basic issue of counting on other people to follow oaths in the way that I interpret would be honorable.
Imagine that thousands of people swear the same oath. What I want to know is how many of them are naked women with big butts. No, sorry. I got distracted again for a second.
Imagine that thousands of little children swear the same oath: “I love Barney and I always will. He’s even more important to me than Santa or Jesus or Gramma.” Now, consider that eventually, some of them grow up to be US soldiers. Some of them advance through the ranks and receive orders that they are expected to pass on to their squads. Then the squads receive the orders. Then some of the squads start to obey the orders. Then some of them begin to wonder: “well, has this order been reviewed yet by the US Supreme Court Justices who are supervising the supervision of our supervisors?”
And other Sprout friends too!

And other Sprout friends too! (Photo credit: grid.epsilon)

That’s when things start to get serious. Barney himself comes on TV and announces to the American public that “on behalf of the security of the people of this country, the people of this country need to surrender things that they would not surrender except if there was a serious threat made to them for failing to surrender. Therefore, I am hereby threatening you with revealing that Barney is not a real fuzzy purple dinosaur but is in fact just an actor dressed up in a costume who has sworn an oath to perform a particular role within a much larger theatrical creation.”
Suddenly, lots of people who previously thought that the US government was the coolest thing since Barney begin to flip their position like a politician being blackmailed by public opinion. The people suddenly hate the US government worse than they had ever hated Barney. Then, they all demand that all female cops turn in their firearms so as to reduce rapes of female cops. 
 
What this country really needs now is a good enemy to hate. We have never had one of those before. I really think that having a good enemy would help to break us all out of our addiction to Barney-worship. Barney is NOT as cool as you thought when you were 2 years old. Barney is also not as bad as you claimed when you were 5 years old.
 
Me & Barney

Me & Barney (Photo credit: airship)

 
But if you ever have deep respect for some figurehead of some government, but then later have some skepticism or even (gasp!) criticism of someone else who later holds that same political office (or even the same person that you previously campaigned for), well that probably has nothing to do with Barney the imaginary purple dinosaur. I personally do not think that anyone should ever feel neutral about anyone that I consider important. Like I would have said when I was 3, “if you do not like Barney, then I do not like you, Gramma. You better say that you like Barney RIGHT NOW… or ELSE!” And that has nothing to do with whether or not someone has ever said to me “if you do not like my favorite candidate, then I am going to unfriend you from facebook” or “if you do not condemn the candidate that I hate, then I am not even going to be your friend on Facebook in the first place.”
 
By the way, the patriot lady who loves the Constitution and fears the Government unfriended me. That’s not really at all surprising. 
 
What surprised me was that I actually felt sad. It really- seriously- bothered me. 
 
I wanted her to like me. I wanted her to agree with me. I was disappointed… to the point of being distracted from other tasks.
 
Work It Out (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Work It Out (Beyoncé Knowles song) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
What I really wanted her to say was “JR, thank you so much for sharing your perspective. Now, I formally withdraw my condemnation of the things that so terrified me that I would not even admit that they simply terrified me. I appreciate you for showing me my own courage.” 
 
Then I wanted to say back to her “Whatever. Stop sucking up to me. I’m too good for you. So, I’m still unfriending your heroic, patriotic, spiritually-advanced, politically-neutral big butt- not that I don’t like it. No, really I like your big butt very, very much, but it’s me, not you. It’s just that I need some time to myself to sorts a few things out before I start another half-hearted romance with a 4000 mile geographic gap. Well, unless you are married. If you are married, then, yeah,  in that case it would not be too much of a threat… to my ideal of being perceived as loyal to my son….”
 
Watch out for what people condemn. People who condemn disloyalty may be people who are afraid of being perceived as disloyal. Or, they may be trying to be perceived as someone who is afraid of being perceived as disloyal. And that is why I think it is so important to be honest that I like big butts (even though I may one day condemn my own teenage daughters if they fail to adequately cover them with knee-length skirts).
Publicity photo of Hal Linden and Barbara Barr...

Publicity photo of Hal Linden and Barbara Barrie as Barney and Liz Miller from the television program Barney Miller. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

on fear, courage, condemnation, and discernment

December 8, 2012
When I notice something unfamiliar, I may experience curiosity… or fright!  Whenever I fear something (familiar or unfamiliar), I may eventually say “that should not be,” which is a frightened judgment (based on the prior feeling of fear). 
I can even fear the loss of something, like in the case of jealousy… with a fear of the loss of a relationship, which is a specific kind or worry or anxiety. “What should I do,” I may ask- to prevent what I do not want, to protect my interests/promote my desires.
Scared child

Scared child (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A distinct way of relating (besides fearing something and then condemning it out of fear) is to champion something, which could be out of fear as well. I may want to build a dike or levy for protection from flooding (fear of loss due to flooding). I may champion that cause.
Another way of relating is curiosity. I can be curious about developments and patterns and then attempt to discern relationships and trends and make predictions (forecasts).
Now, about the case of certain trends in Arizona or in the US, many may say “I was surprised by them! I still do not like them. I fear the trend that I notice. Further, I blame a particular group (or even a single individual).”
Others may say about the same trends: “I noticed them earlier than most. I studied them. I have some speculations about what is going on and why. I even have some forecasts about what is predictable or at least probable. Here are some alternative actions and the risks and opportunities that I have identified.”
 
 
The first way of relating involves judgments. The second way of relating involves discernment. There may be some ongoing refinement for precision in the case of discernment, but there is no terrified condemnation required.
 
I can say a lot about many trends in Arizona, the US and elsewhere. For now, what I will say is that IF you did not understand them when they happened, THEN you would not have been able to confidently predict them. They would have surprised you. You might have even been disappointed or disturbed or disoriented by some recent developments. So, you might be on the verge of… curiosity (and learning).
 

 

Curiosity

Curiosity (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

It is interesting how people respond to different statements that I make. People may show no interest or a lot. The interest may be shown through ridicule or enthusiastic conversation. Others may be very interested, but slow to show any particular interest.
 
Yes, certain economic and political trends are changing. No, not every forum or relationship is not a fit for the specific purpose of addressing what is changing and how and why. We can honor the opportunity to show our interests and then to recognize the ways that we show interest (condemnation, ridicule, curiosity, and so on). Okay!

 

– Bear dancing on the bones of the bulls

 

Isn’t it competitive to condemn competition?

November 16, 2012

competition and cooperation

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander, U...

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander, U.S. Central Command, gets ready to toss the coin at Super Bowl XLIII, Feb 1, 2009, at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Fla. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

WAIT- Isn’t it about time that we evolved from a world of idealistic condemnation of competition to some gratitude for the fact that our cooperative competition (our organized coercion) over here in the developed nations has been kicking some major butt all over the world for the last, uh, way way long long time?

English: Master Sergeant rank insignia for the...

English: Master Sergeant rank insignia for the United States Marine Corps. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By the way, I’ve been hanging out for the last few days with my elderly mom’s nurse who was a special forces sniper for the USMC before he trained to be a nurse. If you want to hate on people for being frighteningly more effective in their violence then you, then go on down to the nearest army base and demand that they all get real jobs- or go on down to the police station and demand that they all get real jobs- or go on down to the local biker’s bar and demand that the Hell’s Angels gang members replace their skull tattoos with butterflies and rainbows and smiley faces. And take a band-aid because you’re going to need it.

 

Hell's Angels Funeral Procession

Hell’s Angels Funeral Procession (Photo credit: SanFranAnnie)

That reminds me of a story about a guy who went to the Super Bowl of American Football and carried a sign that that said “Football is bad. You will go to hell if you watch football. Not soccer– which is totally fine and teaches people teamwork and so on- but what the Americans call football is very bad. Do not go in to that stadium. Stop right now. Come over here and give me your tickets so that I can get in instead of you. I need to go and yell at all those confused people inside there about how bad contempt and animosity are, so that I can earn my way in to heaven. Plus, I want to see if my favorite team will remain undefeated.”

The point of the story is that football is very bad. It teaches people competition and teamwork and conformity and how to multiply by seven, which are all very, very bad.

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander, U...

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander, U.S. Central Command, talks with head Super Bowl XLIII Referee Terry McAulay prior to the coin toss, Feb. 1, 2009, at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Fla. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Also, if it were not for the organized coercion of your local court system, your local currency would have no purchasing power. Your property rights would not exist. Your national borders would have no meaning, nor your property lines, nor your markings on the road to help keep people inside their lane and stopping at street lights.

The traffic lights and the markings on the road are not magic. Drivers who fall asleep do not follow those rules, so be aware that the lights and markings are not magic! They exist because of an immense system of organized coercion which gives social power (social consequences) to discourage the violating of the rules.

MAN_6170ss

MAN_6170ss (Photo credit: GO MANLY UNITED)

If you are terrified of rules, then follow them. If you want to break a few rules, then test the boundaries. There will always be rules and there will always be rulers (and arrogant rebels as well as innocent violators).

Some of the people who tell you to cooperate instead of competing may be trying to reduce competition. Some of the people funding the people who tell you to cooperate instead of compete may be trying to reduce competition.

English: Patch of the 3rd Tank Battalion of th...

English: Patch of the 3rd Tank Battalion of the United States Marine Corps (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

William Walker, "President" of Nicar...

William Walker, “President” of Nicaragua, 1856-1857 (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

“Judge not!”

November 7, 2012

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

Luke 6:37 – Online Parallel Bible

Forgiveness: The Real F-Bomb

Forgiveness: The Real F-Bomb (Photo credit: bangart)

Refrain from condemning. Cease vilifying. Renounce resenting. Abstain from shaming.

Instead, simply withdraw from whatever may have been disturbing you. Turn away from what has been disgusting to you, or frustrating, or disappointing.

Do not pretend to condone what does not appeal to you, but refrain from condemning. This does not mean to ignore danger, to never seek assistance or never to report suspicious activity. You can report activity and identify suspects without vilifying them.

If you had a pet dog that caused a spill or stain, you would not ignore the mess, would you? This teaching does not mean to ignore a mess.

However, if you scare the pet to get it’s attention and to interrupt it, and then confine it to an area where it cannot cause further harm, that is wise, right? But do not resent a dog for being hungry or undisciplined. Forgive it and discipline it. If you do not protect your valuables from the weather or from animals or from thieves, then you might expect occasional losses, right?

You can forgive a child rather than hold resentment, but you may still punish them. However, beware of punishing out of anger. Punish for discipline and order, not for personal revenge, contempt, or rage, which can lead to escalations of conflict rather than a resolving of disputes and controversies.

“To those who are pure, all things are pure ….” But to the one who is already disturbed, most anything can be attacked as disturbing. To the one who is already confused, most anything can be attacked as confusing.

So what does it mean that if you stop condemning, then you will not be condemned? If you stop condemning others, then other people may still condemn you, right, but any shame that you had will vanish.

However, if you persist in resenting others for causing your own shame, then your shame will persist. If you forgive them- in the sense of refraining from vilification- then your own shame about the past sequence of events will vanish.

Stop agonizing- even about how to end agonizing. Agonizing is a sign of desperation and shame. Rather than agonize, it is better to simply be ashamed. The agonizing will perpetuate the shame. Allowing the shame to surface will let it re-organize your attention.

Stop resenting your own shame, disappointment and fear. Resenting does not benefit you, relieve the shame, or clean up the mess.

SHAME

SHAME (Photo credit: BlueRobot)

If you have judged against someone for being judgmental, judge not. If you judge against yourself for judging against someone else (like for being judgmental), again, judge not!

So, by refraining from condemnation, you can perceive more clearly. For instance, those who are terrified of being perceived as afraid may be pre-occupied with appearing brave. Stop condemning fear and you will be more perceptive about recognizing your own fear and your intuitions about danger and risk. Do not endanger yourself naively by arrogantly seeking to appear brave. Do not condemn something unpopular just to fit in.

If you are terrified of being perceived as resentful, you may be pre-occupied with appearing grateful. If something angers you or disappoints you, then you can consider the best way to present your complaint and to whom. That is not agonizing. That is discernment.

Do not renounce voicing dissatisfaction.  That can lead to resentment and contempt. You can present a complaint respectfully. If someone is so panicked by a complaint that they erupt in to outrage and hysteria, that is an obvious sign of their lack of receptivity (or at least lack of interest). If they continue complaining about your complaints, that is not a sign of a lack of interest, is it?

When someone is unreceptive to hearing a complaint, you can bring witnesses or seek a mediator or court official to intervene. Or, if someone responds with contempt when presented with a complaint, this does not mean that you cannot take initiative boldly to satisfy your claim of their liability to you.

Matrix of Evil

When you refrain from condemning a certain activity as inherently evil or unjust, you may still avoid it as dangerous, risky, or imprudent. However, by refraining from condemning it, you will not be distracting yourself and blinding yourself from accurately identifying that pattern of activity in yourself or others.

Keep in mind that justice and legality and evil are categories that different cultures have defined quite differently. When a new court system of organized extortion obtains a monopoly over coercion, new definitions of justice and crime are suddenly imposed by the military force of the court deputies and mercenary soldiers of “law enforcement” and peace-keeping.

 

“Condemn not” is about inner peace, introspection, and clarity of perception. When condemnation is forbidden, that does not mean that condemnation should not ever happen. It means that condemnation is dangerous, blinding, imprudent.
One popular translation of Luke 6:37 in to English says, “Judge not, and God will not judge you. Condemn not and God will not condemn you.” I strongly favor that translation as it is not idealistic, but a reference to established principles of the unconscious conscience.

If you renounce condemnation, then obviously others may still condemn you, persecute you, or even crucify you- including for renouncing condemnation- because they may have been practicing public condemnation in the desperate hope of obtaining your approval, because of their hidden insecurity and shame. Do not condemn others, even for condemning.

If you forbid someone from condemning, do not condemn them for condemning. Rebuke them and discipline them.

Do not condemn them. Do not vilify them. Do not judge against them. Do not shame them.

Those rituals of human interaction are forbidden to the lower orders of the great priesthood. Until you can learn to abstain from condemnation, you do not have the inner discipline to learn to master the art of strategic condemnation.

Clear your own shame before you presume to shame others in passionate reaction. Clear your own arrogance before you condemn others for their arrogant condemnations.

When you are no longer ashamed of your own shame, what arises will be clear and pure. When you are no longer arrogant about your own arrogance, what arises will be innocent without being naive.

Low 0
4,400
2,400
$0.10
Low .01
74,000
49,500
$1.43

judgenot.net

song recording: “grand masters”

July 24, 2012
Grand masters
English: Painting of King Charles Felix of Sar...

English: Painting of King Charles Felix of Sardinia as the Grand Master of the Order of the Most Holy Annunciation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Grandmasters              cast a spell over the masses             santa’s watching so mold your actions

be good kids to get rewarded              bribery is sacred in this church
Grandmasters              cast a spell over the masses             God is watching so mold your actions
be good sinners to get rewarded          deception is sacred in this church
Grandmasters              cast a spell over the masses            The cops are watching so mold your actions
obey the laws or get arrested             coercion is sacred in this church
Grandmasters              cast a spell over the masses              The TV‘s watching so mold your actions
follow the rules to fit in your role          indoctrination is sacred in this church
Grandmasters              cast a spell over the masses             The shepherd’s watching so mold your actions
be good sheep cause wolves are hungry     bloody terror is sacred in this church
A game of chess, in the starting position.

A game of chess, in the starting position. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Everyone must condemn bribery               Everyone must condemn deception
Everyone must condemn coercion            Everyone must condemn indoctrination
For the Grandmasters to maintain their monopoly, everyone must insist that reality should not be how it is, they name life a tragedy
that we should’ve fixed by now and that’s why we’re guilty as hell of our original sin of condemning any of reality as evil
and don’t even put your fingers in her heaven without a signed license from the grandmasters
Everyone must condemn bribery               Everyone must condemn deception
Everyone must condemn coercion            Everyone must condemn indoctrination
Everyone must condemn reverse psychology
Emperor Paul wearing the Crown of the Grand Ma...

Emperor Paul wearing the Crown of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta (1799). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Grandmasters              cast a spell over the masses

English: HMEH Fra' Matthew Festing, 79th Princ...

English: HMEH Fra’ Matthew Festing, 79th Prince and Grand Master, Sovereign Military Order of Malta. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

media bias, corrupt governments, and evil churches

May 29, 2012
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Dist...

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Here are a few popular accusations: the media is biased, governments are corrupt, and churches are evil (or something along those lines).

 

In the last few hundred years, media has become increasingly influential. Governments and churches used to be the primary institutions for biasing the perception of the masses. As practices within the media change, some people may condemn some of the new practices as biased.
Medias bias. That is what they do. That is what they have always done. Medias even bias how we think of governments and churches.
Governments define what is legal or illegal. Governments bias people. Governments define justice (and corruption) and then enforce those definitions through regulatory coercion (organized violence). As the practices of a system of government change, some people may condemn some of the new practices as corrupt or unjustified or even too violent.
Governments govern. Governments govern through violence. Governments are violent. Governments monopolize violence by using violence against prospective competitors, such as foreign enemies or domestic “vigilantes” (unlicensed thugs).
Governments systematically redistribute wealth inequitably through coercion. That is what they do. That is what they have always done.
Churches define evil. Churches bias people. Churches are institutions for the organizing of peer pressure or social indoctrination.
That is what they do. That is what they have always done.
The media rules (making the rules and publicizing them). Governments enforce the media’s rules through organized violence. Churches justify the violence of the media’s governments.
Is that linguistic presentation evil? Is that corrupt? Is that biased? Is that a particular limited perspective, as in a bias?
Yes, and all other formations in words would be, too. So, should it be condemned? According to the standards publicized by what authority?
Why wouldn’t it be? Were you expecting something else?

I condemn the media, the media’s governments, and all religions. However, I do not just condemn them. I renounce them.

I also condemn words. Do not misuse them. Do not neglect them. Do not abuse them.
Do not even use them. Renounce them. How you will renounce words without using words to renounce them, that is something that you will need to discuss on your own.
Words are the root of all evil, all corruption, and all bias. Before you knew how to speak and before you knew the words evil or corruption or bias, did you have any beliefs or ideas?
The media is the instrument of humanity. Governments are instruments of humanity. Religions are instruments of humanity. Before any of those categories of words arose, language is the fundamental instrument of humanity.

what does life value

February 12, 2012

in reply to: http://odewire.com/46323/size-six-the-western-womens-harem.html

I liked the article. However, the way of presenting an idea along the lines of “all men oppress all women” is odd to me, though.

, *1938-07-21, 78th Attorney General of the Un...

, *1938-07-21, 78th Attorney General of the United States (1993–2001) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the West, there is a great value on young, virgin femininity- or at least the appearance of feminine, virgin youthfulness. Certainly men value it, as do women. No, a crumpled old George Burns at age 95 is not especially sexy and neither is Janet Reno or Margaret Thatcher– at least not to any heterosexual men that I know.

English: Margaret Thatcher, former UK PM. Fran...

Margaret Thatcher –  Image via Wikipedia

Yes, there are ideals of male and female physique– some more universal and some more cultural. Besides physique, other qualities are valued in a mate. However, with the whole thing about women being the ones who actually get pregnant and bear and nurse children, maybe it is a simple fact of nature that for the future evolutionary viability of an offspring, the health and physique of the female parent is more important than the health and physique of the male parent. (Also, I have noticed that among the healthy, fit, teenage women that I know, there may be a relatively low frequency of complaints about societal valuations that honor healthy, fit, teenage women.)

See https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/what-does-human-dna-seek-in-mate/

In the West, it is sometimes celebrated that in recent decades, women have become more involved with commercial activity, like taking on jobs more or less the same as men have since the industrial revolution and concentrating of humans in to cities to work at factories. When a society‘s population grows to a point of excess or saturation relative to present resources and infrastructure, it is natural for the social value of the act of child-bearing in particular (and in general the value of women and children) to decline, sometimes suddenly, like during wars.

Girls may be sent off to public schools just like boys. That does not indicate a huge value by families on their children of either sex, but a lack of value. A society in which children are more valued shelters them and apprentices them- at least the aristocratic ones. A society in which children are less valued sends them off to warehouses, but that is a much more sheltered life than abandoning them totally, or shipping them to an orphanage, or selling them like slaves (which may happen much more in impoverished families than sheltered westerners may wish to think).

So, let’s say that in a particular society and culture, there are a set of values in my midst- though those values are subject to change. I could be a newborn or a visitor from afar or a native of many decades. So what are some ways that I could relate to the values in my midst? Do I reject the actual values in my midst? Do I condemn them, or question them, or insist that they are inherently the best, denying the entire history of anthropology and economics? Values change. Values vary.

Institutions organize society by influencing different folks in different ways. The same is true in a bee colony in which one embryo (though genetically the same as hundreds of sisters) is nourished distinctly (with nutrient-rich “royal jelly” rather than the regular honey for the masses of bees). Should we condemn this injustice and intervene to bring equality to bees? If beekeepers tried to do that, it might hasten the extinction of bees.

Life has dictated that bees favor particular embryos and nurture those in to queens. All of the other bees cooperate to gather honey for the “lower class bees” and to gather royal jelly for the selected future queen. The queen is not elected democratically after maturing and campaigning. She is “advantaged” from the earliest age. However, to say “advantaged” is a bit odd.

Are the heart and brain “advantaged” over the skin or the digestive organs when there is a hormonal shift resulting in the directing of resources like oxygen-rich blood to those organs and tissues rather than toward others? Isn’t it that for the benefit of the entire body, lower priority functions like growing hair and growing fingernails will lose nutritional resources (resulting in things like baldness) when other functions are “valued” by the hormonal system of the physiological genius of that particular creature (which could be a mammal or a fish or a reptile)? Is the hormonal system of mammals or fish or reptiles “the best?” It is a silly question, right?

Many humans have been programmed or indoctrinated to relate to life (through language) as something to be rejected, judged, condemned and fixed. When I relate to life as something to be rejected, judged, condemned and fixed, I am life too.

Do I criticize celebrities (including politicians) arrogantly, as if I really know what their lives are like and have some special insight that they should have known to humbly come to me to learn? Do I criticize their arrogance or their naivete or their ambition or what?

Spiritual traditions may teach us to refer to that manner of operating as hell or sin or maya or agonizing or even mental illness like anxiety or paranoia. The archetype of the accuser or slanderer (or, from the Greek word “dia-bolos:” the devil) is referenced as a particular spirit or attitude and many humans are warned about it. We may be taught of “the spirit of the divisive one” as distinct from the spirit of the sage: one who recognizes persona as like a branch of a larger tree. Ego or the identifying of individuality is a process in language as in a process of symbolic metaphor or spirit, and the process is not observable in matter, or at least not without mapping complex neurological patterns of language and perception.

The ego is just a process or pattern of neuro-linguistic biochemistry, and that process is the system of the filtering of all perceiving. The ego cannot remove the ego. The ego is not a mistake. The self-image is the relating to life as if one is isolated from life. We can label the ego as a distinct developmental stage among others.

The ego is one linguistic function of life, like reading these wordy letter shapes is a linguistic function of miraculous neuro-chemistry. Reading does not require the linguistic identifying of an isolated individuality, but reading does require language. Likewise, the perceiving of an ego does not require reading, but the perceiving of an ego isolated in language and through language and by language does require language.

So, life prioritizes by favoring certain functions and capacities over others. Hormones do it when directing blood to various organs and tissues. Bees do it when selecting an embryo to nourish in to a queen. Human populations do it through wars and propaganda and trade- with particular human populations coming to global dominance or regional dominance or local dominance or whatever. When trends of the behaviors of lending and borrowing balloon prices of real estate, that reflects a temporary shifting of social values. When prices of fuels (like crude oil) rise from $11 in 1999 to $148 in 2008, that reflects a temporary shifting in social values.

see http://www.theDominOILeffect.com

Values change, sometimes quickly, like when your child starts choking or when a war ends. How do you relate to the fact that there are values that vary from place to place and time to time? How do you value your own life, life in general, and human social values?

Do you reject, judge, condemn, and obsessively to try fix? Do you practice the spirit of inner and outer divisiveness, of the devil? Do you condemn condemnation? Do you judge against judgmental systems of valuation and evaluation? Do you de-value values? Do you value the relationship between that particular function of life labeled “language” and all of the other functions of life?

Is language better than the rest of life? Is language isolated from the rest of life? Is language a function of the rest of life?
http://www.OneEyedKingsWealthClub.com

is 1984 BBC anti-government propaganda?

February 9, 2012
Some groups of people may establish systems of organized coercion, also known as governments. The rest of us may call those people the rulers, the leaders, the elite, the patriarchs or “the founding fathers.”
Then those groups who establish violent governing systems with courts, regulations and of course armed law enforcement mercenaries may publicize their systems. They may create propaganda systems to further influence the attention, perception, and behavior of the target populations, including even to produce anti-government sentiment. There are two basic kinds of propaganda of course: (1) propaganda to promote compliance as in the perception of legitimacy of a particular system of organized coercion and (2) propaganda to entice the disloyal to identify themselves and take some action to justify the re-education, correction, punishment, or even the execution of those cultivated rebels.
The cultivating of rebels in order to identify them was the theme of George Orwell‘s famous book 1984, in which Winston Smith volunteers to participate in an anti-government conspiracy, which happens to be a false front operation of the ruling government. Oddly, many people seem to miss that point and instead interpret the book as merely a criticism of tyranny. To present the basic behavioral patterns of tyranny is not to criticize tyranny, but simply to direct attention to it.
Category:George Orwell Category:Nineteen Eight...

Image via Wikipedia

Ideally, the flow of anti-government sentiment cultivated by propaganda is typically kept moderate, as in a steady trickle. However, there are times when a clash between governments may be produced (like the invasion or “liberation” of one government by another). Prior to that, there may also be a larger polarization (as in first divide and conquer next) in which the morale of a population is reduced by anti-government sentiment being cultivated more than usual.
Civilian anti-government protesters may even be enticed to confront riot squads and tanks. Typically, such confrontations go rather poorly for the civilian anti-government protesters.
More protests may be used to justify more draconian measures. More draconian measures may be used to justify more protests, and so on it goes.
If indigenous populations rebel, governments may increase the frequency of bombing. If slaves rebel, governments may tighten policing and encourage lynching and torture, perhaps protecting (through the politically-directed discretion of local government criminal prosecutors) those in league with the government who commit atrocities.
 
Police Tank in Tunisia 
Wise tyrants know that the best way to neutralize anti-government protests is to be the ones who start them or at least to infiltrate them and guide them, sometimes with funding and training. For whatever reason, former employees of intelligence (spy) agencies like the CIA or the KGB may be among the most celebrated leaders of anti-government conspiracy. “Ex-CIA agent criticizes CIA” always makes for a dramatic headline, right?
When in the 1930s USMC Major General Smedley Butler presented his criticism of war (or at least of US imperialism in central America) called “War is a Racket,” it was published first by Round Table Press and then in condensed form by Reader’s Digest, achieving a huge circulation. However, how many people notice “Round Table” as the name of the publisher and what that name implies?
What if the publication of that content intentionally produced a wave of anti-government sentiment? If so, could the publishers have been producing anti-government sentiment (anti-US) on behalf of the interests of the US government? We might presume that anti-American sentiment would be cultivated by foreign enemies of the US, but, again, George Orwell suggested that governments may cultivate sentiment against the very ones doing the cultivating. Are they inciting riots in order to justify firing on anti-government rebel fanatics?
Police attacked by protesters in Algeria
Several years ago, the creators of the US TV show “South Park” had an episode parodying how having peace protests in the US looks good for international PR: “Yes, we are invading and occupying your country, but most of us are sensitive and peace-loving folks, so please don’t get the wrong idea about us just because we are dropping bombs on civilians (again).” I had never thought of that.
When I read 1984, I had never before thought that governments might entice rebellion for their own purposes, such as to identify isolated rebels and attract the rebels to throw themselves (armed only with big signs with anti-government slogans) at riot squads armed with… tanks. Now, I think of the practical value to governments of enticing anti-government sentiment and congregating herds of protesters. Some governments might even be so dishonest as to “plant” fake protesters among the sincere ones and then have those fake protesters do something dramatic like throw a rock or a molotov cocktail at armed government mercenaries, thus justifying the use of deadly force against the entire mob of protesters.
Tank of the Tampa Florida (US) Police Department (above)
There are three basic orientations that one can have in regard to governments: anti-governments, pro-governments, or neutral toward governments. Those who are generally anti-governments may be the least likely to perform those behaviors that result in rewards from governments that enhance social status, such as government contracts, but also compliance with laws, familiarity with the protections offered by a particular legal system and use of those protections.
In mid-2002, when I started researching the forecasting of trends, I had no idea what I was getting in to. I found not only trends of things like birth rates, but also of the inflation-adjusted cost of fuel, which had been dropping dramatically for many centuries, but then reversed trend in 1999. I also found trends in approval ratings of governments, as in trends in pro-government sentiment and anti-government sentiment. Further, those trends of social psychology closely correlated with trends of stock market price. Trends of stock market prices were an excellent predictor of things like the re-election of an incumbent President in the US as well as the sentiment ratings toward the current US President (which is apparently polled much more often than overall sentiment about the entire US government in general).
I encourage people to use the protections offered by any legal system. I do not say to do that because of any concern with morality or fairness, but what I call a practical concern.
If you can legally increase your net worth and profit, why not? In other words, if you can legally reduce your taxes, why not at least explore it? If you can legally reduce your debt, why not at least explore it?
Of course, I personally offer services in these realms, so it is not just that I am encouraging that people concern themselves with practicality first and things like morality and fairness only in the context of practicality. That is true, too. But I also specifically encourage people to use my own services solely for their practical value.
Protect your assets simply because it is valuable. Reduce your taxes and debt simply because it is valuable.
If focusing on morality is valuable, then do it! If focusing on fairness is valuable, then do it!
However, be aware that moralities vary from place to place and time to time. Practicality is always valuable.
Moralities are learned, as in indoctrinated from one generation to another, from one group to another. When the elite are propagandizing the masses as to the morality of a particular war and the immorality of a particular target enemy, that is just practical propaganda. It is valuable to the elite to program systems of morality in those ways, even if it is untrue that the target enemy is actually guilty of something like the possession of weapons of mass destruction.
First, condemn the morality of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Then, accuse someone of violating that morality. That is a very practical way to distract people from the clear and obvious fact that one is also violating that same moral code. Using weapons of mass destruction to punish someone accused of weapons of mass destruction… is a classic example of the practical amorality of the elite in governments and media outlets worldwide.
Arab leaders might have used the same principles of propaganda to justify something like an economic embargo against NATO: “economic embargoes are morally wrong, plus NATO is accused of planning an economic embargo against someone somewhere, therefore we must punish them by using an economic embargo against them.” The elite in one system may pretend to be quite different from the elite in another system, but, even with various notable differences, there may be tremendous consistency in their methods.

Governments consistently use organized coercion to collect revenues such as taxes. They also punish others for the unlicensed practice of extortion and racketeering. Only officials like government tax agencies are allowed to practice extortion and racketeering.
Blackmail and bribery are also illegal throughout the world, except for law enforcement agents when making deals with suspects to get more information about other suspects. In that case, blackmail, bribery, and even torture and threats of execution have been used quite consistently by governments for thousands of years. From police officials to the guards of prisoner of war camps, reservations, and internment camps, government officials use whatever methods they deem practical.
Governments may cover up atrocities when practical (or blame them on enemies, such as when the Soviets blamed the Nazis for the massacres at Katyn Forest in 1940). Governments also consistently offer lenience like presidential pardons to convicted criminals who are the friends or business partners of the ruling officials, such as the pardons granted to Oliver North.
So, shouldn’t we condemn the propaganda, organized coercion, deception, fraud, extortion, and racketeering of some or all governments? Well, that may be the reaction that we have been trained to have.
However, those who condemn such patterns of behavior may include many who practice such behaviors. For instance, let’s review the personal history of George Orwell:
From 1941- 1943, he was a propagandist for the BBC (the British government’s public TV station). Here is another interesting detail: “On the outbreak of World War II, Orwell’s wife Eileen started work in the Censorship Department in London.” By the way, while Americans might not know it, Orwell’s references to a “Ministry of Information” were not fantasy, but part of his daily life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Information_(United_Kingdom)
English: George Orwell in Hampstead On the cor...

Image via Wikipedia

Was Orwell assigned by government officials to write his famous books? I don’t know. However, it is notable that the BBC made Orwell’s 1984 in to a TV movie in 1954: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four_(TV_programme) and it did produce a wave of people identifying themselves to the BBC as outraged by the ideas presented in their TV broadcast of 1984: “The production proved to be hugely controversial, with questions asked in Parliament and many viewer complaints over its supposed subversive nature and horrific content.”
Also, if Orwell’s writing was so threatening to governments, then how is it that his two books Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and Animal Farm (1945), “together have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author?[5]” Isn’t it odd that I was introduced to the book 1984 as assigned reading in a public school class?
The book is represented as a condemnation written by a disgruntled BBC propagandist in 1948 (and published the next year). However, only 6 years after writing it, 1984 was made in to a TV program by the BBC. Isn’t that more than a little ironic?
Was the government station BBC intentionally stirring up anti-government sentiment in 1954? To propose that they were not is rather ridiculous.
Was Orwell intentionally stirring up anti-government sentiment? If so, why? Well, what did he write in regard to the intentional stirring up of anti-government sentiment in his own book? He indicates that anti-government propaganda can created by governments and used to stir up anti-government sentiment in order to create “thought criminals” and entice the thought criminals to identify themselves.
Again, I do not particularly condemn the use of organized coercion by governments or anyone else. For thousands of years, groups of humans have killed each other. To exclusively celebrate a particular occasion of organized violence, such as the US Revolutionary War or Civil War, seems odd to me.
One may be anti-violence or pro-violence, but why some of each? Other than after-the-fact moral justifications indoctrinated by propagandists on behalf of the winning group of organized coercion, I am not aware of any reason to celebrate (or condemn) any particular instance of organized coercion (or propaganda). Yes, wars in particular are dangerous- and governments in general.
But recognizing their danger does not imply condemning them. I also recognize the danger of sharks, airplane crashes, gambling, pharmaceutical drugs, heart surgery, and tornadoes.
So, former British government propagandist George Orwell’s anti-government propaganda was notably successful. Even the government liked it- or perhaps even especially the government there in the UK. The BBC took only a few years to make 1984 in to a movie. It took nearly 50 years for the BBC to make Huxley’s “Brave New World” in to a movie.
Again, though, the BBC, a government channel, made two of the most famous books of anti-government criticism in to movies. Isn’t that extremely odd?
I was assigned both of those books in public high school classes. Isn’t that also extremely odd?

Do governments ever cultivate anti-governments sentiment? If so, how often? Further, exactly how practically valuable is it for them to do so?

Do governments ever discourage people from using the protections promised by government courts? Do “political activists” ever threaten people with economic repercussions for their political activity? In West Africa in the 1990s, apparently thousands of people had their hands cut off for daring to vote “the wrong way” in an election that had implications for the global diamond cartel, DeBeers. In the recent movie “The Gangs of New York,” politics is presented as openly violent. If there is such a thing as political violence, then violence can be political and politics can be violent.
As for me, I promote the full use of government protections such as evicting delinquent tenants, reporting all sorts of crimes including white collar financial crimes to bring about the arresting and punishing of certain people, and the use of the most skilled and effective criminal defense lawyer that a suspect is able and willing to hire. Further, I promote the full use of government protections such as asset protection, tax planning, estate planning, and debt interventions including re-organization of one’s finances under bankruptcy exemptions and benefits. If someone chooses to volunteer more money than is legally required out of guilt, so be it. However, if someone chooses to exercise their personal discretion and personal responsibility to the fullest extent possible, so be it.
If some people create legal systems or alter them or even oppose and overthrow them, so be it. If some people use lobbying or bribery or diplomacy or any other means to produce changes in the regulatory policies and practices of any particular governing system, so be it.
If George Orwell and the entire BBC create anti-government propaganda to incite anti-government sentiment, so be it. If I tell “everyone” to Occupy Wall Street or put their money in to insurance industry ponzi scams or whatever else, so be it. Maybe I get commissions from it or maybe I am sincere as in just doing it to ease my own fears or a guilty conscience.
I forecast the major opportunities and risks of the last 9 years of the global economy. However, lots of folks may prefer to focus away from the actual practical risks and practical opportunities to instead argue about propaganda, government corruption, immorality, injustice and, of course, arguing.
“People should not argue. I condemn arguing.”
Or, on the other hand, maybe some people encourage others to argue because it is practically valuable for huge proportions of a target population to be arguing amongst themselves: Christians vs Muslims (as in NATO vs OPEC), Democrats vs Republicans, boys vs girls, etc. “Divide and conquer” is still practical, right?

%d bloggers like this: