Posts Tagged ‘ron paul’

Ron Paul heroically condemns “reverse psychology”

June 14, 2014
  • MA wrote:

    JR, What you’re saying, in more succinct language, is that learned helplessness is widespread, and that individuals should think for themselves. 

    That is one of Ron Paul’s messages, BTW. Although I disagree with him on a couple of major issues, I have no beef with RP. His son, however, is a whole different matter.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Yes, “learned helplessness” is programmed very efficiently. However, I did not say “individuals should think for themselves.” That idea is actually rather preposterous if taken literally.

    Where did I learn language? From someone else. Where did they learn it? From other people. In fact, I read in a book from 300 AD that language has been around nearly 200 years already.

    So, how did I develop a capacity to notice logic (and logical fallacies)? I have no idea. I just notice.

    Language is a system for influencing other humans. Humans use it to direct the attention of others (“Look up in the sky. There is a hot air balloon!”).

    We also use language to direct the values and perceptions of others (“I will reward you if you write down on this test paper that our school and especially this class promotes independent thinking because that is why our holy empire is the gentlest in the history of organized coercion and ritual human sacrifice”).

    Because langauge can be used to program the interpretative model of other humans, they can also be trained to respond in particular ways to their programmed interpretations. (“Because of the horrible problems from which we must save the world so that we can earn our way in to heaven, we must now assemble our squad of protestors and go on a parade down the main street with signs that say that we value our privacy and do not want to draw atttention to ourselves. Be sure to let the local media outlet know so that they can come and film us and put it on the TV news tonight.”)

    Many people are deep in hysterias relating to social approval. In schols and boot camps and so on, they were trained to operate in those hysterias of chronic tension and social pretense. (“Yes, our empire is the gentlest in history. However, I heard that the new guy did one bad thing, but that is the only bad thing in our history. For example, everything that we do, we later publicize as good and so within 30 or 40 years, we once again have never done anything but good things. Why? Because we are a kinder, gentler empire just like my hero Thomas Jefferson said- well, according to my CIA-approved history book which was in no way influenced by Masonic or Jesuit interests because if it was then it obviously would have said so on the front cover of the book.”)

    Many people worship “political salvations.” Rather than exploring their own use of language or their own use of time/financial resources, they argue over how to stop the government from being biased in their protection of free speeech because we all know that back in the good old days the government was totally unbiased- like when Southern slave-owners revolted and the “real” government said “we are not shooting them for expressing their opinions in general, but for expressing those opinions in particular!”

    See- that is a totally different thing, right? Governments always say “we promote freedom of speech.” That is why President Nixon went on TV and so often said “we think that the events of 9/11 may be a sequence of tragic coincidences. Conspiracy theorists who assert that there are organized networks of terrorism are people who need permanent psychiatric confinement without any formal criminal charges being filed against them.”

    In other words, prior to the tragic events of February 30th, 1847, the USA was perfect. Now, we must do everything that we can to compensate for the horrible shame that we should feel for having ever been fooled by propaganda. We need to make the US conform to the ideals that we have been trained to worship. That is why I am voting for the candidate that I like the most, unlike all of the other idiotic voters who are just operating based on programs pounded in to them by public schools and mass media.

    In breaking news today, Ron Paul and Miss Piggy disagree over who should be the new judge on “Project Runway All-Stars.”


On condemning corruption

February 26, 2013
English: Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mura...

English: Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mural by Elihu Vedder. Lobby to Main Reading Room, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. Main figure is seated atop a pedestal saying “CORRUPT LEGISLATION”. Artist’s signature is dated 1896. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The condemning of corruption is generally based on the belief that corruption is rare (or new). Government propaganda (like in public schools and mainstream media) indoctrinates us to believe that government is our champion or leader or protector (rather than our servant, which is the other popular model, like how you look at the utility company or the garbage collectors). In fact, government may be parasitic- and I have nothing against parasites by the way- but the design of the propaganda is that the people think of the mythologized figureheads (like Obama) as “being responsible” and having power and influence because the figureheads are on TV and we know their names. They are celebrities, right?

President Barack Obama signs H.R. 2751, the “F...

President Barack Obama signs H.R. 2751, the “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act,” in the Oval Office, Jan. 4, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) License on Flickr (2011-01-12): United States Government Work Flickr tags: WASHINGTON, DC, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They are also puppets, just like when the Europeans first colonized America, then the Colonists recognized only certain tribal leaders as having the right to sell land to the Europeans. The Colonists picked as “legitimate tribal leaders” the puppets that accepted the terms of surrender that the Colonists dictated and then the Colonists used military superiority to enforce their new “contract.” Obama (as well as all of his opponents including Ron Paul) were all groomed and approved by the ruling interests.

The pope is the public figurehead of the ruling interests, but, again, figureheads are often servants of the rulers (like their garbage collectors), not an actual global dictator or pharaoh. Thus do not be hypnotized by who is who in the Vatican either. They have an electoral college very similar to the one in the US (because that the US version is a copy of their older version). Consider the pope to be just another puppet- and perhaps worthy of complete respect.

Notice that in the knightship rituals of all branches of the Vatican, such as in the United States or the United Kingdom, a new local ruler will be sworn in or coronated (crowned) by the representative of the Vatican, who presides over or officiates the ritual. Those representatives often wear black robes just like the privileged, knighted elite group of the black-robed judges and oath-sworn lawyers (who are officers of the court network). While some of this might seem quite bizarre to consider, I invite you to consider further that it does not matter if the one conducting a coronation or court ritual is technically a Protestant or Muslim or Jew. For instance, when the Prime Minister of Israel is sworn in, they are just one of many ministers (prime minsters) operating under the Vatican’s UN network. note also that “Minister” means servant (as in a garbage collector who is following orders from the Jesuits and the various papal orders of Knights- Malta, Templar, Columbus- and so on).

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is s...

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States by Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr. in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009. More than 5,000 men and women in uniform are providing military ceremonial support to the presidential inauguration, a tradition dating back to George Washington’s 1789 inauguration. VIRIN: 090120-F-3961R-919 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Co...

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Convention, held at Crown Center Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, MO; June 15, 2007, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, rather than just condemning the corruption that has been the business of an organization like the FDA since it’s creation, here are some alternative possibilities. Your own garden as well as community co-ops and cow shares may not be targeted currently by the FDA. You could also invest in developing relationships with your local mercenary network (the law enforcement thugs or even the local papal knights) so that if the FDA came to town, the local mercenaries might be more loyal to you if they are your loyal customers (of your community garden, etc)….

English: President Barack Obama talks with Chi...

English: President Barack Obama talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao during the morning plenary session of the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Realistically, a small group of people cannot defend themselves against the nuclear-weapon toting military orders of the Holy Roman Empire of the Vatican. However, consider that the ruling interests are very pragmatic people, like you might imagine how mafia bosses would be. Quiet rebellion, if small, is simply no threat to them. They have literally billions of faithful human resources loyal to them. That is why the Amish were largely driven out of Europe, but then largely forgotten.

Vatican City

Vatican City (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

On the practical authority behind the official “authorities”

August 8, 2012

Re: What do you think of this situation?… Garry

Portland man faces jailtime for collecting rainwater.

I watched the video. If we consider what gives the authorities their authority, let’s review a few cases: when “colonists” from Europe invaded India and made a new branch of the British Empire there, what was the origin of their authority? It was superior military violence. When “colonists” from Europe invaded in North America (what is now Canada, US, Mexico, Caribbean islands, etc) what was the origin of their authority? It was superior military violence. PR is also helpful of course, but good PR does not replace cannons and warships and bomber jets and chariots and “human resources.”

When the US “liberates” Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or France (in world war 2) or Texas, what is the origin of their authority (effectiveness)? Is it good PR? Or is it superior military violence?

Iraq

Iraq (Photo credit: The U.S. Army)

“The authorities” may target the masses in various places for extracting the wealth of the masses for the benefit of the providers of the commercial enterprise of “governing.” PR campaigns are also important to governments and other syndicates of organized violence, because with effective PR, more people are more compliant in the payment of taxes (extortion) such that there can be an efficient (inexpensive) collection of the extorted wealth, whether that wealth is in the form of rainwater or what (as shown in the linked video).

So, various procedural issues may be used to exhaust those easily exhausted. The best targets are those who are reclusive and cash-poor but argumentative and contemptuous toward gangs and thugs and civil extortionists of governments. In other words, terrorist bullies tend to target those who are most easily intimidated, starting with the fattest, slowest prey.

United States Senate candidate Rand Paul at a ...

United States Senate candidate Rand Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, along with Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Will Paul. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. Unauthorized use by any candidate or candidate’s committee is strictly prohibited without approval. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Back to the issue of effective PR, consider that the US Constitution is, to some extent, a PR document, just like a Constitution for the US Confederacy or for the UN or for the European Union and so on. Consider that it is, to some extent, black magic. It is a sales pitch. “The consent of the governed” is perhaps just a hypnotic suggestion.

“The consent of the governed” may be of secondary importance in the US, in Iraq, in Vietnam, in China, in the USSR, and so on. When the “Southern states” seceded from the US in 1865 or so, the states and the legal citizens of those states withdrew their consent to be governed by the bureaucrats of Washington DC, right? Yet, even without the consent of the governed, the northern states invaded and “over-ruled” the dissent of the governed (the rebels).

In the case of Texas, when the Apaches and Mexican nationals dissented, the US Army just kept coming, “annexing” Texas. In other words, the US invaded or “liberated” Texas from the Texans who lived there.

Did the Apaches lose their native lands because of ineffective PR or because of inadequate military violence? Why did the US negotiate such a favorable treaty with the Apaches (compared to other tribes)? Was it because the Apaches had excellent PR or because the Apache presented one of the most challenging military forces? Living in Northeast Arizona most of the last 12 years, I am aware that a native Apache on their reservation has significantly different legal rights than a native Hopi or Navajo.

English: Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderb...

English: Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderberg Conference (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But PR can be important. Consider that a 2.7 million dollar campaign contribution from Mr. Theil, a leading member of the Bilderberg Group, does not itself imply that Ron Paul is in any way influenced by Mr. Theil, but that such influence is possible. Of course, anything unconfirmed is just a rumor right? Further, anything unreported by major mainstream media outlets probably did not even happen, right? If Ron Paul’s PR does not emphasize the huge donations of a leading member of the Bilderberg Group, would that be at all surprising?

Consider that the people who we might identify as “the authorities” may be directed (influenced) by some rather smart folks, some of whom may have names quite unfamiliar to us- so not just Kissinger and Rockefeller and Rothschild and Colonel House and Schiff and Morgan. Perhaps it is not “the official authorities” that have the authority, but the people who direct the authorities, like who have the military influence to intimidate or even remove prominent “leaders” such as JFK or Lincoln. If JFK was not the authority over those people, then is it even accurate to call him a “leader?”

Those who have authority over official history (which could be considered a type of PR) may label JFK as a leader. They may label Jesus as a hero, as in someone for the masses to emulate. We may be trained by the Holy Roman Catholic Empire to model ourselves after the most famous victim of the Roman Empire. (Is it possible that the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Empire are not two things but one?)

Is it possible that they would train millions of people to be their compliant victims, their sheep, martyrs, their loyal subjects, the patriotic underwriters of their extortion rackets, their slaves, their “citizens?” Consider that it is possible. Consider that it is not only possible, but perhaps even relatively easy. 😉

Garry replied:

Very informative. I enjoyed reading this. Thanks JR…
J.R. adds:
I noticed at the very end of the video, one of the 2 guys being interviewed said something like “Glenn Beck rules. We should be on his show. We love you, Fox news!”
>
That means to me that the PR has been working very well on him. The mainstream media is perceived as the ally of the “justified rebels.” They are seeking publicity… and they may get lots of publicity even if they lose the case and get convicted.
>
To me, that is like going to a public defender employed by and licensed by the court and expecting unbiased and dedicated legal advocacy. A criminal defense attorney for O.J. Simpson making $500 per hour (or whatever) might be expected to be slightly more dedicated and effective, right? Just because Fox News has “fair” in their slogan does not mean that they do not have loyalty to “the authorities behind the official authorities.”
>
Justice means whatever the government can establish as the dominant pattern of activity. Keep in mind that court officials (with the assistance of organizations such as legislatures and parliaments) are the ones who define and enforce the definition of words- the legal definition- the definition that results in things like fines and arrests and criminal convictions and ritual human sacrifices of the ruling military order of the knights of the Temple priesthood.
>
The word justice is derived from “what the Judge/Magistrate/Magi/Military Commander/Ruler rules (dictates) as the rule.” “Right” is derived from the word for king, as in whatever the rulers observe and enforce. There are always functional rulers in every social context, even if that is just the fully grown parents ruling over little children.
>
I wish the guys in Portland the best, but without any particular interest. They may win their case. However, those with contempt may find another source of  frustration right after any “victory.”
>
The religious teaching about contempt is interesting to me. While many Christians may not know the teaching, the New Testament scriptures are very clear about it. Of course, thousands of other authors have written or spoke about the dangers of self-righteous contempt, including folks like Sun Tzu in “The Art of War.”
>
To divide and conquer, to demoralize the target population, to cultivate contempt and reactivity- these are the signs of an excellent strategist, not just developing a well-trained and well-supplied military.
>

That is not a direct quote. However, the idea is not new. Contempt, if sincere, is a sign of desperation. Confusing the masses is essential in effective governing.
>
“All warfare is based on deception.” – Sun Tzu (translated)


http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
>

Garry replies again:

Thanks JR… I agree about the PR obviously at play with that statement at the end of the video. During my watching of the video, I was expecting to hear the other side of the story [perhaps more of an explanation of any alleged “public interest” behind the prosecutor going after the guy], not just the farmer’s [woes]. Such uninformed prejudice serves to instill fear, anger… but then again, that maybe the purpose here, eh?

JR replies:

Wait, you are not suggesting that the mainstream media would deliberately arouse fear and anger in their audience, are you? There is no such thing as horror movies and I am offended that you would even imply such a thing.  😉

the distinction between criticism and fearful shaming

June 26, 2012

There is a distinction between criticism and shaming. I mention this in response to the following post from FaceBook:

gramma

The need to criticize anyOne is a projection of the belief that you are not good enough. Likewise, taking another person’s criticism of you personally, it’s a reflection of the same belief.

While you are already as Divine as you’re ever going to get, (and there’s nothing you can do in this or any lifetime to change your true identity), you can never live up to an idea of how any person thinks you should be.

This is because thought cannot create the experience of wholeness. It’s only capable of creating elusive stories of wholeness that evoke criticism.

So, the next time you find your self projecting or defending against criticism, you’re invited to illuminate the core issue by noticing the mental story about who you are and how you’re meant to be. This noticing can dismantle the false sense of self and and allow you to create more harmony in all of your relationships.

What a blessing criticism is. Bring it on!!

finger pointing

The above commentary is “a good start.” However, what about the distinction between criticism and shaming?

To even be referencing criticism in the above way is an indication of the operation of shame (which is extremely common and no cause for shame!). Shame involves a fear of being revealed. Let’s look another layer deeper at a fear of being revealed or exposed:

ron paul angry

When I fear being revealed, then I may shame others for their actions and inactions and so on. Which instances does the one ashamed point to with most ferocity (fear)? When ashamed, I would point at the instances where “they” do the same thing that I am ashamed of having done in order to bring attention to their alleged shame and distract from mine (or to test the response of other people to me saying whatever, like this: “did you know that Ron Paul used to EAT FISH!?!?! That is SOOOOO disgusting, isn’t it? I haven’t eaten fish for 2 decades now and he was just eating some a few years ago. Can you believe  his pompous audacity?”)

alex jones

Alex Jones complaining about something again.

English: Highway A 8, exit Wendlingen. Heavy t...

English: Highway A 8, exit Wendlingen. Heavy transports between 72 and 120 tons are redirected. Deutsch: A 8, Anschlussstelle Wendlingen. Für Schwertransporte von 72 bis 120 t besteht eine Umleitung. Die Ausfahrt führt auf die B 313 nach Wendlingen, Esslingen, Plochingen, Reutlingen und Nürtingen. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the other hand, criticism is any explicit redirection: “Oh honey, if you are going to get off on exit 43, then the turn lane is over there. Do you see the turn lane?” For the one who is ashamed, even such a gentle exercise of authority (“input”) may be “cause” for annoyance.

If I am already ashamed (afraid of showing fear, error, fallibility), I might say something quite shaming in response to even the gentlest criticism: “Seriously, why do you always have to criticize my driving? You are such a $*(k!ng punk, Gramma. I can’t believe I have to drive you around for the next three weekends. Jesus, what the hell did I ever do so wrong to deserve this? Anyway, why do you have to be so old? Why did you have to lose your license to drive?” So, with that shaming is grievance and grief and fear and shouts that may cover up tears, at least for a while.

Criticism focuses on a process. Shaming focuses on an identity. Shaming involves a ferocious fear or paranoia or hysteria.

Both have their place, by the way- or they would not exist, right? By the way, isn’t it interesting how fast we may criticize others for the activity of shaming? That could be a sign of hypocrisy. 😉

brewer points finger at obama

the Knowledge of Good and Eve: a parable about Ron Paul, myths, and Santa

April 23, 2012
Santa Claus

Santa Claus (Photo credit: Christopher S. Penn)

Imagine a six year-old kid talking about Santa Claus, asking about some details that do not totally make sense to the child. An older sibling says, “do not ask mom anything about Santa. She would get angry and spank you. Just be quiet about Santa. If mom brings it up to you, just tell her what gifts you want and do not even mention the word Santa. I will tell you why later.”

What is the dynamic created by the older sibling? Mom is presented as a dangerous tyrannical authority and the sibling is the experienced ally with a crucial secret knowledge or insight about how to best deal with mom. Of course, higher up the social hierarchy is Santa, the distant, remote, mysterious benefactor.

In other terms, mom is the evil villain or devil and the sibling is the savior and protector while Santa is the God-like Power, like a superhero who can fly and has magic powers and is probably hundreds of years old. Except Santa is not just a cartoon like the comic book heroes. Santa is real. There is evidence. I opened the presents myself and the tag clearly said From Santa. Santa even knows my name!

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Co...

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Convention, held at Crown Center Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, MO; June 15, 2007, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, fast forward a few decades. Ron Paul is talking about how the Federal Reserve is a Vatican conspiracy and all that we need to do for him to save us from them is to wait a few months and cast a vote. Plus, until then, he recommends that we invest everything in silver.

Ron says that the Federal Reserve is the great evil tyranny that has the power to inflate the currency, which according to  Ron, would be very bad. Why would that be so bad? Ron never actually mentions that. Apparently the idea is that the Fed should not have the power that Ron says they have, and therefore he must save us from the Fed doing the thing that they obviously should not do because they are inherently evil so we should just buy more silver because that is the patriotic and heroic thing to do, which Ron Paul has been consistently saying since 1980, which proves that we can trust his credibility and sincerity.

Alex Jones, who is also our heroic savior ally -which we know because he owns  silver – says that the distant remote superpower is the holy ink on the sacred document of the Articles of Confederation, which is the most powerful document in the world except for that one lottery ticket but that is anther story. Anyway, Alex says that Noam Chomsky agrees with Ron Paul that the real problem today is that The Fed says that the Articles of Confederation are actually not the authentic words of Santa and need to be retranslated by the Supreme Council of Justice, which wouldn’t be so bad except that Ron Paul is not a member of the Council and therefore the Council is evil. DarthVader says the Council is not evil, which further proves that DarthVader is either evil or naive or most likely both.

The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History

The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History (Photo credit: CityGypsy11)

Now imagine that the Articles of Confederation are just a series of three words. They have no more actual tangible power than the sounds of the word Santa. They are not even shapes on your screen or ink on paper. They are just some sounds that someone spoke a few hundred years ago around the time that Santa was your age.

Who is going to protect those sounds? Who is going to threaten those sounds? Who is going to record them as an audio file to upload to youtube? Who is going to keep them sacred and give them proper respect?

We need a hero. We need a ssvior. Inflation would reduce the value of the massive national debt, which must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, you must obey your older sibling and never mention Santa to mom again.

Sibling!

Sibling! (Photo credit: Gus Dahlberg)

the secret of power

April 8, 2012

“The secret of power” is my new blog. As traffic to my main blog has averaged far above 200 views per day last week, I have launched a new project.

http://thesecretofpower.wordpress.com

If I had to use just one word to describe the new blog, it would that it is about INTROSPECTION. However, there are several keywords that I have listed on it to attract traffic, such as:


cfr, Council on Foreign Relations, forbidden, introspection, New World Order, nwo, power, secret, secret of power, taboo, the power of, the secret, Trilateral Commission

Here are some of the links I am using to connect my page with others, including for the purpose of “tickling” search engines with several instances of the words listed above:

should governments be peaceful?

March 29, 2012

 

It seems to me that many people seem to be confused about the nature of governments and, perhaps even of language itself. A border is not a boundary that is maintained by ink on paper or by a voice out of someone’s mouth. A border and the patterns of activity within it are simply patterns. A border exists by enforcement as in the activity of people- which may or may not correlate with words.

I could say that many people also seem to believe that war should not be in geopolitics simply because propaganda implies to them

Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las ...

Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Presidential Health Care Forum, March 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

that words are the foundations of government, so words can be sufficient. For instance, Obama may promise one thing (such as to remove all the US military troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office), then, if he does not do it- then people are actually surprised again and again by the words of the politicians, listening now to Ron Paul or next to whoever: whatever new political savior fits their particular desire for someone else to be responsible for them.

Perhaps governments are in place as a boundary between those who are responsible for themselves- including in the conducting of warfare- and those who are in trances, subject to the hypnotic and irrefutable illusion that government is the great source of all life, of all things holy, of salvation and redemption and so on. In other words, governments are just churches.

Governments are, according to paradigm of political correctness AKA totalitarianism, the presumed vehicle for our changing the world. We worship governments.

That, of course, is optional. However, it is a defining feature of the “sheeple.” Whoever worships government- wanting to reform them and so on- is among the mainstream sheeple, with their paradigm that presumes that government is the center of power and social organization.

That belief, of course, is central to the influence of governments- that people believe that governments actually could and in fact do have a monopoly on influence (or at least “should”). Again, that is perhaps the fundamental tenet of totalitarianism: governments are the only “correct” authority. That is, individuals and private groups should not have any influence. Then, of course, there is the question of how is the exact “right” way for governments to exert their totalitarian influence.

“Should the government allow private health care services or not, and how should the government influence the health care industry, direct it, guide it, govern it?” Instead of just regulating foreign affairs and the relations of individuals and companies, the totalitarian model of government is not just the government regulates, but that government directs and provides… and not just a few things like eudcation and health care, but everything.

On the other hand, many forecasters including myself see that there are financial stability issues increasing for various governing operations, including many state and local governments in the US. Will individuals and private groups such as churches accept responsibility for leading, or will they call on governments to lead them “how they should?”

Are governments the servants of the people or the leaders of the people? Ah, but perhaps the answer is “both” and the real question then is which people direct governments and which people follow them….

first Published on: Dec 2, 2009

Related articles

The Archbishop of Canterbury gives the Queen Elizabeth II a sword, prior to the Coronation ceremony, 02 June 1953 in Westminster Abbey. AFP

The Queen of England is the local authority crowned under the authority of the Papacy and the agents of the Holy Roman Empire:

 

“what have you violently opposed?” Schopenhauer

March 28, 2012
Much of Arthur Schopenhauer's writing is focus...

Much of Arthur Schopenhauer’s writing is focused on the notion of will and its relation to freedom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, Second it is violently opposed, Third it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Arthur SCHOPENHAUER, German philosopher, (1788-1860)

Ironically, I know that quote from my exposure to conspiracy theorists, who tend to be distinctive in their righteous opposition to some possible conspiracy. I personally know many who fiercely protest various political developments, financial trends, and even patterns of behavior in certain other individual people they know. I have done all of that as well.

I bless you in any violent (intellectual) opposition to any truth, willing that you may know what is self-evident simply as… what is self-evident. What have you personally opposed lately? Further, what have you personally practiced, promoted, and developed?

Published on: Apr 8, 2009

Related articles

The shaky faith of the angry

January 22, 2012

The shaky faith of the angry

Have you ever been so angry that you were just shaking? Imagine some politicians debating angrily and shaking their fingers at each other: one says “I personally blame you completely for creating this problem,” then, in response, Ron Paul gets so furious that he shakes and he says “WHAT? How can you blame me? I voted against everything bad and for everything good. The real problem is politicians like you who blame other politicians for blaming other people for causing the real problems that they say are the real problems when in fact, once the accusations are removed, those so-called problems are just developments as in circumstances.”
Okay, of course, politicians like Ron Paul would probably not say that. They are too busy relating to reality as a bunch of problems, then prioritizing the various problems, then valiantly trying to solve them or at least to look valiant to themselves while they try to solve them.
I call that vanity as in pride. I began studying the subject a long time ago when I too began valiantly saving the world from all of its problems, or at least trying to look good while I tried to look like I was solving at least one actual problem.
Ron Paul at a rally in the Nashville War Memor...

Image via Wikipedia

My grandmother Edith was not impressed by all of that. One day shortly after I entered college, she said to me something like this: “oh, you are such a proud little do-gooder, aren’t you?”
“WHAT?” was of course my reply. Then I thought silently to myself “but no, I am NOT argumentative! Ron Paul may be argumentative, but certainly not me.”
I could be a very angry youngster at times. Further, in some ways, I did not really grow up much in the next decade. Or the one after that.
However, now I finally understand what she was referencing. I was following a program of what to be proud about, what to be interested in, and what to do to fit in (at least to fit in to that program of how to be perceived as a do-gooder).
She probably asked me how was college and what had I been doing. I told her that I volunteered to go to a beach and clean up trash with a bunch of other college students, mostly young ladies who would be wearing much less during the volunteering outing than I was used to seeing them wearing. Of course, I may not have described it precisely like that to her. Anyway, with all my pride at cleaning up the beach like any good boy should do, she responded with “Grow up, boy! By the way, you look thin. How many push-ups can you do?”
I was startled. I was stunned. I was offended. I was insulted. I was angry.
She was my grandmother. She was supposed to be nice to me. She was supposed to soothe me. She was supposed to validate me. At least those were the kinds of things that I might have said to myself.
So, let’s talk briefly about faith and anger. Sometimes people talk about faith a lot but they get irritated or angry if anyone questions their logic. In other words, they have confused faith with something that involves presumptions and logic. Their faith is rooted in some particular evidence. Their faith is about a logical deduction based on that evidence. That’s normal, but that is not what I mean by faith. I might call that a mere belief or presumption.
Faith is the natural result of experience. If I have direct experience with some subject, then do I get irritated or angry if someone questions my experience? Do I have shaky faith that is actually just a belief or presumption? Do I have an anxiety about convincing other people to agree with me? Do I crave their approval? Do I disapprove of anyone who does not share my particular form of devotion or fanaticism or ideology? Do I criticize and complain as a ritual of my religion based on belief and presumption and idealistic mythology?
The disapproval and argumentativeness of someone who craves validation is just a sign of their craving. That would apply to me as well as anyone else.
It is one thing to go to beaches for any reason whatsoever. It is another thing to whine about other people going to beaches and leaving trash there. Whining can be annoying. Which is more annoying: the trash on the distant beach or the whining about it for hours and weeks?
I’m not whining about whining either (though I may have done that a few times as well). If someone whines and someone else validates their whining, that is entirely possible. It may not be very valuable to me, but my valuing of something is a distinct issue.
I could value some possibility as a thing to suppress or to ignore or to encourage and promote. Any of those are possible- yes, even suppressing or opposing something.
If Ron Paul wants to oppose all government programs that redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues, that is possible. I may or may not choose to actively question whether there have any been any government programs that did not redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues.
I might choose to invest my time and energy to question something or oppose it or promote it or ignore it. I might choose to promote particular systematic redistributions of wealth toward particular recipients and from particular sources. That could be in the form of the politics of involuntary redistribution or in the form of operating a business and soliciting customers through things like advertising and referrals.
Maybe my grandmother was actually angry at me for being such a wuss (a “good” boy). She was not angry as in abusive, but maybe she was just angry as in disappointed. “Is that all you’ve been doing in college? Really? That sounds rather boring. Don’t you have any dramatic adventures for sharing to amuse your dear old granny?”
“Um, well, not that I am going to tell you, Granny. I’m only going to tell you about picking up trash from the beach. Given your response to that story, I think that whole topic of conversation is already over!” 😉

Ron Paul opposes corruption

December 17, 2011

Ron Paul threatens to end corruption (and the political complexity of the military-industrial complex)


Imagine the consequences of Ron Paul’s policies being implemented in the US. He would decrease the size of the Federal Government, ending foreign aid, reducing foreign military activity, and slashing taxes to invite investment back in to the US from other countries. (My acquaintance Carmen Alexa might complain that ending foreign aid and even reducing domestic welfare is not very compassionate, but that is exactly what he advocates, plus think about all the money that could be leaving other countries to come to the US for investment: how sad for them!)

Obviously, a President cannot legally implement any of those policies alone. A constitutional amendment or the support of the US Congress would even legally force whoever was President toward any of those outcomes that Ron Paul advocates.
So, with the logistical realities in mind, let’s consider the actual consequences of those policies. At the same time, we will be considering the actual consequences of current policies of increasing the influence of central governments.
As background, note that government is the influencing of behavior by force, particularly the systematic redistribution of affluence through organized coercion. In the case of foreign wars, it is quite clear that a government uses organized coercion (with bombs backing up the more seductive art of diplomatic negotiations) to advance political and economic interests.
So, Ron Paul is basically advocating that the US decrease it’s international and domestic operations of organized coercion. For instance, consider the consequences of legalizing (decriminalizing) marijuana. Huge numbers of jobs will be lost in the correctional system. Huge numbers of able-bodied people (mostly young men) will be available for employment. All of that could promote the capacity of those people to actually contribute some economic productivity that allows the US to better compete with the rest of the world.
What about the protections and favoritisms of the current economic system? For instance, without the FDA promoting the interests of huge corporations at the expense of small farming operations, would small farmers recover and grow? What if masses of people were not indoctrinated with propaganda for highly-refined foods (especially carbohydrates and modern vegetable oils) and against healthy traditional foods of the last several thousand years or more? What if the USDA stopped raiding health food stores and farms? What would happen to the current health care industry and food industry?
Consider the huge losses for MDs when the far superior effectiveness of inexpensive methods are not suppressed. Consider the civil lawsuits bankrupting multitudes of MDs for promoting the use of interventions with clear records of harm and pathetic records of little or no benefit (but at least they are expensive!).
What if organizations like FNMA and GNMA and FHA and HUD are discontinued or allowed to fail? If not for the propping up of the mortgage industry, consider the suddenness of the massive decline in housing prices (and rent prices). Sure, housing prices may plummet anyway, but consider how fast the decline would be if all of those federal government interventions (wealth redistribution programs) were quickly removed.
What if foreign wars were stopped totally? What would happen to all of the businesses that rely on huge defense spending- like missile manufacturers and all of the jobs related to that (from janitors to computer technicians)? What about all those soldiers and support personnel? What would they do?
What Ron Paul is advocating, in simplest terms, is a withdrawal of a massive infrastructure of the military industrial complex. Even mainstream health care would no longer be protected from open market competition. Massive food industries could collapse without protections and subsidies. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few favored corporations would suddenly decentralize.
How? Real estate prices would collapse. Stock prices of major corporations would collapse. The relative value of human labor might rocket (even though wages might also fall steeply).
What?!?! If human labor rose toward being a primary economic valuable, rather than the primary economic value being concentrations of hoarded resources and exclusive legal ownership, then there would be less inequality (less variation in affluence and influence). Hoarding private wealth is the American Dream. Speculating for unearned gains is the American way, especially when it involves borrowed funds for mortgages. What Ron Paul is advocating is having to work to earn money. Think of all the real estate flippers who retired early and who may have to get jobs again rather than live a privileged life of luxury as they pay meager wages for maids, public school nannies, and other domestic servants (landscaping crews, repair workers, etc).
What if all that diminished and, instead of valuing things like diamonds and massive estates so much, people valued their relationships more and their stuff less? What if people valued other people in general more (rather than other people in particular: like the well-connected politician or the wealthy, draconian boss)? What would happen to the death penalty, the correctional system, the global imperialist colonizing operations of organized coercion, and so on?
What about the tax system? What would all those bureaucrats and tax lawyers do if a simple tax system replaced the current system?
Ron Paul advocates simplifying complex systems of corruption and favoritism. He advocates an ending of (or dramatic reduction of) the massive system of coercive wealth redistribution of the US central government.
Above all, he threatens to reduce the influence of mainstream media. What if they did not have the commercial revenues from the massive corporate interests of the military-industrial complex? What if there were a sudden increase in local media, social media, and actual live interaction in person between people… while the trend toward a bigger and bigger audience for a more and more homogenous central apparatus of mind control propaganda indoctrination diminished?
Masses of people might start to think for themselves. Masses of people might stop obsessing about the US economy and US Constitution and be more interested in things like their own budgets, their own neighborhood and local community, and practical issues like physiology and health and how to sew or garden.
Instead of some professions and industries being protected and subsidized by the central government, the market would be free for open competition. The variations in the incomes of various professions could decline. Specialization of labor could decline. The near dictatorship of central government bureaucracy and corporate concentrations of wealth could decline or even collapse.
Ron Paul threatens to end corruption, or at least reduce centralized corruption. Rather than a centralized monopoly of corruption, corruption might decentralize as well. Rather than lobbyists being able to focus on centralized bureaucracies, instead, the legalized bribery and PR schemes would be less concentrated and also less distinctive.
The repression of small-scale corruption by central governments intent on monopolizing corruption would diminish. The naive would no longer be as protected and the clever would no longer be as thwarted.
Of course, if clever people also did not face as many taxes to punish productivity, than technological innovation might also flourish. Suppression of alternative technologies could collapse. Uniformity would decline. Instead of a handful of major auto manufacturers relying on sexy commercials during the super bowl, imagine three hundred regional auto manufacturing “franchises” competing based on actual performance. Again, advertising budgets for national TV networks might collapse. “Word of mouth” might be a driving force behind market growth.
Instead of the concentrated huge profit margins from people paying for name-brand “fashion,” imagine people buying clothes based on features such as comfort and functionality. The entire market for high-heeled shoes might crash.
Medical systems based on the suppressing of the immune system (combating symptoms) might crash as well. Or, people may be so desperate that they continue to favor suppressive medications and moderate levels of short-term functionality so as to avoid a day or week of unplanned interruption to their regular schedule. (Again, TV advertising budgets for pharmaceutical “miracles” are at issue here.)
Further, as the profit margins of suppressive medications falls, so might their manufacture. The masses may simply be forced to turn to nutrition and wellness rather than immune system suppressants and mass-produced addictions like cigarettes and beer. Imagine if people targeted increasing their overall health rather than targeting occasional numbness to relieve them from their sensation of biochemical toxicity or deficiency.
Well, the reality is that we can only speculate as to what would happen if Ron Paul’s proposals were implemented. It might even “open the door” to an influx of international corruption on the scale of a new macrocosm of centralization and corruption with NATO or the UN or the BIS.
Why do the masses have such favorable views of the UN? Mostly because the UN is so remote from the actual experience of the masses. The masses know almost nothing about the UN. (Consider that the vast majority of people have never even heard of the BIS!)
A few well-constructed PR pieces and the masses may presume that the UN is unlike other similar operations, like that their violence is less violent, or that their diplomatic negotiations are less “diplomatic,” or that their courts are less political, and so on.
If the centralizing of the influence of media was to decline, governments might have to resort to open activities rather than hiding behind propaganda and diversion tactics. This is why the media is so important to the modern military-industrial complex.
Is the mainstream media really censoring Ron Paul? No, not at all. They are just focusing on other things instead. 😉
Censoring Ron Paul may be a trivial issue though. People who get worked up about what the media focuses on are obviously relying on the mainstream media to be responsible to them, rather than just investing in whatever forms of media actually fulfill on their values.
Who taught us that the media should be reliable or accurate or serve the interests of the audience? Every media outlet is a business designed to serve the interests of the operators and funders of the business.
Imagine me complaining that a particular hardware store in Europe is not featuring the line of product that I personally think is the best to use. Why would I be concerned about that? Why would I obsess over it?
Maybe I am even the owner of that product line, but still why focus on that store in particular? Why not just market to some other stores?
If no other stores are retailing my product line either, then I might sell it myself. Or, I might try developing a new product line.
Of course the mainstream media is biased. So am I.
Why would the mainstream media give Ron Paul equal treatment? Equal treatment is not the job of the media. Promoting favoritism and influencing behavior is the job of the media.
They are economic operations directed by commercial interests (including of course editorial decisions that are influenced by the funding of commercial advertising). If the top ten commercial advertisers tell a media outlet that running a particular story or program (or not running a particular story or program) will result in a discontinuing of advertising revenues, could that make a difference of whether that story or program gets run?
The media indoctrinates us about what should be and what should not be, what we should do and what we should not be, what we should think about and what we should not think about. That is their function.
So, I do not complain that a particular hardware store in Europe sells whatever they sell. No one told me to complain about that. No one told me to focus on it.
In the US, the mainstream public has been trained to be attentive to the focus of the mainstream media, to be attentive to the controversies that the media publicizes, and even to be shocked that the media would ever be biased. We are trained to perceive the media as honorable and trustworthy and so on.
Again, we may know little about the UN or the BIS, but even with the mainstream media right in front of us, how much do we know about them? They are subject to the influence of lobbying, as in corruption by way of influence through offers of rewards. So am I. I work for pay. I do not work for the direct, immediate economic benefit to me of my own activity (except when I do). I work (like at a job) for pay (for the promise of future payment) whether as a public bureaucrat or a real estate salesperson or a hitman or what.
Maybe you are susceptible to believing that the mainstream media is really threatened by Ron Paul. Maybe they are.
What about you? Are you threatened by the mainstream media? Have you been trained to look to a political savior to protect you from the threats that you have been trained to perceive?
Maybe corruption, which I just defined as “subject to influence by offers of money,” is a pattern of human behavior that is in no way threatened by Ron Paul. Maybe centralized concentrations of corruption will diminish (such as those of mainstream media). Maybe particular policies will be a catalyst in those trends.
<continued below>
Consider that every politician SAYS they are against corruption. However, do any of them ever explore any alleged differences between corruption (responding to the influence of offers of compensation) and capitalism (responding to the influence of offers of compensation)?
Imagine a politician (or mainstream media outlet) that announces that it is the pro-corruption candidate or channel. That simply does not make sense, does it? All media outlets and all politicians are influenced by whatever has influenced and will influence them.
I do not complain that media outlets are biased (except if I ever do). I do not pretend that I am not biased (except if I ever do).
In conclusion, I might say that “mainstream media should not be subject to the influence of offers of compensation. Likewise, politicians should not be subject to the influence of offers of compensation.”
I value direct rewards as well as indirect rewards (like being paid with money that I can then go use to buy other things). Why wouldn’t everyone else, even politicians and other bureaucrats and the mainstream media?

%d bloggers like this: