Is The Right Always Wrong? The Real Fake Outrage Over Obama’s Death Care Bill


I called it, this upcoming Health Care Initiative, The Death Care Bill, for today even Sarah Palin weighed in with her mighty sword. — Links Below

Provoking the public is a dangerous occupation, but one which corporate and right wing operatives seem most comfortable in fomenting.  The best cover is one of righteousness, when a common understanding of verifiable facts in context are not what one is aiming for.

Much of the allegedly grass roots organizing of recent mob scenes at public health care bill information events, is being orchestrated by the very folks who were the Republican operatives that did the mob scenes at the 2000 election in Florida.  They know the weight of the appearance of forceful “spontaneous” outrage. — At home we see “average” people  are outraged; point made.  Worth a thousand words whether true or false.


Media Bias?

Truth is the last thing those manipulating emotions are interested in, for dialogue can lead to understanding, and why would those staying rich off the broken heath care system want to change that?  Follow the money; is the common wisdom most often ignored these days when visuals can be so exciting.  But look at how upset they are! Regular people are upset!

Money is pouring in to fight the public good with fear and paranoia; the lifeblood of reaction.  Naturally, the front groups call themselves public interest sounding names, and those on the conservative news circuit take the laced kool aid without question.  How dare you question their question?  Why we question you!  The argument devolving into existential Russian Roulette.

This is lost on those being emotionally provoked by the conservative news and information sources shilling for these industries; that conservatism is always anti paradigm change.  Psychological conditions of different groups in any population, can be ripe for nurturing crazy speak as impassioned comprehension of hidden truth  This sort of thing helped precipitate genocide in World War Two, but is now invoked as a wise pill of fascist prevention.  Amazing. The lack of continuity and coherence that emotion can shape ones intention into, and the targets the cognitive dissonance gets aimed at in answers name, requires no response to get to sleep at night an wake in the morning.  It’s not my problem!

In that sense; many modern conservatives are against true, or real factual Democracy itself; for allowing just anyone into the cultural dialogue is inherently threatening to them.  Conservative paradigms present the only validity is to be like me; what I stand for. Economic conservatives have been having great success at shaping religious conservatism into their own mindsets: Life is not fair, so why should conservatives be made to act as if it is or should be?  Democracy, and its egalitarian premise of one vote for one person, must in some respect be defeated even while it is touted.  Free speech defeated, even while it is invoked; freedom of choice defeated even while it is claimed sacrosanct.  “Heaven is not a Democracy.”

That is both conservatism’s self satisfying loyal pride and their reality detachment strategy.  Conservatism requires both a confidence in certainty and the surety that other ideas are inherently wrong.  Facts need not be checked when I know I am already right.  But I digress.  Well.  Not really.

The Currency Of Ignorance

Truth, then, is no object to stand in the way of ideology.  Facts outside of ideology become seemingly detached, and under the potential domain of generalized intellectual elites, already demonized, unless bought and paid for to promote conservative conceptions of reality.  In which case they are hoisted upon flags, delivered as wisdom itself to a biased liberal intelligentsia.  See!  We have our facts too, only ours are better than yours cause they are true.

It is the conservatives detachment from verifying objective reality, that opens their Pandora’s Box of belief with its emotionally attached data stream.  An information source need then only be assumed to be one of theirs to be truthful. This is the bane of conservatism and its many ideological manifestations in politics and religion; authority need not be accurate to fact, but assumed loyal to identity. Once truth is subjugated, all manner of ill can be conceived in the name of fighting evil.  And so, in the name of goodness and right, followers come to do the bidding of their masters behind the curtains.

The light of knowledge is a constant threat to conservative ideological mind control, and yet much conservatism motivates its followers in the name of that very light.  But since all things are effectively One on so many levels, we all will pay the price of their own self deception.  Those who profit off of manipulating human nature with fear, have us pay their price as well.  As surely as if they were polluting the air or water we need to survive.

The only answer that can work for the conservative conundrum, is knowing the love of connection to all things.  And yet this very release is most often denied or rendered supremely conditional by ideological prejudice.  Human beings held in these traps are looking subconsciously for ways out, unfortunately, that way is usually presented as getting rid of all those other alien beliefs filling the world with their problems.

These, I admit, are my opinions and not Gospel truths.  I am not provoking conflict, but suggesting means of understanding.  I believe there are some open minded and hearted conservatives, but they seem to be perpetually drowned out by all the whining about liberalism going on in so much of the media.  The money is not on their side.

Why does liberalism so disturb the conservative mind frame? : Inherent flexibility and adjustments to the evidence of reality based upon rational reason.  This means in some respects, what may be deemed the current most reasonable theory of interpretation of environments.  These will likely seem, or be seen as an anathema to conservative beliefs.  They do not believe they are following theory, but full Truth.  That this is ultimately their opinion, is not acknowledged, but often denied.

As Bertrand Russell put it;

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

Newsvine – Dare to See the Truth: Health Reform and Living Will

Aug 7, 2009 Truth: This part of the bill was added by Republicans, it would be one introduced by Senator Isakson (R) and his fellow Republican sponsors. However, it is important to note that a Living Will is made by the

Wonkette : Sarah Palin Thinks Barack Obama Will Kill Lil’ Trigger

Aug 7, 2009 Barack Obama’s Health Care Plan Is About To B… Sarah Palin ….. Palin might be a paid operative set on killing the health care bill.

– –

On The Nations Health Care; How To Siphon Off The Blood Bank

Our Great Success at The Nations Health Care Blood Bank Must Continue!

{A fictional parable narrative}


You all know why we must work together on this one.  It is a battle over what is assumed true, what is real, and how we keep what we have.

One thing any predator knows; separate the individual from the herd.  Now you have access.

This is what we face in commandeering The Commons, or the common interest, commonly referred to as the public good.  We turn the commonality into the subjective.  Just as a predator will work the herd to find the weak, we program ideas into the culture that achieves this same objective. By controlling the conceptual parameters of individualism, we can engineer access to break that common good, and make that good our own.

We use fear as if it were teeth baring down on the individual.  This not only makes them fearful and susceptible, but has them seeking out a new body of protection, a new herd to provide cover.  Survival is in a basic sense; the individuals insurance plan; what preserves them and their future.  This new herd mentality of the individual, must be our desire and our ideology.

We manipulate The Commons, for the interest of the individual above the whole.  In religion, we make the individual fearful.  In the economy, we do the same.  Wealth and power have their now intrinsic access bias provided by our cultural paradigm; a way of life that keeps us on top, while others lust after our achievements.  This we use to our advantage, and all while the ideology of individualism supports the kind of success and fortune that we represent.  Their identity is in this way, wed to our own.

This is how Creation is separated in individual consciousness.  It is also how we project ourselves as the intermediary, standing between the individual and survival, be it earthly or heavenly.  They are then dependent on us.  Our fears can be transmitted to them as if they were their own, for in effect they are.  We own the cosmological and spiritual perspective.  Where we point, the individuals narrative goes.

Now we can defeat Democracy and its Liberalism while using those very inventions to untie themselves.  The public good is rendered our good.  The best slaves, are those who believe themselves to be free.

We can defeat American health care reform, which means, keep things essentially the way they are.  To do this it is necessary to divert attention from reality, to fear. Fear can overcome an individuals sense of self with the attending sense of reality, having it defer to paranoia and linked apparent threat motivation.  Fear is an opportunist, meaning our opportunity; a predators prime leverage in conscious and subconscious consideration.  It is then, a currency unparalleled in identity control and manipulation.  Fear is money in our bank.  We must never forget that!

We are faced with this imperative; We must culture an audience based on faith, on belief, and not on so called objective reality. These so called believers are prone to accept opinion and attitude over truth, fear over fact, for now they are rendered independent and suspicious of objective critical thinking requirements.  These greatly enable our primitive control mechanisms; shame and ostracism, to motivate conformity to our will.  We will so control the individuals sense of survival, attaching their ensuing identity interest to our own.  We have many media avenues to deliver this drug to the populace.


Look at how obvious individuals see this one way street of interest already; Corporations simply pass on their tax of profit, their tax of cost, and even their tax of tax onto the individual.  But is the reverse true?  Do the working smoes pass on their cost of living increase by upping their wage?  Absolutely not!  This is why we must attack unions and any other organization of the relative whole populace, accept where we desire.  We call the shots on survival, then we have individual behave as we wish.  And believe me, we have them insisting that this is freedom as well!

No one said transferring your interest to another does not necessarily have you be thanked for it!  Once we have this myopic identity inserted into individual consciousness, the big view becomes ours to define.  We automatically attract a legion of followers that are desperate for our own intellectual and rational dialectics.  Those who see our power and intuit its advantage, will lust after our reason, and attack those who do not accept our commands.  Do you see the propaganda business scenario?  I trust so.

We own America, the public does not!

We will lose control of the public if they are taught to understand what fact in context is for themselves, and so we defer to attitude, authority and posture; standard conservative identify control features.  That, and a self validated individualism that considers ones own opinion as the relevant truth.  Do not underestimate individualism as an identity feature.  It enables us to part out Creation, making it all up for sale, including ones very health and well-being, ones life.  No more apples for them for the taking, or unconditional love. The individual is disconnected form nature continuity, dependent upon supply strategies we provide for survival.  This greatly enables cognitive dissonance coping mechanisms, contorting our public into the shape we wish to guarantee our survival, all through their own subjugation.

And our individualist think they are free!  Lovely.

We have our usual target audiences; those who are proving to not know how to actually check facts, and are highly susceptible to black magic, or rumor and allegation.  Remember the statement; ‘He palls around with terrorist.’ comment last election? Soon they were yelling that Obama was a terrorist.  It is about controlling cause to produce desired effect.

Unhinging fear upon susceptible identities is a powerful disruptor of consciousness and civilized dialogue.  This is why we must provoke the exhibition of these fears upon the population; doubt and fear help conservatism.  Period.  Turmoil sets people back to what they think they know, conserving what seems relevant to the identity’s stability. They are then diverted from what now seems a dangerous unknown change.  Straight forward monkey business, people; and we just sit back and watch this happen. Wrong! We encourage it by not aiding or abetting our enemy!

To these ones out of the critical thinking mandates, opinion appears as fact, in that that opinion or innuendo suits the already believed in ideas. People who operate by faith conceptualizations, can be the easiest pickings for propaganda.  Our thinkers have long been aware of this, being it is evident throughout human history.  We now tailor our required fear manipulations to the target audience susceptibilities. We will bite them with it.  By anesthetizing critical thinking capacity, emotion and idea association become the proof, facts become suspicious.  That is how we take down the “reality community”.

We will care for ourselves by defeating the reasons people support caring for one another unconditionally. It is how The Golden Rule is conquered; divided and defeated.  This causes compartmentalization of The Golden Rule to our kind of people, and not those others.  You know who we are talking about.

See how easy it is?


We control minds by tugging at the suspicions of the heart.  Fear is thus our allied communicator, our constant companion. We do this emotional point of view pivot on health care, by changing a public awareness of common health concerns, to self centered, everyone for themselves thinking. Distrust of government is a key to this perception, where we desire its targeting.  So the socialism ruse is an excellent one.

Most folks do not know the air is, in effect, socialized; the highways, the power grid, the military, many of Life’s fundamentals are communal property.  Yet we can take them out of consideration, control the definitions limitations of a concepts usage.  We can even take away, eventually, the communal identity by hiring out government function to private contractors.  They then use tax dollars, but become corporation dependent in their philosophical world view.

You want clean water?  They buy a bottle!

And our noose tightens on human identity.

We have pretty much controlled the dialectic on government parameters by associating it with cost, then that cost is framed as what is taking form you and giving to someone unworthy as you.  This is simple self-centeredness, yet appealing to most anyone wanting more money.  We have in this way commandeered self interest to exclude interest of The Commons.  Most people do not even know what The Commons actually is; it is the connectivity of Life  In short; we must place attitude and innuendo above illness, subjectivity above the objective.  And believe me; we have like minded followers of this eternal struggle for success over humankind.

We have tried and true means at our disposal, as well as the ever paranoid lunatic fringe to scare suspicion into the nations dialogue.  We defeat the public by using the public insecurity and attaching it to our own will.  Here is where the fabled Wedge Issues come in; under the guise of well meaning intention, perception is realigned to subjective tagged considerations.  Now; what we have created are malleable identities, able to be transformed to accept our interest as their own, while thinking they are seeing things as they are for themselves.  Deception is a beautiful thing!

This is opinion evolution of the highest order, our order.  Our orders are best served by having the public believe they are their own, a seamless continuum.  We are fortunate by nature, that money gives us access to promote our views through congress and our legion of loyal followers.  In this way, we manufacture Wedge Issues as our own health policy guarantee.  And so, power controls Democracy, surrendering it to those who can afford it.  This is as it should be; we erase the Renaissance and the Age of Reason with a wisp of our wing.

Oh yeah; and render Democracy our own servant stepchild.


We are fortunate, that in corporate America, the alleged liberal press actually shills for us and not exactly the public good.  Well, let me put it more accurately; it is the public good as far as we are concerned.  We must make the public share our concerns as their own.  This attitude change will change how people identify with health care in the USA, with simple identifying characteristics; what seems to be for them, and what seems against them.

Power must use its “unfair” advantage to defeat the problematic egalitarian implied fairness of Democracy.  We have power and influence to do just this, while the public remains numb in our anesthetics charms; they feel subconsciously dependent.  You know; the hand that feeds them.  We can then use their own subconscious leanings in this regard, against their real interest, and for our own. This is an ancient historical struggle to subdue the mass of humanity. It is never finished.

Vigilance is our eternal cause.  So remember our assets; our corporate press is not actually a democratic Free Press Fourth Estate, but one driven by profit bottom-lines just as we all are.  It is a corporate Forth Estate, based on squeezing out money, and don’t anyone forget it!  Guess who “they”, the free press, will naturally side with?  I trust you know that answer!  How do you think we have practically every unsubstantiated, wild idea on the far right being the questions being asked of the Obama administration?  Yet what is the constant chant?  The Mainstream Liberal Media is all biased!

Back eight years or so ago, most anything spoken against Bush was cast as Bush bashing being done by the far left fringe. Their questions were pretty much shamed into silence, while we have people thinking Obama isn’t even a true American! Brilliant!  A liberal press indeed people!  It is liberal in its diverse usage that we exploit, in that we love promoting sex, violence, and most any conflict to grab emotional attention, as well as for the ensuing big bucks of course. We then have conservatism blame liberalism for it, while sitting back and counting the cash!  That is how subconsius control works, we allude the liberal media is always promoting it!

It is all about hiding right in front of the public eye. Shell Games people.  The old bait an switch.  It will be faith and trust in our goodness, and claims of principle, that allows us to force surrender upon objectivity.  We promote blind trust for our interest, a conspiracy of fear for our mass of adversary.


We may be the last industrialized nation to cover all our citizens health. We must keep it that way if we intend to make a gravy train killing off of illness and fear.  It is all about silent and steady leverage.  Public input does not foster that.  Lets face the truth; we scare money our of pockets plain and simple.  Imagine it people: We have something like 70% of Southern Whites believing Barack Obama was not even born in America(*).  That is how we put illusion ahead of reality.

We now have the equivalent of the power of magic, the power of illusion and confusion, with easy ideas as cognitive dissonance antidote.  We can make anyone believe in anything, then blame others for problems that continue to evolve.  You know the cue then; Its caused by those liberals!  Who you gonna trust?  Those sinister liberals?  I don’t think so.

Now I would like to congratulate our ideological promoting hero’s. Special thanks to our own Three Kings, to Rush, Bill and Sean.  They our our masters of cognitive dissonance, of denial, blame and shame.  They make fact checking irrelevant, instead, manipulating identity shames peer pressure perception into just what rules; arrogance and accountability projected out to others than our own.  This is our health protection plan.  We have think tanks and institutional advantage to pry the public interest to our own.

We must disguise government supported Health Care as being just another Big Government spending boondoggle; one likely to kill off our own family, or at least imply that to the public perception of their interest.  Fear is our leverage on individual identity.  The right use of words can mold public opinion as if it were clay in our hands.  He’s forcing us into socialism! Run for your lives! By scaring folks, by manipulating their own fear, we can and we will defeat hope.  Hope will become Nope.  We can then get back to many more years of plundering the public commons, ladies and gentleman.  And that is how we stay ahead of voters; by seduction to our interest as if it were their own!


These are an oligarchies rules; we must shift an ideological tag to our interest that appears to represent average citizens suspicions of government.  We do the same for intellectual elites. See how the elite tag taints them?  Do you recall? It works even while George Bush claimed his actual base was the elite.  The elite who manipulate society to remain ahead that is.  That is the elite of consumption, and not of ideas per-say. In democracy, where citizens are given much too much sway over us, we must defeat their own thoughts with our own!  Government bureaucrats will be making decisions for us, standing between you and your doctor! How simple it is, and it is thanks to the intellectual elite we hire to shape public perceptions to opportunist ideology!

Of course this ignores that we have our own corporate bureaucrats already stuffed between the patient and their health care. The dumbed down public doesn’t even realize that they have been fooled into a system that actually takes choice out of their own hands, while claiming to put it there!  Do you see it people?  At least in government, in democracy, you have a say at election time.  Not so in my company! I say not so in America!

Fool them once!  I say fool them 300,000,000 million times!

Believe me.  They will identify with us and share our profitable concerns, even while their own health is being jeopardized by our exploitation of their fear of illness. Remember; society socializes wealth towards the well off (you and me!) and those who set up the various pyramid system paradigms that permit us to harnesses an others energy into your own column.  At least this socialism for the haves, succeeds as long as it is not conceived of that way.  Let us control the dialectic;  Vote for socialism’s public say on cost, bad.  My corporate socialism for me and my stockholders with no public say; good.

That is exploitation, plain and simple, yet for us it is unparalleled opportunity. By sugar coating opportunism with ideas of achievement and success, with self worth and validation by material reward, we obliterate the awareness of exploitation’s usage, while deferring away the problems caused by environmental and social degradation.  It becomes the obvious mechanism to move ahead of others, by leveraging their life energy into your own possession.  Consequence and accountability be damned.  Notice how we shame liberals with accusation while denying accountability issues directed at us?  Faith is something we can bank on!  We can have faith that our followers will not know where or how to check the real facts and how they fit the world.  Disorientation, ladies and gentlemen, allows you to point those pins at the donkey for them!


We have many interested in these schemes that grab others effort, a small piece at a time, but eventually, by mass appeal, this system is accepted as natural and God given.  It rises each day as the sun, and at night as the moon.  We have achieved in human consciousness, the appearance of inherent reality, reality that by all appearance seems simply to be what is.  That is the power and the glory of conservatism.  How do we find that pin in an individuals hay stack that will allow us to pick their pockets lock?  A blowtorch!  Again; thanks to the Three Kings and their many wannabees shilling for subjugation of the individual to our entrenched power dynamic, in the name of freedom!  Magnificent!

We make our logic the logic of identity appeal, then blame change as actually being a threatening attempt to destabilize your life.  It certainly would ours!  This is why we have created the bogeyman of The Mainstream Media, as a shield to corrupt the impressions of any objective reality intrusion.  Remember.  70% of Whites in the South (by an actual poling) are so unhinged of fact checking, that they can be lead to believe what our sycophants wish.—The liberal conspiracy is in reality a faith, it is a belief, and it insulates us from the questioning of these individuals own sense of what reality is and is not.

Notice our Sarah, and so many loyal others; we simply state opinion as fact, while making up logic by already manipulated emotional perception, with its now ideological tag and frame.  It is about an appearance of consistency to our faithful. Luckily they are primed to follow buzz words as if it were manna from heaven. Other aspects of mind control, such as Thought-terminating clichés, will have a word or phrase act as negative magic wands, to stop our followers from thinking further into any matter we wish. Perception slides down that slope right into our bank accounts.  In some ways, we can be much more liberal with the truth and fact as liberals ever could be.  It is a beautiful vice!  We have them both coming and going.  Now there is a profitable trap; other hearts pump to fill up our tanks!

We can have them, the public, our public, think fascism is communism, and more secretly, stealthily to our advantage; think anti-Christianity, is Christianity.  We can reverse the endemic liberalism of Jesus Christ.  A millennium ago we purged the Gospels of spiritually self empowering communal ideas, leaving those that supported our own kinds of power over structures.  We have these believers trapped, but now, without Biblical reference for more direct perception of The Divine and its attending enhanced consciousness.  We have the individual much more worried over their own heavenly outcome, rather than their expanded perception of their being now. This project is still moving forward quite well on much of right wing Christianity, yet they would be outraged to acknowledge this!

That is the perfection of our cover, ladies and gentleman.  Our power over others arises from their own failings within.  Failings we have instituted into the program.  Our faithful have unplugged their own objectivity and rationality, depriving themselves of truly honest questioning.  Check Mate!

Like any opportunism in nature, we have every right to take and keep what we can get, no matter by hook, or by crook, or by the best of intention.  So called reality based Americans look at our followers in abject disbelief; How can they really believe that? The mind is controlled by controlling the heart.  Liberals just do not see the disadvantage they are in; subjectivity is much easier to control than objectivity.  Infinitely more simple, and so this is how we must keep our flocks; plain and simple and proud of it!


Keep spreading the Nope about National Health Care, especially any public option. Yell out; “They are destroying America for their socialist plan!” Thanks, but I meant that figuratively. We certainly do not wish the most popular of all health plans, the socialized health care plan run by the VA, or that other one; Medicare, from competing with us across the boards to drive prices down.  We do not need lower pricing.  We need no question permitted about we doing what we wish with our clients health care plan.  Now that is opportunism at work people!  I say; Don’t let the government take that choice for us away!  Now just phrase that to the common folk, and you have them in your talons!

You’ve got to love those congress-people, with their own national health care plan, condemning government involvement in medicine!  Fantastic!  And all because folks do not check the real facts in context; but are instead influenced by our opinion as operational truth.  My people; just check out Fox News and our GOP partners.  It’s a wonderful confusion!  We still retain our loyal followers even when we are found to be the ones whose principle seems to be, do as I say and not as I do!  Keep the faith!

Keep energizing our lunatic base!  Attack and run, ladies and gentleman.  Make things up.  It is all about doubt and suspicion.  It is amazing how few people ever can see through their own inner motivations.  These are our permanent stock in America. We are about control by fear, but this is no horror movie, this is real life.  Lets take it!

People.  Keep up the good work!

Thank you.


Now where is that metaphorical blood bank of heath care?  I need to make a withdrawal; squeeze a few more of the insured out of their winnings.

Oh. Don’t you know?

I’m looking for a new home where the action is.  Got a piece of land in China I’m scoping out.  You’d be surprised how many of us are putting up a roost there as well.  Get to where the flow is people, or be a looser and get siphoned out.

The Journal: Profits over People | Bill Moyers | PBS Video

With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before


God Invented Science: Hello?

If a God exist as presumed by many, God Invented Science.

That is, we humans and our ability to analyze our world for its facts and connections therein, enhancing our ability and capability to project change into our lives, including the environment around us, from our presumed knowledge; science. We must ask ourselves why much vocal conservatism is against God’s Science, or factual truth seeking?  What exactly are they protecting, and in effect, keeping knowledge away from whom?


There seems to be a war declared against scientific inquiry, a kind of inquisition upon the rules of cause and effect investigation that all Life seems to employ to survive.  Why would some need a war on critical thinking, and a substituting of it with selected logic presumed to exist in question free zones?  Areas of faith or assumption can easily harbor ignorance in enlightenment’s dock.

Is scientific truth, or supported theory, a threat to The Truth?  why would an absolute Truth be against truth verification strategies?  Seems much more likely that truth might seem a threat to ones established ideas of things; that require investigation closed down.  Then, ignorance is bliss, while fact in context appears ominous to a dimmed down mind.  Truth itself, feared.

{Maker of Existence. Thank You for this sky filled with water’s ability.  Water’s mobility lets us move, communicate in this soluble liquid water zone.  We drink what is at times cloud and rock, ancient and fresh.  Always we are in Your debt for each and every other thing.}
{My hand held up to yesterday’s sky)


-Ideas On Conservative Brainwashing

Checking my e-mail, I found this article that seems to cover what I often talk about: How minds are conditioned and controlled, becoming sheep like in America, and likely in other places around the world and in history.  Yep.  And Oh yes I know; conservatives, the vocal ones, will claim all this about liberals.

While thinking they are standing up tall for individuality, truth, freedom, God, of some other absolute, we humans get herded into doing the bidding of interest quite unconcerned with how we ourselves are actually doing.  That statement may seem harsh, but in general it seems to be true.  Ideology, or belief system, appears to become paramount in persuasions propaganda campaigns, over the conditions creating the individuals actual stress, or a thorough investigation of social and environmental realities.  Albeit; stress is ultimately an issue in human consciousness as applied to the individuals perception, and not necessarily an environmental act.

How Indoctrination Works

The folks who then “think for themselves”, connect the dots they have been repeatedly told are connected; not actually by facts in context, but by ideological interpretation intended to bias their own critical thinking ability to become objectively disarmed.  Now then, ones own thinking successfully shoots oneself in the intellectual foot, then I can blame the damage on the programmed ideologically inculcated target.

I watched a World War Two program on our socialist (could say) news network, PBS, and what was stunning was hearing radio broadcast in Germany as the Jews were being demonized.  It reminded me a lot of right wing radio; lots of attitude and presumed bias “known’s”, then imaginary dots connected, but seeming real dots, for they are presented as truthful known’s; authority seems to be behind them. These days we call many of these tricks,  Thought-terminating clichés; when proclaiming the liberal media, or, Obamas media, as an example, the nature of truth itself is attacked.  We are being seduced into a circular logic truncation of objective viewpoint.

The investment into the crippling of critical thinking is staggering in its scope.  We humans are plagued with usually status quo interest interested in controlling how we view the world; which colored glasses and what parameters we presume of the individual and society–the collective.  We have been witnessing the selective destruction of these two interconnected influences; society and the individual, and a re-framing of the collective interrelationships to nonexistent or highly confined to status quo need.

We All Know The Liberal Media’s Bias

We are told by inference, that how things seem, in the defined liberal or Obama’s media, (yes I have heard the medias called Obama’s) are biased against fair thought, and so presumably undercutting truth itself.  This presumed deceptive  “given” becomes an inoculated bias against the real truth, by diverting thought from selected “liberalism” agenda’s.  Truth, or what is the biased view of truth as actually, becomes an ideological slanted list of supposedly established “known’s” (The Liberal Mainstream Media), which need no further evidence or validation other than endless repetition.


Yet the very nature of a media in a Democracy, would, and perhaps even should, be called liberal.  Referring to openness, pluralistic natures of the citizenry and non doctrinaire thought.  It is not granted that unless you just happen to be in the “right” group, a non liberal media would quite possibly appear as highly suppressive.  Science also comes under this abstractly disavowed, yet universally relied upon given.  I have heard from some condemning science, but by the very nature of our communications and inventions, even old agriculture, depend upon Gods science, or the ability to validate cause and effect in the environment, and plan a life.  Actually, even plan a next footstep.

In actuality, absolute truth is hard, and perhaps impossible to know from environmental facts and data, for we never really comprehend the full context of things, only abbreviated derivations of perception that are presumed to cover the issue being investigated.  I have never seen evidence that anyone knows exactly how all things are interrelated and interconnected, although in Life, or existence, they are.

Once the humility of being human is transcended for proclamations, reason begins its winding path down logical connection that may well be increasingly governed by my own ignorance, and not understanding or awareness of full contextual reality.  Yes this applies to me.  Just because I am offering a point of view here does not make it “The Truth”.  I also believe intuition and kinds of apriori awareness exist as of now beyond scientific scrutiny.  So?  Epistemology can contain both.  The idea that one must always be either or seems abstractly mechanistic, and not how life is.   Do you think love is just chemicals, or is there intrinsic meaning to the connection known by love?

Down the Illuminated Halls of Darkness

Just like way back in Germany in the 1930’s, repetition, repetition, and never stop repeating the slant, to inculcate the speakers bias as being non bias, or clearly evident, and the target issue as biased.  Be they Jews or Liberals, the Pavlovian/Orwellian conditioned herd of listeners, viewers or readers, are kept away from the open challenge of true critical thought, and put into the corrals of circular logic and ideological contortions of view. This blocking of objective inquiry, and substituting it with an ideological view biasing world data and events, reveals it is the listeners ears that are being targeted. Specifically what may lay between those ears.

The objective is to control you or me to someone else’s advantage, be it real or imaginary, and to bias objective fact finding for pre established perceptual control parameters.  Then we can be presumed to get reality wrong, but the doctrine right.  By repeating the doctrine’s presumptions, we are told we are right, and those not talking “right”, wrong.  The world of ones own knowing, then seems to conform to this newly imposed reality.  Staying within our circles of logic and association, we now have our “true world”, and can see how that outside world seems broken.


When Galileo proclaimed from observation (of Gods Universe lets say), that the earth was not the center of the solar system, he was viewed as proposing something seemingly evil or undermining to the Church.  Status quo’s (conservative) authorities seek to demonize objectivity for a primary reason; they only wish the definition of reality that they themselves are submitting to, to be seen as truthful, even if actually false.  It is the nature of following untruthfulness, but doing so in Truths Name, which oddly enough, seems to be taking the real Truths name in vane.  Or perhaps if we seek to follow a real God, Gods name in vane.

Conservatism can be relied upon to conserve this one thing for certain; dimmed down perception. Reality will be blockaded to the individual and culture,  the perceiving of full truthfulness that God or Life has enabled us to seek, will be demonized.  The war against science, is a war against objective reality, to substitute the truth of existence, with favored narratives of some subjective groups interest.

-Added info from others

Right Wing Myths Exposed: The Red-Blue Myth, The Liberal Media

Yet the almost complete right wing Republican domination of political talk radio Meet the Myth-Makers: RightWing Media Groups Provide Ammo for “Liberal

Sunday 26 April 2009

George Lakoff | Progressives Lack a Limbaugh-Like Voice
George Lakoff, The San Francisco Chronicle: “You turn the AM on and there’s Rush, or Savage, or another of the army of right-wing radio talk show hosts. You may not be listening hard, just working, driving, doing busywork or the laundry. Yet if you listen day after day, year after year, your brain will begin to change. Words, even those heard casually and listened to incidentally, activate frames – structures of ideas that are physically realized in the brain. The more the words are heard, the more the frames are activated in the brain, and stronger their synapses get – until the frames are there permanently. All this is normal. It is how words work. And the right-wing message machine has found a way to take advantage of it – activating, as it were, a conservative system of thought.”

Browse our continually updating front page at

Freedom’s Many Bells Ring Relative To You

What’s This Freedom Stuff all About?

File:Libertybell alone small.jpg

Can I do whatever I want without consequence? You know. Be completely free?

{I write this post with the Texas Governor implying the desire to be free from Washington, as well as other new-found desires for Freedom; from freedom from oppression to freedom from need. And reflecting on perhaps the final freedom some seem to be seeking; freedom from cause and effect, a freedom from Reality.}

When are you free to do, or free from what?

If I am free to do or believe in something, what does truth, reality or right and wrong have to do with Freedom?

Freedom, and especially Liberty, seem to imply that the absence of the quality exist, which is to be considered as not good. We tend to mean to be free from some certain thing or process that is presumed inhibiting. This sense of specificity of a positive to a negative, can make freedom contort to what ones interest in particular are, even to the point of opposites. Freedom then enters the existential relativity zone; where it means what I want it to.

Example; You are free to go look for food, or you are free from the need to look for food. You may be hungry because you cannot find food but are free to keep looking. You may never worry for food or hunger since you have all the money or food provision you need. Free to want in one example and freedom from want in another. Freedom is an abstract concept relative to ones own situation, and to ones degree of living in abstraction, or minds belief. You can be free to get a job or starve, while an employer may feel they should be free to use you as they will.

Speak Up?

Most of us like the abstract idea of Freedom of Speech, because we would hate to have our words and thoughts inhibited, implying some external authority decides what we can say from what we can think. However, most no-one supports the view that if you feel like being free to say; FIRE!!! in a crowded theater when there is no fire and a likelihood for panic, along with tragic consequence from that free act, most will not contend that you are free to do that without consequence.

That you have every right to do that thing if you wish, for whatever reason you like, may bring restriction upon your freedom by the exercise of it, including prison or other inhibition. Abstractions can become self contradictory in human real world behavior, for they seem to exist outside of notions of accountability and responsibility when abstraction, a symbolic ideal, is held above the consequence inherent to reality.

Once something ascends to the level of a consensus reality, it can appear true=Appearance Reality, while being more of an idea/theory/presumption than a truly real thing in and of itself. If we all “know” you must be lying about something from the incident narrative we have heard, do we really know the truth? You may actually know you are telling the true facts as you know them from experience, yet I can assume you must be lying. Pre-existing bias can make facts sift out into preordained boxes where it is assumed they belong, all while I assume I am being objective.

This relativity factor to freedom’s context, breaks it out of the abstract purity of idea. I suppose no one actually is stopping you form saying what you wish, but society may hold you accountable for the consequences (right or wrongly) if you actions causes particular harm, or may reasonably seem able to. Do you really believe you have the right to pick anyone at random off the street, to prove your freedom, and say they just killed someone and should be then stopped in any way possible?

Yet what I have just portrayed is close to being realized in the manner some opinion and political thought is expressed; that without sound objective reference to direct evidence as it relates to systemic context, we can accuse others of all manner of what we despise in the world or in culture, saying they are the cause of it and giving our preumed evidence. We are in some manner free to express our opinion, for it is not directly responsible for another actions, but we have come close to manifesting our own freedom as perhaps an others motive or desire for oppression or inhibition—-of us.


Freedom and Liberty are not always the producers of good, but we seem to understand that without their continuance, we can be certain of the bad running wild. But after saying that, it is likely that in some aspects, I do not support others definitions of freedom when I have been convinced it manifest oppression of an others will in some prominent way, especially if that others will is not producing the restriction of someone else’s same freedom.

So what? It seems most of us like freedom, especially our interpretation of it, but can dislike how it manifest in others views. Freedom is then; not the universal positive we can sometimes assume, at least we can feel it is not, seeming then to know it is not. The question comes back to each one of us; do we accept others freedom when we do not respect how freedom “lets” them behave?

Here we come face to face with otherness, and the perhaps biased perspective we might have on abstractions like Freedom; I can assume these are sacred in some way—when I seem denied them. This subjective putting of Freedom outside of a super context of responsibility and consequence, may well place it into realms of confusion and delusion.

We do not always know if our abstract idea that is seen as a negative in others, is what we assume it to be. We do not always know, with our beliefs, whether we are seeing with one eye things two dimensionally, or more fully true with two conceptual eyes, or even more fully true with many.

Individuals are not always clear regarding what is whole and true, since your and my situation, including our histories, tend to lend weight to a direction of preference. Our situations can act as a seduction focus lens to our beliefs, and what I think others are about. This seeming dichotomy can come into our sights in our organized interpretive viewing scopes; Religion, and especially politics, can present their true world views, while never truly owning up to the subjective dimension which they do inhabit.

Crippled truth can be dangerous or unhinged truth.

Instant Karma?

The Golden Rule, and the Kantian notion of The Categorical Imperative, both imply that I will not do what I would like to do at times, for so doing would violate the inclusion principle of rational consistent dialectic. If I want my speech to be free, I should likewise allow others speech to be free, or they could some day deny my own freedom. The subject is included in the objective context. I support an idea like Free Speech, not because I always like it, but because by excluding others, I open a Pandora’s Box to anyone claiming authority as censor, to themselves decide what is said. Thus eliminating Free Speech, or dismembering it, along with destroying awareness of what others are thinking.

By methods of ideological thought seduction leading to thought manipulation/control, some individuals and societal entities have intention to deny truthful and Whole Free Speech, be it by overt censorship, or by systemic/economic censorship, and sometimes relative value enticements such as so called moral values. We can believe we have Free Speech, and seem to, while possibly behind the scenes or by access inhibition, we are not in a true Free Speech Context. And with the “right” indoctrination as to why we should inhibit speech, even though it may not be a direct threat to others, society tends to sit idly by as a right such as Free Speech is in profound ways, rendered mute, being we are in effect forced not to hear.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Patric Henry’s speech seemed to know what Liberty meant in his context; Being treated intrinsically unfairly by an external authority, such as in slavery, imbues one with the awareness of the lack of Liberty. When you know you are functioning according to what seems reasonable local law and assumption at to your will, then someone or some other entity comes in and says effectively; forget what you know or how it appears, I am taking all your stuff unless you give it over to me when I demand. You actually owe it all to me, cause you never owned or possessed your world by the laws I hold in effect over you. My interest are preeminent.

To have my view of Liberty, if I were a British Owner of colonial America, you would need to be me, for I have my preeminent law on my side of possession. I can think your claims of Liberty and Rights are only veiled desires to apprehend what is rightfully mine. After all, The Law is on my side. These were the rules. I am right. No debate.

Liberty and Freedom are subjective, able to be manipulated by thought seduction, cultural perspective, and somewhat dependent upon what I become convinced I need independence from. Their existence as abstractions in a context of seemingly infinite interconnection and interrelationship, make them serious subjects up for debate. Yet these very subjects are routinely treated by the seduction/temptation of privilege and opportunism, as mere objects to an end that secures ones subjective place above all else. While protected behind the sometimes alleged sanctity of The Law, one persons Liberty can inflict upon others—tyranny, legally.

Truth’s Point of View?

The often ignored but ever-present inclusion principle of any super context, such as The Commons, renders the subjective an interest to the objective, because reality includes all as One. Of course I can fantasize that I need not include the universe, the environment, society or others in my calculations of thought and behavior. Ignorance knows no bounds, nor limitation on what it will claim to know.

Truth is True; Fair and Balanced have nothing to do with Facts in Full Context unless they are a conscious part of obtaining all objective information.

The idea of fair or balanced speech or news is an oxymoron, if what is being pursued is The Truth. Opinion can be true and any degree of false, to lies and untrue.  To balance a truthful view with one that is not can leave us continuously spiraling down into falsity.  Equating reality with fantasy, as if they were equals (fair or part of balance), is often opinions biggest mistake.  Yet the notion is now out there that so called fair and balanced is a good thing, when it can lead to a kind of existential morass of; well this is true for you and that for me.

The Truth is true and not liable or dependent upon fair or balanced opinion of it. The real truth can actually be interfered with; disguised or veiled over, by attempts to make Truth a process of some preconceived ideas of balancing. I would say someone is indeed seeking to hide certain truths, if they assume or presume to balance things over It’s presentation. Instead, some other agenda may well be foisted over the very definition of Truth, seeking to deny its reality base and instead insert interpretive lenses to bias Truth to a particular viewpoint. Fair and balanced truth or news is just as likely to be slanted and biased, only pretending to not be.

Let Freedom Ring

Proclamation on many conservative sites, also songs so titled

Martin Luther King Speech “I have a Dream”

The ringing of the bells of Freedom is a more poetic take on hope’s and dreams that can become real, if only… were true. To be true, the plea is to Let Freedom Ring. The Sound of Freedom notes an atmospheric context that seems to infuse the common air itself.

We can imagine, as if at the end of World War Two, bells ringing in Europe and America. We would know a certain threat has passed. A long nightmare has become a dream now of promise made from the hearing of bells. A duty to Freedom to prevail has become true. We would all hear the sound and know, perhaps first within our hearts; I hear Freedom’s Sound.

Metaphor can create powerful connection and insight. The abstract Freedom uniting the Allies in the War had become visceral to most citizens. We knew not what tyranny would have done to us, but what we did have, we knew we would lose. The fight for Freedom permeated ones world from top to bottom, uniting all of us in a common dream; to remain free; a Common Song.

The Things Time’s Sediment Covers

But this kind of unity of Cause can eventually be used to divide and conquer, as new and revised forms of control, self dominance and tyranny creep into being. Society as well, can find its unity of purpose becomes cloudy. Individualism, and concepts of freedom relative to the individual, can become parsed and convoluted. —I am free to do what I want and you just stay out of my way. Mind your own business. Life becomes for some, in a more real manner of speaking, just a business where it is my job to succeed and not let you stand in my way.

Someones freedom to create an enterprise and contract out to others as subjects to their will, may manifest “Free Enterprise” legality, while also creating forms of wage slavery, and anything but collectively free hierarchical mindsets. We are walking a plank between individualized concepts of freedom and collective concepts that extend to all. I can say, if I am Billionaire lets say, that I was poor and became super wealthy, so can any poor person, since I was free to. I owe society nothing for the generation of my wealth, for it was from my own effort. As if All Else played no part.

My Billionaire scenario exist in an abstracted out and subjugated to situation notion of individualism and freedom. Most “Free Market” systems reproduce this concept, contouring consensus and appearance realities continuously to suit their advantage, for they have extra access to so do their will. Everyone cannot be a Billionaire, not until all work is somehow robotic or materialism and money value itself changes its meaning.

Until then, Billionaires are banking of continuing “failures” as in situational disadvantage for massive groups of others. Also being relied upon is that the wills of others are in such a position to be contoured to surrender their will to an other to survive. The “free choice” being life or death. We exist in a kind of economic context of forced marriage. With this abstracted out consciousness that ignores The Whole of Life. While most of us try to live decently and with self respect and love in our lives, having meaningful lives does not preclude the existence of forced manipulation.

It is no surprise that the earth is in crisis, or that nearly twice the number of those who died at the 9-11-01 attacks, or 5,000 children a day die from kinds of water poisoning. Yet are we changing all the rules to a new paradigm modus operandi every day to stop the ongoing tragedy? So called free societies seem to be more bout some kinds of self serving notions of freedom, than expressions of Freedom that include all specifically.

If the big powers that be; oligarchical interest and those who pander to them, do not see the death of so many children’s lives each day, notice what happens: The news is of other issues, and not so much those issues of the poor. This is an institutionally loaded off balanced information feed to public consciousness. This institutional corruption of perspective is now considered the way it is. One will likely be labeled a “Class Warfare” advocate to bring up the situational disadvantages of most people in the world. This is how thought seduction works to control ideas in a culture to protect the big powers that be above all others.

Organized Ways To Validate Advantage

Opportunism and exploitation, though sheltered under their own abstracted concepts of freedom, can seek to keep others in bondage because of systemic based need; need of those stressed to “surrender”, and the need of those to use who are in that position to feel as they must surrender. This, while those of great advantage have both access and motive to proliferate-out their self serving forms of sculpted freedom. Oligarchies survive by these methods, in Democracy, contouring freedom to suit their need first, and society, including the individual others, as collateral interest to be managed mostly by stress and assuaging thought seductions.

Some bells of Freedom may ring as good for me, while others hear them as if the sound deposited weights upon their shoulders, for they are. Separatist concepts of freedom will seek to allow individuals to get what they can, most any way they can, while others seemingly less ambitious or ruthless, will have their lives valued as less. This is humankind’s attempts to deny the full responsibility, accountability and consequence to their actions, by pretending our consensus values are real an true values. I can be for freedom, while in the same note, intending it to serve me at the expense of others, and feel and be widely perceived as quite the success.

The Universal Bell of Freedom would not so ring.

Live Free or Die————

–official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire

We will be free, or else what is the point of living? But have we approached the free will and determinism conundrum that has been surfacing throughout this whole Freedom presentation?

It seems the stance for the free individual in a free country is powerful in the abstract, and while buttressed by a faith in hindsight, but when do I really know how free I am and in what ways? How dependent am I on my feelings and interest to denote what I think the Big Freedom is? Am I not free to be wrong as well? What context do I control from my mistakes, errors and misjudgements as they spiral off down the road of Life?

The Truth Will Set You Free

One way this is said in some Bibles

Politics, and to some degree religion, claim not to be wrong. The left and right may have whole different definitions of truth, cause and effect, as well as responsibility of the individual and the society, or collective interaction of individuals. Most of us follow the ideas of the culture we are from, never intending to give other notions a fair or balanced chance at convincing us of being real Truth. We are indoctrinated into a belief system. It may be said that “…and the truth shall make you free”, but what standard am I holding my definition of truth to? That will make all the difference between what is true and what is concocted.

The existential problem we have is agreeing on the meaning of things, the meaning of thoughts, the meaning of Life as ultimately what I mean to the Universe or God, if anything. We do not always know exactly what exist as Truth, for it is easy to mistake opinion for fact while interpreting facts with opinion. When am I absolutely sure that I truly am not offering opinion as real truth? Perhaps this is why the incentive has been acknowledge that somehow, presumably the Real Truth will make one free. It will do it, pave the path to Freedom, because it is Real and not otherwise invented by human idea.

That is a hard one for many reasons, some I’ve pointed out prior. When do I know something real empirically? When can I trust meaning to be automatically right? Where is this truthful path that paves the way to liberation for the self? And when can I be sure I am actually on it and not otherwise convinced by someone that this must be the True Way?

Since language itself is a collective conceptualization individualized, I cannot be sure I am thinking “straight”. Somehow I will need to have something bordering on absolute faith in something sacred to Reality; a way reality is beyond my values imposed upon It. This will vary for many of us, for in some instances, even going on a quest for an absolute Truth, or something near to it, will run up against the many human systems, some claiming Divine origin, which already claim to have the only Absolute Truth. This will seem to imply (sometimes very overtly) that to question within one of these many one and only truths, then, is a form of rejecting It. Curious. Also a convenient Thought-terminating Cliché, a tactic of mind-control.

Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose’…

—from Janis Joplin’s song “Me and Bobby McGee” by Kris Kristofferson

Is Death The Penultimate Freedom?

It is a curious question; does presumably no responsibility equate to Freedom?

Being free from earthy tethers. There are some human beings who think they have no responsibility to much of anything. It could be someone living on the street, knowing too much loss all too intimately, and living to avoid connections that need maintenance. In this case, ones survival is a full enough time job; just maintaining ones life. Others with no responsibility left to lose, might be some of the super wealthy; got all the money they ever will need, can get whatever they wish (theoretically), and again, just managing everyday life can become the big issue in their lives. Society tends to frown on the former and envy the latter.

Most ideas of Freedom come with this lack of tether to something or someone. In practical reality, between your consciousness and that world of others out there, there seems a deal to strike. It is up to you and up to us to truly define what are legitimate freedoms that benefit all. Freedoms that support institutionalized bias against some group or other kinds of people must be scrutinized for their validity; do they support a Common Truth, a true universal known, or are they rationalized toward ideological preference? We face the same issue in this as with The Golden Rule.

What Is Knowable In Common; The Key

Reality is at the heart of this matter. You and I are part of The Real, yet we know we can be mistaken. What way is there to validate Truth, or in another way of asking; When are facts or statistics, the elements of the observable world, when are these known in their largest context? Not some spacious reasoning like; It’s raining so the drought is over. We do not know this, even though rain will be likely how a drought will end. A thing is not in abstract isolation, not even Freedom, somewhere thresholds are crossed, lines known only by understanding of context.

We must be humble in this regard; I never know everything. I never know all there is to know, possibly on any one subject, let alone their interconnecting relationships to all things. I might know what we think is all there is, but where is my validation from Creation?

Humankind has developed standards for reason and what actually constituted valid logic. It is arguable whether we modern humans are any better at this determination than some of the earths distant cultures. Time and recorded history have established some characteristics for education and understanding, generally validated as correct by repetition of outcome predicted, and or conserved into culture that persist. The world of scientific invention; even the development of agriculture, comprehends some manner in which things work, seeking to replicate them toward new ends.

The key is to work toward objectivity. It is a goal. Creativity intends to move reality into a new dimension of perception. New dimensions are not necessarily true. I can say and or invent things that are not well. They will not survive the test of time. Creativity and invention do tend to require trial and error, which may lead toward improvement in an ideas viability, particularly if one is accurately judging ones strengths and weaknesses accurately in their environmental context.

Even in invention, one works toward objectivity. One works to be into truth and out of error or false notions. Creative freedom still requires a super context; some way others will know the usefulness of something coming into existence. We do not know, while discovering Creation via science, whether what we find and then use, will help or harm our lives in the long term, particularly if we reduce our awareness of consequence to action, including discovery and invention. Without an intent to overview through super context perception, we can poison the very water we drink.

If I invent a new clothespin that tends to drop things in the wind, no matter how cool I make it look, it still might fall into lack of use, because it is not true to intention–holding up clothes. Even if it is true to coolness, practical reality may have it fall by the wayside. We do test some elements of the truthfulness of things all the time. Why? We intend to live a real life.

If someone is obsessed with living a cool life, surrounded by cool things that presumably throw their cool weight around onto themselves, my dysfunctional clothespin still might be the preference of such a one. Does not validate it as a good clothespin, just useful to select individuals for their own motives. Many ideas continue in this kind of amorphous zone; valuable to some but not to others, so how true are they? I might say it is perfect and you say; No way! Freedom is not free of this very problematic outcome; that freedom is invoked when it is of particular use to someone to invoke it, and not universally.

Most every human endeavor has gone through a somewhat systematic evolution based upon trial and results. We seem to need to find what reality is and fit in with it in the long term, yet his can appear to be a mechanical outworking; if all is logic and truth, all things seem possibly predetermined, as if machines are following out mathematical formulas dressed up with emotion, our ignorance and feelings seeming to present freedom as an illusion of our own ignorance.

Some philosophers believe the break with absolute determinism in human consciousness occurs with forgiveness; That one’s emotion or “The Facts” prove to you someone has been bad, likely to you or society, and what do you do? You commandeer your feelings away from what seems obvious reality. You say; I know how it appears, I see what was done, but to free myself from my own chance of misjudgement and government by the negative, I forgive this person or act. An uncommon sense of freedom can be pursuant to acts of forgiveness. The one forgiving coming to know; I seem to have forgiven myself, and it seems Divine.

There is an Biblical saying in Mathew; ‘to judge not lest you yourself be judged.’ It is a very wise overview of the problematic nature of perception of others, particularly how it seems we can accuse others of what we do in a big way ourselves, but try to keep from our own consciousness. The old saying then proceeds into rationality, how useful is it to expect the ignorant to act wise, and be upset over what they seem not to understand? How qualified am I to act as judge and executioner over an other’s misjudgements? Any hypocrisy endemic to that? Forgiveness asserts ones gaze toward Higher Cause; God, and or Love and Union, over what seems to divide and sink our relationships.

Forgiveness, thought of as impractical and foolish in many instances, may be the only way out for a people who truly respect the gifts of Freedom. It seems individual freedom will be irrelevant if collective freedom is not respected. A higher context for Freedom is essential for the individual to live honestly in a real world, as opposed to an imaginary one. Imaginary worlds can be anything one wished or believes is true. They are “True” only inside of separation, or an alienated perception of the nature of Life and Being.

As alone or alienated as I may believe I am by all evidence, I am still connected to The Whole One Thing. If I am lost, I am lost inside worlds of my own making, for I decide what is the value in what I perceive; I can still go on to both forgive and to understand.

Humankind has developed systematic schemes of behavior and value, that in effect, allow some of us to take energy from others lives while all legally sanctioned. We may not perceive what this judgement upon the time and life of others leaves ourselves with; whether our ideas of gain and favor are truly success–so says my assets, or are merely rationalizations to systematically get away with others bondage to us.

What is truly conscious agreement between free beings seems often hidden behind the veil as in the wizard of OZ. The illusion continuing as long as the scheme is never truly exposed to the real light of day. Perhaps why such an investment is given to perpetuating lacks of understanding between various human endeavors and relationship by shaming, attempts at ostracism and Appearance Reality indoctrination campaigns. The veil or wool pulled over the eyes.

Free Reign

Humankind has no guarantee that it remains free to be, or free to be wrong indefinitely. Wrongness will become apparent, but where I believe the source of that wrongness is will make all the difference. Whether I can change my life to be in alignment with Life. Or whether I insist I, or we, or you, have broken the invisible contract with Life one manner or another.

It is a determination as to what perception rules my consciousness. I can settle for defeat, bowing down to the ignorance of the world; my own and of others as victor. I can also settle for Love, for Life, and insist I work for its Cause no matter what befalls me. It may well be that the highest Freedom is in the surrender to The Truth above my own opinion. The Truth may make one free, but that freedom becomes an unbreakable union, if I insist on It above surface waves of self interest.

This one thing is clear; others do not make me free. Freedom is an every moment undertaking. We have relatively good methods of discerning truth from falsity. The so called Key To Life will be in that lock. How closely will I attend to Truth’s numbers? Ultimately we are faced with this personal decision; do I believe what I do because I am free to, end of story, or is there a realty where it does make a difference whether I balance truth with make believe? Truth is not fair and balanced in this fundamental respect; facts in context cannot be balanced with opinion and fantasy as if one then knows objective reality. In this, me and you have much humility to know.

The question becomes; what combination do I trust to unveil Truth’s Key? For all combinations will claim to. I say this for it is evident there is the intent out there in opportunism, blind faith, and its obfuscations, not to look too closely as to the Key, and which lock we are actually opening; one based on real Truth, or something just claiming to be.

Work Makes You Free

—Nazi Slogan

Contouring freedom to the extreme, even the slaves of the Pharaoh or of the plantation owner can be told they are free. You’re free to run and I’m free to shoot you in the back. This is not only the circular thought process rendering of cults and madmen, it bobs up here and there in society’s Mainstream as well as the worlds religious and political offerings. I believe this is at times used to existentialize a consideration into an amorphously undefinable state. Then a concept can be made to apply to most anything given the right angle. Then the Real Truth may have an extra difficult time at becoming known, as if someone is inhibiting the path to Freedom—for a reason.


Freedom is seemingly once again raising its not free head, to see through the eyes of its beholder.

As an abstraction, Freedom has become one of the most wide open to interpretation concepts.


It is an absurd question in a way. Real Americans are American citizens, period. There is not a behavioral or political party affiliations to stamp “real American”. There is not a religion or lack of it to stamp “real American”. So how does one get to the point of invoking real Americans and America? For it seems an inherently dangerous concept, to say since an American citizen thinks or votes a certain way, they are not real when in fact they are legitimate citizens.

The very concept has it own fingers pointing back at itself; How dare I call you, for instance, not a real American? How would a society be, if we all decide to now go around saying citizens of America are not “real’? It is undoubtedly a dangerous concept to apply to any area of the country, or to kinds of individuals in our nation. Where is the stopping point of accountability then? Why would unreal Americans deserve the same rights as real Americans?

Seems to me abhorrent to the extreme. It is pubescent civil war talk or worse, wish making extermination drives. How about purging American of unreal Americans? How hard a jump is it in reason? Once I think some of us, you for instance, are not a real American because you do not have my list of values, I would seek to seduce other Americans of your unworthiness. Now remember there is a paradigm shift in the very phraseology of “real Americans”, meaning there are phony Americans not deserving of the title American. If I think of you as not an American, what else do I need to support depriving you of the rights of real Americans? After that break with reality as to citizenship, everything becomes breakable in societal contract.

They say Sarah Palin is playing to her base. What kind of base is it that believe American citizens, you for instance, are not real? I know the definition goes on and on, on a pandering parade to define the noble qualities and faith of these real Americans, yet from the smiling face promoting what amounts to civil warfare in mentality, is she speaking for the base? Are they that callous and detached from the world or America?

World War Two presented us; world citizens, all Americans included, with the result of a political/social movement that claimed to be for all the betterment of, I’ll put it this way, real Aryans. Sure, at first everyone thought it was a kind of joke and that not much would ever come from it. Yet it remains that this nationalistic perspective of authentic human beings and those not real enough to be considered human, helped turn Fascism into the fanatical racial purity express it became. It happens in increments, it was not just Pearl Harbor that we went to war over. It was human dignity; the rights of all to live in peace as long as they were not depriving others of that very right. Mostly we call this freedom.

If we are to have faith in America, we require insurance that “We the People” is a concept of agreement in rights that includes all, including diversity, differences in belief, and full respect of citizenship in dissenting opinion. This includes that Sarah Palin has the right to proclaim America is divided between real Americans and false ones, but all who love our country must denounce attempts at what would amount to its self destruction.

If there is a rising separatist movement to change the nature of America to an authoritarians America, where only one persons decides who is real, we must now stand against it. If there is a “base” so disconnected from reality, that they believe they can “take over” our nation, making it for only the “true believers” as to how they view life; let us say, Not On Freedoms watch.

Let all Americans proclaim; We are one People no matter our differences. We will not surrender our rights to smiling pious faces and nascent ideological driven social movements, no matter how self righteous and self proclaimed “true” or “real”.

What history teaches is; There is no room for silence.







Advertising is a classic intended playground for public cognitive direction. Magic is also quite a rich cognitive twisting medium, where what seems is not exactly what is. Debate is often loaded with perceptual steering, and, boy oh boy, does politics love this!

When I said; “boy, oh, boy.”, you might have felt a pattern that began to send your impression of me into another direction. You may be right or wrong about me, but whatever your opinion, you are picking up patterns you have learned from trial and error and cultural differences in language use. Now you may be making decisions about me, quite possibly into the right direction, but maybe not.

Political discourse, and especially campaigns, are filled with ideas to steer you and I with little proof necessary. Logic tends to work on the assumptions “seeming” to be relevant to a target audience. Those who use cognitive tricks intentionally, meaning cunningly to steer perception in their direction, can be quite like magicians. I might not ever see when the trick, or reality skip occurred. Much of the whole tagging and “framing” observations of how concepts go to work on public perceptions, are reminiscent of propaganda campaigns; these trust that you are trusted not to check the facts.

Once inoculated with the “framed” assumption, I am believed by the framers to be inside a frame, a box of how things in the world on this subject are properly seen—from their desired perspective. We have seen how words get confused; such as Saddam and Osama’s were, with about half the population thinking they were the same person! Economic concepts get somewhat false dichotomies; capitalism and socialism. It even seems as though most any idea can be somewhat reversed in perceptive pattern recognition into a kind of opposite, if it is assumed long enough and by repetitive preponderance, to seem consensus reality. The seeming truth can be made of deception, while the actual truth may be conceived of as deception.

“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self evident.”

(1788-1860) German philosopher. Arthur Schopenhauer

Oh no you didn’t! No. You did.

On my blog here, I often go into these meandering word and idea interpretations. “And make no mistake”; we all fall for some of the tricks. The object in a free society must be to uncover, or see through these devises, before they can render our society an object of its own misconceptions. How important is this? It is the difference between life and death. Some four fifths of the American population are said to have fallen for the “do something against those who attacked us”, reference made in regard to Iraq. How did a free society become so misguided as to who was who and what was what? Cognitive tricks for sure. The proof is history itself.

What we must then consider is; Why do those in office or guiding policy, seek to distort truth by the use of cognitive trickery? Why is the public in a free society, subject to distortion and misinformation to pollute their judgement? These are serious issues of life and death, even planetary survival. They are also issues of truth and honor, yet these “character” qualities are often exactly what is under siege by propaganda and its following of falseness. Questions to authority are called contrary or worse, during propaganda campaigns. Yet we must consider; What do I trust to come true into reality? Me operating in a desire for objectivity and completeness, or jumping into slanted unknowns being promoted for actually unknown reason? Apparently, many are not certain.

Can a free society persist when campaigns need not be truthful?

Answer; Not likely to endure.


It is easier to perceive error than
to find truth, for the former lies on the
surface and is easily seen, while the latter
lies in the depth, where few are willing to
look for it.

Today we have the truth, or facts proved accurate in context to subject, denied right up front. People (politicians) are denying saying what they are demonstrated saying on tape. Or they go on to describe how they actually were saying something quite unlike it sounds, stretching pattern perception to thin threads just to re-frame, what they sure seemed to say at the time.

I have just asked you to stretch your fact checking at the door, to follow my suggestions. Reason? Not space or time to go into linking to quotes or statistics that lean my way, and not because I am saying this off the top of my head with no backup. However the truth remains, my suggestions were not backed-up unless you have seen what I am speaking of as well. Any writer has the issue of trustworthiness that is endemic to being another person with never to be fully comprehended motivations.

How to get more near to truth out in the open of society?

A free society would obviously require a decent platform for its elective officials to say what they mean exactly, and not leave that up to who has the most money or most repeaters of their frame. And no, I cannot count on myself, as one of the American public, to decipher all that is truth from falseness, especially by myself during campaigns. The platform should expose the truth and the trickery for all to see, on a Commons basis.

Present the assumptions and any allegations, exposing the theories involved in rationalizations. This requires an independent non partisan forum to allow analysis in an objective process. Then what? More honest campaigns, and presumably, voters voting for likely true policy’s instead of just perception’s of he said she said. The futrure of democracy and freedom depend on this, yet I doubt I will hear a rush to an objective format. We remain trapped in this need for information, and yet it not forthcoming, without extraordinary effort to pin down every thought on our own part.

But why then don’t we have it if it is so important?

We do not have free and fair elections, because powerful enough interest are not interested in it. They are in effect, corroding democracy to steer it beyond the public free will. That said, a few questions on philosophical relativism are in order. How do I find out when I need know the meaning of, what what means, or is is, that can help to make deception, so, well, hard to quantify?

There usually are apparent, at election times, interest interested in making the public distrust their opponents, by making them seem anti-the public. Seems a kind of obvious likely perception to try to make, to easily pull voter identity over to ones own column. I feel this tactic has become so blatant now, that it has become extreme, with words being recast into suspicions they never were meant to possess, but can be contoured to seem. That tactic can leave one with nothing honest seeming to get pined down as a truth, possibly becoming an existential relativistic shoulder shrug, when the facts of matters seem out of sight, while no one agrees where to look. I feel some of the apathy and distrust of government and politicians are from this; “Who knows what to believe?”

Words like “extreme” are thrown around, as I just did, irregardless of fact. It is at times, a words assumed impression that carries the argument. And, that I am not presenting a list of facts and examples of what I just alluded to, puts me into the relativity zone of “no proof”. This kind of one way analysis of expression, has become one of the leading means of questioning ideas by questioning evidence. It isn’t that it is not a fair inquiry to ask for backed up statistical data, but there are always points of no return to consider in any presentation. We require proof, but cannot agree necessarily on when truth is achieved. This then, puts us into even more tenuous conditionality’s.

The intention of the questioner then becomes an issue itself. Where do they consider “proof” normally in their lives? (Not to mention political debate!) Why do they not investigate presented assumptions on their own? Is that not part of what a responsible citizen is? For some reason, an unknown proof?, approx 20 % of the US population did not believe the Iraq invasion was justified. What did that 20% seemingly know that the rest of us did not?

“There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value.
This absolute will to truth: what is it?

Is it the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive?
One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived.” (Nietzsche, 1890)

You don’t know me. You don’t know everything. You’re not the boss of me.

Anyone speaking on most any subject, can then be accused of having not enough proof. In the Iraq presentation of Colin Powell, for instance, I heard a young man say; “There it is! There’s the smoking gun!” While others saw a distinct lack of direct evidence, and what amounted to a cartoon show. There are some “debunker” critics that I have long been aware of, but had not a name for until recently. I will call these often one point refuters, bright dust.

They show up brilliantly in pinpoint contention, as if dust in sunlight, capturing attention, yet do not amount to much but pollution. Their objective seems to be to refute a whole subject or issue on any one point whatsoever. Then proclaim the analysis, probably not in their minds favor, irrelevant. Kind of the converse of the drawings and imaginary vials are solid proof as a “smoking gun”. Which also had little evidence, but much unknown intention behind it.

It is a phenomenon I have observed for most of my life. Politics is somewhat riveted on the one point refutation, even when tied to a mistake and not an attempt at deceptive context rendering. Sophistry is quite adept at making much out of nothing. Yet they are bright with “seeming” that can be dependent upon threads pulled our from under an idea’s imperfections. The idea then called a fraud, or more accurately perhaps, intended to be shelved away as worthless. Anyone’s notions can be filed away with these proved imperfections. The possible answers to societal problems, left gathering dust.

Perceptions are being pivoted for different reasons, irregardless of the “facts” presented. This is often true of “proof”; It is tied by theory to an ideological world frame, even cosmology, no amount of “it” being enough to convince those convinced otherwise. In the above case on the reason for war presentation, perhaps; We are the good guys. We must have found some bad guys to get quickly before it is too late. It is my opinion that some of this kind of subtle infinity sickness has lead to the apathy and lack of curiosity exhibited by the public on many issues. This too is a threat to democracy and freedom.

Yeah but…

We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.
(1713-1784) French philosopher. Denis Diderot

Not enough proof may be a “fair” accusation, but often not about the subjects actually being discussed. The “point” made of a contradiction can be just a fast trick to dismiss thinking. Like those bright dusters, Colin PowelI was simply and lazily being trusted. (Me speaking here on my blog, can be dismissed on a speck of dust.) As it was then, he did not need solid evidence to be “good enough” for many so called journalist, let alone the TV watching public. I am offering opinion here for thought, claiming to connect some cognitive pattens that you will need to test, if you will care to. You may well know a lot more about these things than I.

It is often not for the best, to just take someones word on what is being said, but we do tend to trust some sources more than others for our own reasons. I suggest a little scrutiny is in order for our sources at times. Remember that 4/5ths of the public mistaken “proof” identity for Iraq? I do not know how many of the 80% of the population go around saying they were wrong on that call. I seldom here it. Instead, leaders are blamed as if we are nothing but helpless victims of what? One person? Who voted for who we got? The press? The “liberal media”? The “Corporate media”? “The “government? Which one or ones?

“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects… totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”
(1894-1963) British author. Aldous Huxley

The response I have encountered to excuse ones own culpability’s are; ‘You have to trust your leaders.’ ‘They attacked us.’ and something like, ‘That was above my expertise call.’ I am sure there are many more, yet leadership in a democracy represents you and I. We are who are who ends up owning it. We are accountable for elected officials being in their jobs, (ignoring election tampering that is.). As it stands now on that issue; the world, the relevant public are who actually pays for such errors or deceptions. So excusing ourselves is an exercise in irresponsibility.

“The development of science and of the creative activities of the spirit in general requires still another kind of freedom, which may be characterised as inward freedom. It is this freedom of spirit which consists in the independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social prejudices as well as from unphilosophical routinizing and habit in general. This inward freedom is an infrequent gift of nature and a worthy objective for the individual.

..schools may favor such freedom by encouraging independent thought. Only if outward and inner freedom are constantly and consciously pursued is there a possibility of spiritual development and perfection and thus of improving man’s outward and inner life.” (Einstein, 1954)

Enter cognitive dissonance.

A short article. Right.

Tailor made excuse machinery is the “up” side of not being held accountable, whether leadership or within the public. This ignoring of problems of accountability in self perception is sometimes referred to as “cognitive dissonance”. I often refer to it in my writing, for it generally suggest how we humans avoid being held accountable by our mistakes or misgivings by bypassing them. There is the other concept; “projection”, that seems to go hand in hand with the other, to not only avoid the perceived unpleasantness of saying I was wrong, but sending the accountability for the wrongness out to someone else. Yep. Magic. My bad is actually someone else’s bad. Such a deal!


I contend, that overall, it is We the people who are often under attack from the mind games mentioned above. Not only that, but those games are now counted on to work, as they seem to have, to replace individual rights with the current ascendant rights of corporations. We have a one way street of perception in place for ostensibly economic rationalization; why the largest corporations receive bailouts, but individuals failing, get no such “reward”. This one way highway of accountability serves a societal structure coming to diminish democracy, or the importance of voting, for the success of the very wealthy to maintain their lifestyles at our expense.

Democracy has been being “played” between the concerns of the whole population, and the few who benefit the most from use of that Commons. Unfortunately, the public at large is at a huge disadvantage. Corporations essentially control lobbying influence, and the access of ideas and information to the public domain. It is just a factual imbalance that is skewing democracy, its ensuing responsibilities and freedom, to the corporate side. Who have no such requirement to accept responsibility or accountability for impacts upon our Commons, and where they do, are lobbying to remove those left.

“We the People” are being choreographed to some extent for obvious opportunistic, yet primitive reasons; Once humans are held up above others, many tend to rationalize the advantage as being either earned or born into by right. They then tend to support their structure any way they can, using the Commons by their extra enhanced access to it. We see in our campaigns, how the demonizing of government has worked to slant control of the government to corporate interest, and not the interest of the Commons, or whole of life in our place on earth.

This is done as with the Iraq war; people believing they are standing up for what is right and true. Quite why we see the political parties attempting to tag their identities to our concerns for votes, then ignoring them whenever they need to afterwords.


Certainly not from some of the perspectives I hear. Everybody in politics are identical in those views. There is some difference remaining between the two political parties. But even if I state the obvious from my perspective, alarm bells will ring in some ears when one side is chosen above the other. Or, when my somewhat unorthodox assumptions bounce off of already in place tag frames thought real. I will leave that inquiry there. Anyone interested can determine for themselves which party is more “for” the Commons, and which is more for certain individuals to do whatever they want, without accounting for their impact upon us via the Commons.

The Commons, (all our environments connectivity), is ultimately, where the health of a nation and world resides.

No matter what I believe or do not believe, there is no escaping what happens to the earth or society through human action or denial. But to be cognizant of what is actually happening…

“Subjectively, we can know what is truth for ourselves. We know when we consciously tell the truth of something or tell something other. Yet even if we make our truth mathematically pure and a transferable commodity as if numbers, we do not know the whole context for objective reality. We do not know all of what the full natures are behind the abstract numbers confidence. Logic itself is relative, as our perceptions can make sense but not be truthful. We may have math and reason, yet not know the content of its truthful nature.

The onus is on us, for all these things considered are happening in consciousness, with its own agendas known or not. Truth as an objective, then takes faith, and a courage to be right instead of wrong in thought and action. We enter a realm of intention, where absolute knowing, if possible, exist in other than logical reasoning, or the ways of scientific proof, becoming something perhaps of spirit, an awareness of being in Being.

The proof to our worldly success on a journey toward truth is in what mistakes or error make of us. Whether they raise our reason up, or let it slither away, our intentions going with it” Me. Just another WordPress blog



The poison spewing into the campaign from the right wing is showing its disturbing intentions; to divide the nation.


The next paragraphs are to comments I was sent about this post, which claimed I was doing the same thing as I accused the others of, so all my points are not relevant. How convenient for sophistry. Fasten your conceptualizing seat belts.


And NO. Bringing this up is not doing the same thing.


If a nation or a body has cancer, something that will undo its very life; yes, that cancer might be a part of the body, but it is a part that may well eliminate the body if not addressed. Being against cancer is not being against the body, or, doing the “same thing”. Yet in some minds, it is that easy to dismiss all other presentation. I guess; nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, is all some need to feel vindicated.

But outside of a childish mental fantasy land; the argument is over what keeps a body or a nation wholesome and sound as an entity, and what will eat it away from the inside, if I or you do not resist it. Clearly when someone or cell in a body (or a nation) says only cells just like it are the real body; lets say only breast tissue, then something potentially fatal has occurred; AND SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED IF CONTINUED LIFE IS TREASURED. Addressing cancer does not, however, make one cancer. Seems obvious, but not to philosophical relativist.

The difference in nuance and complexity are lost on some, making lazy way for a small dismissive comment. I have often heard these kinds of dismissals offered by those unwilling to compare the philosophical positions offered. Instead, they present personalized “proof” implications. Often one liners or other short attention span kinds of observation.

The “turn it back trick” is so easy;  just copy what I just said, then say I just did just that! Presto!  Most any statement one wishes can be reversed when it claims a characteristic of an opposition. It’s kinda like reverse psychology. By stating what was making a point, is actually its own self defeating point, reasoned analysis can then be shut down.  Sometimes called a thought-terminating cliché when standardized to buzzword appeal.

I decided to remove the comments and my replies, since I do not do negative comments on others post, and do not intend this blog to be taken up by cartoon characters with an agenda.

I say this point above after being “proved wrong” by a philosophical relativism seemingly incapable of making distinction, yet apparently enjoying spreading their observation impairment around.




Post written after seeing a news interview with a government official holding contempt toward free thinking fellow Americans, effectively calling them anti American.

The deceptively constructed calls are alleging that Barack Obama was engaged in terrorist activity, if one listened to the contextual structure of the robo calls. This is the same tactic used to create the Iraq invasion, with the blurring of who Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden were. Utter use of the black arts of deception. We are seeing both context and fact mixed up into the same cauldron. Then presented as wholesome truth to ingest.

The so called culture war has devolved into spiteful unsubstantiated allegation. On another front “against America”, being a liberal is now being equated with being anti American. Curiously, this implicates those making such allegations against we Americans exercising our rights to think like we want. Those dividing the nation into true and false Americans, bare the mantel of who is consciously or not; being anti-American.

The whole who is for America argument from the right wing suggest that those who think different that right wing ideologues, are now game to be tagged as being against America. This is obviously meant to impress the clueless, by being against pluralism, against diversity, and against freedom itself, under the cover of ideological rightness.

We have seen the ugly specter of nation chopping and dismantling. With the suggestion that it is small town America that holds the real or true Americans. Imagine the contempt for this nations nature, to suggest that only certain areas have authentic Americans. This kind of thinking is frightening in its tribal warfare mentality. Do some wish to be held responsible for the so called culture war becoming a civil war? They seem not to care.

What this serpentine strategy is, if allowed to destroy the nations common identity with its toxins, is against the very founding nature of America. However, it is being promoted as a means to save America, but only certain kinds of Americans need be counted. The rest of us are to be ignored, deplored, or who knows what given the against America rhetoric; locked into internment camps?

For the toxin to work, some Americans will need to be convinced to unwind the fabric of the flag. Instead of Old Glory; they will be waving the bleached white flag of surrender to that which is against us.

Here are some other comments on the issues I have raised.