A Great Denial: Organized Religion; The God Game; Turf Battles in Heaven

Turf Battles in Heaven

The objective and the subjective, fact and fantasy, can mix without accounting for in this conscious matrix known as my reality.


Most religions depend upon the individuals location to appear true; In the US we tend to be Christian, in Iran, Muslim, in India, Hindu or Buddhist.  Wherever you happen to be, you likely have heard of these other religions or beliefs, You know what they are about and are not buying it.  For some reason; wherever you are, you do not need to examine your beliefs tenets to the core, or compare them in any objective fashion to these other systems.  This subjective bias is a curious truth.

Why do you believe in God or not?  Most of us will never admit that we believe what our culture told us to.  We do not “admit  it” because it is like the nose on our face; right in front of us, a part of us, yet mostly seen only on reflection.  We are convinced by repetition, and more repetition, to reinforce our confirmation; that our concept of things is correct, for we seem to be operating from within them, everyone seems to be.

As for having a doubt about culture, what credentials does one individual have? After all, most “authoritative”experts will agree their culture is most relevant and good. By inference then, what do I know, me, I’m not an expert?  Not on the reason why our culture is the way it is.  We are in it, and likely not outside looking in with comparative information to question basic structures that form the bedrock to the whys that we do things the way we do here.  Most often we go with the flow, and have since birth.  This does create a potential endemic problem; an inability to question fundamentals. We are in an automatic pilot driven confirmation bias; we just are not presented with contrary or other information compared to our cultures dialectic.

This is a first step in manifestation of the Great Denial.  Denying legitimate questioning, by being instilled with a perception, by apparent place or situation; that certain legitimate questions are illegitimate, or else they would have rearranged culture to their truth.  We have an effective consensus reality that culture is true and valid, and an implied assumption that truth wins over lies and falsity.  We know many good and honest people, we might be one ourselves, insinuating that we are somehow or someway wrong, would seem to be wrong.  At least it would seem to instigate a disturbance that I might feel was not called for.  Some questions will have a way of appearing illegitimate. This should be cause for concern, instead of certainty.

This kind of nature, and, or nurture issue continues to the factors individuals use to compare and evaluate themselves and one another.  I decide the kind of hair style, or lack of, that represents me.  I may force myself to act in ways that seem to be not what I wish, conditioning myself to accept most of these “right ways” in time.  If I grew up under the old Egyptian Pharaoh culture, I would know I could only create the human image in a distorted form following an established formula—-for a millennium.  Likely, to break this taboo back then would have seemed wrong, and just as likely a threat for its apparently wrong reason.–Why are you challenging what is?  Why do you not respect what we do?  You are trouble.


But mostly, we do not acknowledge our bias of point of view, not honestly and fairly, and not with open and intelligent questioning characteristic of a healthy minds critical thinking ability. We may be unable to legitimately question important notions of the individuals appropriate behavior in culture, even though we have acknowledged that society must enforce some inhibitions on some behaviors for everyone’s own good.

We see many taboos as self evident to an intelligent person; I do not do some things I wish, for they would bring harm to me.  They might well bring harm to others, and so they are suppressed for their obvious inappropriateness.  Society, me included, wish not to permit much harmful behavior, particularly when directed at others.  If I feel rage, it is not OK to just go and physically harm those I might emotionally wish to.

Culture, or society, or peer pressure, forms aspects of my will into its own image, and at times for good reason.–Some freedom and liberty is not good for the whole of society which I am a part of, but just as with the Pharaoh’s not allowing true human form to be represented; we may not know the truth as to why society is suppressing something that to us seems both real and not harmful.  The converse can be true as well; I can consider taxes an evil; someone taking the opportunity to take my will away:  I cannot do what I want with my money.

{The tax issues always deserve critical analysis.  I am not endorsing pork projects and the like as being in the common interest.  Here I am examining tax as an extension of the public will, and where the individuals will and responsibilities interact with societies.  So I am for constructive critical analysis of societies institutions.}

This detached abstraction of money, and specifically “my” money, does not consider all the interrelated aspects that the concept of money exist in.  Though I may need one more dollar to buy a meal, that meal comes across roads, I expect it will be wholesome and not harmful. When demanding a meal by intending to consume a meal, I enter into the interrelationships that create that meal; the corporations, the farmers, the middle-people and meal makers.  This too is connected to “my” money, and yet to deny these relationships I need only alienate myself from the connection and consider it instead an imposition.

Tax that went into the roads, the employment, the agricultural interest, the other relationships connected to societies healthy functioning, for some, this is now an evil imposition; they taking form you.  Why are the interest of the whole of life being rendered irrelevant to the subjective truncated notion of “my” interest? The they of government in democracy is actually you and I through representation.  The they in business, who take my money for their product or service, pass on their cost, their profit, and their tax to me.  Yet in a fundamental way, aside from not engaging them, I have virtually no say.  It is pay or don’t play.  Or pay or do not receive health care, or…  Both of these societal entities take my money, yet I am to consider the one I actually vote on as not being the one with my interest?  Clever denial and diversion.

{As an example of all the libertarian like proclamations of getting rid of imposed taxes for many instances, through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, the tax burden has been being shifted over recent decades; from the wealthy, who among other things; use, abuse, and manipulate The Commons many times over the common folk, to the common folk, who suffer the consequence and pick up more of the tab.  That— taking what I earned abstraction ruse, away from responsibilities and accountability, to the religion of detached individualism.  Again.  A clever denial and turf battle played out at public expense, but not owned up to.}

I believe that throughout history, some people have learned how to manipulate others for their own benefit.  To cover this usage of The Commons, scapegoats and whipping boys must be targeted. Particularly in democracies, attention must be taken away from source causes, and have those felt individual injuries manifesting from exploitation of The Commons be targeted essentially onto those who have not much power.  The equative power of democracy needs to be divided and conquered for the usual societal manipulators to proceed without much blow-back from common awareness.

Critical thinking must be dismantled and its alleged incarnation handed over to various amalgamations of belief and faith, where true reality checking is impaired or even considered evil.  There are ready and willing ideologies that promote these diversions of attention and corralling of the will, particularly of its common interest, instead promoting a myopic focus upon the self and its travails, where the whole of Life then becomes its challenge and proving ground.

Here is a kind of Great Denial; where self centeredness is considered both holy cause of redemption and self consuming.  Then this alienated, or separated/detached self, can be sold all manner of explanation as to how the non powerful are actually imposing their failed wills upon the righteously willful.  Notice how much conservatism is actually about preserving the institutions of the conservative haves, and subjugating all the rest that be to second class citizenship or worse.  Us and them become operational truths seeming to be established reality and verified by belief.


We tend to judge others and other cultures by our own values, and tend to feel ours are the true, right, or the only legitimate ones.  This is how “The Other”, a kind of unknown, and so inherently threatening characterization, falls upon many of our fellow humans.  Dropped on them by me.  Covered in this veil of judgement, a kind of ignorance is both instituted, and in effect, worshiped as true, even for some, as God mandated.

All humans, unless perfectly honest, forthright and fair, do this interpersonal condemnation, and at times, even dump it upon themselves by the same standards.  A culture, however, is somewhat like a meal.  We may bite into it and survive for awhile, but we do not necessarily like what we chew, and it is not necessarily fully wholesome.  We may go through life in a kind of starving for self realization state, and be kept there by the powers that be, who may have found a way to use our stress to their advantage.

We may think we are free to know whatever needs be known. For a culture to be self correcting, it would need some way of verifying truthfulness.  Mostly we trust that the true, or accurate information will come to us somehow in a Democracy with a free press.  Yet even that is a broad and foolish assumption.  Do we know how free the press is? as in the information in it and why what is there is there and other information not?  Can we be certain that our votes are even counted correctly and fairly?  Are you sure?  To make such cognitive dissonance unimportant, we must camouflage or otherwise deny relevance.—Who cares what the human shape allowed to be drawn is anyway? Troublemakers?

But does anythings existence as a human concept mandate its continuance, rendering questioning existentially irrelevant? In an objective and open observation point of view, the liberal notion of cultural relativity is valid only to certain degrees operationally.  Fortunately, to be an honest agent in determining this cultural validity factor that I presume, requires a completely honest and understanding mind, and most of us can be quite confident that we are not the ones to pass fair and just judgement, that is if we look and acknowledge when our confident judgments have been found wrong.  We can, however, render comparative facts from professed belief as legitimate questions of true context.

We allow ourselves sound fundamental questioning, or deny what may well be each of our God (or Life) given right to think for ourselves and so live a life of true merit, instead of imitation merit by external fear based perception.  To not so define truthfulness for oneself, is to live a life of unexamined robotic belief, as if following in the footsteps of the cause of some lemmings deaths, where huge numbers can plunge off a cliff to drown. Why? Cause the herd was pressing them over the precipice unknowingly; a movements assumption.  For humans, belief in truth can be, in result, seemingly suicidal, for not much reason other than acting from our ignorance instead of the better angels of understanding.  This is the trouble with thinking we already know the answer in a living and vibrant context of existence that is in fundamental ways One Thing.


Understanding is the result of knowing context extends, yet knowing requires freedom, not just to question, but to assume freedom to question without that questioning being cast as illegitimate.  In most religion and politics, for instance, this freedom to question is not only discouraged, except where advantageous for belief reinforcement, but often assumed to be the tool of evil; or that which seeks to destroy our view of an institution.  I say that, for real Truth, true reality, is never actually destroyed or erased, but our opinions and beliefs about it can be.  We fear change of basic perceptual parameters, for they may cast doubt upon ones cosmological assumption, or spiritual ones.–The true human forms shape exist in reality no matter how much authority says it is either wrong, or offensive to society to “allow”.

How many of us could handle all we know being found out to be wrong?  We mostly avoid this perception from our lives, we wish to live our own life right, for perturbing basic logical conceptual assumptions can be emotionally unsettling.  Culture supplies many ways to do this avoidance of truth checking, mostly by shaming questions, or otherwise define them as illegitimate.  Most conservative movements are for damming critical thought understanding, and insisting that only their own way or view is the true one. These usually try to make their own belief constructs appear as the only legitimate ones.  Questioning with a free and independent spirit is deemed offensive, or dysfunctionally eccentric.

Even communist movements that scorned religion, seek to establish their own kinds of religious like icons, and define fundamental questions as inherently illegitimate or falsely motivated.   We would not know this as true without truthful examination of context.  The words and proclamations can be what one claims them to be, but when the reason as to why the image is cannot be legitimately questioned is not allowed consciously in public without shame; someone is seeking to make unquestionable imagery.  In effect, telling us that religion is the opiate of the masses, as they create their own opiates for the masses.  Shame, blame, denial; claims of heresy and other means of purging questions; these all indicate kinds of manipulation control, not by understanding and its light, but by emotional prejudice and its reliance on darkness–unexamined areas held in confinement.

For all intents and purposes, the battle in heaven is carried out within our own minds, even though the causes fought for may have much outside influence and strategy.  Unfortunate for us, these institutions that claim dominance and preeminence have their own self perpetuating forces operating to contain us, not unlike any viral influence.  Ideas carry out their own potential pathology; expressing into form elements of their presence.  Unless you and I are able and willing to be the cure to the providers of false reality, it will perpetuate itself even as claiming to be the one and the only cure to trouble.

Why if only I did not question, all would be peaceful, so questions are the problem. Can’t you just see that clearly!


Ah! the peaceful bliss of the silent, and, or ignorant mind.

This is the circular reasoning paradigm many institutions insist upon to continue as is unabated by the influence of now.  Blank minds are minds that stand not in ones way.  They do not, however, stand for the way of whole truth or light either.  Blind following is not the meritorious virtue it is often presented as.  Nothing advances in its real presence if it is not allowed to change with the times.  This change seems to be the nature of Life itself; conserving what is true and real while always allowing new expression to fill into new space.  Most ideology does not allow this dynamic truthful connection to Life.  It is then suspect as an element of ignorance, even if shrouded in enlightenment’s garb.

Ignoring Shades of Deception; Ignoring The Whole

Our modern world’s corporate narrative is often taken in as Gospel; although the earths ecosystems may be reeling from pollution, resultant of materialism, environmental exploitation and overpopulation; if gas is cheep, car manufactures, along with oil companies, promote gas guzzling vehicles for their good, and not The Wholes.  This is a natural byproduct of corporatism as an ideological bias;  just as religious or political movements, it will use apparent stress to benefit itself.   They wish us then to covet the larger, safer, faster, bigger vehicle; that is the spun slant for our reality framing to consider.  Questioning the context of its existence however, becomes forbidden.  To make things seem forbidden, shame and ostracism must be tagged to their holding.

Its need in your life is then promoted as an objective of desire, a truth for me, driving the consumption and materialist dependency loop.–Why are you against business succeeding or free choice? = Blamed for questioning whole context as being of any relevance.  Now see how many of these kinds of Thought-terminating cliché’s the conservative movements possess.  The political/economic/ and many religious ones are packed with them, to stop you from thinking objectively.

Corporatism has become a kind of materialistic religion, claiming to make all things right for the individual—if they can pay.  Our culture is full of good advice in this materialistic regard; ones love becomes seemingly connected across it.  I can advice you with all sincerity, to buy the monster truck that is built like a tank and guzzles gas; not because I wish to see how fast the earth can be consumed and laid waste, but to desire for your own safety.  What is wrong with that? Perhaps nothing as long as questioning is denied one way or another.

In this way, subjective context are claimed paramount, as would fit a one for everybody consumer driven expansionist culture living in a cancerous paradigm and denying the consequences. A holistic or inclusive view taking in the rest of the connecting context is not helpful to consumerism as an operational identity in consciousness.  Who in business wants everyone second and more guessing or questioning what is for sale?  Not the sellers!

And so objective reality is subjugated to subjective narrative’s of the quest for the good self actualized life.  Shame those who would suggest otherwise.  In this pursuit; many greedy narratives can be designed and anchored/tagged to the kinds of people who caution us about abusing the environment (implying consequence beyond sale price).  It then becomes about directing questioning away from the objective, and instead, to the subjective, where little proof need be presented.

For some reason, possibly consciously known by leaders, true objectivity must be shamed and blamed, thus becoming not the kind of thing to identify oneself with. — Heaven conquered from within.  If you wonder how so many conservatives can believe in so many outrageous and often contradictory ideas and allegations? They need not consider actual reality, but stay focused in their ideological sight, which is willing to see and believe all manner of insanity, as honest fact–true cause need not be checked by including contra questioning.  They become trapped in their own world of logical association unattached to objective critical analysis.  Confirmation bias may be an organic aspect of conservative myopia.

To test this out; watch the unsubstantiated fact associations chained together on any of the main conservative propaganda platforms.  Attitude and innuendo truly are intended to lead perception to places not requiring objective examination.  And a big YES; we all have what are called conservative and liberal tendencies, just do not acknowledge them if they seem not aligned with our take on things.

It, subjective reality mind framing in a business, does not have to consider the whole when corporate bottom lines are the business models deciding factor.  We, as subjects of and to corporatism, will tend to go along with its narrative, and not question its sanity, nor its pathological and suicidal tendency.  We will draw the given but not acknowledged distortion as the truth, not questioning its own actual motivation, nor its problematic consequence.  Most of us succumbed to external controls this lazy way; by never questioning our context, pretending to be unattached to consequence.  The Great Denial in action.  (Our country has been conducting itself as if business interest are the leading ones, and the individuals a distant second to last place.  This is why I call it corporatism.)

This denial can be operating within us as true and relevant to our survival, as those biases of our political and religious presumed choice, but actually often handed down to us by a seeming  situational  imperative.  The best place for darkness to govern?–right out in the light, appearing to be the same as knowledge.  Those following various forms of darkness (embedded ignorance) will know this, and seek the same out in others to use to their own benefit, no matter how delusional that benefit actually is.

You must decide if political or religious robes are true garments, or those of deception and denial, for if they deny thorough questioning, they likely are the latter.  Your ability to ask fundamental questions will help expose the legitimacy of institution, or their disease.  One thing is certain, deception will come wearing the garments of friendship, love, good advice and care, it must do this to commandeer identity, then anchor it somewhat invisibly to fear.

To Question is The Answer


To not fear question is the answer to perceptual and other problems in cognition; but who holds the key to opening true realities doorway of perception?  This battle in heaven will decide for you which side wins.  Consciousness, that area in which we operationally perceive our world, is under pressure to surrender, to align with the outside and inside realities; either it surrenders to reality and wins, or it surrenders to an ideology and is taken hostage.  It is in our unabashed ability to question where this truth will play out.

The decision favors who or what is actually in control of ones soul; is it rightly ones own spirit connected to the All of Life, or in some definitions to God; or is it ideas and or books given to us that claim to represent the all knowing wisdom of Being that happen to require experts to tell us what things really mean?

You are the warrior in this battle over heaven.  You decide if you stand for light and understanding; or exclusion and seemingly endless explanation, making you a kind of servant to someone else’s thoughts and alleged expertise.  This awareness is achieved by questioning, as the mind was intended as a guide to truth.  For love and belonging to Life to be true, it is necessary to care for the unknown as well as the known.

This is truths dictate; questions must be asked for deeper understanding to be held. Anyone or anything trying to prevent critical thinking out in the objective open, unhindered by bias or presumption, is trying to prevent Light from illuminating.  That example will be most telling, despite the likely denial.

The denial is great; yet reality is always greater, for what is real exist on its own terms and not ours.  To align with It, I must surrender my own illusion, to win what is my true life.  To this ultimately most simple of task; most natural of pursuits; love is the answer.  But don’t believe me; your love is your answer.

True love (for you, or for and of God) is never afraid of question.


(As most always; I will check for, add or subtract words and ideas (sometimes for grammar and spelling) as this post progresses.  Pics.—Some of my photo’s from this week)

Freedom’s Delusion of Grandeur: Plight of The Ego’s Identity

Freedom’s Delusion of Grandeur: Plight of The Ego’s Identity

Politics, religion and economics often allude to freedom, or the free will. Western societies tend to oppose restrictions on freedom, but only a highly conditional freedom, where usually the conceptual parameters of the freedom being considered are rendered a plus or a minus depending on ones circumstances.

When I was a child, I was often in charge of burning up huge leaf piles in our front yard.  I really enjoyed the responsibility; trying to keep safety my number one priority while getting the job done.  Yet these days I would be arrested or cited, and perhaps rightly so, for air pollution. Burning down my neighbors house, or myself, is considered not worth the risk of individual freedom–where others become held accountable for my own actions, by state and municipal interest.  This means the representation of The Commons finds the behavior unacceptable, and I agree.  One “freedom” bites the dust, or goes into the compost bin.

But then if I am not so understanding of my extenuating responsibilities and accountability’s to The Commons; WELL, how dare you tell me what to do, you and your government designed to restrict my freedom (by obvious restrictions on behavior).  Shame and blame on you all! It is so easy not to see the connectivity to my actions when that connectivity seems to make me do things not seeming to represent my instant gratification, or quick solution to a problem I have encountered.  And that is a kind of rub; for we would rather just do what we will in Western cultures, and rather not know of what greater impact my actions and inaction’s may have on The Commons.  In fact; try to get rid of this The Commons idea, except in abstractions, where I am seemingly left to my relative opinion in these matters.

What Connects Freedom

We all seem to have faith in our words, like freedom; that they actually mean something.  We are free to express ourselves, usually, maybe not at times in church or at work, and maybe not to strangers is certain ways. We are told democracy and free choice make us free, including freedom of speech, but we find these have conditions, usually implied and out of sight, like not calling out fire in a crowded theater just for fun. But society decides to deprive some of freedom to vote, even though we claim to have the freedom to vote, or the right, because it believes those deprived do not deserve to vote for one reason or another, often a  punishment.  Again, Freedom, with all its pride and long history of sacrifice, rendered conditional.

We are not free at times, though if asked we would claim to be, overall.  We can be led to assume freedom means certain things and not others, while others can assume freedom does mean those other things.  Freedom is an abstraction; it declares a positive amidst an assumed negative; I claim to be free from something. That something, can very wildly by the minds of those considering what freedom means—-in context and to them.

Now context is another matter, we declare reality is pinned in by certain parameters of consideration. Much political “proof” uses these parameters to spin conception my way, or else someones I disagree with.  We can restrict or expand context by our own intention.  Sure it will rain at my house, absolutely.  But rain today?  That diagnosis is much more specific and restricted. I am no longer free to assume forever, just today.  The context of if and rain has changed.  In my view, many ideas are manipulated in these ways to suit the ideological preference.   Ideology, usually seeks to reproduce itself, and stand alone as truth for those who will buy or not question the explanation.  In that trick; emotion can present “facts” in ad hominem “proof”, when attitude leads the logic’s connective dialectic.

Usually we are not free to make up all of our own words, except with a known context exception, but changing the context around a word can make it seem to be something more specific that I mean.  I want to be free from your meddling in my affairs! Or; I wish I were free from this caste on my leg! Or; I intend to be free from money worries. Freedom becomes the sought after release from stress in the abstract.

Like the air, words belong to a collective, a common thing.  This common thing is sometimes called The Commons.  Most all things in life are derived from commonalities, or communally possessed givens; poems from existing words; inventions from existing ideas, most of my or your genes from humanities gene pool. We are free to ignore our common ground to our peril.  The Commons is effectively the Super Context—my breath is taken in from our common air. Ignore the air or ignore the language, and you will find yourself in dire straights.

I can be mad at anyone who calls these in common things “collective”, if I have one of the anti universal ideologies inserted into my conceptual programing.  If collective or commons has been turned into a socialist or communist ideological tag, just mentioning it can become a Thought-terminating cliché for me. It then is a bias to me, to hear such things called collective; why, you have yours and I have mine.  If I bias to the subjective end of consideration, my ego can better identify reality as being mine—my possession, my God, my stuff, my whatever.  I may have then shrugged off awareness of the collective aspect, The Commons.  If so, I may never give it another thought, and wish others would never bring it up.  My big truck is polluting your air?  Mind your own freak’en business! And so The Commons becomes denied or derided. And I assume I know ‘the kind of people’ who mention collective or commons.

But now, with my subjective identity, if someone comes along and says to me that taxes are taking my money and giving it freely to those who do not deserve help?  The Commons can be quick led into a kind of inferred obvious negative weight.  One that I can then assume I feel, cause I, and most of us, could use more money for something.  If I have clean air, I posses it as far as I am concerned at my house, why should I care if someone else does or does not?  Let them buy their own air filter.

Yet The Commons is effectively The Universe; it is a unity.  If I declare unities not relevant to my thoughts, my thoughts do not actually have the power to exclude the real Universe, but to instead be ignorant about it.  My denial of connection still caries consequence, so then its resulting problems or perception and cognition will be assigned to some imaginary cause.  Perhaps a religious or political one. Oh lets say; You people.

Environments are this way, and society is even this way, and yet by focusing on my background’s rules and expectations, I can be excluding others just as valid, or just a truthful.  I render their image less worthy than mine.  Heck; if I had to buy an air filtration system, why don’t they just get responsible and do the same.  The problem with those people is that they are lazy and want government to do everything for them! This kind of stance boldly ignores that some may not be able to buy one.  Then what is my responsibility to this commonality; what do I care?  The answer is telling to levels of detachment to identity to The Commons, by those led to believe they are somehow outside of it.   Or that it takes care of itself, and does not depend in any way upon me.

-Cutting Up Identity——-The Trouble With You People

We seem stuck with individuals thinking as they will, and so seeming to be free to do good or ill. We see in our world today, that God so often stands in as a kind of abstract idol.  Allegedly monotheistic religions claim their subjective experience of religious narrative as absolute truth. Then, others, with their one God, are false, for this one God could not be so different in human impact and behavior.  These others, with their alien God, become strangers with behavior to reject as not being true.  They become The Other, others who are so different we need not attempt full understanding of the legitimacy of their ways.

This is how much conservatism reacts to inwardly contain followers identity, to shelter it in ideology, and effectively, arrogance or indifference toward others not of their group.  Their religion might say respect all, but rationalizations say the others do not deserve respect unless they become us, otherwise, they seem to represent the bad unknown and undesirable otherness we are attempting to eradicate.  This seems to institute the inevitable conservative turf battles with others as they compete over resource; human and material.

Again in this, The Commons, the generic like unity of all things in existence, is effectively bypassed for what I know and am told to respect or to not respect.  Freedom is again highly conditioned; I am free to believe what I am told by those claiming a-prior awareness of absolute truth, or I am free to digress and go my own way, outside the group paradigm, and into a place seemingly alien to it.  For instance; who says that pantheism is not a kind of One God, only revealed specifically into all things?  —The dictionary? Monotheist? Atheist?

Monotheist will see the danger; the pagan past seems hard to detect if God is in everything, so make Creation seem somehow independent from God; God created it and left it for us, or God no longer wants anything to do with it. However this does leave me and my life’s concerns, so tied into that Creation, as perhaps of no concern to The Creator,  unless I selectively see ways to make God interested in what I am doing here.  But I will thank God for my new car or for helping my sick child, because I do not really know exactly how the Universe is working and how involved God is with my life and its hopes, dreams and realities.

In reality, we find that may monotheist will look upon Creation as delivering signs from God.  The prayed for rain; the prayed for child; the prayed for death of one suffering terminally; the prayed for defeat of a foe; the hoped for outcome. We can very much believe God is involved with the minutia of our lives.  We seem to want God to be so involved; to manipulate The Creations Commons to my own needs and desire.  If I pray for rain, and the neighbor, just as wholesome, prays for dryness to bring in the hay, do I really expect it will be raining at my house and dry at my neighbors?  For many, the answer by default is, Yes.

God will answer the righteous prayers.  But why should God reward me for following orders to achieve desired results? This seems not a freedom of choice, but a barter system of reward and punishment.  Where is the spiritual merit in that?  Yet for all too many, the important thing is actually not to question beliefs, it is to not have questions, rather to act in rote conformity and be rewarded now or later for not engaging my own critical thinking to freely make my own choices.

Travel around this world we live in, and beliefs such as these are scattered everywhere; trust authority concepts and do not think about them, except in ways to validate them.  Again, these conserved notions are much of what human conflict is about; the inability to be present in the present moment with all or faculties available to address Creation as it is.  We are instead, busy forcing our ideas upon it, claiming they are some absolute truth, so reality must in some other way be wrong.  And so come the many varied forms of rationalization, to explain away Gods motives as unquestionably pure, or those of others as unknowable except in the negative of their strangeness, or otherness.

Most human identity is derived from conditioning by whatever hereditary platform I have.  If I am a woman, well in many cultures, the idea of freedom was seldom meant for me.  I am free to be me, obviously, but only so long as I follow the cultural programing.  The Commons, as far as culture is concerned, is saying my role is restricted to certain definite parameters, while men may not be.  Even in the USA, where we claim all kinds of freedom, I can just assume, as commercials do again these days, that the woman can afford to be at home and cleaning the floors while the man is out working, or…

In the name of Freedom, as in the name of God; all manner of perversion and good works are done, while the holistic impacts of our beliefs are ignored or assumed the credit of God.  Yet those who are too other than our currently accepted beliefs, are most likely bizarre and discounted, except in the negative, as an influence in our worlds.  Subjective arrogance, the allusion of abstraction, the mind games of idea manipulation from abstraction to subjective narrative, all these are combining everyday with our and others ignorance to produce many of the “complex” conflict conundrums hounding humankind.  This remains problematic and persistent, as we are led to allow others to do the thinking for us.

My Freedom ignoring Connection will likely lead to extinction; F-C=E.  This is one formula, where I am one of the ingredients, as are you.





I came across a blog post yesterday. It said the threat for totalitarianism is from the left and not the right; BECAUSE the Nazis were socialist! Obviously only liberals can become “socialist”, and so, our authoritarian threat. Point made. Job done. Brilliant?

Now I think history shows that the far left and the far right are equally adept at totalitarianism. The thing about the post was it treated socialism as just one thing;– The old socialist movements of the left. Nationalistic socialism, or entities like the White Peoples Socialist Party (or the Nazi’s!), things not of the left, are instead assumed to be of the left. The corporatism endemic to fascism, or socialism for corporations (corporate/government collusion), something we seemed to be hedging to in the last 8 years, is not THE SOCIALISM the right wing is always shouting about. I think they are deaf to their kinds by all the chanting they do over this, only liberals make bad, presumption.

The same word in something does not make it exactly the same thing in quality, quantity or necessarily effect, nor many other characteristics, only some aspect. All trees are not exactly alike to our human uses. An apple tree gives me an apple to eat, while a redwood tree holds up many an old California house. The tree part is consistent in its aspect, but what each kind does in use is entirely different depending on human intentions. In that, they are not at all exactly the same thing. I know; Duh.

The extreme naiveté with some on the right continues to amaze me. It does allow for an abstracted purity of mistaken belief. Often, just a word or phrase makes things alike, talking points go out to sponge-abled minds. Before we know it, whole ripe fields are waving in the breeze. Newly found truths of enlightenment are being dispensed for the sleeping masses to wake up to. And all from the blurring of an abstract essence of a thing not truly or truthfully matched up with reality… And something stuffed with straw guides possible idea consumers away. Most of use are benefiting from some kind of relative socialism or other.

Oh. I can see why things like science and being really accurate in ones descriptions is so distasteful on the Fixed News and views circuit, which seems the source or instigation of many of these revealed truths. If a scarecrow is thought to scare away desire with its real looking menace, desire may be kept from knowing the truth. That may well be the intention.

The standard corporate model of responsibility and accountability to society is a perfect match for the definition of a psychopath for a reason;– avoiding accountability to The Commons of Life. In other words; Individuals are setting up full intention to preserve getting away with something at others expense. (A documentary segment on Youtube at post bottom) Corporations, lets say on pollution injury, or global warming as examples, have indeed acted as a psychotic would; Believing fully that they are entitled and have a right to do what they do without consequence, then be free to be left alone. So keep government regulation out of my business. Cognitive dissonance assuaging rationalizations (and political) often in the name of abstractions such as freedom and success, help empower this psychosis into patriotic and religious fervor for some.

Now days it seems any government venture of most any kind, except over certain kinds of crime and war, is called looming socialism. Some seem in a near panic over the issue. Government doing anything only government can do; Like stimulate an economy with spending in an emergency; Like taking care of those who fall through the economic and societal cracks (everyday emergencies); Like fix failing infrastructure on a massive scale; Like not letting those who cannot afford it to just stay sick and die, or be driven into poverty.

All this is the slippery slope to the socialism monster. (Odd how if the nation acts in any way like Jesus Christ would, it is considered as some kind of evil. How did what some see as a predominately Christian nation become anti Christ behavior as a whole?) However, in the psychology of the socialist movements on the right; groups ranting over government “give away’s” can end up wanting to give away the government–to themselves.

Just one of the ways those set up as Conservative wannabe’s get fooled by language and reality.

How about this since it seems true:

————The New Corporate Socialism Manifesto————

To Each According to Their Investments

To Those Who Cannot Invest; Serve The Above

Otherwise Get Out of Our Way

This is to be the sole nature of Freedom?

{Wait a Minute! Do not stock dividends and even insurance policies actually redistribute The Wealth?}

I link here to another blog that defines Socialism for the Wealthy, as encouraged by George W Bush.

Socialism for the Wealthy: Bush Economics

Faces of Right Wing Extremism – Google Books Result

by Kathy Marks, Adolfo Caso – 1996 – Political Science – 238 pages
NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA Frank Collins was National Socialist White People’s Party midwest coordinator until he was dismissed by Matt Koehl.

In The Name of Profit






Head of a corporation, Ray Anderson, describes the disassociated netherworld of big business mental paradigm, and how he awoke to a sense of responsibility to the environment (Commons).

The corporate lack of accountability to a public trust, places the corporate responsibility paradigm in perfect alignment with the definition of a psychopath. This corporate leader describes how the callousness of the generalized corporate model, is addressed by a conscious individual. One who just does not go on the way things are since it appears at the moment they can without consequence.

This puts Ray Anderson into a unique class; The consciously responsible corporate CEO, who places the health of the Commons above that of the destructive selfish, suicidal world view of unaccountable self profit.







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


In the political battle over how things look, seem, or otherwise appear, an important aspect of fighting for freedom is being overlooked.

The Equal Rights movement, and Woman’s movement, were not waged by conservatives. It was liberals who had to fight, endure ridicule, be considered malcontents and worse, in their battles against conservative traditionalism, to make freedom and liberty more available to those previously kept off of powers radar. It is often ironic but not surprising, that so often it is conservatism that rides off the suffering of liberalism to reap the benefit.

I had long expected that the first black and or first woman presidential candidate would come on the conservative ticket. The latest example of this phenomenon was Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. We must remember Geraldine Ferraro’s actual rise, thanks directly to the woman’s movement, to be a vice presidential candidate, yet I am speaking of the advantage conservatives take after the expense of the liberal movements.

Stunningly, Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-1990), all but declared the commons, or broad community interest, a figment of imagination. She believed that freedom was best protected by individualism, because it would resist governmental tyranny. That wishful thinking ignores the interconnectedness of life and lives, but suggest individualist such as Hitler, are liberty’s protectorate. It is a study in contradiction, to see these who benefit from fights for liberty, turn around and stab them in the back in their remaining struggles. That is the nature of ideological poisoning, once the circular logic matrix’s are connected up, nothing else, not even facts or statistics, can stand in the way of head nodding assumption.


This is the nature of exploitation strategies, in the modern world, they need to brand their name to the public identity, so I think they are saying they will do nice things for my interest. Best to appropriate, through the media, what I think those are. If liberalism shows a strength, undermine it by using it against it. A block is necessary to create the proper wedge; liberals claim to be for quality of all life, then attach them to “wanting” abortion.

Now the actual complexities on the ground of a woman or girl can be disregarded for a pure abstraction. Nothing like abstractions to motivate the conservative mind once it has received its negative and positive charge. No hard fought battle needed. No arguing for acceptance and plausibility required, in fact, keep all countervailing realities and ambiguities out of purities profound sense of correctness. Ah!  That clear promised land of abstraction.

Purity is achieved in a simple abstract concept, tagged to the image of authority that then is assumed to ony belong to their viewpoint. It is no coincidence that Rovian psychology is to induce doubt into the oppositions strength, then provide some hero on a Trojan white Horse of abstraction to rescue the new existentially stranded, and all thanks to the now fundamentally ignored but still to blame liberal hard work in opening doors.

Seems once liberty opens a new door, there is no guarantee as to what will walk through it. This becomes an exercise in contortion, where liberty’s head is forced to begin to consume its tail. And so the commons, the great connectivity between all things that actually sustains us, is greedily divided up and falsely “conquered” through rampant unchecked individualism (now often in corporate dress).

This achievement made emotionally easy by men and women who have no divine power or authority to know what their knives of separation, sever and destroy, nor awareness apparently, of the consequence or responsibility of their action. Yet away from the mess, and in denial of its creation, this supposedly meritorious individualism pads the self serving delusional ego’s enticed into its self validating rationalizations with the most grand abstraction influence pedaling can conjure. Nothing flatters like what seems a success.

The oft denied global warming is just one of the many examples of how contempt for the commons comes back to haunt conservatives, liberals and everyone else alike. It is the return response from the immutable commons that exist beyond self righteous individualistic identity. Only the liberals knew, or had the courage or honesty to admit, something man induced was going on in truth ahead of time.

This does not stop the consumerism propaganda locomotives machinery that has a magical assumption that all issues will be addressed in time, but it does not know when that time is.  We assume problems, perhaps fatal ones, will be addressed in time by the market, with something else to sell.  Magical assumption just requires an oversight zeitgeist that suggest that behaviors need not necessarily change, but humankind’s innovative spirit will come to the rescue. We race materialism on a speeding train towards a chasm with no bridge, and what is the success response as defined by materialism?; to throw more oil into the engine.

In this, that conservative brand must exercise into constant denial and pointing program, and somehow, someway, make it seem as it was all the fault of liberals actually, as we move from the once upon a time coast to the soon to be inland shore. In fact, the conservatives will look for a way to profit greatly off of this ongoing disaster in the making. It seems the exploitation of opportunistic advantage, is a way of life to some.  They may claim we are mistaken and actually owe them, but no matter what they say, we will pay a price beyond our pocketbooks. We will pay with a planets life.

Oh yeah, I have a usual rote answer; Naysayer. Why are you against success and happiness?


I have lived around Africanized “killer” bees for over a decade. I grow many flowers and have many flowering trees which are often filled with the now ubiquitous Africanized bees. I was stung by one for the first time just the other day, at night. It seems I have become more sensitive to bee, hornet and wasp stings through time.

The once dreaded invasion of Africanized killer bees was not the disaster it was built up to be. They are slightly smaller and darker than regular old honeybees, and pollinate many more things. They are a wee bit more defensive, so when surrounded by them, one generally needs to be a little more cautious. They are mostly a greater threat if you are fairly close to their hive, or someone within a half mile has been perceived to be a threat. Being close to these bees hive is farther away than than being close European honeybees. Unless, as I was living on a farm with honeybee hives, they happen to tune into your number for some reason. Then they are equally aggressive quite far away from center. Eventually this post will be closer to becoming a philosophical piece which should not sting you or cause an allergic reaction, unless you are primed for one.

You, me and US.

The individual and the hive are sown together via the queen bee. It is a curious paradox of the individual initiative, under the queens umbrella will. The bee that stung me was (I believe) hit by a ceiling fan down onto me. It then was cast into a defensive mode and could not help but sting me.

I am not like some people when it comes to the why. When some things happen you may hear; “Everything happens for a reason!” However, the reason implied is often vague; perhaps suggesting a divine reason such as a moral values lesson. It is notable the lack of definition that usually follows this statement in my experience.

But straight forward cause and effect? I’m for that one. It does not necessarily exclude the former, but an available rational answer is often at hand. The ‘it happened for a reason’ crowd, often seems to be hinting at their philosophical or religious world view. They personally know this “reason” truth, while your ambiguity or questioning is seen as being lost or ungrounded. It is kinda like saying; Well the sun is overhead at noon, you who knows not cause and effect. What would be the issue or the lesson of a fact based inherently redundant expression otherwise? Anyway.

Minding the Matter

We know the human mind does influence matter by the actions we take. We also know fairly certainly, that ones attitude effects outcomes as well. We need not necessarily jump into the metaphysical bus to come to this conclusion. Humans do tend to get the results they are looking for, perhaps not consciously, but in their basic assumptions or attitude of life. We can also interpret the world and events through our ideas of cause and effect and reach any number of conclusions, not scientific necessarily, but by the impression of our lens on life.

As a volunteer for restorative justice groups, I get to experience some peoples attitudes towards life that seem to be beyond their awareness. (I suggest we all have some unawareness of our motivations at times). They do not consciously know why they do what they do, nor that they could behave differently, merely by becoming aware of their own biases in perception, then choosing to be different. I also observe these tendencies in my own life, and believe that the vast majority of us do not always know why we do what we do, but we might think; It is what I always do. Or. “That’s the way I am.” Implying I am unchangeable. Indeed, some even think to question oneself is a basic sign of weakness, rather than strength.

We are set up in more ways than one to both, serve others interest unknowingly, as well as work against our own deeper interest, simply because of our own self ignorance and the patterns of action-reaction we have learned. Likely these were modeled by someone influential and not just invented. This introduces an obvious problematic scheme into the relationship equation; we tend to believe we are more honest overall, than many others we come to know. And conversely, we may feel ourselves lacking compared to others in some ways, even envying, resenting or feeling in ways intimidated by those who seem to “have it more together”. Many guru’s represent this sort of yearning for advancement, seekers of knowing Life and Being may have. Overall, religions are constructed to seem to poses such a knowingness.

With our friends, we tend to ignore these seemingly apparent failings, or find them part of character traits, unless we have a falling out. Then in defense, we may find these once overlooked nuisances or interesting behavioral qualities, loom large as some form of deception, or serious personal failings. We can become quite good at analyzing the qualities of others, both positive and negative, yet have only vague notions of our own. I tend to have some awareness of my strengths and failings through time by results, but I may chose to value them differently depending on my mood.

Those invisible to us lenses.

I often hear people giving life a specific religious tag for the very same feeling and experiences I have. Their lens adjustment of interpretation is their belief in their brand of cause and effect. I tend to believe that there is much more than I know, for ostensibly spiritual “reasons”, however, I do not require the specific religious “tag line” to quantify it. I hardly think we know all there is to know about life and being, and am not willing to sacrifice my acceptance of this likelihood of clear reception for conceptualized tag-frames that can actually color and distort my experience of life. In that sense, my religion, my belief system, is to avoid too many fingerprints of preconception by  religions or ideologies cast on my lens. This is a sacred thing to me, and not the lack of belief or faith in that which is greater. Those who have faith in and believe as I do, may well be tagged with being non believers, agnostic or atheistic by the unknowing of the nature of this beliefs cause.

The vast majority of us have a default philosophy. It is usually relative to our upbringing; the kinds of ideas we learned and the kinds of culture we individually grow up in. This is a sort of unconscious guidance. We go to a church, or believe in a God in a certain way because we have learned to. Not necessarily that we have freely decide to. Likewise, other belief systems are inserted into consciousness by other interest. Politics may have been handed down to us by our parents. We are “imprinted” in many ways like this.

We might later on decide that some primary idea of merit has us switch “sides” to a differing view because we feel it is more beneficial to our view on life. Regardless, these beliefs can still be highly subjective and perhaps overtly wrong to our life, but we may not see the forest for the trees we plant in front of our view. The life unexamined, may well be the wrong life lived.

The Ceiling Fan

Often our sense of being, even of necessities of survival, can be hit with a notion or a perception that acts as that whack to the self of a ceiling fan blade. We can lash out in all honesty and just cause, and still remain quite wrong. Just as the bee that stung me, religion and politics, most conceptually trapped ideologies, find that outside their own box, “alien” ideas are a direct and immanent threat. When in fact they may not be that at all to a true self. They may even be the effect of something more honest and containing the enhanced truth of higher awareness. Yet in colored by lens perception, they are large, dark to the core, and threatening survival itself.

Without an objective sense of cause and effect. Without a granting of the dignity of existence to the unknown. Without the permission to question my own beliefs and submit to a higher cause. I can be both believing I am honest, faithful and serving the truth of life, when I am in fact doing the opposite in fundamental ways.

Essentials to understanding this dichotomy of being, is that permission to question all things to prove themselves truly real. In that I must bend my will to the truth of Universal Being, the unshakable Laws of Life. What are the obstacles then, preventing me from not being misguided by the ceiling fans and other diversions in the environment that I assume are causing dissonance? What instead of this primal pursuit into knowledge, is telling me not to question and get to know life intimately, up close and personal, with all its nuance filled pathways and ambiguous explorations into differing colors of the rainbow? Which prestablished conceptions do not allow my own investigations into beingness and deeper purpose meanings to Life and Being?

The invisible obvious balance pointing to Union

Humankind has created many apparently competing assumptions regarding interpretation of life. Some see religious based testing of purity as a final truth of a life. Others see a basic decency and honesty as their core value, with the ends being not a primary concern. Still others see life as another sort of extreme play out of competition itself. The individual is then, in this self centered view, allowed to do whatever it can get away with doing and “enjoying”. Enjoyment is perceived as a penultimate result of successful living. The proof of this “fact” is in the self centered pudding; hedonism is seen as a kind of final fulfillment of the self, a self apparently on its own to get what it wants and enjoy what it gets. The modern world has combinations of these kinds of views sown into societies cultural quilts.

Some are rewarded by suffering and serving without self gain (that love and caring is seen and felt as the “gain” in and of itself). Others do a bit of both. And certainly some of us want all we can get, “within reason” often conditionalized to our apparent station in life, so we plan on how to achieve a list of these getting’s to hopefully fulfil our life.

These folks have a basic optimism, as the prior groups may well have, and see a ladder to success, where one gets to enjoy ones getting on the rungs of the ladder, hopefully moving us upward. Many who feel for some reason socially or institutionally trapped, can have quite a feeling of being held back, and resenting that position seemingly imposed upon them by doings other than their own. Their basic human optimism can be quite tainted by this seemingly human caused condition appearing to ignore them and their dreams.

The millions who play the lottery are likely looking to quick jump to the top of their hypothetical dream life ladder. They want that “good life” “free from worry” (an illusion in most mindsets), and they may well want to spread some of their good luck to family and friends, expanding their winning ground and sense of self, or at least self interest. This suggest we are under economic stress, and a kind of ego fulfillment stress or sense of endemic lack. It also suggest we wish our situation was different in fundamental ways, but adapt as best we can to what we have overall.

There seems to be definite universal qualities to being human, and we tend to have a basic same list of stress and challenges to face individually. It is my sense that we are under one invisible Queen like rule. Some may call this rule Gods will, Spirit, or even Gaia, but whatever this overarching organizing principle is, I seriously doubt that it is actually for selfish, self centered self achievement, or a list centered self actualization’s. Humankind not only has diseases built into its genome for survival reasons, but we can assume that personality types and individual characteristics, though perhaps seeming surely negative, may have overarching positive reasons for being conserved as well. If one believes in a logical and rational universe, as opposed to an existential fear and question fest covered with ritualized behaviors to carry through the day with sufficient mystification and domination undertows.

Missing the boat for all the life preservers floating around.

I contend that we are all in this together more than it appears most of us realize. Do we realize that high intelligence needs to be balanced in humanity by “lower” intelligence, the latter often indicating an unrecognized form of specific high intelligence into other matters? These individual gifts or curses are all for the well being of us all. If this idea is correct, our monetary value system, as well as work (value placed on individual life consciousness) value system, is highly mistaken and corrupted.

We have, in effect, divided ourselves up in many fundamental yet false ways, leaving a kind of supermarket of ceiling fans positioned to hit certain segments of our fellow beings down repeatedly. We also appear to disavow any realization of this continuity and balance of human union, but instead insert many moral or other value tags to explain the need for the continuance of the apparent judgemental disconnections and hierarchical value assessments.

The modern world has gone so far as to propose the assumption, that the collateral damage caused by what may well be an extinction machinery embedded with rampant unaccountable individualism, is a good outworking into progress for modern precepts, these being just and right by all the good stuff. Materialism has these sown up in the modern world, and many of the reactions to materialism lack of apparent guiding Supreme “Soul”, validate many religions into their purging of attempts at objective reasoning with its truly empowered critical thinking abilities in the individual. The very creative Life mechanisms humankind relies on to fulfill its needs.


The fundamental assumption at question in these words is; What is the consequence of not recognizing the fundamental ordering principles occurring in spacetime? We notice that humankind seems to acknowledge during most of its history some greater Being or Center or Source to Life. I contend that we all have the sensor for this connection in love and the purpose that comes with caring for all things great and small. In many societies, cultures, but especially the modern western world view, a kind of predatory invention has become more refined. It is a machinery without a conscious captain. The captain is the self centered world view and order being imposed upon humankind.

We are taught from our earliest days, to submit to external authority, and to submit to the wills of those beyond us, merely because we are vulnerable. While some of this vulnerability is indeed true, particularly in youth, the concept goes on to permeated and mutate across the fields of human relationships. It has gotten to the equivalent of the might makes right extreme prejudice; that simply possessing more entitles one to take and have more. This is dominator and predatory philosophy. It is as if the bees in the hive decide on their own, to do whatever they heck they want. Never realizing that if the Queen is not returned to, if Center or Source is not recognized as the organizing principle, the hive itself will degenerate. The bees themselves, flying right into the blades of conflict and extinction.

The notions of individual freedom have become divorced from individual responsibilities to the Whole of Life. They are running rampant into corrupt associations of often highly dysfunctional dominator consciousness. Consciousness that have their own sense of Queen like grandeur, without any universal right to so act. To the degree we continue to follow these dysfunctional leaders of separation and alienation from the Whole, humankind will continue to push the earth to the breaking point of its ability to contain counter reality consciousness.

We are in this Garden of Eden called earth, but also called Life and Being. Some take those whispers they hear as their own self enlightenment to take, get and have whatever they can keep for themselves and their “own”. This is being as God, being as the Queen bee. It is fundamentally delusional, for actually you are a member of the one and only human hive.

Quite like bees, we must follow the landmarks and the light source back home.