Posts Tagged ‘propaganda’

How divided is America?

11 July 2016

The on-screen news ticker in our mess hall (known to others as the “break room” or the “auditorium”) proclaimed today (among many other things) that Obama had said something about the US not being that divided.

The actual quote, from a video of a 9 July press conference in Poland was, “I firmly believe that America is NOT as divided as some have suggested.”
(The US President, by long tradition, refers to US citizens as “Americans” and the US as “America.”)

So, I thought, how divided is America?

I went about looking up some opinion poll results that might tell me something about this. Most of the polls I found are not that current. Apparently it still takes a good bit of time to create, organize, carry out and report on a large poll across a country or a planet. The sample has to be adequately randomized and all that…

Before I give you any figures, let’s go over some theory.

I suppose that most sociologists think that a person’s opinion about something is determined mostly by 1) his training and education and 2) a set of shared qualities often spoken of as “human nature.”

Point 1 is important without question. But what is point 2, really? You’ll have to figure out the Psychology explanations for yourself. My own study of church materials, though, bears mentioning. An individual, as you may be already aware, is a spiritual being. We can suppose that this being started out totally free to be, do and have anything it wanted. What we have today in “human nature” is the result of trillions of years of experience living with other beings, never totally aware of what they were or what we are. Humans find themselves today on a scale they are more or less free to move up or down on. This scale was derived from observation, not dogma. It is workable when used to predict behavior and attitudes.

Take for example political attitudes. High on the scale a being dislikes controlling others. Just below that we get a “Liberal.” And only a bit further down we have a “Conservative.” By the time a person starts to get really bored, his sense of politics begins to fall out, too. And a contentious person just likes to fight. At this point the being is rejecting anything most of us would call “politics” or a “political philosophy.”

But a being must move further down the scale to become a Fascist, or desire to operate as an insurgent, as the “Communist” has done.

When I speak of “suppression” I am referring in particular to one person or group trying to push another person or group DOWN this scale.

Most of us were raised with a “liberal” education. The majority of us fell lower subsequently, seeing Liberal values as ideals to be worked for. Democracy is seen as a safe, sensible approach to achieving those ideals. However, you have to fight for democracy! Or, do you really have to enforce it? Or, perhaps, trick people into accepting it?

All these attitudes and influences went into the creation and subsequent marketing of our “global government” the United Nations. Included in the marketing plan for this body was a document entitled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was unveiled 10 December of 1948 in Paris. It is embraced by my church, as the right to worship freely is included in it.

The concept of human rights is not, strictly, “Liberal.” As the history of the subject reflects, human rights can be seen as much as a sensible approach than as pie-in-the-sky idealism. Cyrus the Great – 539 BC – is noted as an early proponent of this approach. However, Cyrus was, first and foremost, an emperor. And, strictly speaking, his empire only lasted 200 years. You can earn the respect of vast populations by respecting them. At least the Emperor should be able to afford to do this!

Be all that as it may, the attitude surveys I found deal mostly with the most basic human rights. These include the old Liberal rights of thought, speech and worship and the newer “social welfare” rights to food, clothing, shelter, health care, education. It should be noted here that Public Education, and many of these other “humanitarian” programs, are not ancient traditions in most lands of Earth. But on Earth, strong central governments are also a rather recent development, made possible in part by technological progress in fields like communication, transport, agriculture, medicine – oh – and, war.

The bell curve of the scale

Does the distribution of levels on earth actually fit a “bell” shaped distribution? I have no firm data on this. But imagine for a moment that you were totally free to move around on this scale as you wished and to confront or experience life at a level that seemed the most appropriate at the time. Where on the scale would you spend most of your time? At the middle, always fighting? Perhaps down below that a bit, in pain? Or above the middle a bit, bored?

Think of all the people you know that spend most of their time somewhere between pain and boredom. Could be quite a few. This even includes the angry Fascist.

It has been stated in the materials I have studied that about 2.5% of the population manage to secretly hang out around below fascism as, basically, insurgents or various types of criminals. It would be charitable to put the bulk of the population as high as the Conservative, but in the reasonably calm situation of answering opinion poll questions, we can imagine many would try their best to assume that viewpoint, or higher, up into Liberalism, if their education demanded it.

But you can see the problem with these polls, and with Presidential statements regarding “divisions.” Sufficient suppression can plunge a nation down into hatred and war. Sufficient relief can allow it to surge up into a peaceful Liberalism. But real education about real life could in theory stabilize a nation at a high level that it could not be pushed down from. In these polls concerning attitudes, people are not much divided, though their ideas display a range from Liberal on down. In polls concerning things that are theoretically provable certainties, we often see more even splits. Thus, the suppression of the truth has left in question facts that should be totally knowable. This is troubling, as people need certainty, and if the certainty of something is not plain to the face, beliefs and propaganda will be used to fill in the blank spots.

The Polls

Pew (Pew Research Center) has a project called the Religious Landscape Study. Data points for this study exist for 2007 and 2014. The results for 2014 were published late in 2015.

The Council on Foreign Relations must employ a lot of researchers, because it has published reports on various global studies concerning attitudes on human rights, among other issues. The latest reports I found date from December of 2011.

I fill in some odd bits from other sources.


What we see from these studies is a consistent percentage spread across related issues.

Support for the traditional human rights hovers around 3/4 of those polled, both US and global.

It goes way down for freedom of the press. The press is notorious for its misbehavior. When the question is reworded to ask about the freedom of the press “to report the news truthfully,” support for this concept goes up to 70% in the US, with a low of 41% in India, where “truth” and “the press” are probably seen by most as opposites.

Support for the “socialistic” or “nanny state” human rights of more modern times shows a bit more variation in societies. We can see education and propaganda at work here.

In China 98% support the right to a basic education, with similar numbers for health care and food.

In the US, 83% supported government responsibility for basic education, 77% health care, 74% food and 70% supported government responsibility for taking care of the poor.

These are still large majorities – you could almost say, consensus for all the basic human rights.

Similar support for “Liberal/Democratic” values are seen for questions asking about “equal treatment.”

From the Pew Religions Landscape Study, for example, we find 70% of religious people agreeing that all religions should be tolerated.

Beliefs about “fact”

Now let’s swing over into the subject of belief, and in particular, belief about how things “really are.” We know for a fact (not surveyed, though) that it’s often hard to discern basic, underlying cause. If the cause of an event or situation is a criminal that wants to keep itself a secret, it may very well be successful in doing so.

Spiritual and mental technologies are beginning to get around those old barriers of perception limitations and uncertainty. But most people still rely on belief, or “someone who knows” for the last word on many “facts.” The Bible, for example, remains a very widely-read book! And it’s not even easy to read (at least I don’t think so).

90% of US adults say they believe in God. That is an amazing consensus from such a diverse country! But of course, by most counts this one doesn’t matter, because this is entirely a question of faith. The implication, though, is that if science or my favorite expert doesn’t have an answer, I’ll take God’s answer.

Here’s an interesting question they asked: Do you feel a deep sense of wonder about the universe? 46% said Yes in the most recent study. What about the others?

Evolutionism versus Creationism was covered in this study, but not well. This is a subject that should be, at some point, 100% knowable. At some point. About 60% are convinced that “humans” have evolved over time, but only a third of US adults totally believe that Darwinian Natural Selection explains those changes. (A testimony to how bad a theory it is!)

A more recent poll conducted by Ipsos (a European marketing research company) and released on Monday, June 29, 2015 states: 56% of Americans believe UFOs are real. Good; that only leaves 44% to go. 79% believe life on other planets is plausible. But that’s a terribly-worded question. Same figures as above for Evolution.

The accuracy of the survey is estimated to be +/- 3.5%.

Public Policy Polling did a “Conspiracy Theory Poll,” results released April 2, 2013. This is only covers US voters. Poorly-worded questions, but:

37% think global warming is a hoax.
21% believe there was a cover-up of the UFO crash at Roswell (an absolute certain fact). This one shows how well certain groups have been able to keep the lid on this data.
44% think Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq (another total fact).
And 25% of US voters still think Oswald acted alone in killing JFK. For all intents and purposes it has been demonstrated that Oswald didn’t even point a gun at the President that day. But the US population is almost evenly divided on this question of fact, per this poll.

So you see that we are divided about facts that should be provable, but have not yet, in many’s eyes, been proven, while we are united in our desire for peace, tolerance, and taking responsibility for those less fortunate.

Where we are really being divided is in our perception of the truth. Suppression has failed almost totally to educate us out of our basic humanity. Though we are told every day that we are just animals, most people around the world believe we were created by the Divine, and probably always will believe so.

Where suppression on earth is working is in disconnecting us from factual data that should make certain truths quite obvious. Amazingly, many have connected with that data anyway.

Obama said nothing profound two days ago. But oh, has he failed to tell us so much that we really do deserve to know! Thus, he will be perceived by many as a liar. Better alive than truthful? I guess each must make that decision for themselves. I hope it is clear what side of that question I favor.

The Myth of Progress

6 September 2012

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
Adam Smith – Scottish propagansist, died 1790. From his book …The Wealth of Nations.

We are all familiar, I trust, with the paradigm of “progress.” In this case I am thinking, in particular, to the concept of economic growth based on mechanization of both capital and labor.

History tells us that the idea surfaced as part of a period known as “The Enlightenment” which started around 1650 and seems to have been an attempt by Western power brokers to enlist the intellectuals of the time to re-frame their propaganda in terms of “pure reason” as opposed to tradition, faith or revelation. This implicitly tells us that tradition, faith and revelation were being tossed out as valid sources of political or economic power – and knowledge.

The first attempt to “rationalize” human conduct, and the power brokers’ new paradigm of “progress” was a concept usually termed by the intellectuals “enlightened self-interest.” This was proposed to be the most obvious motivation of the human being, and the vital force behind the implementation of “new” technologies like steam engines and the division of labor (factories).

Globalization presumes sustained economic growth. Otherwise, the process loses its economic benefits and political support.
Paul Samuelson – American liberal economist, died 2009.

The paradigm of “progress (economic growth)” is being sold to the public on the basis that it will result in personal benefits to them (per the doctrine of enlightened self-interest). But it relies on intense consumerism, constant (but superficial) innovation, and empty propaganda to drive it, and those activities aren’t sustainable.

Say a being, or group of beings, wants a universe to play in. They go about creating one. And then they have it. Or do they? One amongst them somehow convinces most of the others that this universe isn’t good enough. That they shouldn’t be content with it. If this tactic works, everyone gets busy “improving” their playground, instead of playing in it.

Maybe they have convinced themselves that this new activity is “fun.” But if one of them slacks off and tells the others, “Hey I just want to play for a while,” he will be rejected by the others, won’t he? So what do you have now? A playground, or a prison?

Discontent is the first necessity of progress.
Thomas A. Edison

Take a single individual. He wants a house to protect him from the weather. So he builds one. And now he has it. But someone comes along and convinces him that this house is not good enough. The furniture looks old-fashioned. He should really add a porch. He needs to expand his garage. His appliances use too much energy and need to be replaced. He really needs a TV in every room. And then he needs to change them all to flat screens. And then he needs to change all those to high definition. And then he needs to add a stereo sound system. And then he needs to change that into surround sound. And by the way, he now needs a new car that looks cool and gets better mileage because it’s controlled by a computer.

So he takes all his “old” stuff and puts it in his attic, so there is room for his new stuff. Then he expands his attic so it can hold more old stuff. And he puts more old stuff in it, so he can get more new new stuff.

Then one day he is sitting peacefully in his beautiful house watching 5 TVs at the same time, while playing two video games and multitasking for his two jobs using his new fiber optic internet connection when he hears a creak, then a crack, then a crash. And before he knows it, he has been buried alive by the contents of his attic. May he rest in peace.

Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.
H. L. Mencken – American writer and humorist, died 1956.

Progress, or Death?

Is this real progress? Or is this a kind of hectic suicide?

What is missing in this paradigm?

Here is one way to look at what is missing: The concept of completing a cycle of action.

When something is DONE, you can stop doing it and move on to something else! Novel concept?

If you need an environment, build one. Then stop! It’s DONE. Now move on to using that environment for whatever you built it for. Finished doing that? Good! Now you can think up a new game and play that for a while.

Progress may have been all right once, but it went on too long;
Ogden Nash – 1959 (from a poem)

Our current paradigm of “progress” traps us in the “start (create)” portion of the cycle. And we just keep creating stuff. Over and over and over. Creating more and more and more stuff.

What is one of the biggest challenges of modern industrial societies? TRASH!

Why do we throw away the things we make after using them for, like a year or maybe two? Most things we make will last for anything from a few years to several lifetimes if you maintain them. So why are we so bent on throwing things away? Doesn’t it seem a little crazy to you?

What we have is a “civilization” that refuses to acknowledge the completion of cycles of action. It worships at the altar of “start!”

This can only work, with physical objects, if you are just as good at un-creating things as you are at creating things. Oops. They don’t teach that in school!

The greatest enemy of progress is not stagnation, but false progress.
Sydney J. Harris – American journalist, died 1986

True progress

There IS a workable paradigm of progress. But it does not apply to physical growth. It’s not that physical progress is never appropriate. It’s just that it needs to be balanced.

The key to growth is the introduction of higher dimensions of consciousness into our awareness.
Lao Tzu

There IS something that beings can “grow” to their hearts’ content: Ability.

You can never have enough ability. You can work on an ability for lifetimes, and still find ways to improve it. For those who want a game that never ends, this is your game. The game of growing ability. In this game lies true progress.

Ability includes the ability to un-create and re-create at will. These are abilities we have lost that need to be regained. These are abilities we need in order to free ourselves from the prison of “progress” in the physical world.

The best road to progress is freedom’s road.
John F. Kennedy

Most quotes courtesy of

My take on Aurora

26 July 2012

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
“The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.”
“It is not truth that matters, but victory”
attributed to Adolph Hitler
“…the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
attributed to Joseph Goebbels

I have to go on record with my take on what happened in Aurora Colorado:

  1. This event was planned by more than one person.
  2. That real planner and perpetrator was, more than likely, not the one that was arrested.
  3. The investigators on the ground, up to a certain level, are almost certainly being misled.
  4. It goes without saying that the mainstream media is simply publishing what it is being told to publish about this event. (So far, I have seen only one commentator (Fox Cincinnati) question this story.)
  5. Important evidence pointing to these conclusions has been published by news sources, but is not being discussed.

The above points are true of almost every false flag operation that we have witnessed in this lifetime or in any previous lifetime. If an event is identified as false flag, you can assume that these points probably hold true for that event.

I quoted the Nazis because they were masters at this, and bragged openly about it. That does not mean that you have to be a Nazi to stage a false flag event.

Some details on this particular event:

  • There is CLEAR evidence of a stabbing outside the theater exit door. This evidence is not being discussed. See this Time Newsfeed.
  • There is also clear evidence that a gas mask was discarded by someone fleeing the scene (same link). Not being discussed.
  • There is witness testimony recorded on news videos suggesting the shooter had at least one accomplice.
  • There is the obvious point that an unemployed neuroscience student would not be able to afford the gear used for this operation, nor would he know how to use it. Thus, the elaborate booby traps in his apartment were probably constructed by someone else. It is also likely that he himself did not fire the shots.
  • A tentative scenario for the event is that Holmes was in the theater when the movie started and got a call to let the perpetrator in. He then probably went outside and put on gear to match what the perpetrator was wearing. The perpetrator then did the shooting and grabbed a child in case he needed a hostage. He then escaped through the exit, and dropped a rifle, ran farther, then decided to stab and drop his hostage, then ran farther and decided to discard his gas mask, and then succeeded to escape to a waiting car (accomplice three?). The child likely died from massive bleeding as he or she tried to run back into the theater. Holmes, meanwhile, was sitting in his car with his “disguise” on, waiting to be arrested.
  • This scenario was pieced together by a somewhat morbidly-inclined YouTube video maker who goes by “Thomas Brinkley.”

    By all appearances, he has also studied 911 quite a bit and has concluded, as so many others have, that it, too was a false flag event and that the accused were all patsies with little or no involvement in perpetrating the incident.

    If you are curious as to who is actually behind these events and what motivates them, then I sympathize. I wish I knew, too.