We are witnessing right now how a religion gets started with the current hysteria by the radical alt left over the election of Donald Trump, and how beliefs are formulated, so that eventually many people in a society believe a lie. Like a virus, the false belief infects various members of a populace until it takes on a life of its own. Like many memes, there is usually am element of truth to it, because without that, it would be difficult to spread the meme, Usually the believers are eager to believe because of a perceived benefit to hold the belief being spread around.
So that I don't offend anyone, let me use Scientology as an example. These idiots believe a science fiction writer named L. Ron Hubbard who talked about an alien race populating the earth over a billion years ago and what he calls "thetans" inhabit the human body. Like other religions, L Ron Hubbard allegedly got a revelation. There are at least 25,000 firm believers and the IRS agreed it was a religion and they now now buy buildings all over the world tax free. Mormonism believes that a known huckster named Joseph Smith was shown the whereabouts of inscribed gold plates by a angel named Moroni. There are almost 15 million humans who believe this crap.
In both cases, there was a influential and persuasive individual with fervor who convinced other people of his beliefs and they went around with the same fervor and convinced a few others until it became like a snowball rolling downhill. five people convinced another 5 and it became 25, and those 25 convinced 25 others and it became 125 and those 125 became 15,625, and so on. In order to be convinced of the lie, there has to be something in it for the individual to make the lie worthwhile and comforting to believe in. Otherwise, the lie won't be believed and would just fade away rapidly to never be heard again.
Fast forward to modern times and we will see humans have not changed. The populace lost a presidential candidate that many saw as taking care of them with things such as free college, better pay for women (a lie), health care for all, fairness (rich people get their money confiscated). Their own personal savior was in effect killed right before their eyes. The person that was going to help them was suddenly taken away, and they were left wandering and wondering and very angry that the devil would do this to them. Where would their safety net be now? How would they be handle personal responsibility?
Along comes a rumor based on a hint that Russia may have hacked their candidates emails. Though no real proof and even though these emails showed just how ruthless their own candidate was in consorting with the media, the meme spread that Russia did it. A lady who barely got 1% of the vote challenges the votes in several states and gets millions in donations to do it, and makes a claim that Russia MAY have hacked into the voting machines. No proof. No nothing. Like L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, just CLAIMS! But, they don't stop. They go to their media friends to spread the meme, because in doing so, that gives them the hope of regaining the power and prestige they had ripped from their fingertips.
The media is eager to believe this story and a few fervent believers in liberalism buy into it, and say "Yes. It must be true." and tell others, who tell others, until, like the telephone game, it gets spread by wildfire AS IF true! When the populace who were morose and down trodden because their savior lost hears it, they excitedly imagine that there is renewed hope. They tug on their friends shirt and say something like "Hey, did you hear that Russia wanted Trump to win and did 'something' to change the votes in 35 states that we don't know how they did it, but they did it?" When asked how the current administration could allow something like to happen under their noses, and are told that the recount that had already been done by hand in one state showed Trump to have had MORE votes than they gave him, none of that matters. Their desire to believe is so strong, they toss out all rationality and common sense because the belief that is being passed around is more comforting to them than the real truth.
I feel as if I am witnessing in real time just how Mormonism and Scientolgy began. Powerful, influential people yelling on TV with spitting anger that there is no way the candidate they loved could have lost and it was due to RUSSIA! People who also are upset their candidate lost are saying "Yes, that must be true. I believe it, too. Let's do something to throw that guy out of there who stole the election!" Almost like a witch burning, we are seeing the believers, the ones who were convinced of the lie, with pitch forks and torches running after the "evil" Trump to catch him and burn him at the stake. If they kill him, they get to maintain their beliefs.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Carter and Reagan. Obama and Trump
Quite a few people that may read this never lived through the Carter and Reagan years. Carter was and is a nice man. So is Obama. But they both have this idea that America was an imperialist nation who was responsible for the world's problems and felt there was too much inequality and racism in the world. The economy was ruined when he was in office. Interest rates were 16% and he didn't know what to do about it, or to do about much of anything, for that matter. America at the time had lost respect around the world because they saw Carter as a pacifist and borderline socialist. He thought that Americans in general were greedy and should sacrifice more so that others who had less, could have more. He was aloof. Society at the time mirrored the president, and America was in a malaise.
Along came Reagan, and his first act was to fire the air traffic controllers whose union engaged in strong arm tactics and refused to negotiate. They claimed that airplanes would fall from the sky if anyone was fired. Reagan warned them, and they didn't listen, and he fired them. The liberals were hooting and hollering and warning of disaster, and what occurred instead was that Americans saw they had a leader for a president instead of do nothing follower. They saw a man that was not afraid to make enemies and take charge. They saw a doer who knew that government was not the answer to life's problems, but that individuals were. In short, Reagan put America first.
History is repeating itself. Trump is not even in office and already has promises of bringing jobs to America. Instead of golfing and waiting for something to happen, Trump is using the time honored law of cause and effect and making things happen by just picking up the phone and convincing people that they should look at a better way. Instead of being a globalist and president of the WORLD, Donald Trump, as was Ronald Reagan, is content with being president of the United States. Instead of striving for inclusion and equality for the world, Reagan put Americans first. Trump is doing the same, and letting it be known in no uncertain terms that it is AMERICA first, instead of Muslims, illegals, women, minorities, poor people.
We had formerly middle class workers in farms and factories across the land that lost their jobs due to globalization and the answer for them was a shrug of the shoulders and more concern as to whether or not rioters had the right to burn the American flag because of past injustices or perceived racism while we saw black ball players making millions of dollars a year and a black president was elected twice. We saw jobs being shipped overseas with a president on the golf course proclaiming that we lived in a global world after all, and other countries deserve "fairness" too, as he teed up without a care. Cops being shot for no reason other than black people thought America was racist and again, the president was silent. Rioters overturning cop cars and the man in charge talking about how "demonstrations" are part of Americas past and a good thing.
The malaise and division continues with the alt left, and people such as Van Jones and other alt left liberals getting a voice on major TV shows (I don't call them news stations) saying Trump being elected was a WHITE lashing, and other liberals on TV saying white people were racist if they didn't go along with the liberals claim that certain cabinet picks said off color remarks 35 years ago.
The alt left needs to be marginalized, and for the first time in 8 years this writer is starting to see what a real president of America can do, instead of someone who, like Carter, wants to head the UN. No more will be shamed in having pride in America because we won't have a president who sees himself as someone who has to make other countries happy by taking in their poverty and customs. Immigration will once again be for those who promise to love AMERICA and all it stands for instead of those who want to come here and accuse us Americans of being racist war mongers because white people owned slaves and we went to war and lost our brave soldiers fighting wars for other countries in the past.
America needed a man of action at this point in history to replace the one who just sat back and let things happen. Americans were tired of being called racist, and we need more people slapping down those who insult them with charges of racism if they disagree with their failed policies. Venezuelan citizens supported Hugo Chavez even when the economy was collapsing because he showed the rich people how greedy they were, and took over what they built in the interest of "fairness and equality". We see now in Germany and France what happens with inclusion and equality for all and with no requirements for work and assimilation. In some minds, fairness is when everyone has nothing, and when the achievers like Trump are brought down to where they are.
Along came Reagan, and his first act was to fire the air traffic controllers whose union engaged in strong arm tactics and refused to negotiate. They claimed that airplanes would fall from the sky if anyone was fired. Reagan warned them, and they didn't listen, and he fired them. The liberals were hooting and hollering and warning of disaster, and what occurred instead was that Americans saw they had a leader for a president instead of do nothing follower. They saw a man that was not afraid to make enemies and take charge. They saw a doer who knew that government was not the answer to life's problems, but that individuals were. In short, Reagan put America first.
History is repeating itself. Trump is not even in office and already has promises of bringing jobs to America. Instead of golfing and waiting for something to happen, Trump is using the time honored law of cause and effect and making things happen by just picking up the phone and convincing people that they should look at a better way. Instead of being a globalist and president of the WORLD, Donald Trump, as was Ronald Reagan, is content with being president of the United States. Instead of striving for inclusion and equality for the world, Reagan put Americans first. Trump is doing the same, and letting it be known in no uncertain terms that it is AMERICA first, instead of Muslims, illegals, women, minorities, poor people.
We had formerly middle class workers in farms and factories across the land that lost their jobs due to globalization and the answer for them was a shrug of the shoulders and more concern as to whether or not rioters had the right to burn the American flag because of past injustices or perceived racism while we saw black ball players making millions of dollars a year and a black president was elected twice. We saw jobs being shipped overseas with a president on the golf course proclaiming that we lived in a global world after all, and other countries deserve "fairness" too, as he teed up without a care. Cops being shot for no reason other than black people thought America was racist and again, the president was silent. Rioters overturning cop cars and the man in charge talking about how "demonstrations" are part of Americas past and a good thing.
The malaise and division continues with the alt left, and people such as Van Jones and other alt left liberals getting a voice on major TV shows (I don't call them news stations) saying Trump being elected was a WHITE lashing, and other liberals on TV saying white people were racist if they didn't go along with the liberals claim that certain cabinet picks said off color remarks 35 years ago.
The alt left needs to be marginalized, and for the first time in 8 years this writer is starting to see what a real president of America can do, instead of someone who, like Carter, wants to head the UN. No more will be shamed in having pride in America because we won't have a president who sees himself as someone who has to make other countries happy by taking in their poverty and customs. Immigration will once again be for those who promise to love AMERICA and all it stands for instead of those who want to come here and accuse us Americans of being racist war mongers because white people owned slaves and we went to war and lost our brave soldiers fighting wars for other countries in the past.
America needed a man of action at this point in history to replace the one who just sat back and let things happen. Americans were tired of being called racist, and we need more people slapping down those who insult them with charges of racism if they disagree with their failed policies. Venezuelan citizens supported Hugo Chavez even when the economy was collapsing because he showed the rich people how greedy they were, and took over what they built in the interest of "fairness and equality". We see now in Germany and France what happens with inclusion and equality for all and with no requirements for work and assimilation. In some minds, fairness is when everyone has nothing, and when the achievers like Trump are brought down to where they are.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Freedom of the press
To balance things out, I watch CNN and MSNBC, and I can't fathom how anyone watching these two "news" stations cannot say they are biased far left wing people. Anderson Cooper was a debate moderator and pretends he is a reporter but is really a commentator. The rest of them on both stations are as left wing as Al Sharpton. In the election, thanks mainly to Julian Assange we saw how John Harwood conspired to "get" Trump, and how questions were given in advance to Hillary, and how these people (I can't call them reporters) portrayed Trump as an evil racist and ignored the lies, condescension and thievery of Hillary. I have no problem with this if these people admit they are biased commentators, as Sean Hannity admits he is. But, they masquerade as unbiased reporters.
This being the case, can anyone tell me WHY Donald Trump has to allow these people to follow him around for four years so that they can do whatever they can to destroy him? These are the same people who would never utter a bad word against Obama or Hillary. What qualifies a group as a "news" organization? Just because they have a television show and CALL it a news station, or run a print newspaper like the LA Times or Washington Post? That gives them the right to be at dinner with Trump, on his plane, at breakfast meetings and when he's in the bathroom?
Should he let in the Huffington Post girls? How about the Enquirer? Maybe Salon or Business Insider (a liberal rag with a deceptive name). My hope is that Trump gives these groups the finger because he knows they will NEVER give him a fair shake, and he tells them that he will direct any comments he has to the people through his Twitter account or various rallies and commentaries through videos he makes that are distributed to the masses online.
It is time to expose these alt left sites for what they are and treat them like they are just liberal blogs and shows pretending they are news organizations.
This being the case, can anyone tell me WHY Donald Trump has to allow these people to follow him around for four years so that they can do whatever they can to destroy him? These are the same people who would never utter a bad word against Obama or Hillary. What qualifies a group as a "news" organization? Just because they have a television show and CALL it a news station, or run a print newspaper like the LA Times or Washington Post? That gives them the right to be at dinner with Trump, on his plane, at breakfast meetings and when he's in the bathroom?
Should he let in the Huffington Post girls? How about the Enquirer? Maybe Salon or Business Insider (a liberal rag with a deceptive name). My hope is that Trump gives these groups the finger because he knows they will NEVER give him a fair shake, and he tells them that he will direct any comments he has to the people through his Twitter account or various rallies and commentaries through videos he makes that are distributed to the masses online.
It is time to expose these alt left sites for what they are and treat them like they are just liberal blogs and shows pretending they are news organizations.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Why we believe what we believe
It is an interesting observation that a person cannot believe that which he thinks is false. It is impossible. For instance. Try to make yourself believe fire isn't hot. It's impossible. Now, try with all your might to believe that Mohammed was a great prophet and that every male admitted to paradise will be given eternal erections and wed 72 wives, all with libidinous sex organs (taken directly from their holy book). While I'm sure this is an intriguing possibility to many males reading this blog, it is highly doubtful that any Christian here, or anyone who is not a devout Muslim, to force their minds to believe this.
With this fact in mind, how should we react to others having different beliefs from ours? Misguided? Wrong? Stupid? Evil? If you stop to think about it, the other side of ANY argument is thinking the very same thing as you are. That is YOU that is misguided, wrong, stupid, or possibly evil. This is why we have such rancor and division among the populace. To a man, and a woman, each one of us believes that we possess the truth, and others are either mistaken, liars, frauds, deceitful, and in the extreme, evil. How can a human be faulted for this when I have just pointed out that no human can hold a belief that he thinks is false? Should you disagree, close your eyes for a minute, click your heals, and try to envision you in paradise with 72 wives. Only the seriously warped mind would open his eyes and say "OK, I believe the Qumran to be the truth since I'm gonna get 72 virgins if I believe!" While this may be a compelling reason to believe, one would do well to ask themselves is this little tidbit wasn't just inserted in their (ahem) holy book to win over the skeptics, as one might suggest with certain bible passages.
With this fact in mind, how should we react to others having different beliefs from ours? Misguided? Wrong? Stupid? Evil? If you stop to think about it, the other side of ANY argument is thinking the very same thing as you are. That is YOU that is misguided, wrong, stupid, or possibly evil. This is why we have such rancor and division among the populace. To a man, and a woman, each one of us believes that we possess the truth, and others are either mistaken, liars, frauds, deceitful, and in the extreme, evil. How can a human be faulted for this when I have just pointed out that no human can hold a belief that he thinks is false? Should you disagree, close your eyes for a minute, click your heals, and try to envision you in paradise with 72 wives. Only the seriously warped mind would open his eyes and say "OK, I believe the Qumran to be the truth since I'm gonna get 72 virgins if I believe!" While this may be a compelling reason to believe, one would do well to ask themselves is this little tidbit wasn't just inserted in their (ahem) holy book to win over the skeptics, as one might suggest with certain bible passages.
When I was very young in Catholic school, I was taught that atheists were bad and evil people. The nuns were very kind, understanding and loving people, and they taught me reading, writing and 'rithmatic, so I had no reason to question their authority. I went along with this "fact" just like it was the same as 2 plus 2. Not only did I, but just about all of America did at the time. "Oh, you're one of those ATHEISTS!!! You're bad and evil and going to hell!" I couldn't and didn't know any better. It was what I was taught. Society at large believed the same thing. As each decade marches on, the United States is becoming less combative to those who are atheists. But, to some, that word alone still makes them cringe. "How could you not believe in "God"? You could go to HELL!", they say.
If you openly said you were an atheist, you would not become a president in today's world. Check to see just how many senators and congressmen openly admit they are non believers. So ingrained into the fabric of humanity that non believers are bad, evil and loathsome is that no one dares admit that they are. This is what I call societal conditioning.
If you openly said you were an atheist, you would not become a president in today's world. Check to see just how many senators and congressmen openly admit they are non believers. So ingrained into the fabric of humanity that non believers are bad, evil and loathsome is that no one dares admit that they are. This is what I call societal conditioning.
Each of these two groups openly and silently question which side has the "truth". Is it the believers that the bible is the word of "God", or is it the atheists who say that there is just no evidence for the bible God that they consider compelling? The more important question, however, is does each side BELIEVE they are right? When you can answer this question with a "YES", you will start to understand that others who believe differently from you are not any of those things. They may be mistaken and wrong, but they are not evil, bad, or stupid.
If we do this with all things in life, we will be in a position to gain a more complete understanding of those with a different view than you may have not only with regard to the ultimate question in life as to "God", but to all areas of life. This gives you the opportunity to hear and understand those who differ strongly with your point of view, and occasionally to have your mind changed from believing what you once believed as a "fact"....... to understanding that what you believed was just an opinion based on information inputted into your brain that was possibly wrong or incomplete. It has been said that an un-examined life is not worth living. I would add that an un-examined belief is not worth holding.
If we do this with all things in life, we will be in a position to gain a more complete understanding of those with a different view than you may have not only with regard to the ultimate question in life as to "God", but to all areas of life. This gives you the opportunity to hear and understand those who differ strongly with your point of view, and occasionally to have your mind changed from believing what you once believed as a "fact"....... to understanding that what you believed was just an opinion based on information inputted into your brain that was possibly wrong or incomplete. It has been said that an un-examined life is not worth living. I would add that an un-examined belief is not worth holding.
Allow me to give an example. Suppose you grew up in a family or society that was taught from birth that homosexuals chose to be that way because they were decadent and just liked to engage in debauchery, and they had a book where their God said it was a heinous activity deserving of killing them? (This is Islam, by the way) To YOU, this becomes the "truth". Hearing something over and over and over again from those whom you love and trust tricks your mind into believing that to be true. How could you know anything else? This is what you were taught. Anytime you as much as heard the word "homosexual" or "atheist", your blood pressure kicked up several notches, you became angry, and you wanted to KILL that person who violated your Gods' wishes. No matter how many studies you were shown that people were born that way, no matter how many times you were told by the actual homosexuals that they preferred the same sex since early childhood would convince you that those people were not decadent evil sinners. Your "truth" is diametrically opposed to the "truth" of those who ARE homosexuals, or who ARE atheists.
Let us now examine the "truth" of which political system is best for mankind as a whole. At the very far end of the scales, we have those who think that humans who don't take care of themselves should die as part of the evolutionary process, (there are VERY few people in this category) and those who think humans should be coddled and taken care of and not have to work, or work very hard, and a compassionate society should tend to their needs. (there are very few people in this category, too)
Which of these belief systems is the "truth"? Is either of them true? Is the person who firmly believes that the individual should be made to strive and suffer and struggle to succeed evil, misguided, wrong or stupid for holding those beliefs, or is the one who thinks humans should be taken care of by government? Is one side more compassionate than the other? If you would say that being taken care of is compassionate, what would you say to those who hold that compassion allows for laziness, slothfulness and underachievement to the detriment of the human soul? Is the real truth at the far end of the scale, or something in between?
Your truth is not my truth, and our "truths" as a race of (fill in the blanks) are not held by all other races. But, for their own comfort and peace, humans will gravitate towards those who are of like minds and thoughts because that provides them solace in "knowing" they are right because those they associate with agree with them. Residing with someone of like mind gives the individual peace from those who hold differing opinions as well as pats on the back that they both agree.
This has gone on since the beginning of time, but humans are getting to witness it in real time today on the internet, whereas in the past the beliefs of their fellow humans could only be known in personal encounters, at work, on the streets, or at other gatherings. Today, we have immediate knowledge of who believes what, and verbal fisticuffs back and forth between each side, both of whom are sure THEY have the "truth". There is a left side and there is a right side. The answer is often somewhere in the middle.
Something to think about when you are positive you have the REAL "truth".
This has gone on since the beginning of time, but humans are getting to witness it in real time today on the internet, whereas in the past the beliefs of their fellow humans could only be known in personal encounters, at work, on the streets, or at other gatherings. Today, we have immediate knowledge of who believes what, and verbal fisticuffs back and forth between each side, both of whom are sure THEY have the "truth". There is a left side and there is a right side. The answer is often somewhere in the middle.
Something to think about when you are positive you have the REAL "truth".
Monday, November 21, 2016
Racism
One way to control and silence those who have a different view than you do is to call that person a racist. If someone is tagged as being a racist, then he can be shunned, ridiculed, marginalized and ostracized as being a bad person. This is done so that those who would endorse or like a person who has been tagged as a racist can also be tagged as a racist just for doing that. In this manner, anyone who would associate with such a person can also be shunned and banished.
Humans live in their own self made bubbles and get to stay inside that protective enclosure if they adhere to certain rules of the community of like minded individuals. Once they veer too far off the group think of those inhabiting the bubble, they are reprimanded. We have seen this most recently with the election where the polls were so wrong that right up until the time the polls opened, the major news reporters were sure Hillary Clinton would win, and this was based on pollsters asking people across America who they would vote for, and getting responses overwhelmingly against Donald Trump. The main reason for this is that the press, which is comprised of well over 80% of people who are liberal and vote Democrat, have succeeded in painting the one who was elected as being a racist. Being tagged with that word is like having a bulls eye on your back and a red dot on your forehead signalling that it is OK for others to treat you like dirt because you are a very bad person, and do not deserve the protection of the herd. You deserve to be scorned and shunned and beat up, as we have seen in the riots on the streets protesting Trump's election. It is instructive to note that the same mainstream media who has painted Trump a racist have downplayed these beatings and give them barely a few words, while extensively covering what they call demonstrations and saying the people have a right to speak out. This sort of thing went on before the election and is the reason the polls were so wrong. People didn't want to be hassled, ridiculed, ostracized, shunned and demeaned for supporting a "racist".
The dictionary definition of racist is "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another." I have never heard Trump suggest this, nor would I make such an assertion. What he has said is that people who are here illegally need to go back. Those people happen to be Hispanic. He has not said that he hates Hispanic people, or that all Hispanic people need to go back to Mexico. But, this is seen by some as being "racist". The press has succeeded in demonizing the man.
When we consider why people do things, it is important to consider the primary reasons for what they do, which is power and control. Those who have that are in a position where they will survive and use their clout to club those who don't agree with them. They don't need the actual club. All they need is the threat of banishment from the protective bubble which their group inhabits and controls. They see outsiders as a threat to their power and control and will fight tooth and nail to keep other beliefs from infecting their group. I liken it to a herd of white sheep who stay together in a circle and will banish a baby black sheep and not let a sheep of a different color enter their herd for fear of infecting the rest. This is why Catholics used to, and possibly still do, not allow a Catholic to marry anyone outside the faith.
This control and power was exhibited ruthlessly in medieval times where the Christians were threatened by the slightest hint of anyone who wasn't like them, or who questioned their beliefs or authority. All it took was someone in the bubble (group of like minded people) to tag someone with the word "witch", and that person was brought before the leaders and an inquisition was held, and the individual was horribly burned at the stake. These were individuals who usually were the stronger females in the towns who were seen as a threat to the leaders and the purity of the group, so they had to be killed.
Society no longer kills off those who would infect the herd. They find other ingenious ways to silence them. They plant stories, tell lies just like in the days of the Inquisitions, and bring the person before the tribunal, which is the mainstream press, who want to maintain their influence and power and the money that goes along with that, and hold the person up at the virtual gallows and say "Here we have a dastardly man who is not like us. He is charged with the heinous crime of racism. He must be killed!" The virtual killing goes on in the press and the crowd is whipped into a frenzy with chants of "BURN him!", while the group hisses and spits as he is led to the fire, thereby saving the herd for another day, and keeping the group leaders in power and control once again of the masses.
Humans live in their own self made bubbles and get to stay inside that protective enclosure if they adhere to certain rules of the community of like minded individuals. Once they veer too far off the group think of those inhabiting the bubble, they are reprimanded. We have seen this most recently with the election where the polls were so wrong that right up until the time the polls opened, the major news reporters were sure Hillary Clinton would win, and this was based on pollsters asking people across America who they would vote for, and getting responses overwhelmingly against Donald Trump. The main reason for this is that the press, which is comprised of well over 80% of people who are liberal and vote Democrat, have succeeded in painting the one who was elected as being a racist. Being tagged with that word is like having a bulls eye on your back and a red dot on your forehead signalling that it is OK for others to treat you like dirt because you are a very bad person, and do not deserve the protection of the herd. You deserve to be scorned and shunned and beat up, as we have seen in the riots on the streets protesting Trump's election. It is instructive to note that the same mainstream media who has painted Trump a racist have downplayed these beatings and give them barely a few words, while extensively covering what they call demonstrations and saying the people have a right to speak out. This sort of thing went on before the election and is the reason the polls were so wrong. People didn't want to be hassled, ridiculed, ostracized, shunned and demeaned for supporting a "racist".
The dictionary definition of racist is "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another." I have never heard Trump suggest this, nor would I make such an assertion. What he has said is that people who are here illegally need to go back. Those people happen to be Hispanic. He has not said that he hates Hispanic people, or that all Hispanic people need to go back to Mexico. But, this is seen by some as being "racist". The press has succeeded in demonizing the man.
When we consider why people do things, it is important to consider the primary reasons for what they do, which is power and control. Those who have that are in a position where they will survive and use their clout to club those who don't agree with them. They don't need the actual club. All they need is the threat of banishment from the protective bubble which their group inhabits and controls. They see outsiders as a threat to their power and control and will fight tooth and nail to keep other beliefs from infecting their group. I liken it to a herd of white sheep who stay together in a circle and will banish a baby black sheep and not let a sheep of a different color enter their herd for fear of infecting the rest. This is why Catholics used to, and possibly still do, not allow a Catholic to marry anyone outside the faith.
This control and power was exhibited ruthlessly in medieval times where the Christians were threatened by the slightest hint of anyone who wasn't like them, or who questioned their beliefs or authority. All it took was someone in the bubble (group of like minded people) to tag someone with the word "witch", and that person was brought before the leaders and an inquisition was held, and the individual was horribly burned at the stake. These were individuals who usually were the stronger females in the towns who were seen as a threat to the leaders and the purity of the group, so they had to be killed.
Society no longer kills off those who would infect the herd. They find other ingenious ways to silence them. They plant stories, tell lies just like in the days of the Inquisitions, and bring the person before the tribunal, which is the mainstream press, who want to maintain their influence and power and the money that goes along with that, and hold the person up at the virtual gallows and say "Here we have a dastardly man who is not like us. He is charged with the heinous crime of racism. He must be killed!" The virtual killing goes on in the press and the crowd is whipped into a frenzy with chants of "BURN him!", while the group hisses and spits as he is led to the fire, thereby saving the herd for another day, and keeping the group leaders in power and control once again of the masses.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Indoctrination
This is my first blog post. If I decide to continue with blogging, the site will be upgraded with the usual bells and whistles that other sites have. In reality, everything you see on the internet is just someone like me typing their thoughts but with all of the pictures and graphics and even videos, it makes it seem all very official and professional. For instance, The Huffington Post started out as a very small blog, and now has many different writers, with not one of them having any thoughts or ideas that are conservative. Which brings me to the subject of this blog post of indoctrination and what is truth.
Suppose you grew up in Iran instead of America, and were told to read the Koran every day for one hour. Your parents carried it around with them and from a very young age you were told that everything in the Koran was the absolute truth, and you were not to question it but to believe it. Not just part of the Koran but every word of it. Along with telling you that fire is hot, water is wet, rocks are hard, you were told that the Koran is the absolute truth, and when or if you ever questioned any of the writings, you were admonished that you should never do that and if you continued, Allah would be extremely upset and might even kill you if you did not believe. Over the years, your brothers and sisters, friends, relatives, co-workers and everyone in your city all spoke in reverent tones about the Koran, and any time someone dared question the "truth" of the writings, no matter how odd the "truth" seemed, such as Allah wanting non believers killed, they were met with scorn, ridicule, or even being killed by their own parents or siblings.
By the time you had reached your teens, you would most likely have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the beliefs given to you by all of those around you, as being the 100% truth. No one you know questions it. For the most part, those who have given you these "truths" have never lied to you about anything else, they love you, they had protected you, they provided for you, and so why would you have any reason to question them about Allah? Since you had been told that the Koran was the truth, when you read it or heard a passage, your mind played a trick on you and made you believe that every sentence you read WAS the truth, and the constant reading and repetition into your brain made it so that you could not sort out the truth from the fiction. If you dared question any of the passages, you knew that in itself was a sin, so you read and believed everything as being the "truth". Over time, you became one of them, the believer in the Koran. Not only that, you believed so much, that you now were the teacher of others, telling anyone around you the "truth" that you have found.
I am mystified and dismayed that humanity can be so gullible and easily swayed. Unless you are a reader who is a devout Muslim, you would have to admit that such a person had indeed been indoctrinated into a belief system. Whenever I try to point this out to someone when it comes to their own belief sets, I get "Oh, THEY can be indoctrinated, but I certainly am not. I have the truth and they don't."
This indoctrination occurs with many things, politics included, and applies equally to all people, including liberals and conservatives. This is one of the reasons the Democrats lost in the most recent election. Almost all of the major news (which are just BIG blogs) were of the same mindset as the Democrat running for offices, and their writers continually wrote about how bad and evil the other side was, while extolling the virtues of the candidate they wanted to win. They only associated with people of their same beliefs, and only wrote about how their belief system was better for the people, and how they were sure to win because they had the "truth" and the other side was bad. The news people (blog writers) had been indoctrinated to believe their opinions were the truth and wrote them as so, and never considered they could be wrong. No evidence or information could convince them they were. Like a Koran believer, their mind wouldn't allow them to consider other views. They all lived in their own little bubble of like believers and imagined that they had the corner on truth because the press was their cheer leader and assured them of victory. They never bothered to listen to opposing views and to consider the wants and needs and hopes and dreams of the people in the small towns across America.
We need to step out of our own little bubbles and examine who and what we are, and why we are what we are. We need to look at other viewpoints, and question what we perceive as the "truth", whether that be religion or politics, and if we believe what we do just because another person does, or even because many other people believe what you have been told to believe. The "truth" to a Muslim is identical to the "truth" of a Christian or Mormon or Scientologist, and we owe it to ourselves to examine our beliefs. The Muslim thinks Christians are complete fools and the Christians "know' that Islam is false. So then, which of these two groups possess the "truth"? You know the answer if you are a Christian. It is that, of course, the OTHER side has been indoctrinated, but you certainly have not been and could not be, because YOU cannot be fooled.
Some things to consider for anyone reading this very first blog, or as The Huffington Post or Washington Post would say..NEWS post.
Suppose you grew up in Iran instead of America, and were told to read the Koran every day for one hour. Your parents carried it around with them and from a very young age you were told that everything in the Koran was the absolute truth, and you were not to question it but to believe it. Not just part of the Koran but every word of it. Along with telling you that fire is hot, water is wet, rocks are hard, you were told that the Koran is the absolute truth, and when or if you ever questioned any of the writings, you were admonished that you should never do that and if you continued, Allah would be extremely upset and might even kill you if you did not believe. Over the years, your brothers and sisters, friends, relatives, co-workers and everyone in your city all spoke in reverent tones about the Koran, and any time someone dared question the "truth" of the writings, no matter how odd the "truth" seemed, such as Allah wanting non believers killed, they were met with scorn, ridicule, or even being killed by their own parents or siblings.
By the time you had reached your teens, you would most likely have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the beliefs given to you by all of those around you, as being the 100% truth. No one you know questions it. For the most part, those who have given you these "truths" have never lied to you about anything else, they love you, they had protected you, they provided for you, and so why would you have any reason to question them about Allah? Since you had been told that the Koran was the truth, when you read it or heard a passage, your mind played a trick on you and made you believe that every sentence you read WAS the truth, and the constant reading and repetition into your brain made it so that you could not sort out the truth from the fiction. If you dared question any of the passages, you knew that in itself was a sin, so you read and believed everything as being the "truth". Over time, you became one of them, the believer in the Koran. Not only that, you believed so much, that you now were the teacher of others, telling anyone around you the "truth" that you have found.
I am mystified and dismayed that humanity can be so gullible and easily swayed. Unless you are a reader who is a devout Muslim, you would have to admit that such a person had indeed been indoctrinated into a belief system. Whenever I try to point this out to someone when it comes to their own belief sets, I get "Oh, THEY can be indoctrinated, but I certainly am not. I have the truth and they don't."
This indoctrination occurs with many things, politics included, and applies equally to all people, including liberals and conservatives. This is one of the reasons the Democrats lost in the most recent election. Almost all of the major news (which are just BIG blogs) were of the same mindset as the Democrat running for offices, and their writers continually wrote about how bad and evil the other side was, while extolling the virtues of the candidate they wanted to win. They only associated with people of their same beliefs, and only wrote about how their belief system was better for the people, and how they were sure to win because they had the "truth" and the other side was bad. The news people (blog writers) had been indoctrinated to believe their opinions were the truth and wrote them as so, and never considered they could be wrong. No evidence or information could convince them they were. Like a Koran believer, their mind wouldn't allow them to consider other views. They all lived in their own little bubble of like believers and imagined that they had the corner on truth because the press was their cheer leader and assured them of victory. They never bothered to listen to opposing views and to consider the wants and needs and hopes and dreams of the people in the small towns across America.
We need to step out of our own little bubbles and examine who and what we are, and why we are what we are. We need to look at other viewpoints, and question what we perceive as the "truth", whether that be religion or politics, and if we believe what we do just because another person does, or even because many other people believe what you have been told to believe. The "truth" to a Muslim is identical to the "truth" of a Christian or Mormon or Scientologist, and we owe it to ourselves to examine our beliefs. The Muslim thinks Christians are complete fools and the Christians "know' that Islam is false. So then, which of these two groups possess the "truth"? You know the answer if you are a Christian. It is that, of course, the OTHER side has been indoctrinated, but you certainly have not been and could not be, because YOU cannot be fooled.
Some things to consider for anyone reading this very first blog, or as The Huffington Post or Washington Post would say..NEWS post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)