Thursday, December 15, 2011

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Tonight, at six... We enter denial.

One of the fundamentals of Martial Arts, is the stance.

In order to fight effectively, we must operate from a stable platform. This is obvious. This skill is learned through repetition, and trial and error, until it becomes an instant response.

We need to do this, because our 'Natural Default' when confronted by something that threatens us, is to fall backwards with both hands between us and it, eyes wide, loud shout to alert others. We don't necessarily want to be stable when attacked by something we don't understand, we want to flee. And so we put distance between us and it, and try to escape to work out our available options. To regroup.

These are two physical responses.

Our mental responses, however, are exactly the opposite.

The most stable reaction to a mentally confronting issue, is to assess all of the options available to us and determine a course of action. This, like a stance, requires learning. We grow better at this as we develop skills in critical thinking.Because of this, it is not our 'Natural Default'.

That would be denial.

When we throw up a wall of denial, it puts mental space between us and the threat. It buys us time to assess options, and because of this, it is only designed to be temporary.

In her 1969 book, On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross created what we now know as 'The Kübler-Ross model'. This model outlines the 5 stages of mourning, when we are confronted with the loss of a loved one. It is to be noted that not everyone experiences all 5, and it is not a linear model. However it does break mourning down into 5 recognisable stages:

These are: Denial, bargaining, anger, depression, and acceptance.

Obviously, holding on to any of these states of mind (apart from eventual acceptance) is harmful to you, and denial is no different.

People who live in denial do so because of fear. They are trying to escape the shock of something. This leads to post-traumatic stress disorder and break-downs if left unchecked.

When we watch the television or read the broadsheets (which is what pleonasts call newspapers), the stream of bad news challenging what we believe we know about the world keeps us in a state of constant mental stress. For example when millions of people in the USA lost their homes when the banks foreclosed in the economic downturn, that is certainly shocking news. Or when AIG and Goldman-Sachs destroyed the American economy in the first place. 

It has gotten to the stage where our collective denial is redeployed with every new news broadcast, as a means of coping with paradigm paralysis.

When confronted with a number of shocking facts, which all fall outside our view of the world as we thought it was, we choose the status quo- we make no decision. 

We enter denial.

Paradigm paralysis is so named because its effect leaves us unable to see the paradigm, or pattern. And that is- what we have all been raised to believe, is a smokescreen for evil deeds.

We have all heard the phrase "the media lies". It has never been truer than now, but for the most saddening of reasons. Of course the established media empires have been shown time and time again to support financial and political agendas instead of reporting news without spin. Now they've fired the journalists and replaced them with gossip columnists and paparazzi.

But believe it or not, that isn't the problem...

The real problem is that it is so hard to find a workable alternative. If that were easy to find, who would care what the established media was saying? It would be the news equivalent of MTV- great production values, cool graphics, low edification versus the History or Discovery Channels (although, to be accurate, the content there isn't always reliable, either).

But it gets worse.

With the rise of Zeitgeist (much of which has since been debunked), people have looked to sources like Truth Theory, Real News 24, Infowars, Prison Planet, News Voice, etc... Well, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm sure Peter Joseph, Alex Jones, and all the others involved started out wanting to help and spread awareness, but whether they understand it or not, they are exacerbating the problem.

While they would argue they are using the established media's own tactics against them, movies like Terror Storm, End Game, Police State 3: Total Enslavement, and Matrix of Evil are titled the same way tabloid news articles are. They are designed to prey on your fears, to make you hypervigilant, to leave you with Pre-Traumatic stress disorder.

Why manipulate content, spread disinformation, and promote terror? Simple- To be a hero. To make money. To serve their own need to feel important and relevant. And to give us a way to feel like that too.

Blaming shady organisations like The Bilderberg Group though, purposefully avoids suggesting solutions; opting instead to scare you into apathy, highlight your powerlessness, and to convince you to donate to keep the pipeline open. This is fire and brimstone, plain and simple.

And if there is truth in it, you will never know, because all of the subject matter takes place in secret meetings behind closed doors by people who deny affiliation with one another outside of meetings.

The most alluring thing about being into conspiracies is that those involved, regardless of social constraints like class, gender, ethnicity, level of education, or even maturity, feel as though they are part of the knowledge elite- the chosen few that have seen behind the secret curtain, and know things you don't know.

It is a form of elitist snobbery, except it is available to anyone

It makes them feel special, and in extreme cases (of which there are unfortunately many, and that number is rising), they display the same psychological behaviours, affectations, and protection mechanisms (see: denial) as religious extremists.

They effect a morally superior attitude, talk condescendingly to others not of ther faith, seldom offer evidence for their claims, instead opting for insults and over-use of the abbreviation "LOL" as a means to demean and infuriate those who make the mistake of attempting to engage them in logical debate.

Aside from all of that though, the biggest problem in disinformation for money. Last week this story crossed my desk. Claiming "The US Senate wants the entire USA to be a battleground", it is styled in the same manner as other 'truther' sites, automatically appealing to the enthusiast.

Problem is, the story is intentionally fake, and makes claims in quotes that are unsubstantiated at one end, and patently untrue at the other.

Again, why?

Click through ad revenue. The controversy it created resulted in tens of thousands of unique visits (to which I have just unfortunately added to!) From each visitor the site can offer nine click through ads on the first page alone, as well as an obligatory Pay Pal 'donate' button. If you fell for their bullshit, and wanted to hear their bullshit take on some other bullshit, you can read one of their other enlightening articles designed to do exactly the same thing.

"The US Constitution is gone", anyone?

If you attempt to click the author of the articles bio link, you are taken to the page of his click through for profit website, making any attempt to substantiate the validity of the claim that he has built a following of 800,000 people rather difficult.

But seeing as you are there, you can read all about how "Nth Korea may soon be able to strike USA with ultimate doomsday weapon...", and ad links from here to forever. is big business, people.

And it makes it more important than ever before to be critical of where your news is sourced from.

Who wrote it?

How do they know?

Where did they get it?

Why would someone else give it to them?

How are they still alive, if the power elite want this information secret?

Is their site full of sensationalist bullshit?

Do their credentials check out?

Is this news reported anywhere else, and if so, how do those sites stack up (are they part of a web ring?)

Most importantly, any news that does not facillitate an active comments section is not worth the pixels it's constructed from.

There are a lot of people in the world who are smarter than you, and comments sections of articles are a great place to hear their ideas and views, especially if you may not have thought of them yourself.

In some cases, they also provide well-sourced contradictory evidence, and in best-case scenarios, they can recommend good news sources.

The only way out of this mess is education about what is really happening now. Forget The Illuminati and The Bilderbergs, they are just distractions. Look at who is in Government, where they came from, what they advocate (all on public record).

Follow the money!

Maintain and develop your skills in critical thinking. But more than anything else, know this:

It's been 49 years since The Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of us grew up under a nuclear umbrella, with the threat of incredibly destructive weapons being aimed at us from birth, 'til death. But guess what?

We're still here.

The sun will come out tomorrow, that's a promise, and there are still a lot of great people in the world. Start at the bottom- locally. Smile at someone, be gentle. Don't engage in debate with crackpots. Take your money out of the bank and invest it in a credit union or community run scheme. Keep some cash in a safe too. Stop smoking right now. If you drink- be responsible. Buy less. Think more...about everything you do and why you do it. Don't make excuses. Get out of debt! Love somebody, even if they don't love you. Learn patience. Open up a little. Respect other people. Help the less fortunate. Learn how your society works, and most importantly, how it doesn't.. Form ten thousand opinions, then throw them all away in light of superior evidence to the contrary. Break free of your denials.


This is knifey, from 'the internet'..


My other blog is big in Alaska!

Thursday, December 01, 2011

A Familiar Earth.

People are so strange.

I was reading an article containing colour photographs of London in World War 2, and was amazed at how the colour bought such an intense new feeling of familiarity to them. Instead of being black and white, old, disconnected pictures from another time, they suddenly transformed into scenes I recognised, streets I have walked down, a familiar Earth.

I am always more interested in the comments sections of news articles than the news itself, and while reading through I saw another familiar phenomenon- negative comments for true statements that people just plainly do not like.

Regardless of the truth value of a comment, if it reflects an unpopular opinion, or touches on a subject deemed taboo by the majority, if people can give it a negative vote, they most certainly will.

Here is the comment in question:

""Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones." - J.M Spaight., CB., CBE., Bombing Vindicated, p.47., Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry"

Every other comment, regardless of how little illumination it brought forth, had an average positive rating ratio of 50%, negative ratings, 0.

Isn't it interesting that in this case, the comment only had negative ratings?

It's not even an opinion, it is a quote, from the principal assistant secretary at the Air Ministry during the war. Click here for more information on J. M. Spaight.

Even though Hitler's crimes are well documented, it seems important to those who rated the quote that he only be remembered in the worst terms possible, even though Hitler's desire to not engage with Great Britain at all is also well documented.

"We won't hear a good word said of him".

The 1938 Time Magazine man of the year, who was a brilliant speaker, a great economist, a great strategist, a skilled propagandist, an environmentalist, animal rights advocate, and breast cancer campaigner, who believed in and pushed science and technology, cancer research (linking tobacco with cancer), infrastructure development, solar energy, jet propulsion, and who saved Germany from the brink of total financial collapse, can not have a good word said of him?

I'm not a fan of Hitler. On May 10, 1940, the Nazi's invaded my ancestral home of The Netherlands. Four days later they had killed 30,000 civilians in Rotterdam. 6 days after they arrived, they had beaten the country into submission by blitkrieg, and the Dutch were forced to surrender. My Opa (Grandfather) and his brothers all fought against the Nazi's in the war, he made The Gestapo's most wanted list.

But something I dislike even more is revisionist history, because if we paint people like Hitler to be thoroughly inhuman monsters, we will fail to see the signs in others that they may lead us down the same path (like Bush/Cheney).

George W. Bush, by all accounts, is a cool guy to have a drink with, he has a great sense of humour. He can fly a jet fighter. That makes him cooler than Tom Cruise. He is also the figurehead to Cheney's "foreign policy", which has brought war on an unprecedented scale to the Middle East, and has eroded the liberties of people all over the world, not just in the USA. It's important to know both sides of every story, or we simply end up ignorant.

That's the message.

This is knifey, from 'the internet'.