Are YOU Brainwashed - under the influence of mind control

Here in Oregon, legalization has put criminals out of the pot business. And why not when one can walk into a store and buy marihuana at half the price of street weed.

I've also seen reports that in those states where marihuana has been legalized violent crime has decreased. Not only that but neighboring states also saw a decrease in violent crime. But then I've long known this. When I was in high school I noticed that at parties where alcohol was served fights almost always resulted. When I went to parties where people sat around smoking marihuana, things were peaceful.

 

Repetition is part of it, but there's also the segregation between cult members and society. They are not allowed to have contact with family or anybody who might be able to help them. Then they are also stripped of all their wealth, which is why Jones demanded that his members be communists. If you want to leave the commune, you're leaving buck naked because you won't even have a shirt on your back.

There's also the turning brother against brother, which Stalin did during "the terror", or what NK does. For every person who flees that country, there is a family that paid the price. You're basically rewarded for becoming a cop against everybody. Sleep deprivation, paranoia resulting from the propaganda, physical torture... all play a part in it.

 

No incentive for government to teach people about freedom?

So who is going to teach people about freedom ?
Certainly not their parents, who are likely to be as 'biased as the next bloke' (so to speak).

Obviously public education is the only means - at least in theory - to teach an unbiased view of freedom.

If public schools are failing this task, then it points to powerful interests seeking to control the curriculum for their own interests.

Depends on how you define freedom.

Obviously governments could save untold $trillions if they were able to implement freedom from war and poverty, around the globe (a not unrealistic scenario, since the resources to eliminate poverty do exist).

 

There is a whole lot more to it when it comes to religious mind control ... intentional or unintentional.

When you tell a child (or an adult for that matter) that if they "question" or "do not believe" the tenets of some holy book - that the worst thing the mind can imagine will happen to them - (not just torture for a few days but .. ETERNAL TORTURE ... for ever and ever and and and) this implants what can be referred to as "The Fear Factor" deep into the subconscious of the adherent.

The mind does not deal well with the concept of infinity - living forever. "who wants to live forever" (think Freddie Mercury / Highlander). The concept of eternal torture for eternity is all that much more unnerving.

When the adherent comes across information that conflicts with ingested dogma the "fear factor" is triggered - often without the adherents knowledge. The fear of eternal torture in the afterlife. The adherent's mind will then try and avoid thinking the "bad thought"

There are numerous ways the adherent will try to avoid the bad thought ... just outright avoidance. I once was having a convo with a Hari Krishna. The convo was interesting and cordial. I was however backing the fellow into a logical corner. All of a sudden the fellow starts dancing around and chanting "Hari Hari, Rama Rama, Krishna Krishna"

I was stunned. One second we were having a normal conversation and the next ... loopy doopy land.

Denial is another mechanism. One of the most common is demonization of the messenger/ Demonization of the other.

There are other "thought stopping mechanisms" but, these are the main ones.

The adherent will go to great lengths of mind bending and irrationality to avoid thinking the bad thought. This is because accepting that the information is true could lead down the path to the scary place .. the path to eternal torture.

2) In the second step the leader creates a "black vs white" "good vs evil" "God vs Devil" paradigm. Religious/Cult doctrine is good .. anything that conflicts with cult doctrine is EVIL .. comes from Satan. Satan is everywhere trying to trick you. Anyone that rejects or questions or questions cult doctrine is under the influence of SATAN.

This serves to ramp up the fear factor and secondly - begin the process of demonization of the other. Notice how the adherent is being taught a thought stopping mechanism without the adherent realizing it.

3) the fear factor is further increased by creation of an apocalyptic narrative. The end times are near .. we are in the end times. Jesus is coming soon to smite the legions of Satan and save the righteous. Satan is on this earth in this very moment .. look around at all the evil that is going on in the world and how people are violating God's commands .. fornication, sins of the flesh ... and so on.

There is a battle between the principalities going on. There is a war going on for your soul. There is no time to lose.. the end times are hear .. the time to act is now.

You get the general picture.

4) We are now very close to justification of killing in the name of God. The fear factor is ramped up one more level by tying some earthly persecutor to satan.

The Western Infidel is attacking us .. bombing our cities and killing our children .. These are Satan's minions fighting against Allah

This is combined with demonization of the other - the other is already partially demonized as under the influence of Satan. Now these legions of Satan are attacking us.

5) The great reward. At the end of the apocalypse there is a great reward for those who hold fast to the faith or martyr themselves for the cause. ... in fact the martyrs get the biggest reward.


This was obviously a very condensed summary but some of the main ideas are there.

 

Your ignorance is showing.

~~~~~Prior to 1871 the United States participated in a treaty making process with the First Nations because this technique was the obvious "legal" answer to westward expansion. Treaties, as defined by the Supreme Court did not incorporate a "grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them." Originally treaties were contracts between sovereign nations and accordingly were "the supreme law of the land." If Wasichu wasn't smart enough to think of everything he wanted and get same into the relevant treaty then "any right not expressly extinguished by a treaty...is reserved to the tribe." This is known as the "reserved rights doctrine." (Pevar)
As time, disease, despair, genocidal activity, public opinion and overwhelming superiority in terms of combatant bodies took their toll, the need for defining the First Nations as sovereign passed. "It was at this point that an effort to reconcile official terminology with the semantics of the general public began to emerge" and the "word 'tribe' completely [displaced] the word 'nation' in the legal discourse [which] lead to congressional termination of treaty-making with Indians in 1871." (Churchill) The First Nations:

"...at one time had had enough power to make a favorable cession of lands a diplomatic triumph for the United States. But from the early nineteenth century on, perceptive men had seen the incongruity of treating Indian tribes as equals, and as demands for reform in Indian affairs grew during and immediately after the Civil War, the treaty system came under increasing attack." (Prucha)~~~~

 

And in every likelihood, you never will. It all about morality, not moral relativism.

If you need to ask that question then you don't agree at all.

See you are still without a dictionary. Kind of hard to debate when one party has no clue about the subject matter.

They always were and they always will be, so what does a dead end statement have to do with anything?

Why are you so afraid of chaos, it's the natural order of things. Helps to separate the wheat from the chaff and makes the necessary corrections of a world gone wrong. The world we are in today. Whether you like it or not, it doesn't need your permission and will end the life of fear, not necessarily to the positive for many. But then, ignorance should be painful.

Define protected, oh forgot allergic to dictionaries. But I still have Black's Law up, funny the legal concept comes right after "prostitute" which starts off with a great definition of capitalism:

As it should be. Codes are secrets hidden from the uninitiated and is an expectation that someone else live by your standards. Guess what, many do subscribe to these secret codes and what you have is the proof of that pudding. Codes are meant to control the immoral but instead punish the moral. Sorry forgot, moral relativism.

Natural law always holds true regardless of a population's belief systems. This means it does not matter how many people agree that "a wrong can be turned into a right", or that "a right can be turned into a wrong". Such things can never be done in reality. People can only believe they can claim such reversals and that this will magically make it so. Unfortunately, most human beings erroneously believe that it is morally possible for them to create and delegate "rights" which do not exist or to take away rights which do exist.

But what do you care, if you're the victim by the time the police arrive you are a dead victim. Hung up in the world of mental "isms".

Words have meaning, what law are you talking about? And how did you get this power to punish that you may give it over to another?

Hang them!!!

Hang them, that does not include violence. A good dictionary would help matters immensely.

 

Some wise person once observed that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him that he has been fooled. Too true, and oh so common.

 

You claim that hanging someone is not violence and then point me towards a dictionary.

OK Then ....

 

Are you dismissing the human capacity to make 'moral' choices, however limited by ignorance or brainwashing or other factors - unlike the animal kingdom?

Eg, Zoroaster proposed "Good words. good thoughts, and good actions", no doubt based on the Golden Rule and respect for life.

Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe. HG Wells.

 

I presume he means - execute them in the least painful manner. It's a difficult area from the point of view of morality, because we don't know all the factors (internal, external) that cause such serious crime. The death penalty is one of those issues I would put in the "too hard basket", for the time being, and instead concentrate on enabling shared prosperity, or equality of opportunity.

 

This whole thing started when I stated that Law - by definition gives the state the power to use physical violence to punish people who violate that law.

He hemmed and hawed about how violence should not be used. When asked - what then is to stop people from violating societal codes of conduct .. he says "hanging".

 

Same thing in my school. My graduating class had about 500 kids and you could count the number that didn't smoke pot ( at least occasionally ) on one hand. It is just the way things were back then.

We called it the AAA adage. Take an Athlete ... add Alcohol .. and you get an Arse-hole.

I stopped smoking the stuff decades ago - soon after high school - just wasn't my thing but I could care a less of other people smoke it.

Further - I am not that concerned about people driving while on pot and there is no evidence that "driving high" has a significant risk.

 

It's probably less addictive than cigarettes, but on the converse side can leave people much more impaired. Of course, excessive alcohol can also do that, but the effects are probably not exactly the same, and it might not really be fair to draw an equivalence to alcohol.

I live in a very high pot use area (probably the highest in the country) and it does obviously seem to have some detrimental effects. For example, the car accident rates are higher, and many people don't seem to be as motivated and there's a lot of people living hippie-esque type lifestyles. There's also a high rate of burglaries, although the violent crime rate is pretty low relative to the other crimes.

 

That would be based on "judgement" by you and in the past you have well demonstrated yours is flawed so this is non sequitur.

Are you referring to or trying to ignore that this was the period where Lincoln proved to the south this was no longer a republic and he had enough violence to force them to do anything he wanted? So what makes you think government, which placed the Indian as inferior savages, would do any they considered inferior?

Treaties have never been the law of the land, that is nature and she doesn't do treaties. Treaties are the law of man, normally using coercion to force another to become your slaves.

But then you have well demonstrated in the past your total lack of knowledge about anything law even posting documentation to prove that point. But I see your skills have not improved.

Now coming in from left field and back to the game, how does this in any way address the Native Americans somehow having a ninth amendment?

By the way, you don't seem to do history very well either, you need to back up about 100 years. the 1770s.

 

Ok then what? I know you didn't use a dictionary did you? Words have meanings, not feelings or beliefs.

 

I am not the one who thinks hanging is not physical violence. Don't blame me for you lack of understanding of the definition of words.

 

I'm questioning the average human's capacity to make choices? There are entire libraries with volumes as far as the eye can see with instructions on how they should behave. No, they are not unlike the animal kingdom, actually dumber. Animals have the instinct to survive whereas those average humans feel curling up in a ball is escape.

I don't agree at all with the analysis of those words, just a nice little slogan with no meaning. But this Golden Rule you are referring to, would this be "treat others as you would like to be treated? What if one were a machoist, does that mean they get to run around inflicting pain on others? My what a belief system will make people believe.

 

The most painful, get the knot wrong and let them dance their way out of this experience, lips turn blue, eyes bug out and then the final shudder and the repose until sunset, better luck next time. Then others within view will see there are consequences for their actions that violate the rights of others. Makes for a more honest culture.

Morality, no that is called moral relativism.

 

The only part of that statement that has any semblance of reality is : "Animals have the instinct to survive".

Of course humans also have this, but humans have much more than this, namely, the capacity to manage instinct in ways that might be considered desirable eg to create a peaceful community not based on the tooth and claw of the animal kingdom (from which we evolved, by the way, but to which you seem to wish to cling for dear life - I suspect out of misplaced self-interest, believing that there are not enough resources to go around to achieve universal prosperity).

Hence, in the infancy of 'civilisation' (recorded history) of the human species, arose teachers and thinkers like the Buddha, Zoroaster, and Christ who proposed that humans can take control of our own destiny, beyond that ordained by natural law, to enable "love" and "joy" to be drivers of human endeavour.

Such concepts are more than "nice little slogans with no meaning".

 

The war on drugs is an agenda of oppression.

 

But you are to blame, you have no clue of language, whatsoever. And to make a statement blatantly false is not thinking, it's based on a belief system that is patently flawed, a feeling.

 

That would be your opinion which obviously I don't think much of. Reality, in order for one to be in reality, they must be conscious not ignorant. Stupid is a defect in one's psyche beyond their choice, ignorance is a choice.

Manage instinct, another area where you seem to be clueless. How does one manage instinct? And to try and pass judgement on what you don't know against someone you don't know is ignorance trying to be portrayed as knowledge.

Spell check not working? In the infancy of mankind, man was not quite as ignorant as today, they could fend for themselves. But your claiming a belief system is somehow reality is the claim of one incapable of free thought. This is the trait of one that sways in the wind with no moral principles just the expedience of the moment. Everything is good for the moment, until the new trend starts to emerge and the good becomes bad in sake of the new good.

Natural law, another area of which your ignorance is blatant.

 

Agree, then don't participate in the war.

 

What false statement ? Did you not respond that the penalty for violation of codes of conduct should be hanging ?

 

I don't know if "brainwashed" is the right term. Maybe it is. I'm am constantly amazed at how many simply believe whatever they are told, regardless of how outlandish, without even the slightest evidence of critical thought.