Most Americans are caught up in the idea that we have an elected government and that our opinions and votes influence public policy. We are encouraged to think that way. Many among us spend their days advancing political candidates and engaging in meaningful debate about public policy. These are our greatest fools.
Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) said that the American public is but a “bewildered herd.”
A herd has power (think of a buffalo stampede) but no intelligence or direction. Inside our leadership class it is intuitively understood that the herd should suffer the illusion of democracy.
“Democracy” allows us to spend our time and effort in debates that outside the bewildered herd are of no consequence. Elections are a distraction. Leadership will engage in the ritual, even publicly submitting themselves to the humiliation of interrogation by elected officials (as when leaders of oil companies were lined up in submissive posture to testify before congress). It is absurd, but considered necessary to foster the illusion of democracy.
I have spent many years trying to understand our political economy. I once thought Lippmann to be an elitist. But he was a realist. I do, however, see a fatal flaw in his reasoning, and that is the notion that the leadership classes possesses better vision than the herd.
There may be safety in secrecy, and all of our military and science and corporate affairs are shrouded in secrecy. Every matter of public importance has two facets, the real one, and the one told to the public. Hence we have things like 9/11 and Apollo, events of real significance, but completely shrouded in secrecy. Leadership regards this as an essential part of public governance.
But looking out over the unspeakable horrors that the U.S. and British aristocracies have inflicted on the planet, it is hard to imagine them to be more than an elite body immune to the consequences of its own mistakes – consequences that the rest of us must suffer. They seem no more than common criminals.
Life … “is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It’s all quite absurd, don’t you think?
Theology is “a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense.” Scriptures are “so stuffed with madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that you admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them.” Jesus must have “picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows, whom he knew by his skill in physiognomy, had strong imaginations.” Moses, “if ever there was such a man,” had, like Jesus, “learned magic in Egypt, but that he was both the better artist and better politician than Jesus.” (Thomas Aikenhead, executed January 8, 1697, at age 20.*)
Many years ago I briefly subscribed to a short-lived publication called “Lies of Our Times.” It was an ongoing critique of just that, the daily lies that stream out of Langley, Wall Street, the Pentagon, and every other set of moving lips in our nation’s power centers. Those lies are repeated uncritically by our journalists, apparently their job.
The words “of our times” are important.
John Lennon was supposedly intrigued by the notion that Jesus faked his death. That’s funny to me, because there was no Jesus, or many. Galileo was housebound by power for merely saying something true. Poor Aikenhead, above, must have wondered why he was given a brain if it was a crime to use it. Abraham Lincoln, who appears to have had some honest qualities about him, spent his brief tenure in the House of Representatives trying to expose the lie that allowed the United States to steal the Southwest from Mexico. The United States was witness to a massive purge in the 1950’s called “McCarthyism,” though historians are only allowed to use that word (“purge”) when referencing Stalin and Mao.
The United States itself is based on a gigantic lie, that we are a democracy. Or a republic. Since we are neither, let’s not struggle with terminology. This particular lie carries with it the notions that the American public is well-informed; that our leaders do not lie to us, and that we are somehow exceptional.
I hope you are catching the humor here, as the lie contained within the lie is that there are no lies. I love that kind of layered humor. But wait … there’s more!
“Una Ronald” lived in Australia, and was watching the moon landing on her telly in 1969 when something odd happened. As the astronauts walked about, a Coke bottle rolled across the screen. At the time, perhaps 30% of a smarter American public did not believe the landings to be real. I have to guess that percentage was even higher in Australia.
It is not that the bottle appeared on-screen. It’s deeper than that (cue spooky music): We all know that the astronauts in their garb could not possibly have been able to remove a coin from their pocket and place it in the lunar vending machine (the LVM**).
I am not going to go through the maze of evidence here to prove to you what is so easily understood – the moon landings were a hoax. Just a bit of a journey and some perusal of photos will tell you that on your own. I marvel at how everything Americans need to know can stay hidden in plain sight.
It is a question of why. That’s a little more complicated. I’ll stumble into that ground tomorrow, and I do mean stumble, as I can only speculate on why $35 billion was diverted from the general fund and funneled into the disguise called “Apollo.” For now, I only want to deal briefly with the usual objection when this subject comes up, that such secrets cannot be kept for long.
1. Government can and does keep secrets. Galileo learned this. It has power over people, and can punish them by means of ridicule, loss of benefits, or death.
2. But secrets do get out. Those who have studied the moon landing photographs have walked away suspecting that people back in 1969 were deliberately putting clues in there of fakery for later generations. The Coke bottle incident might not have been an accident.
3. Think Manhattan Project, or compartmentalization. Most of the people involved in the moon landings thought it was a real venture. They were fooled, just like us.
4. Cold and frightful silence ensues. Even as so many NASA and industry people might have realized the game was a game after the fact, they know to shut up. The people who did this are serious and powerful and had another game in mind.
Tomorrow I’ll try to carry forward. For today, I want to introduce the notion of “Lies of our Times.” There’s nothing new under the sun. In our more technologically advanced age, the tools of mass persuasion, mostly the television set, are able to create bigger myths and make them stick with more people.
__________________
*The Aikenhead passage is taken from the book Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Michael Hecht, p 338
** I believe that Lockheed Martin partnered with Coca Cola Company on this venture, which cost $2.7 billion in development, and never really worked correctly, in fact, was never tested on earth. When placed on the lunar surface all of the Coke inside immediately vaporized in the intense radiation. Coins that the astronauts carried with them to purchase Cokes were later given to other nations as souvenirs. The Netherlands coin, on display in Amsterdam, was seen to have the date 1979 on it instead of 1969, and so was thought to be counterfeit.
Here’s a rundown of future topics as I try to take a new direction with my blog.
_____________
I have an unfinished post set aside about the Paul is Dead phenomenon. I’ll get back to it. As far as I can discern on available evidence, Paul McCartney indeed died in 1966, probably murdered. On hand was a body double who had been used in service already, as famous people often use doubles to preserve their privacy. He was groomed, trained and went under the knife, and was used as a replacement. I don’t think anyone planned that, but once it was seen as a necessary to kill McCartney, the idea of replacing him with the double probably took wings, so to speak.
If it were only some silly entertainer and a huge cash machine in jeopardy, it would not matter. But it does matter, for other reasons. I’ll go into that.
On the matter of Yoko Ono, I still do not understand that.
_____________
Another subject I’ll explore: I had the same experience as Dave McGowan (see footnote*) did when he decided to look into the moon landings to see if they were faked. It’s not that they were faked, but how really, really easy it is to see that they were faked.
The fake moon landings were part of a larger project, Manhattan in scope and deadly in intent. This was not trickery for sake of public relations. Apollo was the cover story for work going all the way back to Wiemar: Conquest of space. Therein lay more power than ever before possessed by humans, the most ambitious military prize ever imagined.
Some other day on that one too. I have fewer answers on that than on Macco, but the pretending to walk on the moon part, that was real.
_______________
For right now, we were sitting on our deck overlooking Denver the other evening, and I said to my wife that I had come so far along in understanding this crazy fucking place (I don’t use that word around her), but that I hope before I die to understand everything! That is the reason I exist. I am mostly retired, we have a wonderful life with friends and kids and grand kids. We have no money worries. I am thankful for all of that, for sure. I did absolutely nothing to deserve it.
I should just be satisfied. But I also have an undying urge to understand things.
So I am going to cover one more subject, DD, or dissociative disorders, which affects me and which I have explored. But first let me state clearly: No whining allowed. I am a happy man. Or men.
I was beaten up as a child, sniff sniff. I don’t remember any pain, and it wasn’t by my parents. They were lovely people. But I do remember as a four-year-old waking up on the floor after being cold-cocked, and then again later on. Did it happen at other times? Don’t know, and have no desire to know. Looking back I realize there was a demonic pathology in our household embodied in my siblings that made the place a living hell. In that situation, children retreat, lose memories, and become dissociative.
I am thankful for it now, but in my younger years, it caused problems. I avoid hard liquor and Ambien, as they cause amnesia. My inner children take over. When I heard of Patrick, and then Kerry Kennedy driving in blacked out states after having taken Ambien, I immediately understood. Their childhoods had more trauma than any of us can imagine.
Once you know it is there, it is kind of fun. Self knowledge is the best kind. When my fingers hit the keyboard, I do not know what will emerge. I have a little devil residing in me, and he’s a clever one. For me, writing is easy and fun, and necessary. I have to do this.
I know, you’re going all Seven Faces of Eve on me, thinking it’s all weird. I think it is common phenomenon. There is a whole lot of abuse in this world, a whole lot of suffering that children endure or witness and repress. These children become adults who are, in my view, more interesting, observant, and empathetic than regular people with regular childhoods.
We who have endured such trauma – again, no whining allowed, as mine is minor by comparison to so many others (think of the children of Vietnam or Iraq, for instance) – we instantly recognize each other on meeting, sometimes even just passing in the street. No words need pass. We know. We exist on a higher level of intuition, probably an element of survival.
___________________
Enough of that. What on earth I have been doing with the blog … is driving me to distraction! It’s boring! It is like I own a race car, and use it to go to the grocery store.
I feel as though I have only tapped the surface of the potential to use this blog as an exploration tool and heck, even make it interesting. As I said, I want to understand everything. Hardly anything is what it appears on the surface, politics always, but people too. Everyone has a story, everyone is living a lie on some level.
So stay tuned. It is going to get better here. It has to, otherwise I’ll be bored and I’ll quit.
Sorry about the ads in the piece below, one of my favorites from a man I deeply admire, Mel Brooks.
_________________
*Mr. McGowan, I just learned, has been diagnosed with incurable small-cell lung cancer that has already spread to his liver and bones. Travel well sir, and thank you for doing some very interesting work.
I let go with a blog post before I had finished it. On the iPad the “save draft” and “publish” buttons are side-be side and I had to pee and ….
So what. Blogging has gotten really, really boring, and it is time for a quantum leap. I am going to attempt something never done by either bloggers or journalists. I am going to tread new ground.
We could spend the rest of our lives examining the details of the 9/11 false flag event, and no doubt in the coming decades the people who did it will feed that curiosity. If JFK is an example, they will allow new information to slip out now and then, keeping the machine running. Sometimes new information might even be real.
Movies and books and YouTube videos abound now, but it is very difficult to know who is genuine, who is a misinformation agent, and who is just stupid.
We are under control, even those of us who are genuine skeptics. Our activities are effectively quarantined by the “conspiracy theory” meme, a thought control device that squelches independent thinking. And we don’t even trust one another due to the abundance of government misinformation agents about.
Initially, according to General Wesley Clark, the U.S. intended to use the event to bring about regime change in seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,and Iran.) The dominant religion in that part of the world is Muslim, so Muslims were used as patsies that day. That enflamed focused hatred in the American public, and thus unleashed the American military juggernaut to go on a terror rampage.
It was successful – that is, the enflamed passions part. Most Americans hate Muslims and fear Arabs. Fear is an effective sales strategy.
The military operations perhaps have faltered, but who really knows? We are not privy to the inside dealings of the National Security State and its military/intelligence operations.
This much can be said with some assuredness: Even as they endured defeat in Iraq (and are still attacking it, now using ISIS), and even as they are yet to being down Iran, the military onslaught has not been slowed, hampered or changed by American elections.
That is an important point, something really useful to know. A positive side effect of 9/11 is evidence that national American elections do not affect American public policy. (The same is true, in my view, at the state level in Montana and Colorado, where I live and have lived, but I cannot speak for the other 48 states.)
Regarding 9/11 itself, is there any reason to stay in the rabbit hole? Are we not walking backward through history? Is there any point to finding truth?
No, and yes: There is indeed no point in unraveling the crime from a whodunnit it how-they-dun-it standpoint. They got way with it, they got their wars, and the people who did it will never be caught or punished.
But yes, there is a good reason to understand the event, even as we can never achieve justice.
It is hard to separate wheat from chaff, hard to know who is real, who is fake in the world of political intrigue, especially with the high intrigue of state-sponsored terrorism like 9/11. As Winston Smith learned in 1984, the man he relied on, O’Brien, was a mole whose job was to ferret out people suffering independent thought experiences*. The enemy of the Party – Emmanuel Goldstein – did he really even exist? Or was he too an invention of the state?
Dr. Wood is too smart to go chasing rabbits, and too much an optimist to concede defeat. Her main thrust, as I see it: The cat is out of the bag. The weaponry used to bring down the Twin Towers that day was a big ‘reveal.’ They unleashed a technology not seen before, at least at such a high concentration level.** It offers evidence of a source of free energy that can be used for good as well as evil.
I have decided to trust her, and those who support her. I have seen how she is attacked and marginalized within the co-called “9/11 Truth” movement, and so hope that indicates she is on the right path (flak intensifies as planes draw closer to a target). If I am wrong, if I am being snookered yet again, so what.
Tomorrow and in the coming days I will review some of the evidence that she has uncovered.
By the way, her resume’ is impressive, shown below the fold.
_____________________
*I have seen connections to a certain JFK researcher, Mark Lane, and the deaths of two prominent celebrities who wanted to use their platform to re-open the case. That would point arrows to Lane as an O’Brien-type agent.
**There are suspicions and evidence that the same technology was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1996 destruction of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and 2007 destruction of a bridge in Minneapolis. Continue reading “Rabbit Hole 4: Leaving the rabbit hole …”→
Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others. (Groucho Marx)
So, you’re among the skeptics! Welcome. So you don’t believe the original story about Muslims with box cutters? Well, we have others.
Loose Change!
Loose change was 2005 documentary that received wide publicity and was widely viewed, was in fact an Internet phenomenon. Below is the three-minute trailer.
The movie was designed to rope in skeptics and lead us down a blind alley. It freely asserts that 9/11 was an American coup, which anyone with half a brain can understand. But then, in over two hours, the movie seals several false impressions designed to beguile and mislead, among them:
Planes hit the buildings. There is quite a long sequence trying to analyze a protrusion under the aircraft and a flash of light before the explosion. It reminds me of the old story of customs agents’ futile disassembling of trucks at the border trying to find smuggled drugs, when in fact it was trucks that were being smuggled in. It fails to ask the question, “What plane?”
Steel was removed from Ground Zero before it could be analyzed. Below is a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) image of the topography of Ground Zero on 9/27/2001. What steel? It’s not been carted off. It is already gone. Where did it go?
Nano-thermites were found on site. The movie introduces us to one of the most devious of the misinformation agents, Steven E. Jones.
Wikipedia, itself a source of rabbit holes and back doors, does its job. It says that
The film’s main claims have been refuted by journalists, independent researchers, and prominent members of the scientific and engineering community.
That’s called Ad Verecundiam, or “argument from authority”, by the way, in case you’re tracking logical fallacies. Wikipedia is very good on celebrities and music. In matters of national security … it is part of the cover-up. It is riddled with back doors allowing access by agents of disinformation.
On the surface, it appears we are having give-and-take. But if 9/11 was a coup d’etat, why would those who planned the event turn around and allow open debate? Are they that stupid?
It is a diversion, a side tunnel in the rabbit hole. If we follow the movie down its logical path, we will end up at a place further from the truth than when we originally raised a skeptical eyebrow.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. (Thomas Jefferson)
Before viewing the movie, we were merely skeptical. After viewing it, we are thoroughly misinformed. Mission accomplished.
It is wise, then, to return to Ground Zero and set aside theories. We must examine the evidence, and let it speak.
Into the rabbit hole we went yesterday – it can absorb our energies for months.
Perceptions are part of the the problem. Ours are limited. Another part is the quality of evidence, and yet another the source of evidence, and our abilities to interpret it correctly.
A friend once remarked to me that our view of reality is like that of a ditch digger: we look over the edge and see very little. Yet what we see from this ditch is the whole of our reality, so has to do. A wise person accepts that we don’t see or know much.
Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), spent his career analyzing our interactions with media. Each affects us differently. Some are “hot,” supplying high definition and requiring little viewer participation. Movies, with high quality images, put everything in front of us so that we can sit back and relax and enjoy the show.
Cartoons, on the other hand, are but crude outlines of reality. We have to supply almost everything so that characters come to life. What are Eric Cartman and Kenny, after all, but crude little animated circles?
McLuhan’s definition of a “cool” medium – low definition, high participation – applied to cartoons, telephones, speeches, and television.
Television requires that we look into the screen, but it is a flat presentation. In order to use it, we have to supply dimensions, depth and context. We don’t just watch our TV’s. We enter them. Thus does it have such power over us, becomes our reality. If it is on TV, it is real.
This was true Tuesday morning, 9/11/2001 – we did not observe the events of that day. We participated. They are etched in our consciousness. People get angry when skeptics say that the images were fake. Skeptics are saying that reality is fake.
9/11/2001 was a “psyop,” a psychological operation with images well-crafted in advance. Our news media actively engaged in fakery and deceit. But networks were nothing but the willing vessel. Behind those vapid faces and coiffured hairpieces are corporations that are wired to the military-industrial complex and who own and manage our reality.
What do we know for sure? The Twin Towers went away. The Pentagon had a hole. That is all we can say with certainty from the TV images. Since we’ve all talked now to witnesses, we know that World Trade Center complex was destroyed. That was real.
One image given to us, of an aircraft sliding through a building as a knife through butter, is something that cannot happen in real life. (By the way, notice how the building moves in relation to the plane in this GIF image!) There were no eyewitness accounts of that, but it was on TV. Since TV is reality, we have adjusted our reality to fit the images. Newton’s Third Law was suspended that day.
The television networks lied to us. This is proven (a word I seldom use) since the planes hitting the buildings could only go through them by mans of “CGI,” or “computer-generated imagery.” Physical reality does not allow that.
The television networks owned our minds that day, and served as the conduit by which other lies were fed to us in our traumatized state. We were fed a farcical tale of hijackers, a demonic image of a man in a cave, and “photos” of 19 “hijackers.” One of them, Mohammed Atta, was an obvious “Photoshop” creation, a Freddy Kruger-like image made to enter our nightmares.
Once we know that the television images were contrived for effect, our job is to get out of our ditch and find more and better evidence. But we cannot go places and see things, we cannot know the minds of those who contrived that event. That means that we must decide who we can trust, and who not.
Thus does the rabbit hole provide many turns and tunnels.
The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
“Ha,” he said,
“I see that no one has passed here
In a long time.”
Later he saw that each weed was a singular knife.
“Well,” he mumbled at last,
“Doubtless there are other roads.”
There is undeniable quality in Chomsky’s writings. It is hard to back away from his impressive body of work on American foreign policy and propaganda. But what if he is himself a propagandist? Zwicker gives us a list of techniques beginning with absurdities and ending with “word inflation,*” and uses them on Noam.
Here’s Chomsky on JFK from a now-dead link at his old haunt, Z magazine:
It’s true that I know very little about the assassination. The only thing I’ve written about is that the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible to a quite extraordinary degree. History isn’t physics and even in physics nothing is really “proven” but evidence against this claim is overwhelming from every testable point of view, remarkably so for a historical event. Given that conclusion, which I think is well founded, that I have written about, a lot, I have no further interest in the assassination and while I’ve read a few books out of curiosity I haven’t given the matter any attention and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed.
Here’s the undressing:
It’s true that I know very little about the assassination [ignorance flaunted]. The only thing I’ve written about is that the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible [internal contradiction: he admits to knowing “very little” so on what basis does he find any claim “implausible?”] to a quite extraordinary degree [adding to the internal contradiction, word inflation, failure to provide minimal evidence]. History isn’t physics [obfuscation] and even in physics nothing is really “proven” [misdirection, vis a vis the laws of physics] but evidence against this claim is overwhelming [internal contradiction, word inflation, bald assertion, failure to provide minimal evidence] from every testable point of view [sweeping generalization, bald assertion], remarkably so for a historical event [word inflation, failure to provide minimal evidence]. Given that conclusion, which I think is well founded [bandwagon psychology, failure to provide minimal evidence], that I have written about, a lot,[internal contradiction: earlier he said the only thing he’s written about it is to claim implausibility, etc.] I have no further interest in the assassination [dismissiveness, evasion, minimizing importance of the important] and while I’ve read a few books [internal contradiction: he said he knows “very little:” reading “some books” surely qualifies as more than “very little”,] out of curiosity [dismissiveness, suggesting close-mindedness, not even fake open-mindedness] I haven’t given the matter any attention [internal contradiction: for someone who “hasn’t given the matter any attention” he has arrived at extremely strong and controversial opinions] and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed [internal contradiction: he has an opinion, which he has just energetically expressed, that the way JFK was killed was not by state conspiracy].
Chomsky is in contortions in his statement, albeit a mere chat room post. He’s clearly uncomfortable with the subject, and aggressive in distancing himself from it. He’s urging his followers, who number in the millions, to avoid the subject as well. This is the work of a gatekeeper:
“This far, no further.”
Crediting Chomsky with essential honesty in his work, which I have read extensively, I am left in a quandary. He is not convincing. The assassination, if a state conspiracy (as evidence strongly suggests), was coup d’état, and so is of critical importance. It is true that JFK was but a flawed man, an actor strutting and fretting on a stage. Set him aside. Look at the event.
Elsewhere Zwicker references E. Martin Schotz and his book History Will Not Absolve Us. According to Schotz, an early JFK researcher, Ray Marcus, met with Chomsky in 1969 and a one-hour affair turned out to be four. His secretary canceled all appointments for the rest of the day. He agreed to a follow-up session. Then the line went dead.
Chomsky knows more than he lets on. Marcus later met with a Chomsky colleague at MIT, Selwyn Bromberger, who said
“If they are strong enough to kill the president, and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly … if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule.”
Chomsky often refers to people in institutional settings who have to meld their minds with the power around them. We cannot live long with internal contradictions, he says. So, crediting him with integrity, I suggest that this is the avenue he has chosen deliberately – that to directly confront power would cost him his job, perhaps his life. Setting the matter aside as he does allows him a forum for all other matters.
Nonetheless, he performs the role of gatekeeper. Further, by warning his legions of followers away from curiosity about the event, he undermines his credibility. If he is so disingenuous in one area, what degree of confidence can we bestow on everything else?
_____________________ Continue reading “The pathway to truth’”→
My wife’s son works for a company that has four season tickets directly behind the third base dugout at Wrigley Field. Yesterday we got to use them. It is as close as I have ever been to a major league game. Interesting too that the people around us seemed like everyday people, no one rich and famous. Those folks are probably behind the glass walls high up above.
The beer vendors came around every two minutes, but we only wanted water. That vendor never showed. The lines were so deep underneath that it would have taken half an hour to get waited on. And anyway, it would have been $10 for two Aquifinas.
But we did not have to pee, the whole time, saving another half an hour.
We took a boat trip yesterday, the Chicago Architectrual Tour. I expected it to be interesting, and was not disappointed. I am at a loss for words to describe the genius, ingenuity and “imagine-it-so-make-it-so” engineering ability of our fellow humans.
At the same time, surrounded by such genius, I wonder why the same people are so easily fooled by false flag events and political lies, large and small. Things we know to be physically impossible are believed with credulous blank stares. Lame explanations by authority figures are not just swallowed whole, but with great enthusiasm.
Part of it is faith. We are raised from the cradle to believe in our government and institutions. The notion that they would so boldly lie to us is impossible to accept. Doubt requires setting aside a life of fables. The implications of doing that are too severe to contemplate.
Another part was voiced by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s:
It is extremely difficult to obtain a hearing from men living in democracies, unless it be to speak to them of themselves. They do not attend to the things said to them, because they are always fully engrossed with the things they are doing. For indeed few men are idle in democratic nations; life is passed in the midst of noise and excitement, and men are so engaged in acting that little remains to them for thinking. I would especially remark that they are not only employed, but that they are passionately devoted to their employments. They are always in action, and each of their actions absorbs their faculties: the zeal which they display in business puts out the enthusiasm they might otherwise entertain for idea.”
Emphasis added, or course. and keep in mind that back then most people were self-employed. Employment by others, having a “boss” in our lives, is now seen as normal but is an even more debilitating experience. We must constantly monitor our thought content to make sure it aligns with those who have power over us.
People are too busy to think here in our fake democracy. They are easily fooled by our overlords. But as seen on the architectural boat tour, there is genius among us and on display all about.
Piece of Mindful 