April 29, 2012

The Stupefying Power of Denial

Despite living with it for more than a decade, I'm still amazed at the power that holds the majority of the population in its deathly grip-- the power of denial. I'm talking about the psychological ability (if one can so describe it) to not see certain unpleasant realities that lurk in our faces.
We don't/can't see those things because we deny they exist. If they don't exist, they can't be perceived. Simple.
Yet, why do some people see what the majority deny? The answer must lie somewhere in the complex soul of humankind. But, we can speculate on some probable factors. It has nothing to do with intelligence, per se; smart people can be bamboozled as readily as anyone. I think it has more to do with non-conformity. If the majority believes something, it's common knowledge, it's the conventional wisdom... and it's often completely wrong. That's why authoritarian types (and governments) hate non-conformists-- they just don't cooperate and 'get with the program.' 

In the famous parable (the majority call it a fairy tale) of the King's New Clothes, the whole population saw what they were supposed to see-- except for one, annoying little boy, who blurted out what was obvious all along. No doubt, the boy was a non-conformist who was constantly in trouble at school simply because he questioned everything the teacher taught.

Denial of unpleasantries is the favorite refuge of the majority because:
- they are just 'too busy' doing life, making a living, etc.;
- they don't want to 'dwell on the negative;'
- they aren't interested in politics/economics/religion/whatever;
- they don't believe all that conspiracy nonsense.

Have I missed any? I think those are all the excuses I've heard over the years for justifying ignorance. Even when you get these fine folks to admit that, yes, the topic (whatever is under discussion) is important to their future, they still go on and shrug it off with a guilty laugh and some fatuous comment usually beginning with 'but.' But what-- they love ignorance because it's so blissful?

Okay, I'm often accused of being 'too serious;' which is a serious charge in a world so predominated by useless entertainment, stupid comedy, futile spectator sports, and generally vacuous television programming. Why can't I just get with the program (ahem), sit back and switch off my feverish mind? 'Guess I'm just an inveterate non-conformist!

I could almost buy the 'too busy' argument, given the mad-dash lives that so many people are caught in today, living in big cities, with long commutes, expected overtime, overcrowded schedules, and endless voice, text, and e-mail communicating. Still, there is usually time for what 'really matters' in everyone's life. Examining our reality is not regarded as mattering to most.

Point #2, dwelling on the negative-- yes, we really must accentuate the positive, mustn't we? Maybe this is related to point #1; after a hectic day, who wants bad news? I get that. But, was the look-out on the Titanic being a pessimist because he alerted the bridge to the iceberg? C'mon, folks! Must we always wait until the SHTF before we finally decide we'd better start paying attention?

Not being 'interested' in the big decisions that determine our world is probably related to point 2. After all, the news, especially lately, concerning national or geo-politics, and macro or micro economics, seems to be unrelentingly bad... and who wants that, after a tough day in the cubicle? Sure-- it matters, somehow; but right now, I need a stiff nightcap. How did we get this notion that American Idol matters more than the latest world news? While the globalist forces have been making the world ever more interrelated and interdependent, they have also been constraining the public's attention to ever more trivial matters, using the power of the media to define our reality.

Finally, here's the easiest, most 'logical' reason to justify not bothering with current affairs-- they 'just happen' due to the forces of nature and random process, so why bother? If you think human agents are actually plotting and precipitating the big global events, you must be a conspiracy nut (or nutter, if you're English). It couldn't possibly be true, because... 'Because what?' is my response. Why do people so speedily reject the idea of covert action by powerful forces, when they have done absolutely zero research into it? It's 'obviously impossible' because the listener lacks the imagination to conceive it might be possible.

Even when presented with copious evidence that there must, necessarily, be collusion involved in disasters, the notorious majority will ignore it. It's as if they understand, at a Freudian level, that if there's the slightest truth to the conspiracy notion, it would totally disturb their comforting world view... their 'Weltanschauung' as it's called in German. (A word worth looking up, BTW.)

 The influence of denial is so pernicious that it over-rides a vital, innate capacity of human nature that we call common sense. This fact is truly astounding, and is demonstrated in sharp relief by the tragi-comic events of '9-11-01', where the laws of physics, chemistry, and logic are overturned, under the explanation provided by the US government. In fact, many professionals in various related fields recognize the contradictions, and are trying to get their views across to a dumb-founded population. Yet with the unrelenting immovability of the mainstream media in upholding the ridiculous official explanation, the '911 Truth movement' has been unable to gain effective traction in more than a decade.

The good citizens of the majority have never pondered the fascinating question of 'how do we know what we know?' Of course, we 'learn' everything we know. Or turning it around, we are taught by the system, over the most impressionable years of our lives, in factories designed for the purpose. We know 'X' because 'they' told us so! Sure, maybe you consider yourself well-read. But who wrote the books? All 'mainstream knowledge' emanates from mainstream (i.e. 'approved') sources. All conventional theories or explanations have received the 'imprimateur' of some governing authority. All governing bodies are cooperative components of the system (the Matrix, for those who can handle the analogy).

What we know is what we've been allowed to know by the system. But, what is the system? Surely, it's just a word for the collective wisdom of society, and therefore, trustworthy. No! This is the crucial part; the one that you in the majority can't accept. The system did not simply fall into place via natural, chaotic, human interactions, which therefore represent unbiased or disinterested knowledge. Perhaps the public thrives on simplicity; but that's really another word for naivete.

After a lifetime of serious, non-conformist observation, one must conclude that history has been hijacked. A bizarre idea to many readers; but unless you can begin to give this notion a fair hearing, you will never see the real world, only the illusion created for you by others. If world events simply unfold organically, why are there all those secretive, elitist societies (e.g. The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Davos Conference, etc., etc.)? These organizations are all regularly attended by, largely, the same, prominent decision-makers and political heads who wield the powers that shape our world. Do you really think they are just getting together to chat about the weather and sip champagne? If so, why would it be necessary to surround these confabs with the highest level of security, and to keep out all but selected reporters (if any), and to limit public statements to merely hollow pronouncements?

Why has the European Union project proceeded so resolutely when most citizens oppose full integration... and when stumbling monetary union has shown how infeasible it is? Why have human rights and freedoms been so restricted over the past decade, when the real threat of terrorism is so low? Why have the North American media obsessed over Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston, while keeping us in the dark over things like Iceland's handling of their debt crisis? Why did the US invade Iraq when Saddam had no connection to Al Queda? And why are they now pressing to attack Iran over a completely specious, manufactured nuclear problem?

Dear sheeple, none of the above issues 'just happened' by accident. You've got to grow up and start thinking for yourself. Never mind that some highly-educated 'expert' came on CNN or Fox News and assured you that everything is fine, and the government will take care of you. That's BS! Everything that happens in the human sphere is being pushed in a specific direction by agents who have a self-serving plan. Enormous sums of 'money' (whatever that really means) have been siphoned out of the pockets of the general populace, since 2008, by elitist bankers and their co-opted political minions. Some of the folks woke up, and Occupy Wall Street was the tangible result. This is a good instance of a segment of the public finally realizing that the guys in the expensive suits are NOT looking out for their interests, but are voracious predators looking after themselves alone.

Unfortunately, too many others still have not had their epiphany, and may even look down on the OWS protestors. These good 'law-abiding' citizens will have to have the rug yanked out from under them in brutal manner before they reach their moment of illumination. Too many Americans still function under the illusion that they live in a democracy, and that it matters whether their president is a Democrat or a Republican... even after all the evidence of recent years that it's a choice between two evils of essentially the same ilk.

 Ah yes, denial will die hard in the Western world, where the sun never sets on the capitalist empire.

Ref. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

Revelations on Bible Prophecy


We are living in the Apocalypse-- the Revelatory Age, if you will. That means that things formerly hidden are being brought to light. It's like turning over a big rock, and finding a mess of disgusting creepy-crawley creatures scurrying in all directions, trying to avoid the glare of daylight. It should be a time of rapid maturing;
the unmasking of deception should make everyone start to see the world as it really is, not as the old facades pretend it is.

But that is not, typically, what is happening among the majority of people.

To begin with, the Christian commentators who expound on the prophecies of the Bible-- especially of the Revelation-- all seem to make serious, fundamental errors of interpretation that ensure their conclusions are mistaken. What they seem to do is to make some 'logical' (as humans think) assumptions on the future based on their political/economic/sociological (biased) understanding of current events. Then they go sifting thru the scriptures, pulling out whatever verses can be proposed as proving their presumed conclusions. Of course, this process is often unconscious, and they may believe that they are not relying on preconceptions, but the results don't support this view.

The biggest mistake Christian pundits make is to take the book of Revelation literally. They reason that 'if God said it, then it must be exactly so!' In fact, Revelation starts with the assertion that its words 'signify' (Rev 1:1, literal), that is, symbolically describe, 'what is to come.' So, if one accepts that scripture is the divine expression, then why not heed the warning that the words are figurative? Indeed, with its bizarre mix of horsemen, trumpets, bowls, monstrous locusts, etc., it must be obvious that the text is not to be taken literally!

Nonetheless, the pundits invariably decide to accept some passages as allegorical, and others as literal... almost arbitrarily. Let me provide a prime example. The majority of commentators, over several centuries, have decided that 'the beast' of chapter 13 (that recovered from the deadly wound) is the Vatican (the Papacy), or others, that it's the European Union. Then they find a matrix of verses that they can force into 'supporting' this conclusion. If they would let the text define itself, using sound 'hermeneutics' (systematic protocols of interpretation) they would come to an entirely different conclusion!

To begin with, the meaning of a text depends more on context than on pretext! Instead of collecting verses from all over the Bible-- Old Testament as well as New-- you have to examine the whole passage within which a verse appears. Then, it's reasonable to go looking for passages that demonstrate typical meanings of specific words.

In the case of Revelation, one has to consider 'meta-factors' such as the writing style of John, the author. Notably, in many places, John takes recognizable passages from the OT, and applies them in a new context and manner. The recycled text is meant to evoke the general atmosphere of the original situation, while describing the future symbolically. The original words relate to specific, physical events long before the time of Christ; as adopted by John, those words now pertain to universal, spiritual realities that would eventuate in 'the last days.'
Thus, when John writes of Babylon, altho he echoes the OT prophets, he is clearly describing an apostate religious system, not the 'golden kingdom' of yore. If Babylon is not literal-- as virtually all pundits agree-- then why should 'Israel' be taken literally as the modern nation/state occupying Palestine? Yet millions have committed their minds and wallets to this belief as if it's unassailable!

Another prominent characteristic of the book of Revelation is that it is 'cyclical' rather than linear. The western-educated reader has the presumption that a story progresses from 'now' until 'later,' in straight-line fashion. Revelation, instead, retells the same outline of history in several successive passes... without saying so, of course. By studying the text, one can discern this repetition, and appreciate how it provides alternative details of end-time events.

It's nothing short of astounding that so many people can all claim to read the same document, yet like an army of lawyers, all come to different, and errant conclusions as to what it means. Strangely, this ambiguity is deliberate! By this opaqueness, God is able to frustrate the efforts of any agency that would like to twist the scriptures to their own, nefarious ends; and, at the same time, to demonstrate the validity of the holy books and of His custodianship.

This is not to say that the prophecies are useless because they can't be interpreted-- as is the case, incidentally, with the famous 'quatrains' of Nostradamus. Not at all. Under the unction of the Holy Spirit, and maintaining a mind free (as much as possible) from pre-judgements, it is possible to discern the true predictions of prophecy-- and to be amazed by them. I refer readers to some of the essays on this website, for example, 'The Beast of Revelation Is Is...', Revelation Revisited (New Study, and Part 2).

A classic case of how not to interpret Biblical prophecy is supplied by a book written in the 1970s by the 'pop-evangelist' Hal Lindsay. Given the melodramatic title 'The Late Great Planet Earth,' his scenario embraced detailed accounts of geo-political moves by the big, world powers, with fanciful descriptions of fearsome technologies and weaponry, all of it centered around the state of Israel, complete with time-lines. And all of it was totally 'out to lunch' as far as being accurate prophecy. But many nominal Christians have short memories, and Lindsay's forecasts were soon replaced by a new wave of future-hysteria focussed now on the so-called 'secret Rapture,' that will prove to be another unfounded prophetic boondoggle. 

I opened this essay by saying that revealing truth ought to raise the consciousness of humanity, by stripping away the false world created by satanic deception. Jesus said that the truth shall set us free... because operating in falsehood always limits our options, and leads to false conclusions. Sadly, most people are so attached to their fabricated, artificial reality that they just can't handle truth, or the freedom it unavoidably entails. More on this topic in a later treatise.