[By the way, as per Manners and Courtesy, it is always impolite to ask someone where they’re from.  If they’re from Texas, they will eventually tell you in the course of the conversation.  If they are not from Texas...  Well, you don’t want to embarrass them!]

[This used to be a good joke, but of late many former Texans are likely to be denying having any knowledge, previous residence, or connection with the State of Texas. It seems that certain personages have given the Lone Star State a serious black eye.]
 

There is -- notwithstanding one’s homeland -- another form of discrimination: the observation of distinctions, insight, having good judgment and/or tastes.  It’s discernment, in the sense of perceiving clearly with the mind or senses; not being easily deluded -- and recognizing that being from Texas is no longer a kudo.

More precisely, discrimination is the ability (innate and/or developed) to discriminate between truth and lies, fact and fiction, genuine or fake, and Bushite or otherwise .  It’s being able to:

perceive underlying motives and hidden agendas (aren’t they all?),

question authoritative pronouncements (the more authoritative, the more likely they’re pure barn-carpeting),

be able to follow the money (aka power/status) in rationally investigating alleged axioms, maxims, gospels, and/or Paradigms, and

to be open to the possibility that some conspiracies are very long term and thus easily misconstrued as being established truth.

It’s being aware of the assumptions made, the paradigm in which we operate, and what is being taken for granted.  

Discrimination is, in essence, the ability to decide if the material on this (or any other) web site, advertisement, politically motivated news announcement -- and most anything that comes across the table or airways -- is factual, logical, or rationale...  Or just so much horse hockey pucks.

(5/18/2011) Jon Rapporport, in his No More Fake News, provides a good example of how modifiers can completely change the context of the language used in attempting to obtain support, convince others of just about anything, and/or avoid the sting of a discriminating mind. In his articled, More Genetic Baloney, he notes how the use of modifiers totally contradict the astounding headlines, and in fact, describe instead recent research in genetics, for example, where the actual outcome should more properly be described as: “Nothing here, forget it, minor achievement, we’re hunting in the dark, we need more funding, so we’re touting every step we take.” An excellent article on how to discriminate in one's reading.  

One critical distinction is that the discriminating reader (one who does not necessarily read the supermarket tabloids) needs to know the difference between an interpretation and the event.  If a guy says to a gal, “Hey, babe, you’re looking good.”  That is an event.  The interpretation is one of several: e.g., a compliment, a playful flirtation, or a sexual proposition (or even other possibilities).  To call the event an example of male chauvinism is also an interpretation.  Even what is perceived in the so-called body language is an interpretation by the observer.
 

Importantly, whether or not you believe someone when they have made an allegedly factual statement, is also an interpretation.  Belief is interpretation.  Only what they say constitutes the event.  Discriminating between the two, between events and interpretations is absolutely essential if one is even remotely curious about the truth!
 

The difficulty with this type of discrimination is that the discriminating individual must invariably spend the time to do their home-library-other-sources work.  Most importantly, it involves the willingness to see events, truths, or ideas from a wholly new perspective, even when the new information conflicts with one’s Paradigms, or their preconceived ideas of what constitutes the truth.   

All of this requires time and effort on each individual’s part.  It takes energy to revise one’s opinions, one’s basic assumptions about life.  But anything less is willful ignorance.

For example, CNN television news reported on September 23, 2003, these words of President George Bush in regard to "not paying attention" to the Democratic Race of President:

"I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world."

Okay, okay. So this is an anti-example of intelligent discrimination. But sometimes bad examples can demonstrate truths, and who better than President Bush to serve as a bad example?

Conversely, Laurence Gardner has noted:

"In searching the ancient literature, we never know if the author was a congenital liar and/or a moron. What we are taught today is clearly written by congenital liars and morons."

As  recounted elsewhere, there is the anecdote -- a tale that may be true, allegorical, or simply a manufactured lie in order to convince someone of something -- concerning Sir Isaac Newton, the unofficial but widely held “patron saint of science”.  Sir Isaac was one of the inventors of the calculus, and a principal source of the theory of classical mechanics (which includes the Laws of Motion and the Law of Gravitation).  He was also an astrologer.  When asked by one of his scientific colleagues, Sir Edmond Halley, as to how he could possibly believe in Astrology, Sir Isaac answered succinctly, “Because I have studied the subject, Sir. You haven’t.”  The fact that Sir Edmond was an astronomer is a relevant factor.  

This story may be true, partially correct, or simply a pleasant fiction.  Regardless of its accuracy, however, it does emphasize the whole point.  When one has studied the subject, one is infinitely more qualified to profess certain beliefs it.  (Otherwise, you’re a student of deceit, a journalist, and/or a politician.  All pretty much the same thing, actually.)  

The idea of practicing discrimination by doing your homework makes the sometimes wholly unwarranted assumption that while studying the subject, the individual has an open mind, or something approaching an open mind.  A priest refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope is a blatant example of intellectual dishonesty, but someone who studies a subject with the intent (and ultimate decision) to manipulate the data in order to prove their preconceived notions is a far more dangerous individual.   

Intellectual dishonesty is rampant among politicians and their avid, narrow-minded fans and/or supporters (i.e. virtually anyone who votes a “straight ticket”).  Among other things, they will categorically refuse to even consider or think about investigating a particular point of view.  This may be on the basis of the time they don’t feel they can afford to devote to the subject, or more often, because they really don’t want to know the truth.  It is often far easier to bury one’s head in the sand.  Willful ignorance is easier.  

In the interim, they will often make authoritative pronouncements on the subject.  This is the basic tactic of distraction, confusion, and disinformation.  Sound like you know what you’re talking about, have others say essentially the same thing, and pretty soon the more gullible among the listeners will eventually buy it -- however outrageous the lie may be.  

"The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...' Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government -- including the courts -- to act in this area." [1]

This dismal, wholly unethical argument is based on the illogical leap from Congress make no law establishing a state religion to making no laws on the subject of religion. The discriminating reader or listener will immediately realize that Alan Keyes is simply attempting to provide himself with Carte Blanche in allowing himself to do anything with respect to religion -- including denying any and everyone else of their civil rights in a whole host of arenas.

Keyes, of course, is a Neo-conservative with strong ties to Dominionism -- along with such notable characters as President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Karl Rove (Bush's chief political advisor), Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, former Vice-President Dan Quayle, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Gary North (of Contra fame), Pat Robertson (700 Club), Billy Graham, and others. As such these individuals and their cohorts have an agenda which is defined as:

" militant post-millennial eschatology ('doctrine of end times') which pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal) power by the church as the only means through which the world can be rescued; only after the world has been thus 'rescued' can Christ return to 'rule and reign.' (Some dominionists see the seizure of the earth as the result of 'signs, wonders, and miracles;' others picture it as the result of military and political conquest; most see it as a combination of both.)" [2]

This subject is described in considerable detail by Katherine Yurica [3]. From the perspective of Discrimination, it is clear that intentionally misleading and deceptive practices are part and parcel of seeing through the hidden agendas and making open minded decisions. The reality is that there are a lot of people who believe they are licensed to law, kill, murder, and casue untold misery simply because they think they are on track with some religious, god-given authority.

While such people may sound like typical politicians, it must be admitted that some politicians are actually worse than others -- and it behooves us all to discriminate between them.

Part of the problem with politicians of course is that most are lawyers, who have been carefully trained to take a single point of view and defend it to the hilt.  They are taught to avoid looking at both sides of the situation, but instead to see only one viewpoint, and thereafter attempt to manipulate and twist every ounce of evidence, argument, or logic such that it appears to support their previously chosen viewpoint.  This is taken to a horrible extreme in the case of criminal prosecutors who in attempting to find someone guilty of a crime, will hide or compromise evidence in order to make their case.  Instead of recognizing their fiduciary responsibility to the truth and justice of the situation, they are instead looking only for the guilty verdict which will ostensibly verify their value as a prosecutor.   

The defender of an accused criminal, however, is licensed and applauded when they can bring every twist and manipulation to the situation in order to defend their client.  It has long been recognized that the defense has special leave to defend someone who they may privately think is guilty.  The idea is that everyone is entitled to an enthusiastic and capable defense -- no matter how guilty they may appear.  And thus the defense is excused from adhering to the fundamentals of providing the whole truth.  

Obviously, this implies that in any Trial by Jury (or by a judge/magistrate/etceteras) in any criminal case, the prosecution is at something of a disadvantage in having to adhere wholly to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; while the defense is justified in not telling the whole truth.  In effect, no one (including one’s legal counsel) is required to testify against themselves.  Self-defense is acceptable in any court of law.  (Even when there are hidden agendas to deny such self-incrimination in courts of law!)  

The question of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is fundamentally important.  Corporations, for example, are not legally required to tell the whole truth.  They may make statements which are “true and accurate”, but not “true, accurate, and complete.”  Politicians, who primarily represent corporations (i.e. the source of their funds), continue this trend, but do so with no legal, moral, or ethical justification.  A corporation, for example, does not have to tell you that there is a better price down the street.  This might be construed as bad business, or anti-Capitalism.  Corporations are thus excused from testifying against themselves.  Politicians -- who allegedly represent the people -- have no such claim to avoid the whole truth.  

Several years ago, at the University of Colorado, there was a student movement to name a new cafeteria after a certain Donner, a pioneer and someone who was said to have blazed “new trails in exotic cuisine”.  What was not mentioned in this tongue-in-cheek campaign was that this individual was the leader of the famous Donner party, who in the 1800s when trapped upon the Sierra Madre, had resorted to cannibalism in order for certain members to survive.  By not mentioning this fact, the students had neglected the whole truth.  

This example is equivalent to another group of students from Texas who wanted to rename their school, San Houston Institute of Technology.  The idea was to emulate MIT (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology).  The concept was very appealing to the powers that be... until someone pointed out the difficulty.  (Think about it.)  

In a Republic -- such as the original creation of the United States of America (but not necessarily what’s happening now) -- it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to practice discrimination, and to follow up their judgments and decisions with actions.  But this discrimination cannot be one of willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or hidden agendas.  Instead, it requires everyone to do their homework (collect data from diverse locations), develop rational thinking (so as to accurately process the data), nurture an open mind (in order to be able to accept the inevitable conclusions or inferences from the processed data), and maintain a reservoir of courage to take the actions demanded by the conclusions.  (That’s where it gets interesting.)  

In this regard, discrimination might be written in the form:  dis-crimi-nation; which means the “reversal, absence, removal, or complete separation” of a “criminal” “nation”.

Does any of this sound slighly paranoid? First of all, keep in mind that paranoia is "the illusion of someone or some group out to get you". If they really are out to get you -- i.e. it's not an illusion -- it's not paranoia. It's reality.

Furthermore, there are numerous techniques for accomplishing the nefarious tasks of Dominionism supporters and others. These techniques include distraction and decognition, just to mention a couple. The first might be exemplified by the cartoon: "Non Sequitur" by Wiley. It is about "The Legend of OBVIOUSMAN".

"Professor Obfuscate reveals the source of America's Media Zombies... The status quo of the two party system depends on distracting the population with simplistic rhetoric. Critical thinking would lead to a viable third party getting in, which means politicians would have to actually keep their campaign promises. And they'll do anything to prevent that, and keep the gravy train of incumbency rolling."

Obviousman asks: "What are you going to do with me now?"

"Let you go on wandering the rest of your life trying to get mindless Americans to think for themselves."

Obviousman sighs. "Now that's wat I call diabolical."

"Help Obviousman in his quest to wake up America... Be cynical."

Okay, there's a bit of tongue in cheek here, but there's also a great deal of reality here.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there is "decognition". [4] The process is familiar in cults, armed services, and any groups which cannot tolerate cynicism among its members, or for that matter the slightest hesitation to respond to commands and orders. The process is typically a three step process: 1) alertness reduction, 2) programmed confusion, and 3) thought stopping.

The first is designed to confuse fantasy and reality and is accomplished by poor diet (sugar, for example, throws off the nervous system, while cult diets of only vegetables and fruits can leave one feeling spacey), inadequate sleep combined with intense work or physical activity, and a virtual bombardment of intense and unique experiences.

Step two is combined with step one and consists of a deluge of new information, lectures, discussions, and lots of questions of the subject. Reality and illusion often merge and perverted logic becomes acceptable.

Step three is nothing more than a refusal to countenance the subject from stopping to think, to question, or to even ask anything but "high ask" when told to jump.

Obviously the key is that one just can't always believe what one hears, no matter how credible the source might seem. For example, there is the story of the Talking Dog:

A guy is driving around when he sees a sign in front of a house: "Talking Dog For Sale." They guy stops and goes to the door where the owner tells him the dog is in the backyard. The guy goes there and sees a Labrador Retriever sttting there.

"Do you talk?" he asks.

"Yep," the Lab replies.

"So, what's your story?"

The Lab looks at him and says, "Well, I discovered that I could talk when I was pretty young, and I wanted to help the government; so I told the CIA about my gift, and in no time at all they had be jetting from country to country, sitting in rooms with spies and world leaders, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping. I was one of their most valuable spies for eight years running.

"But the jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn't getting any younger, so I wanted to settle down. I signed up for a job at the airport to do some undercover security work, mostly wandering near suspicious characters, listening in, and then reporting back. I uncovered some incredible dealings and was awarded a batch of medals. I got married, had a mess of puppies, and now I'm just retired."

The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants to the dog.

"Ten dollars", the gusy says.

"But this dog is amazing. Why on earth are you selling him so cheap?"

"Because he's a liar. He didn't do any of that shit."

Clearly, the source does not ensure any resemblance to credibility.

Finally, an essential aspect of Discrimination is the ability to think. Sorry about that, but thinking is really a pre-requisite to all manner of worthwhile activities. About the only alternative is to join a political party and let someone else do the thinking.

It's also helpful to have a bit of Common Sense -- as uncommon as such a commodity appears to be of late.

______________________

References:

[1] http://homepage.mac.com/akitzmil/iblog/C826490882 -- wherein resides the subject of Dominionism, the neo-conservative religious philosophy which claims that the goal (world domination) justifies the means (no matter now evil and depraved).

[2] http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Dominionism

[3] http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[4] http://4truthseekers.com/treeoflife/articles/humanityvsNWO3_children.htm -- this link, however, no longer seems to be functional. Obviously with a name like "truthseekers", such a group must be suspect by those with hidden agendas, and thus it no longer exists?

Synthesis         Communications, Education, Health         Inter Net

Emergence of a Species Mind

Or forward to:

Education         Language         Groupies

Dominionism -- Faith -- and/or Obsolescence

New:

The Milgram Effect

Freedom of Religion        Holy War        The Rules of Holy War

Racism and Culturalism         Multiculturalism         Perils of Immigration

Free Speech         The (9) Supremes         The Halls of SCOTUS

An American Third Party         A Third Party That Knows How to Party