Fake Truth for Our Own Good?

What is truth? One of the philosopher's oldest questions indeed. Zeno, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - an endless list of those attempting to define this surprisingly elusive concept. Zeno presented paradoxes - most lost - which brought into question our very ability to perceive our world. He showed that contradictions exist between our observed world and the logical world. For example Zeno's "Flying Arrow" paradox states "That it is impossible for a thing to be moving during a period of time, because it is impossible for it to be moving at an indivisible instant." (From p.4 "Zeno's Paradox" by Joseph Mazur, penguin)
I visualize this paradox as a high-speed photograph of an arrow, in which, the arrow appears to be motionless. Continuing p. 5:
"The flying-arrow paradox concludes that motion is impossible. Zeno pictures an arrow in flight and considers it frozen at a single point in time. He argues that the arrow must be stationary at
that instant, and if it is stationary at that instant then it is stationary at any - and - every instant. Therefore, it does not move at all."

We can also learn from Heisenberg's uncertainty theory:
"According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is." To visualize this I picture
someone blindfolded at a billiard table armed with a cue ball. On the table is an eight-ball. The blindfolded person rolls the cueball across the table, striking the eight-ball, thereby finding it, but
in the process moving it from its original location. Perhaps this is a weak analogy...wait - what am I getting at?

My point is that our world, even for science is so mysterious that we may never be able to nail down reality. In fact according to Aristotle everything we know is unscientific anyway because scientific observation is rooted in inductively derived observations, taken as givens by what he called "intuition." So what?


Modern man relies on the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" as our definitive truth-
testing tool. Here is a nice illustration:
Flow Chart for The Scientific Method

So we use the scientific method to evaluate evidence for our best possible description of reality, or truth. So it's that simple right? Well...


In his book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann discusses the "... insertion between man and his environment of a pseudo-environment. To that pseudo-environment his behavior is a response.
But because it is behavior, the consequences, if they are acts, operate not in the pseudo-environment where the behavior is stimulated, but in the real environment where action eventuates. ... at the level of social life, what is called the adjustment of man to his environment takes place through the medium of fictions. By fictions I do not mean lies. I mean a representation of the environment which is in lesser or greater degree made by man himself." He continues ... "For the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. ...we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it." Essentially, in my view, Lippmann described the dumbing down, repackaging, and presentation of a reality by an elite group to the masses. A top-down management of the masses via a controlled media. The fake reality fed to the public for its own good would be designed to produce a desired reaction from the masses to allow the elites to do what is best for the public. But isn't this just academic mumbo-jumbo? We live in a Republic, we elect our leaders. There's no conspiracy going on to manipulate the public is there? Well...


Consider (CLICK) This document examining practical considerations concerning disinformation in an adversarial environment. Or perhaps you will find (CLICK) this document and (CLICK) others here as proof that information war is a reality TODAY.

Since our Government and Military are information warfare experts would it be too much of a stretch to assume that they would employ this powerful tool? I think it is reasonable to answer "YES".


Without control of the media, information warfare can be neutralized by the free exchange of ideas - especially on the internet. THE INTERNET MUST REMAIN FREE - PERIOD. Our U.S. Constitution was designed to handle the "problems" propagandists like Lippmann saw with the seemingly stupid masses. We have three branches of government, one being a bicameral Congress. Add the electoral college. There are many "safeguards" in place, we are repeatedly told, to "protect" us from the tyranny of the masses. We have a FIRST AMENDMENT protecting freedom of speech and the press. Are we, expected, fellow citizens, to act like little children and listen to our elite "masters?" Are we to believe that our government is free from the overwhelming influence of powerful and influential Self-appointed apostles who would lead us to possible ruin?


“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” Dr. Ben Franklin was one of our wisest founding fathers. Who in our federal government is qualified to feed a citizen of Franklin's genius fake information for "his own good?" Please, my fellow citizens, please get involved in your own way - let's TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Jan 11, 2009 PCR lays it out nicely
Jan 18, 2009 Right under our noses - Raw Story - nothing to see here
Media Complicity - from Think Progress
Jan 18, 2009 Anthony Beever: Naive or in denial?
Army of disinfo people vs. bloggers
George Wash. Blog on bots to downvote 911 truth
Mainstream Media Lies-Video
UPDATE Feb 24, 2009 Bernays on this topic
UPDATE APRIL 13, 2009 Prez. can shut down internet in declared times of emergency - Does that go for threat level orange?
UPDATE APRIL 13, 2009 Watson article on Fox News re: this topic
UPDATE APRIL 15, 2009 ...spin an alternative reality...WITH VIDEO
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts - Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 US Spec Ops operates psywar websites targeted at UK
UPDATE MARCH 28, 2010 CIA Paper Reveals Plans to Manipulate European Opinion on Afghanistan


  1. We're DOOMED!

  2. Not doomed, just stupid.
    I guessed the populace would've figured it out by now. Especially after you gave the keys to Pelosi to impeach Bush and she promptly told you all where to go when she stood next to Cheney with a big grin on her face.

    (oh, and not just really stupid, but lazy too!)

    Thank-God you can't find Canada on a world map.

  3. Nothing like a healthy dose of humble pie from our neighbors to the North! Thanks anonymous from Canada, and Frank for commenting. You are both evidence of progress.

  4. Frank FredenburgJan 11, 2009, 7:20:00 PM

    Anonymous while I agree with that assessment, I realize that the rest of the western world is nearly as ignorant about the world as Americans. I just left an English forum called the Sun and I came away with the belief that most of the people in England are as dumb as Americans. When I said anything critical of the Jewish state or Jewish groups, I was attacked. Yet post anything negative about Arabs or Muslims and there was all kinds of support. In other words Jews all good, Arabs and Muslims all bad and evil. There were a few that spoke out and understood what was going on,but most were ignorant beyond belief.
    I'm a high school dropout, and I can see at least some of what is going on. Why can't people with a better education than I have, see it? Some Americans do see the mess we are in. I have only been active on the computer for a couple of years, but in that time I have seen a clear increase in the people on the Internet that are speaking out.
    The recent support for Ron Paul's candidacy, is a hopeful sign. I think people are beginning to realize the Federal Reserve has to go! It's a con-job.
    At least a third of America realizes that 9/11 was another con-job.
    While other westerners are clearly better schooled than Americans, they have fallen for the same propaganda as We have.
    Look at the weak resistance in Europe to the European Union and the Euro. Why cant they see that it is a sneaky deceptive way to create a One World Government. The North American Union and the Amero, will be the next step towards that goal.
    I may be wrong and I hope I am, but I suspect that many Americans and Canadians and all Westerners are willingly ignorant. Meaning they are ignorant about what is going on and happy to be that way. And no matter how much evidence you show them they will say "That's Conspiracy Nonsense". "Do you wear an aluminum hat on your head so the government wont send signals directly into your brain"? "You think everything is a conspiracy". "I refuse to believe the government does such things". "Do you realize what your accusing our government of"? Like our government hasn't done horrible things in the past! If I'm right, most westerners will never change their minds. One reason is they might be ashamed to admit to other people and most of all to themselves, how wrong they were. That they believed most of the lies they were told.
    Look at Iraq, most Americans supported going in and it should be clear to everyone that it was all based on lies. Now over a million are dead and it isn't even over yet. It is pretty tough admitting you supported a illegal war that committed so much carnage. Most of the American people have enabled this government to commit unspeakable horrors around the world.
    This is why I said before, we are doomed. Unless all western people wake up and smell the coffee, we don't have a chance.
    We are under the control of psychopaths! They don't have any conscience what so ever. If they did, there would be an outcry over what is going on in Gaza, that would silence the Israeli Lobby. Most of the outrage is from the public. There is very little being done by western governments to stop it.
    Saddam had his neck-stretched, for the Iraqi's he killed! If you believe in punishment in proportion to the crime committed, what should George Bush and his accomplices get for what they have done to Iraq and the rest of the world???
    Again until the people of America and the rest of the west wake up, there is no hope for change. If we don't change, we are doomed. The psychopaths have to be removed from power and held accountable for their crimes. People that crash planes into buildings, killing thousands and forge documents and tell countless lies to start wars the kill and maim millions of innocent people and feel absolutely no remorse what so ever, are clearly not normal people. I don't need a college degree to figure that out. How do I know they don't feel any guilt? They have used the same strategy to start a second war with Iran. Only this time Russia has warned that any attack against Iran will be considered an attack against Russia. Good for the Russians! I never thought I would applaud for the Russians over America. Right is right.
    One thing is sure, we live in a very interesting time! Lets hope we survive what is coming!
    Forgive the long rant! I just get disgusted with the way things are sometimes! I'm sick of trying to talk to people about it! I don't see where it does one bit of good. I'm sick of being called names!

  5. Great discussion: May I add that I agree there is enough blame to go around to all nations. I was criticized by someone for bringing up the newspaper Pravda to someone, because they told me the paper had martians etc.. in it. I asked them how they explain that A&E has a new show coming out on ghost chasers who are off duty cops in Chicago.

  6. Frank, thank you for your thoughts. I've had almost identical experiences involving interactions with people I've discussed these issues with face to face as you've described. I agree, at times getting anyone to stop for one second to look at the facts seems impossible. I wonder, if it weren't for the internet, if people would ever have caught on to the contradictions between what we are told and what the truth is - let alone began to discuss the possibility, as we do in this forum, that we've been mislead to a greater degree than any of us had imagined. It seems this subject is easier to "break the ice" on via internet communication.

    I encourage you to stick with it, and continue contributing in any way you can. Perhaps some of the folks you've tried to wise up will come around when something strikes them personally to wake them up. For me, it was the video of the collapse of WTC7 that made me realize something is seriously wrong.

    Your participating in the discussion on this blog is a contribution because every additional voice emboldens more people to consider examining the facts. May I also add that I am honored that you spent some of your personal time reading this blog. Comments from folks like you and the anonymous Canadian are important to me because the feedback helps me better understand what I am doing right and what I am doing wrong in furthering the cause of the truth movement. Come back soon.

  7. jr, this article makes me wonder about my own judgment. you are definitely on the same path of thinking as i am. i'm starting to believe you can affect your own reality. if this is so, then i don't have to convince 6 billion plus people that 911 was an inside job. or that the big brother orwellian state is coming. i think all i have to do is change my own way of thinking. if any one has questions about this conclusion, then i suggest check out quantum physic. it is very interesting, and not as complicated as you might think. also, jackrabbit, it could be possible that i created this whole thing about you and wrh.com. in my own reality. or maybe my reality has changed wrh.com and you jr, into the good guys in my reality. all things are possible in this thing we call the universe. thank you, FREDUMBFRUS2

  8. i would like to apologize to ALL of jackrabbit's readers on all of his blogs. hence, my comments on jr's blogs were directed at jr instead of his articles. i may or may not have developed a distorted view of wrh.com and jackrabbit himself. i still have questions, but attacking jr was a poor way to try and get answers. humbly FREDUMBFRUS2

  9. fredumbfrus2,
    thanks - accepted - but not necessary. It seems your participation has resulted in progress. We started out not understanding each other, worked it out, and can now focus on how we can all share information and come together for our common goal of more representative and responsive government - and the preservation of our rights.

  10. I have a completely different view, here is a dissenting opinion.

    Most of your facts are correct, but your interpretation of those facts is not. I like your line of reasoning all the way through scientific method. Then it gets fuzzy.

    "Since our Government and Military are information warfare experts would it be too much of a stretch to assume that they would employ this powerful tool? I think it is reasonable to answer "YES"." IW experts? I am regarded, by some, as one of those experts and I believe that the vast majority of IW experts are rank amateurs. As you said previously, as soon as Homo Sapiens gets involved in scientific methodology - it gets real and, therefore, practically unpredictable. How can a bunch of pasty-faced white boys, raised in the US, possibly know how to influence someone in Afghanistan or Iraq - they don't, so they base a lot of their tactics on gut instincts. This is why I have been for integrating cultural, social psychology, religious and language experts from even before the planning stages.

    This is my personal opinion, but the US is widely regarded as dysfunctional by the rest of the world, and even by our own citizens. The message going out is often not well coordinated and the message and, more importantly, the actions, do not reflect our 'national message'. Then we have the message going to our own citizens and that is often disjointed.

    As an IO/IW professional I would say we are really not that good as some people say, frankly, we suck at some things and at others we are beyond good - but we are generally never allowed to do it.

    - General IO. We have a huge disconnect here, there is an "official" doctrine, JP 3-13, but every Service applies it differently (hugely disparate). At the OSD and Joint level there is peace. Outside of DoD, however, we suck. State is grossly underfunded. The White House does not issue guidance but is slowly improving and there is no systemic feedback mechanism, therefore the message is not fully coordinated. This might improve from some working groups I am involved with, but no - we are not that good.

    - Computer Network Operations. We are darned good at attack and exploit but we are not allowed to but for extreme circumstances. Defending? We are good but the default is for the military to defend our public networks and I don't think they have the manpower nor the dollars. Public defending their networks during an attack? They cry now for the military's help but say "stay out, big brother" anytime they offer their help.

    - Electronic Warfare. We are good and getting better, the systems are becoming integrated into platforms but the manpower base is shrinking. HPM and DEW are the thing of the future but they are still a few years out for full effectiveness.

    - Military Deception. Good.

    - Operational Security. Very good but the plethora of new media makes freedom of speech versus security a constant struggle.

    - Psychological Operations. We are good, in the military, but still struggling. The human mind is the least understood of any of the sciences, influencing someone to do something (or not do something) is still an art and definitely not a science.

    On a related note: The Human Terrain Team system is constantly under attack by naysayers but this is THE tool we need to develop in order to give our warfighters the ability to do win a fight without firing a single bullet (hopefully). Now, put this on steroids and you will quickly see there are not enough cultural anthropologists, social psychologists or the like to give any proper advice in sufficient quantity and quality to make a difference up and down the chain, all the way to the White House. When I was told the CIA's top expert on Afghanistan was a white guy from Kansas, I had to cough - loud. I don't know how much time he has spent there, quite a bit, I will imagine, but having been there on two tours, decades apart, I know I can never fully understand them, not with my background. On the other hand, bring an Afghani here and I will always not trust him/her fully - if you were ever there you would develop that sense quickly. So what do you do? The best you can...

    So... we are struggling and not as good as you might think.

  11. Jay,
    Thank you for your comments. First off - I didn't say I thought you guys were that good. I do, however, acknowledge and demonstrate that a great deal of effort has been directed toward information warfare - and I stand by my analysis.

    My concern is with the application of information manipulation via the press within the United States - with the intention of influencing mass opinion via deception or "white lies". I would prefer our press were not controlled by several large corporations with bottom lines as their guide instead of ideals based upon the preservation of the constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. I would prefer if "news" channels that profess to be fair and balanced didn't employ generals taking marching orders from the pentagon posing as disinterested parties to a trusting public.

  12. Jay,
    You say"Most of your facts are correct, but your interpretation of those facts is not."

    Which of my facts are not correct?

  13. Jay,
    You say " State is grossly underfunded."

    When I speak to my fellow Americans, one thing we seem to agree on is the obscene amount of taxpayer dollars Washington consumes on many things, including funding our present empire. See another article on this blog called "Can Americans Have an Empire and Eat Too?"

  14. America: Stick a fork in her...she's done (for)!

  15. Very insightful. As I watch certain events unfold, I have begun to realize that if an event lacks a pathway for reliable independent verification, then it is highly likely that the information shared is imprecise at best. Consider that whosoever is sharing the information has no means of their own to verify the information they are sharing since nothing exists outside of their own view. On what are they relying as independent verification? I understand now why reporters and spies rely on multiple independent lines of evidence for their work. The more independent the verificiation, the more likely the information is to be correct.
    Consider the recent info coming from N. Korea around their nuclear and ballistic efforts. We were told a couple of years ago that their efforts to produce a nuclear explosion were relatively unsuccessful as the yield was below a kiloton (still pretty lethal as far as I'm concerned). The recent ballistic test as characterized as unsuccessful as the third stage failed and the missile fell short of the target. These two lines of information would make the recipient believe that the N. Koreans are inept and ineffectual enemies. Hardly surprising if you consider the miserable state of their economy. But wait, I have no independent way of verifying whether their nuclear, missile or economic efforts are good or bad. In the game of what if...suppose their efforts were successful and misreported. I might feel more threatened if I knew they could nuke me in my sleep. I might also begin to question how a country supposedly in the midst of economic chaos, could produce such deadly and expensive high technology without any outside help. In that case, one could conclude that though their collective economic system might be undesirable, it is still capable of matching the achievements of our own.
    We can't know the answers, because we have no information of our own. It's probably best that right thinking people avoid investing too much emotion into the outcome of events in which they cannot independently verify the facts.

  16. Internet is not a panacea. I participate in many forums, newsgroups etc., and there are lots of folks who are internet-savvy enough to use newsgroups, but still think that anybody questioning that 9/11 was done by Al_Qaeda is a nutcase and should be put in jail, and that somebody who was killed by police taser because he refused to show the id without any cause, fully deserved it because that's what anybody who does not cooperate with the authorities deserves. Yes, visitors of the few "dissident" websites understand what's going on, but go and read comments on a story on regular news site - the majority will be absolutely fachistic.

    American society is rotten in very high degree by disproportionate amount of commercialization of all aspects of life, and lying and hypocrisy have become the ethical norm. This has far reaching implications, including ruthless war crimes in Iraq that would make German Nazis envy. It can't be cured simply by "free exchange of ideas". Once you look at the whole spectrum of the said ideas across this society, rather than distilled circle of rense, whatreallyhappened, infowars and few such, I'm not sure you will want to exchange most of them.


    Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar.
    From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59

    "Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon."

    "This 'big lie' technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was "King of the Jews", in the sense that so-called 'Jews' today call themselves 'Jews'. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews highjacked the word 'Jew' in the 18th century A.D. to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called 'Jews' of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable."

    "American Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their curricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called "Jews" of historic Khazar ancestry. Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges.

    "The historic existence of the Khazar kingdom of so-called "Jews", their rise and fall, the permanent disappearance of the Khazar kingdom as a nation from the map of Europe, and how King Bulan and the Khazar nation in about 740 A.D. became so-called "Jews" by conversion, were concealed from American Christians by censorship imposed by so-called "Jews", of historic Khazar ancestry, upon all U.S.A. media of mass communications directed by them. Then in 1945 this author gave nation-wide publicity to his many years intensive research into the "facts of life" concerning Khazars. The disclosures were sensational and very effective but apparently angered so-called "Jews" who have continued to vent their spleen upon this author since then solely for that reason. Since 1946 they have conducted a vicious smear campaign against him, seeking thus to further conceal these facts, for obvious reasons. What have they to fear from the truth?

    "In an original 1903 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia in New York's Public Library, and in the Library of Congress, Volume IV, pages 1 to 5 inclusive, appears a most comprehensive history of the Khazars. Also in the New York Public Library are 327 books by the world's greatest historians and other sources of reference, in addition to the Jewish Encyclopedia, dealing with Khazar history, and written between the 3rd A.D. and 20th centuries by contemporaries of the Khazars and by modern historians on that subject."

    Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

    During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

    In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

    Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

  18. Who was the First Jew?
    John Standring

    We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called Jew. Nor were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a Jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called Jew. In fact you will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drave the Jews from Elath. Isn't it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the Bible before we find a Jew anywhere, yet those who call themselves Jew today claim the first five books of the bible and call it their Torah. Do you not find it rather strange that those who claim to have written the first five books of the Bible and call themselves Jew, can't find the word Jew written anywhere in the book they call their own bible, and claim to have written? Jesus Christ tells John in Revelation 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN". We know that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, and that He changed the name of Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28, but nowhere in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of Israel to Jew! There is therefore no authority by which those who say they are Jews can claim to be Israel!

    By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible, 1611, translated Idumaean-Judean into Iewes. It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel. jesusjew.htm

  19. Blah blah my religion says this ...blah blah blah my religion says that . . .

    Where is the application of reason? Where is the humility to say "I don't have all the answers - or maybe any of them - lemme listen to what someone else has to say.."

  20. surely reality is defined from the source of the focal point of which ever particular state of awareness that each man is in at what ever point in time.the truth I agree is not definable it is constantly changing according to awareness or unawareness I dont know maybe ultimate reality is guided by intuition something that has definately been sabotaged by the powers that be. I dont know maybe I will feel differently tomorrow.neil

  21. "Who controls the media?"

    Hell buddy, if you wont define that, then you are part of the problem because that is square 1.

  22. the insight is good but incomplete - you only think about the present. Fake truth was possible in the past as well, probably even much easier.

    This is not a modern phenomenon. If you look at the past in depth you will find it chock full of fake "truths" down to the most basic teachings that noone dares to doubt in public today.

    There are quantitatively much more fakes in history than are in the present time.

  23. Thank you anonymous - and especially for pointing out my failings - for thinking "only about the present."

    Perhaps you will reconsider your position? I don't only thing about the present - I think about the lessons of history - show examples from the present - so people can see that not only does history repeat - but there are very very very current examples demonstrating that this historical process is not only historical - but happening NOW.

    Ya' know - when George Orwell wrote 1984 he wasn't predicting the future - he was talking about what was going on RIGHT NOW! Did you get that?

    Now....as far as Jack Rabbit thinking "only about the present" -

    perhaps, like Orwell, my approach is to demonstrate what is happening "right now" for those who have no time for history.

    Your points, to me at least, miss the point. Who said this is a modern phenomenon? Where do I say that?

    That point, even if I made it, has nothing to do with the point of this article.

    My friend, I'm sorry, but you need to kill yourself.

  24. Good article. I posted it with excerpts from Frank Frednburg's comment on my blog.


  25. Really great discussions here. I'm a fan. thank you!


Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.