The New 21st Century Reality=PERCEPTION

When an infant begins to walk, they walk and soon try to run everywhere. Many parents may have acquainted the little ones with water in hopes the ability to swim will blossom quickly. Who knows maybe there will be swimming medals and lucrative endorsements in that child's future.

Before that child goes anywhere watchful parents try to make sure they don't jump into the pool before they can swim, particularly that dreaded deep end. Regrettably, a few will escape attention and end up being another fatal statistic for not perceiving the deep end as a real threat. This is the classic perception versus reality. The child perceives no threat and undesirable consequences are the result.

Today, there is a strong vein of this in the adult world, although most find ways to shield themselves against such realizations. Eventually, if we are honest with ourselves we will meet up with a subject that has us swimming in deep water. On occasion, particularly with the controlling type ego, an effort is made to attempt to fill the void of little personal knowledge or research on the subject. It seems our basic human program requires that we do fill this void with something, even a tired tattered cliché. Deviating from what is considered the mainstream is difficult, even if following it is horribly wrong.

Whether it's the financial bailouts, Global Warming, the cure for Cancer or UFO's perception and the emotion that triggers it seems to play a larger role than a good studied and informed opinion. After having a heating conversation with someone who clearly is uninformed how often is the conversation concluded with, "Opinions are like A**holes, everyone's got one right?" "You can't fight city hall", or "Maybe this is something we shouldn't know about". If this sounds familiar this article is definitely for you.

If enlightened, reasoned and well informed opinions were suddenly made more valid than the emotionally charged, manipulated ones than perception would wilt in the face of reality.

OK, Global Warming is a hot ticket to punch up in a conversation. Have you heard from those who cling onto the idea that it is all mankind's fault because we put CO2 into the air? In fact Al Gore has made this a career of campaigning to reduce our so-called "Carbon Footprint" by encouraging more taxes, charges and hiring people to monitor your carbon emissions. Estimates put the cost of this campaign in taxes and expenses upwards of 300 Billion dollars! As I have been reminded there have been hundreds of scientists who believe it is true.

Believe it or don't there also have been hundreds of scientists who have also expressed everything from grave doubt to Global Warming is a hoax. That is not to say there is not warming occurring on Terra Firma, many will meet somewhere in the middle on that one. The source is the disagreement and the source would appear to be the sun. Even government organizations and some proponents of man-made global warming admit they know the sun has a lot to do with the warming on Earth, just don't know how much. Some will say the man-made emissions result in a greater effect.

Check out the website below and the other website for 35 Inconvenient Truths about Al Gore's movie.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q10

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Those in the movie and entertainment business are experts at creating perceptions. Occasionally, they even poke a little ironic fun at their own involvement with elite interests in movies like Wag the Dog and The International.

In reality it is done by a suggestion, changing a word, a look by a news anchor or a picture showing a subject in an unfavourable light.

Shaping your opinion is often done by omission. Such was the case in the infamous interview with David Koresh of the Seventh Day Adventists in Waco, TX. In the video Waco-Rules of Engagement by William Gazecki details of the BATF & later the FBI intervention kept away from most of the public became abundantly clear. The light Gazecki shed on this dark killing spree by the BATF & cohorts was prefaced by an interview before the 51-day siege of Waco began. A reporter confronted Koresh with rumors about him having affairs with many in the compound, including an almost unbelievable claim of him getting an 80-year old woman pregnant. When asked about successfully impregnating an 80-year old woman, Koresh actually said with a bit of a chuckle and a grin, "If I did that, than, I am God". What the public saw repeatedly was Koresh saying, "I am God". Based on what you see and hear your perception can be manipulated.

This video documentary was nominated for an academy award and is well supported with excellent testimony and evidence. This includes the FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) video shot from an air plane above on the final day of the conflagration. The video from those camera clearly shows many people coming out of the back of the building by the kitchen area when it went up in flames after the highly flammable CS gas was ignited. Visible bursts of gunfire could be seen coming from the outside to those who were coming out, they dropped immediately. The reality of who killed who at Waco was changed to a perception and managed to instill in the minds of many that Koresh started it all and even set the fires. The reality does not support this conclusion and when there was enough hesitancy within the minds of the public to resist this conclusion they even commission a second panel of investigation headed by John Danforth of Missouri, who naturally had to come to the same conclusion as the former panel, the government did nothing wrong. Danforth did admit there were a few unanswered questions that remained.

This article will focus on a few examples and how to be consciously aware of what and when you need to be most alert.

PERCEPTION NOW TRUMPS REALITY, BUT HOW?

As history is such a great teacher, let's review a few of the tools the ancients used.

Over the centuries those in power have skilfully learned how to use a variety of physical, mental, chemical and even religious misdirection to stay in positions of influence.

Those familiar with the famous Crystal Skull found in 1926 by Anna Le Guillon Mitchell-Hedges in Belize-(Central America) are amazed by the skills and technology needed to make such a relic. The jaw is fully moveable and can actually be removed.

A few years before Anna passed; the author of this article had the privilege of meeting Anna and actually holding the skull in his hands. The skull was known as the Skull of Doom and was reportedly used to will death. As is evidenced by this article, the author survived his encounter with the skull.

While sceptics will argue over the authenticity of the Crystal Skull, its use in controlling others beliefs and behaviours is often overlooked. Similar to the consulting of oracles in other cultures, the manipulation of the crystal skull, the jaw and the illusion of it talking are believed to have been a powerful tool of mysticism used by the priests of that day. Imagine being paraded by the skull in such a way that the light is only on the skull, with darkness all around, shielded by either a black cloth or straw. You have been granted the privilege of asking the Skull of Doom a question and may approach within ten feet or so to ask it. After you ask, the jaw moves and you hear a vocal reply, which is likely to be from a priest behind the shield. The miraculous reply is geared to inform you, keep you obedient and within the guidelines of your accepted laws. Also, perhaps stimulate a contribution of some sort". Perhaps that may sound all too familiar?

ACADEMIC EXPERIMENTS ON PERCEPTION

Dr. Stanley Milgram's famous electroshock experiments at Yale in the 1960's showed that people could be convinced to press a button delivering ever increasingly higher electronic shock to volunteer students who failed to answer a question correctly. Each incorrect question got a higher jolt from that button pusher who in turn was goaded into delivering such a shock from an official looking person in a white lab coat behind them. The perception that this experiment and the ensuing pain was needed was pushed as far as it could go with every student, some opting to deliver fatal shocks.
Fortunately, the reality was that the students receiving the shocks were collegiate actors who knew to increase their reaction every time they missed a question, no real shocks were sent.

There were other experiments at universities which explored what people would do with power. In an article in the New York Times in 2006 by Alessandro Stanley she explored other human behavior experiments. In 1971 Dr. Philip C. Zambardo, a Stanford Social Psychologist found human kindness was again in short supply when he constructed his social experiment. Zambardo gathered two groups of undergraduate men, having them play prisoners and guards.

In less than a week, the guards had turned sadistic, the prisoners fearful. According to Stanley, photos from the study reveal naked prisoners posed in sexually humiliating positions with bags over their heads. This may certainly help the novice come to better grips with isolated events like Abu-Ghraib, which is still being played for changing public perceptions about the US military around the world.

While these events were academic real word do not offer any such controls. In 2004, in Washington, Kentucky, a surveillance camera caught a McDonalds Restaurant Asst. Manager Donna Jean Summers, strip searching a teen-aged employee. This action was triggered by a demented prankster, posing as a police officer who relayed the instruction by phone to Summers, stating this employee was a thief. Stanley reported that by the end of the evening Summers had been pressured to have this teenager perform oral sex on Summers fiancée. According to the report there were at least 70 other people duped into other kinds of offenses. Summers retort as to why she did it, "Unless you are put in that situation at that time, how do you know what you would do? You don't" lamented Summers.

PLAYING PERCEPTION INTO POLITICAL POWER

In the event you are or know of people who say they are not interested in politics, they have made a conscious decision not to take a very active part in governing their own lives as politics takes a great interest in every aspect of controlling their life.

In the mid 90's, Gary Aldrich was part of the FBI security team for the Clinton Whitehouse. In his 1998 book, Unlimited Access he would detail a long list of experiences of the abuse of power and heavy media influence to "spin" a lot of misinformation about Clinton and his compliant crew.

Amongst the many battles Aldrich fought in the Whitehouse would be one over what is known as the Travelgate Scandal. At the time Aldrich was one of a long list of witnesses who was slated to testify for an employee of the White House Travel staff, Billy Dale.

Briefly, the responsibility and the staff that supported them were to insure the successful transportation of the President, his staff and a large contingent of media that followed.
Dale was one of seven people under investigation in this scandal. In the past, Dale and his experienced crew were well appreciated by the press as they were often able to make much better arrangements in foreign countries and at last minutes notice.

How this investigation took place was prompted by Hillary Clinton who wanted to eliminate at least seven positions in the Travel Office and replace them with her own appointees who did not have the experience with the intricacies in moving top officials around the county or the world. Hillary wanted Dale to be removed. Dale's 1995 trial began over the charge of stealing $50,000 from the government. While it seemed Billy was mixing government money with his private account, evidence suggested he did so only to facilitate paying for services needed in the job itself. The funds were not stolen and were accounted for, only improperly managed.

While Aldrich was available for testimony, so many others were there they didn't even call him. Another FBI Agent, Aldrich named Dennis did testify and later visited Craig Livingstone, White House Director of Security about his testimony. Livingston was living proof of acquiring his position because he knew Bill Clinton. The White House Director of Security's main qualifications for the job was that he looked like a bouncer and he knew Bill and Hillary for years. During the first inauguration about $150,000 of equipment was lost or stolen, this equipment had been under Livingstone's charge, but was never found.

According to Aldrich in his book, when Dennis saw Livingstone after the Dale trial his first words were, "I don't appreciate what you did for Billy dale, Dennis. It wasn't helpful". Dennis retorted he wanted to tell the truth, "What did you expect me to do?" "The truth, Dennis? Don't you know the truth is relative? Your testimony was your version of the truth. Truth is whatever you want it to be"

This telling quote underlines what now guides today's politics. Unfortunately, both mainstream political parties seemingly embrace this new philosophy of creating the truth they need to accomplish whatever suits the agenda they are pursuing.

Historically speaking, with perception becoming the new reality and ability to manipulate a large enough percentage of people into ignorant obedience, this story will likely not turn out to be a happy one.

For the United States of America, on this July 4th, it appears we are headed for a certain future, one which is likely not to be very desirable by all but the elite who sit on top of the pile. Here are just a few of the major points rarely elaborated upon by our traditional mainstream press:

Within the first six months of the new administration the national budget has further spiralled out of control. While the Bush administration did a lot to sink the ship taking us to 1.3 trillion in debt, the new administration hikes that bill up to 3.5 trillion!

Furthermore, do we have any real accounting of where all this money is supposed to go? The mainstream press does admit the crystal ball is cloudy here attempting to enhance the perception that someone somewhere knows what is going on. To acquaint yourself with the reality, do a search of either The Federal Reserve Inspector General or Elizabeth Coleman who had that position when Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson asked her in a hearing, just where was the money going? Grayson makes several valiant attempts to pry the info out of Coleman who does her best to obfuscate and confuse the issue, but in general you will find it impossible, based on her testimony, that the Fed has any idea where all the money they have had printed up will go as they simply are not tracking it.

The Coleman interview is about five minutes long and a must to pass around as the mainstream press once again avoids confronting the perception that our fearless very smart leaders are in many real aspects unsympathetic with the plight of their country and many are just plain self-serving and clueless.

There is a common expression that many feel is more true than not. That is, if it's not on the news or CNN, than it's not real. Are you comfortable with that?

WHO KNOWS WHAT?

There are certainly a few books detailing the amount of spin and propaganda that is broadcast and written. There seems to be three basic camps developing in reaction to this unleashed torrent of manipulation. It would help to identify who we are dealing with on an everyday basis and then we will identify when the perception manipulation is likely taking place.

1) The BLISSFULLY UNCERTAIN-Those who shy away from most everything that has a tremendous amount of country, global or universal relevance. Focus is on sports, family, gossip, entertainment and other trivial affairs. Immediate gratification is important with this group because down deep they know a lot is wrong and today is good time to have a good time. Some in this group find the subject matter intimidating and may not want to invest their time in trying to figure it out; they are simply asking for a big understanding in small bites.

At times the BLISSFULLY UNCERTAIN will still be happy to bring up their uninformed opinions about whatever it is that is discussed. They can be nicer and usually more civil when it comes to discussions than the next two groups, because they are blissfully uncertain. Who knows they may actually somehow survived all the dis & misinformation and drew closer to the truth...or not.

2) The ESTABLISHED ONES-This group still follows the credentialed crowd for the most part. While becoming sceptical they tend to adhere to what is given official proclamation and space in established media. There could be professional reasons for this as their business is dependant upon appearing what passes as mainstream today. People in this category can be professional, very educated, erudite, often quickly judgemental and compassionate about their beliefs.

It may take a lot to shake them out of that comfortable power structure they've invested so much time and money into. Patience is paramount with people here as they may need a major experience or two to bring their consciousness fully on-line. Hollywood movies are replete with such storylines. A hardworking honest everyday Joe or Jane is now confronted with a situation that neither the police, courts, priests, doctors nor the neighbourhood prostitute can solve. They are on their own thinking in a totally unique manner and that can be very scary. In the original movie The Matrix, one such rebel decided that reality was simply too much of a burden to carry and opted to go back to being a biological battery powered by programmed visions from his masters.

People in this group will be powerful forces for real change when they awake. Until that time they will often be paid powerful obstacles.

3) The AWAKENED ONES- This group is clearly a minority and although they have fully absorbed the idea that Perception IS NOT reality and their reality is being changed for the worse, they are not in total concurrence on all issues. The mainstream is tasked with labelling these people with every negative phrase they can and often shows those who were wrong in their understanding of a subject or story.

In years past groups that met and acknowledged anything about UFO's, life on other planets or the fact that major conspiracies exist were met with a media that would search for the representative that would put them in the most negative light, like the guy wearing the googly eyes and antenna. How about that conspiracy theorist dressed like a geek, with clashing colors between his shirt and tie that looks like Albert Einstein on acid?
Fortunately, this group seems to be gaining more momentum than the other two, in spite of media coverage. A few examples of those who are taking action:
Vietnam Veterans triggered by their disgust for the US Government consciously leaving up to 3,000 Prisoners of War behind in Vietnam formed a group called Rolling Thunder. Mostly comprised of people on bikes, they would come from all points around the country and meet annually in Washington on the steps by the Washington monument to protest a growing list of poor treatment of veterans and US civilians alike. They just concluded Rolling Thunder number 22, with attendance growing to over 250,000 for these annual affairs. They still exist today and are fighting for Veterans benefits and awareness about many important issues, still not mainstreamed. Find out more on their website at:
http://www.rollingthunder1.com/

Probably another 100,000 people have taken part in the Tea Parties around the country. Although the majority of the press either portrays them negatively or with an attitude of "what could these people possibly be protesting?" there are probably many more times their number in sympathetic supporters.

These people are writing to their Congressmen and women, they are petitioning, faxing, standing with their signs and doing whatever is legally available to inform what is often an uninformed politician or worse one who is happy to perform for elitist interests.

Keep in mind these are but a few of literally hundreds if not thousands of organizations who are springing up all over the country to attempt peaceful change in official positions. There are also other organizations who attempt to educate the public about secretive agendas undertaken in one way shape or form by most governments in concert with their intelligence agencies and major corporations. It did not take a majority to create the first American Revolution, some say only about 11% actually participated full time. There were sympathizers on both sides and yet here we are today wondering what happened?

HOW TO BE FULLY AWAKE TO A PERCEPTION MANIPULATION

Next time you listen to the radio, watch TV or read the newspaper run up a few of the following filters and see which one lights up.

Political Manipulation-Regardless of your party affiliation or lack thereof, politicians routinely deal to the public what can best be described as "Eloquent Obfuscation or EO". This is also known as "speaking out of both sides of your mouth" or "saying a lot and saying nothing with any real meaning". What is becoming increasingly obvious is that political misquotes while numerous will be selectively covered depending upon the perception that has been chosen about the person covered. (Hope that doesn't qualify as EO). Who is choosing these perceptions is yet another mega-huge story. Clue: Most of these folks are not elected by anybody.

Politicians today are finding it mandatory to get coaching in acting, staging, body language, speaking and knowing how to engage in EO. These are the front men for the agendas which have been set before they came into command of their governmental powers.

It is still possible for an upset now and again. Jesse Ventura, upon winning the Minnesota Governors race, upon his first day of reporting to the Governors Statehouse for work, was called to a sub basement where he was seated in the center of a large room surrounded by a half circle of men who began to interrogate him. As Ventura reported on an You Tube interview, he found the whole line of questioning very, very bizarre. Ventura claimed they focused more on just how he got elected as if this was some kind of mistake that they wanted to keep from happening again. Perhaps they just did not pay enough attention to the discontent in the ranks of the average Joe & Jane America.

When it comes to passing legislation, the mainstream press performs its trickiest maneuver. Finding small truths they can support and avoiding larger ones they know most Americans may not. The idea of the Press being any kind of protector of the general public when it comes to legislation is like asking an elephant to play a normal sized piano. Sure, they blame the Internet, lack of personnel and all that is true. They also run away from looking into the mirror as the many out there, this author included finds the bias factor simply too overwhelming to support with money for subscriptions or prolonged viewing of their newscasts. That being said it is still a good idea to watch opposing viewpoints if only to find out what they want you to be distracted by or what they want you to believe. In the final analysis you will chose to believe what you want. Only please consider a few of the following suggestions.

Ad-Hominum attacks-Often when a strong, well-reasoned viewpoint is put out in the media, attacking it directly may prove too difficult. One of the tactics often employed is not to attack the message, but the messenger. By finding or contriving something about a person who is on point with an opposing viewpoint that is hoped will muddy the waters about that person's credibility. Chief proponents of this strategy include James Carville, the raging Cajun' whose violent outbursts and personal attacks on anyone associated with endorsing the impeachment of Bill Clinton needed to be dealt with viciously.

Previous mention of FBI Agent Gary Aldrich and getting his book published drew the wrath of many Clinton officials. While the Clinton Administration did its best to keep the book suppressed for months, work by a firm of attorneys from the Southeastern Legal Foundation eventually won release of the book. When it was getting out to the shelves and looking for press coverage it was covertly crossed off of many shows due to Clinton pressure. It did get coverage on the David Brinkley show on ABC, where George Stephanopoulos labelled Aldrich a "pathological liar".

How about trusting someone's statement about the government, the economy or the military that cheats on their wife? How does scandal effect your judgement? Can you see thru the misbehaviour to the core issue? Men and Women who believe they are powerful seem to play a different kind of game with each other than those who treasure bonding with a single mate. Can you focus on judging and analyzing their professional opinion without intermingling their personal infidelities? Apparently, we are led to believe this nation said Yes with a Democratically President Bill Clinton and No with Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada and No to Republican Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina. Yet, the corruption of Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois also drew a No vote. Still awaiting whatever reality show you'll be featured on Rod...no not really.

The Presidential campaign of 2008 should make the new historical record for biased press coverage as we can conclusively say that the majority of the press was working overtime for the current president. The sad part of this story is that due to having made that commitment, changing such a direction will require major catastrophes in the economy, the military, the environment or why not, all three!

The subject of warfare has gotten a lot of mileage over the past few years in America. How do get people to go to war in the first place. Perhaps this is one of the most tragic examples of perception management, which when coupled with powerful events create a powerful movement very favoured by the powerful elite that run this planet.
Perhaps Hermann Goering, head of the Luftwaffe for Nazi Germany said it best in an interview with Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access to the prisoners in the Nuremberg jail after WWII.
Goering stated, "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders". When the interviewer confronted Goering on his philosophy stating, "There is a difference, In a democracy the people have some say in the mater through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars".
The General's reply, "That is easy, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger".

When watching the media be aware of the use of emotionally charged words, how a group is labelled. Ever notice how a view point that is conservative or right-wing is quickly labelled as that whenever it is brought up. How often do you hear a viewpoint labelled as liberal or socialist? After all, according to today's media the liberal or socialist agenda is the right one anyway, so it doesn't need a label?

How about those sources for articles and investigations? Watch the sources, search them, and check them out for their ideological viewpoints. One of the longest running news shows, Meet the Press now features a nearly exclusive group of one particular viewpoint. How can the press lay any claim to any objectivity when they are mostly in lockstep with the same ideology? Oh yeah, there is still a little room for minor disagreements, but generally that is all you really get.

What are credible sources? Why are those featured as economic experts rotated like people taking a seat on a busy bus? How many stand still long enough to put their opinions on the line, put them in print regularly for cross-examination later? You can beat that anyone who does it regularly will be wrong occasionally. The big questions are: how wrong? and how often wrong?

If you have someone commenting on Abortion, do they subscribe to a faith? Are they an Atheist? Agnostic? When there is religious commentary of any kind should not the faith be disclosed?

When there is political commentary, should not their political affiliations be known?
When personal or nationwide health advice is being promoted shouldn't you know if you are getting it from someone with large pharmaceutical ties?
Who is telling me what? What is in it for them? Who benefits here?
If you can clearly see that person is not you, than you know you are having your perception manipulated in a way that the end result will not be in your favour. Why would you support such actions?

If you have become more aware of the manipulations now being fostered on you income, your health, your home, your family, every aspect of your life as the result of this article than you will now know better. They will fail and in the end you will have a better chance of succeeding with your life.
The reward is hard to pass up; the penalty is a zombie-like trance of compliance only a dictator would love.

You can and must do better America.