Common Sense, Benefits, and Peaceful Resistance

     What if there were a means of resisting the New World Order that required little effort or sacrifice on our part? Suppose we could resist the New World Order by having fun, spending less money, getting more value, having more free time, and consuming healthier and more delicious food and drink?

     No, the preceding paragraph isn’t a point of departure for some clarion call to sacrifice and arduous effort. I’m likely enough to do that in other articles.

     The key word here is benefit—a favorite word of advertisers. Modern advertisers know that people don’t buy products because they want products; they buy them because they want benefits. For example, they buy soft drinks because they want flavor, refreshment or quick energy, not because they want soft drinks.

     Maybe you’ve read the Hans Christian Andersen story “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” The con men who sold the “new clothes” were the forerunners of modern branding. The emperor was deceived because he was convinced that the new clothes gave him status. Modern advertising is the art of making corporate propaganda seem like revealed truth.

     The early stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius predated Hans Christian Andersen by more than 1,600 years. His writings caused me to realize just how much modern advertising has led us to embrace slavery.

     Aurelius taught, among other things, that we are liberated by seeing things as they really are rather than being taken in by illusions and embellishments. As if to anticipate Andersen, Aurelius gave the example of a king’s purple robes. A king’s robe is nothing but the wool of a sheep stained by the blood of a sea snail, yet people’s imaginations cause them to stand in awe of it.

     Here I’ll address two lessons, but they’re inseparably interwoven. The first is how advertisers help us to trick ourselves. The other is the way we cheat ourselves in the ways we buy goods and services.

     Advertisers start by convincing target consumers (as they call them)  that they need a given benefit. Then they convince them that they can’t get that benefit in any way other than by buying a certain product.

     In addition to tangible benefits, advertisers have taken to marketing delusions. With huge advertising budgets, advertisers have gulled shallow people into thinking they can gain status—that’s the delusion—simply by buying something that has a certain logo on it. Like the king’s robe, it may be just an article of clothing, no better or worse than a less expensive brand.

     The difference between what the product is worth and what advertisers convince people that it’s worth is the difference between selling a product and selling a delusion. (And you thought that the emperor in Andersen’s story was gullible.) As soon as we accept that fact, we’re well on our way to spending less money and gaining more value.

     Let’s go a little deeper into this matter of benefit. We expect to pay for whatever benefit we hope to receive; but we’re often deceived as to how we must pay for it.  When we let advertisers do our thinking for us, they limit our options.

     In industrialized countries, the means of payment show a set of priorities that is designed to enslave us. Credit cards come first, followed by checks, then cash. Very few of us consider bartering for goods and services, although some people may give some of their surplus to others.

    In agrarian societies, priorities are the reverse of those in industrialized countries. In agrarian societies, people freely give to their neighbors and others. They also freely barter. Cash, and possibly checks, are sometimes used. Credit cards and other such instruments of debt are more likely to be recognized as folly.

     On a quarter acre of land back in the States, I planted three trees: apple, peach, and pear. They required almost no effort on my part, and the trees produced so much fruit that I couldn’t give it away fast enough. I had to allow much of it to go back to the soil.

     I also planted vegetables, berries, and spices. My small yard also boasted a flower garden, a rock garden, a water garden, a strolling path, and some small statuary. Since I focused on indigenous plants and natural gardening methods, my gardens required very little care. I called this arrangement a meander garden.

     Hand terracing the yard gave me plenty of exercise and satisfaction, and the food I grew was cost free and healthier than store-bought foods.

     Here in the big city, I can’t have a garden, but I do grow peppermint. From time to time, I buy food from the locals in the day market. It usually costs about half what it would cost at Carrefour, the French hypermarket that has put a lot of traditional mom-and-pop stores out of business.

     Here’s where economists enter the picture. I’ve heard all my life that thrift, which is economically beneficial for people as individuals, is economically terrible for people as a nation.

     That’s because most economists measure economic good by the gross domestic product (GDP). The more money people spend, they more value they supposedly receive. If they go into debt, they’re supposedly even better off.

     The trouble is, money spent doesn’t necessarily mean value received. If John’s income is twice as much as Bill’s but he spends half his income on medical bills, we can’t say that John is twice as well off as Bill. If more people in a certain country grow their own food or buy it from a farmers’ market, they’re receiving more value for less money than the country where more people buy their food in cans at a supermarket.

     We receive even more value if we sharply curtail our use of credit cards, checks, and even cash. The international banking cartel depends on us placing a higher priority on things they can manipulate than on things beyond their reach.

     They also depend on us failing to see things as they really are. They want us to believe that we can receive the benefits we want only by buying the goods, services, and even illusions that they control because that’s the only way they can get us to use fiat money, checks, and most of all credit cards.

     In point of fact, we already have all the power we need to gain freedom from economic slavery. Remember that people don’t buy air conditioners because they want air conditioners. They don’t even buy them because they want cooler air; they buy them because they want comfort. If comfort is what you want, who is most qualified to find the most reasonable and cost-effective means of gaining that benefit—you or a corporate advertiser?

     When we’re tempted to buy a product, we should stand consumerist advertising techniques on their head. We should ask ourselves, “What benefit do I want?” Then we can ask, “What’s the most reasonable way to get that benefit?” In most cases, we’ll find ourselves saying to the advertisers and the banksters, “No thanks. I’ll take the benefit. You can keep your lousy product.”

     As soon as we recognize that we can enjoy benefits without having to sell our souls to the banking cartel, we begin the road back to health, freedom, and real peace. Moreover, we’ll receive more than the benefits we had once thought could only be found in wasteful products. We’ll generate less pollution, conserve resources, incur less debt (if any), enjoy more freedom, and live happier and healthier lives. 

How Easily Fooled Are You? Which will You Believe: Your Eyes or the Official Story?

     Common sense is built upon aphorisms that we regard as true. We have so much faith in common sense that our common sense may be used to mislead us.

     How’s that again? You see, many of our commonsense aphorisms contradict other aphorisms, and they’re often wrong. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

     We’re told, “Many hands make light work,” and we believe it. We’re also told, “Too many cooks spoil the broth,” and we believe that as well.

     We’re told, “Seeing is believing,” and we believe it. We’re also told, “Appearances are deceptive,” and we also believe that one.

     In this article, I’ll focus on the aphorism about seeing and believing. “Seeing is believing,” tends to be our default belief unless we’re given sufficient reason to doubt our eyes and accept the aphorism, “Appearances are deceptive.”

     The earlier in the process our viewpoint is changed, the less we notice the change. If the attempt to shift our viewpoint comes later, it probably won’t be accepted. Thus, if an opinion molder wants us to doubt the evidence of our eyes, he must make the attempt as soon as possible, before first impressions become final impressions.

     You may remember the Star Wars scene in which Obi Wan Kenobi says to a guard, “These are not the droids you want,” and the guard says to his partner, “These are not the droids we want.” From a psychological standpoint, Obi Wan Kenobi was what is called an authority figure.

     Authority figures often have the power to change our perceptions. An authority figure doesn’t have to be a dignified person, and he doesn’t have to be wearing a medical coat, a uniform, or a suit. If an “unbiased witness” is needed, an average-looking person in a baseball cap and a Harley shirt may be that authority figure.

     We’ll revisit the “Harley Guy” later in this article.

     I won’t tell you what to believe about the Kennedy Assassination, 9/11, or other events. I’ll simply ask you what your eyes tell you. You’re free to decide in each case whether seeing is believing or appearances are deceptive.  I promise not to bring up any conspiracy theories.

     You’ve seen dozens of replays of the Zapruder film. Please watch it once more and answer one question for yourself: “If I had never seen this clip before, and I had never heard the ‘official story,’ what would I believe, judging solely from what I see?” From which direction would you think the fatal shot came? (Click here for video.) Place your forefinger on your head to show where you think the bullet struck the President.

     In the next clip, you’ll see an official describing the assassination. This clip was filmed before the “official story” was established. Where does the spokesman place his forefinger? (Click here for video.)

     Then there are the autopsy photos.  No, not the drawings and other illustrations. You can easily find color photos on the Internet; but, in the interest of taste, I'm showing you a black-and-white photo.  (For an enlargement, click on the photo.)
      Judging from this photo, where does it look as though the exit wound would be located?  Is your answer consistent with  what you seem to see in the Zapruder film? 

       Now let’s move to September 11, 2001. Think about your impressions before you heard the “official story.”

     My wife told me that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center and “destroyed” it. Since English is her second language, I thought she had used the wrong word. Common sense told me that even a large airplane could not have “destroyed” the World Trade Center. I patiently said, “You mean that an airplane damaged it.”

     Only when she described the collapse of the buildings did I believe it had happened. She was the authority figure who overruled a commonsense belief; and, without further question, I accepted it as fact.

     You’ve all seen photos and videos of buildings destroyed by earthquakes, floods, or other non-controlled causes of demolition, including photos of tall buildings that were destroyed in such a manner as these. You’ve seen so many, in fact, that you have a fixed image of how these buildings are “supposed to look” after their destruction.

     Which word would better describe them: toppled or collapsed?

     You may also have seen videos of controlled demolitions of tall buildings. From these videos, you have a fixed image of how controlled demolitions are “supposed to look.” (Click here.)  Now let's look at some footage of buildings that were destroyed by other means.Which word would better describe most of these structures: toppled or collapsed?

Shoddy Construction 

Earthquake

Flood 

In India (unknown cause) 

In Turkey (unknown cause)

     Now let’s take a look at the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings. (South Tower) (North Tower) (Building 7) What happened to those three buildings? Did they topple or collapse?

     Of course, the videos use the word collapse is used for both forms of destruction, but the word topple is used only in a very few 9/11 videos: the ones intended to debunk all theories other than the official conspiracy theory. Again, judge for yourself. What do your eyes tell you? Is seeing believing, or are appearances deceptive?

     We’ve also seen how people react to sudden disasters. We have a fixed concept of how they tend to look, how they choose their words, and what happens to their enunciation under conditions of excitement. We also have a sense of the difference between the way people speak and the way people write.

     Watch the following clips and see the differences in the way the “witnesses” look, act, and sound.

     New York City firemen, the same day the World Trade Center collapsed.

     The Harley Guy, only minutes after the World Trade Center collapsed:, killing almost 3,000 people.

     Now let’s turn to the attack on the Pentagon. Look at the photo of an American Airlines Boeing 757—the type of plane said to have crashed into the first floor of the Pentagon. Does it look as though the nose cone of this plane could crash into the first floor without messing up the lawn?

     Take a look at the flight path of the vehicle that crashed into the Pentagon. Does that look like the flight path of a hijacker who indiscriminately crashed into any old section of the Pentagon? In case you’re wondering, if the vehicle had flown straight into the Pentagon, it would have struck Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s office. By making a 380-degree turn around it, he struck the comptroller’s office—the guy who was busily trying to find out what happened to $2.3 trillion that was missing from the Pentagon.

     Throughout this article, I’ve avoided bringing up conspiracy theories. All I did was show you videos and photos and asked you how they looked.

     Now that you’ve seen them, ask yourself: Is seeing believing, or are appearances deceptive?
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog