By Van Robison, Armstrongism Library
If as a child you were taught for years, until you were an adult to believe a certain way about certain things, then later in life your mind becomes a wall and a barrier that cannot receive alternative ideas to what you have thought for years to be true (for most people).
For example suppose that you were taught by your parents, your school teachers and through the “news” media and through movies that God spoke to a man long ago, by the name of Santa Claus and that this Santa Claus said that God told him 700 rules that humans are to live by. What if millions of people all around you believed the same way? How do you overcome this myth, which has been pounded into your mind for thousands of times over the years?
What if you were schooled to believe all your life anything a certain way, such as belief that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God? Others have been taught that their “Holy” books are inspired by God and they have been schooled to believe that their books are true, even though their books differ with yours.
You read in the New Testament that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God”, but how did the person who said that, thought that or penned that, know that? Had you been standing there by the source that penned that and asked them what “right” they had to make such a claim, would that person have been embarrassed because he knew it was not true?
When certain men long ago said “God commanded”, how would they know that, unless of course God literally appeared to such persons and spoke with them? Some may claim that God actually did speak to them, but since God does not speak with anyone today in a verbal since, why should
we believe that God ever spoke with anyone throughout all human history? And why should we believe them?
The fact is that human beings are programmed and indoctrinated to believe things, for which they have no real clue as to its truthfulness or validity. People who hear something through the lying “news” media or movie industry thousands of times, have been so inundated with that information, that it becomes nearly impossible for people to comprehend that anything contrary could be true, even though what they have believed to be true may not be true at all.
It actually is a long process to unwind false information and false knowledge that has been deeply embedded into the human mind. Humans have been used and abused since the beginning of time, by other humans whose motives in life are less than altruistic.
I think it’s really time for America to rethink what makes someone a positive example of taking charge of one’s health.
For example, many of us avoid fluoridated tap water and GMOs, and people think we’re nuts.
Angelina Jolie has her breasts and female reproductive parts removed and she’s a freakin’ national hero for preventative health care. They’re calling the action “future-proofing against cancer.”
In what world could this possibly make sense? How on earth is mutilating your body more proactive than avoiding the toxic stuff to begin with?
First, before we get any deeper into the topic, I understand that the mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mean that your likelihood of having cancer is increased.
The grim statistics on cancer
But let us go a bit further and recognize that everyone’s likelihood of developing cancer is greatly increased. And by greatly increased, I mean that here are the grim statistics:
- Nearly half of all Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime. (source) Quick math tells us that is an astonishing 157 million victims.
- Over half a million people in America died of cancer in 2012. (source)
- In 2011, cancer was the #1 cause of death in the Western world, and #2 in developing countries. (source)
- Cancer is the #1 cause of childhood death in the United States. (source)
Our civilization is toxic. The easy food, easy soap, easy access to things that used to be made from pure, natural ingredients instead of chemicals, has made it easy to become ill. Easy, it seems, is deadly. Your body is not the enemy. It’s the North American lifestyle that is going to make you sick.
But..avoiding cancer-causing food is a mental illness
But far be it from the mainstream media to promote simplicity and natural products as a way to avoid cancer. Nope, that’s just sheer lunacy. Recently I wrote about a term being bandied about to shame those of us who opt out of processed food: orthorexia.
Now, orthorexia is a true disorder. There are people who suffer from a type of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder that limits their diets to an unhealthy degree. But the media is painting with a broad brush, and saying that those of us who “eat clean” are suffering from a mental illness. Here’s an excerpt:
…it’s time to face reality. If you choose to eat food without chemicals on a regular basis, you, my friend, are mentally ill.
It’s called Orthorexia Nervosa.
A study found on PubMed explains. (Wow, it’s like they know me.)
Orthorexia is an obsessive-compulsive process characterized by extreme care for and selection of what is considered to be pure ‘healthy’ food. This ritual leads to a very restrictive diet and social isolation as a compensation. Orthorexics obsessively avoid foods which may contain artificial colours, flavours, preservant agents, pesticide residues or genetically modified ingredients, unhealthy fats, foods containing too much salt or too much sugar and other components. The way of preparation, kitchenware and other tools used are also part of the obsessive ritual.
Huh. They say that like it’s a bad thing.
Don’t despair. If you’re a sufferer, there’s help. The same study states:
Treatment of orthorexia require a multidisciplinary team involving physicians, psychoterapists and dietitians. In some cases, antiserotoninergic drugs may be required as part of the treatment.
So the long and the short of it?
If you want to be healthy, you’re sick. You need a team of doctors and dietitians to cure you from trying to be healthy. And maybe some medicine. The desire for good health is an illness, and Big Pharma and Big Medical wants you to be better. And by better, they mean you should have no hesitation whatsoever about consuming the garbage passed off as food in the grocery stores.
Wow, I’ll bet that raising as much of my own food as possible really means I’m in need of intervention.
Mindblowingly, the exact same media that thinks I’m insane for avoiding food that I believe is the root of illness, is the exact same media lauding Jolie to the skies for having perfectly healthy body parts proactively removed.
And having perfectly healthy body parts proactively removed is perfectly rational
Here’s a heart-tugging little excerpt from the Inquisitor about her decision to “future-proof” her body against cancer via surgical mutilation:
Angelina became determined to do all she could to prevent her own early death from breast cancer. She expressed her sadness in not being able to share her own mother with her children, looking ahead to the birth of her own grandchildren.
“We often speak of ‘Mommy’s mommy,’ and I find myself trying to explain the illness that took her away from us.”
The second stage for Angelina Jolie was to have her ovaries removed. This would reduce the overall chances of her contracting cancer to a much lower 10 percent. Two weeks ago she went ahead with this second stage of the surgeries.
…Angelina Jolie has expressed her hope that women will be empowered to determine the risks associated with this particular gene mutation, encouraging them to seek out all the information they can, before making life changing and potentially life saving decisions.
“I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices.”
I’m a whole-hearted supporter of medical freedom. Jolie has the right to surgically remove, enhance, and replace anything she wants to. However, calling that rational while calling avoiding processed food insane is just…well, insane.
And has anyone noticed that men aren’t going in and having their testicles surgically removed “just in case”? This is strictly aimed at women…for now. Don’t worry, guys. I’m sure you’ll be next.
The trend is picking up speed, spurred on by the government and the AMA.
Don’t underestimate the power of a celebrity taking this kind of radical step. People are now clamoring to have genetic testing done, so much so that the insurance industry coined the phrased “the Angelina effect”. From Reuters:
Major insurance companies including Aetna, Anthem and Cigna are declining to pay for the latest generation of tests, known as multi-gene panel tests, Reuters has learned. The insurers say that the tests are unproven and may lead patients to seek out medical care they don’t need.
It’s probably no surprise that the medical establishment vehemently disagrees with this assessment. After all, they stand to profit enormously from first the testing, at $2000 to $4900 a pop, and then the pre-emptive surgeries that they will recommend based an a “what if” test.
I didn’t want to go here, but…
Not only does the medical establishment approve it…Obamacare demands it be covered.
All insurers cover screenings for BRCA1 and BRCA2 and for certain other genes for women who have family histories of cancer. Indeed, such coverage is mandated by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.
Let me repeat that most important little phrase:
“…mandated by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare”
Even someone half asleep has to recognize that this type of intervention is going to be pushed more and more. Instead of mandating that carcinogens not be sold, they’re going to mandate that our healthcare costs increase even more and that our bodies be preventatively mutilated.
When a serial killer cuts off women’s breasts, it’s a shocking, gruesome crime. But when the medical system does it, it’s perfectly cool. Are you kidding me?
How can anyone possibly trust a system like this? Why isn’t anyone questioning why the corporations are selling us known carcinogens in every other product on the market?
I’ll tell you exactly why. Treatment of cancer in the US is a multi-billion dollar industry, but that’s not enough. The 124.6 billion dollars of blood money is a drop in the bucket compared to this. None of those people really give two hoots about “The Cure”. There will never be a “cure” brought to market because there just isn’t enough profit in eradicating the disease entirely. There will never be a governing body that protects consumers from being subjected to known carcinogens, because that too, will stop the cash from rolling in. A great deal of research is covered up and many potential cures are ignored and discredited because there is far more money in perpetuating illness than in curing it.
Now pre-empting cancer surgically will be an even bigger industry. A mandated industry, hacking away out our bodies and medical freedom.
Don’t “think pink”. Think green. Here’s how to “future-proof” your body against cancer, Nutritional Anarchy-style:
- Purchase organic foods as often as possible. GMOs and pesticides are proven carcinogens. Even the WHO has denounced glyphosate.
- Load your plate with colorful antioxidants. Opt for organic versions of foods like berries, colorful veggies, dark chocolate, and coffee, to name a few, are loaded with powerful, cancer-fighting antioxidants.
- Avoid processed foods. Many of the additives and preservatives featured abundantly in North America are banned in other countries precisely because of the health risks they represent.
- Avoid artificial sweeteners. Aspartame, for example, is a known carcinogen that causes brain cell death and breaks down into formaldehyde in the human body.
- Refuse vaccines. Many vaccines contain mercury, another known carcinogen. By the age of two, if a child has received all of the recommended vaccines, he or she has received 2,370 times the “allowable safe limit” for mercury (if there is such a thing as a safe level of poison). Take a look at the other cancer-causing ingredients.
- Maintain a healthy body weight. Obesity has been linked to increased risks of cancersof the esophagus, breast, endometrium, uterus, colon and rectum, kidney, pancreas, thyroid, gallbladder, and possibly other types.
- Exercise daily.
- Don’t smoke.
- Consume alcohol only in moderation.
- Limit the use of plastic in your home. BPA or Bisphenol-A are petrochemical plastics that are a major component of many water bottles, lines the inside of canned goods, and makes up the hard material of many reusable food containers, including some brands of baby bottles. These endocrine disruptors have been strongly linked to breast and reproductive cancers.
- Select personal care products that do not contain petrochemicals. Many cosmetics and other health and beauty aids contain petrochemicals. The danger of this is their byproduct, 1,4-dioxane, a proven carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies dioxane as a probable human carcinogen. California state law has classified dioxane to cause cancer. Animal studies in rats suggest that the greatest health risk is associated with inhalation of vapors. You know, vapors like when you use them in a hot shower.
- Opt for natural, biodegradable food grade cleaning products. According to the website Natural Pure Organics, the average household contains up to 25 gallons of toxic materials, most of which are in cleaning products. When you use these cleaners, they linger in the air and on the surfaces, increasing your exposure to carcinogens as you inhale the toxins into your lungs or absorb them through your skin.
So go forth, Anarchists, and be truly radical.
Avoid the things that cause cancer.
Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the language (English or German) and currency!
click HERE to reach all products
TATWellness deliver worldwide.
Lance deHaven-Smith, Ph.D, New Dawn
In his book Philosophical Investigations, philosopher of science Ludwig Wittgenstein demonstrated that words are more than designations or labels. They are signals in a context of activity, and are invested with many assumptions about the roles and social status of speakers and listeners.
In the 20th century, men often called women “girls.” This term, while indeed referring to something real – to women – was more than merely a label; it was demeaning and implicitly conveyed a subservient status. Wittgenstein called the common sense view of words standing for things, the “naming theory of language.” However, he pointed out, if words were merely labels, you could not teach language to children. If you pointed at a table and said “table,” how would a child know you are referring to the piece of furniture and not to the rectangular shape of its top, or the table’s colour, or its hardness, or any number of other attributes? Language is taught in the context of activity. You say to the child, “the cup is on the table,” “slide the cup across the table top,” “I am setting the table for dinner,” and slowly the child learns what a table is and how the word table is used.
Wittgenstein’s observation may seem simple, but it posed a profound challenge to all of Western philosophy since Plato, who had asked: What is beauty? What is truth? What is justice? Wittgenstein’s critique of the naming theory of language suggested these were the wrong questions. What needs philosophical investigation is who uses such words in what circumstances and with what implications.
The term conspiracy theory did not exist as a phrase in everyday conversation before 1964. The conspiracy theory label entered the lexicon of political speech as a catchall for criticisms of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that US President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman with no assistance from, or foreknowledge by any element of the United States government. Since then, the term’s prevalence and range of application have exploded. In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, the New York Times published five stories in which conspiracy theory appeared. In recent years, the phrase has occurred in over 140 New York Times stories annually. On Amazon.com, the term is a book category that includes in excess of 1,300 titles. In addition to books on conspiracy theories of particular events, there are conspiracy theory encyclopedias, photographic compendiums, website directories, and guides for researchers, sceptics and debunkers.
Initially, conspiracy theories were not an object of ridicule and hostility. Today, however, the conspiracy theory label is employed routinely to dismiss a wide range of anti-government suspicions as symptoms of impaired thinking akin to superstition or mental illness. For example, in his 2007 book on the assassination of President Kennedy, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says people who believe JFK conspiracy theories are “as kooky as a three dollar bill in their beliefs and paranoia.” Similarly, in Among the Truthers, Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay refers to 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “political paranoiacs” who have “lost their grip on the real world.” Making a similar point, if more colourfully, in his popular book Wingnuts journalist John Avlon refers to conspiracy believers as “moonbats,” “Hatriots,” “wingnuts,” and the “Fright Wing.”
As these examples illustrate, conspiracy deniers adhere unwittingly to the naming theory of language. They assume that what qualifies as a conspiracy theory is self-evident. In their view, the phrase conspiracy theory as it is conventionally understood, simply names this objectively identifiable phenomenon. Conspiracy theories are supposedly easy to spot because they posit secret plots that are too wacky to be taken seriously. Indeed, the theories are deemed so far-fetched they require no reply or rejoinder; they are objects of derision, not ideas for discussion. In short, while ridiculing conspiracy beliefs, conspiracy deniers take the conspiracy theory concept itself for granted.
This is remarkable, not to say shocking, because the concept is both fundamentally flawed and in direct conflict with English legal and political traditions. As a label for irrational political suspicions about secret plots by powerful people, the concept is obviously defective because political conspiracies in high office do, in fact, happen. Officials in the Nixon administration did conspire to steal the 1972 presidential election. Officials in the Reagan administration did participate in a criminal scheme to sell arms to Iran and channel profits to the Contras, a rebel army in Nicaragua. The Bush-Cheney administration did collude to mislead Congress and the public about the strength of its evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. If some conspiracy theories are true, then it is nonsensical to dismiss all unsubstantiated suspicions of elite intrigue as false by definition.
This fatal defect in the conspiracy theory concept makes it all the more surprising that most scholars and journalists have failed to notice that their use of the term to ridicule suspicions of elite political criminality betrays the civic ethos inherited from British legal and political traditions. The Magna Carta placed limitations on the King, guaranteed trial by one’s peers, assigned historic revenue sources to London, and in other ways recognised the dangers of unrestrained political authority. More generally, the political institutions of the English speaking peoples presuppose political power is a corrupting influence which makes political conspiracies against the people’s interests and liberties almost inevitable. One of the most important questions in Western political thought is how to prevent top leaders from abusing their powers to impose arbitrary rule or tyranny. The men and women who fought for citizens’ rights, the rule of law, and constitutional systems of checks and balances would view today’s norms against conspiratorial suspicion as not only arrogant, but also dangerous and historically illiterate.
The founders of English legal and political traditions would also be shocked that conspiracy deniers attack and ridicule individuals who voice conspiracy beliefs, and yet ignore institutional purveyors of conspiratorial ideas, even though the latter are the ideas that have proven truly dangerous in modern history. Since at least the end of World War II, the citadel of theories alleging nefarious political conspiracies has been, not amateur investigators of the Kennedy assassination and other political crimes and tragedies, but political elites and governments. In the first three decades of the post-World War II era, officials asserted that communists were conspiring to take over the world, Western governments were riddled with Soviet spies, and various social movements of the 1960s were creatures of Soviet influence. More recently, Western governments have accepted US claims that Iraq was complicit in 9/11, failed to dispose of its biological weapons, and attempted to purchase uranium in Niger so it could construct nuclear bombs. Although these ideas were untrue, they influenced millions of people, fomented social panic, fuelled wars, and resulted in massive loss of life and destruction of property. If conspiracy deniers are so concerned about the dangers of conspiratorial suspicions in politics and civic culture, why have they ignored the conspiracism of top politicians and administrators?
In my book Conspiracy Theory in America, I reorient analysis of the phenomenon that has been assigned the derisive label of conspiracy theory. In a 2006 peer-reviewed journal article, I introduced the concept of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD) to displace the term conspiracy theory. I say displace rather thanreplace because SCAD is not another name for conspiracy theory; it is a name for the type of wrongdoing which the conspiracy theory label discourages us from speaking. Basically, the term conspiracy theory is applied pejoratively to allegations of official wrongdoing that have not been substantiated by public officials themselves.
Deployed as a derogatory putdown, the label is a verbal defence mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing the events in question, or for investigating them after they have occurred. It is only natural to wonder about possible deception when a US president and vice president bent on war in the Middle East are warned of impending terrorist attacks, and yet fail to alert the public or increase the readiness of their own and allies’ armed forces. Why would people not expect answers when Arabs with poor piloting skills manage to hijack four planes, fly them across the eastern United States, somehow evade America’s multilayered system of air defence, and then crash two of the planes into the World Trade Center in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, DC? By the same token, it is only natural to question the motives of President Bush and Vice President Cheney when they dragged their feet investigating this seemingly inexplicable defence failure and then, when the investigation was finally conducted, they insisted on testifying together, in secret, and not under oath. Certainly, citizen distrust can be unwarranted and overwrought, but often citizen doubts make sense. People around the world are not crazy to want answers when a US president is assassinated by a lone gunman with mediocre shooting skills who manages to get off several lucky shots with an old bolt-action carbine that had a misaligned scope. Why would there not be doubts when an alleged assassin is apprehended, publicly claims he is just a patsy, interrogated for two days but no one makes a recording or even takes notes, and then shot to death at point-blank range while in police custody at police headquarters?
In contrast, the SCAD construct does not refer to a type of allegation or suspicion; it refers to a special type of transgression: an attack from within on the political system’s organising principles. For these extremely grave crimes, English legal and political traditions use the term high crime and included in this category istreason and conspiracies against the people’s liberties. SCADs, high crimes, and antidemocratic conspiracies can also be called elite political crimes and elite political criminality. The SCAD construct is intended not to supersede traditional terminology or monopolise conceptualisation of this phenomenon, but rather to add a descriptive term that captures, with some specificity, the long-recognised potential for representative democracy to be subverted by people on the inside – the very people who have been entrusted to uphold the constitutional order.
If political conspiracies in high office do, in fact, happen; if it is therefore unreasonable to assume conspiracy theories are, by definition, harebrained and paranoia; if constitutional systems of checks and balances are based on the idea that power corrupts and elite political conspiracies are likely; if, because it ridicules suspicion, the conspiracy theory label is inconsistent with the traditional Western ethos of vigilance against conspiracies in high office; if, in summary, the conspiracy theory label is unreasonable and dangerous, how did the label come to be used so widely to begin with?
Most people will be shocked to learn the conspiracy theory label was popularised as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a global propaganda program initiated in 1967. This program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission Report. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists around the world to criticise conspiracy theorists and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA informed its contacts that “parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by communist propagandists.” In the shadows of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this warning about communist influence was delivered simultaneously to hundreds of well-positioned members of the press in a global CIA propaganda network, infusing the conspiracy theory label with powerfully negative associations. In my book, I refer to this as the “conspiracy theory conspiracy.”
For a more detailed exposition on the above, read Prof. Lance DeHaven-Smith’s Conspiracy Theory in America (University of Texas Press, 2013), available from all good bookstores and online retailers.
About the Author
LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH is Professor in the Reubin O’D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. A former President of the Florida Political Science Association, deHaven-Smith is the author of more than a dozen books, including The Battle for Florida, which analyses the disputed 2000 US presidential election, as well as The Hidden Teachings of Jesus: The Political Meaning of the Kingdom of God (Phanes Press, 2001). His latest book is Conspiracy Theory in America (University of Texas Press, 2013). DeHaven-Smith has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and other US TV and radio shows. His website is www.dehaven-smith.com.
The above article appeared in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 7 No 6