Is Your Freedom of Thought Being Short-circuited?

THE 3 TRIGGER TERMS BEING USED TO STOP CRITICAL THINKING

August 16, 2018

Sigmund Fraud, Staff Writer
Waking Times

It’s a strange world of newspeak we live in. What was once a society devoted to logic and progress is now being herded in echo chambers of thought control and anti-critical thinking. Without the ability to examine an issue impartially and completely there is little hope of maintaining liberty and freedom, as history repeatedly demonstrated.

Today, we find that thinking is a diminishing art, and in its place, sound bites and stop-thought terms are used to put the brakes on the mind. These terms are widely used as signals to prevent minds from looking too deeply at a topic or issue.

The three terms most widely used today to this avail are detailed below.

1.) Conspiracy Theorist – This term is so overused that it really is devoid of any practical meaning. If you were to examine it at face value, though, it describes a person who is looking to understand injustices in our world and is willing to look at uncomfortable facts in search of negative influence… of which there is plenty in our world today.

However, ‘conspiracy theorist’ has literally become a derogatory term that is attributed to anyone who refuses to accept mainstream narratives at face value. It doesn’t matter that there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that mainstream media does not value objectivity or report on important issues thoroughly or truthfully.

Now we find this term applied as a prefix to well-known journalists and media personalities, almost as we use the term Doctor. It’s an adjective that precedes them everywhere, so that before you even know what issue is being discussed, you know that the issue is coming from someone considered to be fringe and unacceptable.

2.) Alt – We see the label ‘alt’ being applied more and more frequently as an adjective for sentiments that supposedly do not fit in with the accepted status quo. Ideas outside of the box.

Alt-Media. Alt-Right. Alt-Left. Alt-News. Alt-Health. And so on.

The signal here is that the mainstream is the safe space, and that any segment of ideas or thought given this prefix is outside of that mainstream, and therefore not something ordinary people would want to associate with. It takes complex ideas and sensitive issues and benches them, so that when the hive mind stumbles upon something ‘alt’ they immediately react with fear, disdain and feigned outrage.

There is no ‘alt’ in our world. We are one, and any faction of ideas is really just a spinoff of the shared reality we all live in. If segments of this shared space are off-limits and labeled as so, we all lose.

3.) Hate Speech – This term is one of the all-time favorites of politicians and tyrants. After all, what could more dangerous than hate?

Newsflash: Hate speech is not the same thing as a hate crime. Speech is just that, speech. It is literally vibrating air moving through space, and unless we’re talking about and LRAD crowd control cannon, sound really can’t cause people physical harm.

It is fascinating to watch how people use this term so freely as if speech itself can be criminal. American society is founded on the idea of freedom of speech and self-expression, which at its core is the recognition that as human beings we do not and never will all see the world in the same way. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that different people have different ideas about how the world is and should be. That these differences shouldn’t be used as a basis for discrimination.

The term hate speech is one of the most loaded and ambiguous terms in the political lexicon. Beware.

Final Thoughts

Next time you see or hear these terms being used, ask yourself what it is about the story that you’re not supposed to think too deeply about. Allow both sides of the argument to share equal time in your mind, and honor the independent, sovereign being within yourself that deserves a chance to make up its own mind about how it wishes to view the world.

from:    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/08/16/the-3-trigger-terms-being-used-to-stop-critical-thinking/

Your Freedom: Reality Check

4 Celebrated Freedoms that Now Require Permission or Privilege to Enjoy

Isaac Davis, Staff
Waking Times

Independence, liberty, freedom. Ideas worth celebrating, for sure, only intangible constructs of the human mind, therefore, their meanings can change along with the times. And since people are extremely adaptable creatures, we rapidly normalize to ever-evolving societal and cultural conditions and values. What people consider to be ‘freedom’ today, is nothing similar to what it was even a couple of generations ago.

Here are 4 celebrated, historic liberties that people have long enjoyed, yet are undergoing a dramatic metamorphosis in an evolving world.

1. ) The Freedom to Travel

The idea that human beings should be free to roam the earth without permission or threat is now dated. Prior to the 1930’s you needn’t a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle or carriage in America. Traveling without a passport used to be commonplace as well.

“[B]efore 1915 His Majesty’s Government did not require a passport for departure, nor did any European state require one for admittance except the two notoriously backward and neurotic countries of Russia and the Ottoman Empire.” [Source]

Now, even recreational drivers are required to be commercially licensed, and in addition to a complex system of fees, fines, high-speed-chases and beat-downs, we are now watching the normalization of domestic checkpoints manned by armed and dangerous government employee.

“Sobriety checkpoints — also known as DUI checkpoints — are the most common roadblocks you might encounter. They function as a general purpose investigatory tactic where police can get a close look at passing motorists by detaining them briefly. A roadblock stop is quick, but it gives police a chance to check tags and licenses, while also giving officers a quick whiff of the driver’s breath and a chance to peer into the vehicle for a moment.” [Source]

2.) The Right to be Self-Sustaining

Living off the grid is the ultimate example of personal responsibility, but as government needs dependents in order to be relevant, the type of rugged, ingenious mind that once made America remarkable is being stamped out in a fog of rules, regulations, permits, codes and trade agreements. For those interested in cultivating true independence by homesteading or setting up a little offgrid outpost somewhere, it is increasingly difficult and expensive to comply with the state.

“Look, if I want to build a yurt of rabbit skins and go to the bathroom in a compost pile, why is it any of the government’s business? Bureaucrats bend over backwards to accredit, tax credit, and offer money to people wanting to build pig city-factories or bigger airports. But let a guy go to his woods, cut down some trees, and build himself a home, and a plethora of regulatory tyrants descend on the project to complicate, obfuscate, irritate, frustrate, and virtually terminate. I think it’s time to eradicate some of these laws and the piranhas who administer them.” – Joel Salatin

In some areas, people’s veggie gardens are being ripped up by over-zealous code enforcers, senior citizens are being fined thousands of dollars for not cutting their grass on time, individual rainwater collection is being prosecuted, and police are being called in to enforce mandatory connection to public utilities.

3.) Freedom of Speech

Supposedly one of the greatest rights bestowed upon Americans by the constitution, increasingly, the right to speak your mind is under duress, by government, corporate policy makers, and a changing social climate. Sure, since the ’80’s we’ve been trained to accept Free Speech Zoneswhere protestors could be shuffled out of sight and out of mind. Now, though, we’re entering an era of extreme political correctness and unabashed irrationality. People are increasingly unwilling to listen to what others have to say, and intolerance is being normalized under a cloak of phony diversity.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?”Orwell’s 1984

The way we communicate is rapidly changing, and corporations now have incredible power to shape our thoughts, as sites like Facebook have demonstrated. Our language can be moulded and transformed by company policy, as forum rules and formats can change in accordance with investor motives. We no longer own our words or our conversations.

As social pressure continues to build upon indoctrination, the ability of people to civilly discuss differences in opinions is more strained. Add to this the general dumbing down of everything, and the climate is one of highly-vocal intolerance. The liberty to openly speak in our society is being tested by personal crassness as much as it is by law.

Here’s an example of the kind of behavior that is now acceptable when some are in the presence of ideas they are unwilling to tolerate:

4.) The Right to Choose Your Own Medicine

Human beings have always had a symbiotic relationship with food and with plants, and medicine was always something taken directly from nature and combined with human intuition, wisdom and the intention to heal. The disruption of the balance between humans and nature, as initiated by consumer culture and corporate medicine, has taken a fundamental human right and is turning it into a privilege.

The corporate overthrow of the concept of medicine, mass fear-hyping, and the war on drugs, are devastating to personal sovereignty. Mandatory vaccines, public water fluoridation, and the prohibition of plant medicines such as cannabis, ayahuasca and iboga, add up to a severely restricted perception of health and wellness, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

If you alone do not own your body, then who owns your body?

“These medicines heal the cultural malaises of apathy and distractedness by re-introducing mystery and magic into life, and by liberating one’s consciousness from the confining prisons of the war on consciousness. They completely destroy the matrix of cultural programming, clearing space within the psyche for something new and positive to emerge.” – Dylan Charles

Final Thoughts

Due to the inherent violence required to maintain the social-political order we have now, along with mass indoctrination of the public with extreme statist and corporatist ideologies, it is practically impossible for most people to imagine a world governed by voluntaryism, although it’s well-worth consideration for those enjoy the celebration of human liberty.

“If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.” [Source]

from:    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/07/04/4-celebrated-freedoms-that-now-require-permission-or-privilege-to-enjoy/

Free Speech Challenge at CA Universities

California professors instructed not to say ‘America is the land of opportunity’
StatueofLiberty.DavidSaddler.FlickrThat’s one of several phrases deemed a ‘microaggression’ at faculty leader training sessions initiated by University of California President Janet Napolitano

“America is the land of opportunity,” “There is only one race, the human race” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” are among a long list of alleged microaggressions faculty leaders of the University of California system have been instructed not to say.

These so-called microaggressions – considered examples of subconscious racism – were presented at faculty leader training sessions held throughout the 2014-15 school year at nine of the 10 UC campuses. The sessions, an initiative of UC President Janet Napolitano, aim to teach how to avoid offending students and peers, as well as how to hire a more diverse faculty.

At the gatherings, deans and department chairs across the UC system have been instructed to be careful using (read: instructed not to use) phrases such as “America is the land of opportunity” or even use forms that provide only “male” and “female” check boxes, among a long litany of supposed microaggressions listed in a document underlying the “Faculty Leadership Seminars.”

The document has drawn little scrutiny until now, when a professor in the UC system pointed it out to The College Fix. The professor chose not to attend the seminars, but myriad materials on the UC Office of the President (UCOP) website give indication as to what sort of lessons were taught there.

Other sayings deemed unacceptable include:

● “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”

● “Where are you from or where were you born?”

● “Affirmative action is racist.”

● “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”

These phrases in particular are targeted because they promote the “myth of meritocracy” or represent “statements which assert that race or gender does not play a role in life successes.” Others are said to be color blind, apparently a bad thing that indicates “that a white person does not want to or need to acknowledge race,” according to the handout, “Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send.”

In another handout, “Tool for Identifying Implicit Bias,” faculty are advised when dealing with a student or researcher that they are particularly impressed with not to express approval with compliments like “It’s clear he’s a rockstar.” The handout also describes “raising the bar” as “elitist.”

UCMicro

President Napolitano’s “invitation” to deans and department chairs in January describes the half-day seminars as helping them meet their “responsibility” to create “academic climates that enable all faculty to do their best work.” The seminars are intended to help faculty identify and “interrupt” microaggressions and develop “an inclusive department/school climate,” according to the seminars’ webpage.

The seminars also taught faculty how to deal with prospective hires and existing minority faculty. According to a synopsis of the theatric production “Ready to Vote?” presented at the gatherings, a group of professors consider whether to nominate an Asian American female colleague for tenure. It’s intended to illustrate several perceived microaggressions, such as holding minority professors to higher standards than white male counterparts and not supporting their research.

Another highlight among materials for the seminars is a curious choice: a Supreme Court dissent in a decision upholding Michigan voters’ right to ban race preferences in college admissions. Its inclusion suggests to faculty that publicly approving of race-neutral admissions policies is a microaggression.

The College Fix reached out to the UC Office of the President for comment. In response to a question about how these seminars might have a chilling effect on faculty members’ ability to engage in free speech, representative Shelly Meron said in an email Tuesday that “These seminars are not an attempt to curb open dialogue, debate or classroom discussions.”

“The seminars are part of the President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program,” Meron stated. “Deans and department heads who attended the seminars could choose whether they wanted to convey the information to their faculty.”

With regard to the seemingly commonplace, innocuous quotes that are labeled microaggressions in the seminar leaflets, Meron writes:

“The quotes you referenced are taken directly from research done on this topic. We present this research literature/climate survey responses as examples so that faculty leaders can be more aware of the impact their actions or words may have on their students, and to provide faculty members with potential strategies to create an inclusive learning environment for all students.”

Many UC administrators are used to talking about promoting diversity thanks to diversity initiatives and calls to “improve campus climate” that have been legion across UC campuses in recent years. UCLA’s campus in particular has been a hotbed of activity for diversity campus crusaders.

In 2013, Carlos Moreno, a retired California Supreme Court judge, authored an exhaustive report on “Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty” at UCLA. Just this past year, after failed attempts in 2004 and 2012, UCLA passed a highly controversial diversity class requirement that was the subject of multiple faculty votes.

College Fix reporter Josh Hedtke is a student at UCLA. College Fix editor Jennifer Kabbany contributed to this report.

from:    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22839/

Freedom of Speech, Psychics, Lies, and Entertainment

Fortunetelling Verdict Raises Thorny Questions

Analysis by Benjamin Radford
Tue Jul 17, 2012

Psychicblog
Last week a federal judge in Alexandria, Louisiana, overturned a law banning fortunetelling on the basis that it is free speech protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Dee Drell struck down an ordinance outlawing fortunetelling, astrology, palm reading, tarot, and other forms of divination on the grounds that the practices are fraudulent and inherently deceptive. The case involved a fortuneteller named Rachel Adams who sued to overturn the law and won.

About one in seven Americans have consulted a psychic or fortuneteller, and their services are in high demand, especially during hard economic times. This curious case raises issues about the boundary between freedom of speech and fraudulent (or at least unproven) claims.

There are, of course, exceptions to free speech that go beyond yelling fire in a crowded theater. People who lie on their tax returns can be convicted of tax evasion, and those who lie in a court of law can be convicted of perjury, which under federal law is a felony. Companies, also, are legally prohibited from making false statements about their merchandise; Ford cannot claim its cars get 200 miles per gallon, and vitamin manufacturers cannot advertise that their pills cure cancer. But other cases are murkier.

Free Speech and The Right to Lie

Last month the Supreme Court ruled that Xavier Alvarez, a public official who falsely claimed that he had received the Medal of Honor, could not be prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 law that made it a crime to falsely claim “to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.” Alvarez admitted that his statements were false, but claimed that his lies were free speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed and overturned the law.

 

The First Amendment freedom to lie and misrepresent matters of fact was even invoked by top Wall Street credit rating companies including Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service, and others. In the months and years leading up to the global financial crash, these companies routinely inflated the ratings of billions of dollars worth of investments they bought and sold. When investors and investigators demanded to know why companies that were given stellar confidence ratings one day went bankrupt the next, the agencies claimed that their investment ratings were merely “opinions” not necessarily based on truth or fact, and as such were protected by the First Amendment.

Psychics and fortunetellers try a similar strategy, often offering their services “for entertainment only,” a tacit acknowledgement that the information they provide may not be reliable. Yet the fact is that—like clients of credit rating companies—the clients of psychics often do take the advice they get seriously, making life, love, and career decisions based upon fortunetelling. If clients truly are seeking only entertainment, for the $40 to $100 per hour psychics typically charge there are far cheaper ways to be entertained.

Some fortunetellers offer readings for fun and pleasure, and for the most part it’s not palm reading per se that police are concerned about, it’s the confidence schemes, theft by deception, and fraud that often accompany fortunetelling. One common scam involves luring clients in with inexpensive readings, then convincing them that a recent misfortune is the result of a curse put on them by an enemy. The imaginary curse can be lifted but it won’t come cheap, and some victims have been robbed of tens of thousands of dollars. In one recent case a “psychic” misused the influence and trust placed in him to sexually exploit several women.

How Stuff Works: Pet Psychics

The issue of fortunetelling is a tricky legal and ethical area. Although psychic powers and prediction have never been proven to exist (and indeed have failed in well-controlled scientific tests), psychics themselves often genuinely believe in their powers. Other professions can at least provide concrete proof of ability: a mechanic can prove to clients he can fix a transmission by doing it; a doctor can prove to patients she can perform heart surgery by being certified (and doing it). Psychics, on the other hand, cannot prove they can accurately predict the future; if they could, they should be making a killing on Wall Street or in highly-paid positions protecting national security.

Is it ethical to accept money for a service you cannot scientifically prove you can provide, even if you believe you can? How is that different than a lawyer who takes on a case knowing she can’t win (but pretending she can), and gets paid either way? Perjury and fraud only make it a crime to knowingly lie or misrepresent matters of fact, and fortunetellers—like Wall Street credit rating firms—can always say that their claim to psychic abilities is their (Constitutionally protected) opinion. Caveat emptor.

Photo Credit: Corbis

from:    http://news.discovery.com/human/fortunetelling-free-speech-120717.html