How Philosophy Overcomes Propaganda



Author

Brainwashing

How Philosophy Overcomes Tyranny

Why You're Not Getting the News


     In this essay, we'll explore how the embodiment of the Perennial Tradition 1 called philosophy overcomes indoctrination, brainwashing, and conditioning. Every advanced teacher within the Perennial Tradition has provided insight into how false communication--propaganda, lies, deception, and mind-control--can be defeated.

     Of all the varied embodiments of the Perennial Tradition, Plato's writings constitute the most potent, comprehensive, and detailed exposition of that tradition still extant. Through study of Plato's works, we'll discover how philosophy overcomes falsifying, indoctrinating communication.

"Plato's is . . . a philosophy of catharsis, ascent, realization, transformation of the way of feeling, of willing, of acting. Plato uses philosophy as a method for raising us above the conflict-ridden and contradictory world of the sensible to the harmonious world of Being, which is our original home."

Raphael, Initiation Into the Philosophy of Plato


The Mild-Mannered Socrates

S stands for Socrates      To the unaware, Plato's dialogues appear to be mere verbal discussions of philosophical terms by Socrates and his fellow participants.

      They're actually disguised dynamos containing hidden potency: fundamental realities constitutive of human existence, such as goodness, beauty, and virtue (truth, justice and the American way included).

     Plato's writings help us to understand that the chasm between us and arcane reality is not entirely bridgeable by ordinary sensation. Naive realism assumes that we see, hear, feel, touch, or taste this reality and thereby know its true and complete essence. This view fails to take into cognizance the many "filters" between us and the enigmatic reality.

Moving through the distorting elements to an understanding of the enigmatic reality


     Part of what each of Plato's dialogues reveals is how widespread ignorance of reality actually is, how extensive and common the delusion is that we understand reality because we sense something we call "the external world" and act on it in ways which seem to prove our complete grasp of its essence. We fail to recognize the myriad distorting elements between us and reality, assuming that our naive grasp of the external world brings complete comprehension.

     Plato's dialogues only make sense to persons who have committed themselves to the search for wisdom (philosophy), because they've recognized that there are vast continents of ignorance within their psyche which they need to illuminate and eradicate. Only if they have an intense desire to understand the veiled aspects of reality will Plato's philosophy have any appeal for them.

     Throughout the dialogues, Socrates claims that he is ignorant of the concepts and entities being investigated. Academic pedants, pretending to understand what Plato is doing in this regard, misinterpret Socrates as merely pretending to be ignorant when he isn't pretending at all.

"We should recognize that Socrates is being ironic when he fains [sic] ignorance about moral matters. He is simply pretending not to understand in order to draw out the person with whom he is arguing. By posing as ignorant, Socrates is able to seduce others into making moral claims, and then is able to show them how little they actually know about the topic being discussed." 2

What Does Socrates' Ignorance Mean?

     Socrates did not pretend to be ignorant; he maintained that his means of investigation--dialectic--lead him to discover ever larger areas of reality which he didn't understand. In his defense at his trial for his life, Socrates stated that what set him apart from others is that he recognized that he didn't know when he didn't know, whereas others assumed they knew things which they didn't actually know.

     This was not some ironic pretence of ignorance. When we honestly seek wisdom--beyond mere sensory information--then we constantly discover how much more there is that we don't know. We may achieve an understanding of a particular area of reality (a spot of light in a forest), but this also involves our becoming aware of how much more there is about us that we don't yet understand (the forest surrounding the spot of light).

     When Socrates claims ignorance he is doing several things:

  • Saying: "I do not know the answer to the question you are assuming is the goal of this inquiry; you must get an answer to such questions from those who specialize in those kinds of issues: the sophists or the popular artists (like Homer)."

  • Saying: "I am constantly seeking (through dialectic) to understand mysterious and transcendent realities, so I cannot claim to already understand them."

     Along with a complete misunderstanding of Socrates' ignorance, most academic professor/sophists misapprehend the arcane science of dialectic, as evidenced in this quotation.

     It's no wonder that academic philosophy is in such bad repute today. The disgraceful misunderstanding of Plato is a clear symptom of the low level of intelligence which "professors" bring to a study of philosophy and other "disciplines."


The Cratylus: Communication and Truth

     In the dialogue we'll explore in this essay, the Cratylus, we find that the dialectical process leads Socrates and the other participants into profound issues concerning the nature of truth and how words disclose a reality which is mysterious and arcane. 3  Any discerning person knows that these issues are of critical importance in the modern world of propaganda, pre-emptive war, and political, social, and economic tyranny.

     At a time when millions of Americans fail to see the evil of the criminal cabal and its Obama puppet junta, rediscovery of the insights of the Platonic philosophy--enabling us to overcome propaganda and brainwashing--is of crucial importance: our personal and social lives depend on it.

   In an era of mass propaganda, deception, and murder--of American soldiers and Afghans and Iraqis--what might appear mere "philosophical" concepts, such as truth and dialectic, can now be seen to be critical powers of discernment we must develop if we're to survive.

     In our study of the Cratylus, we'll examine these crucial issues:

  • Does everything have a right name of its own, which comes by nature?

  • Is a name whatever people call a thing by agreement?

  • Is there a kind of inherent correctness in names, which is the same for all people?

  • Can the truth about these or any topics be gained by studying with self-appointed experts (academics or sophists)?


     We begin the dialectical process by relating these issues to present difficulties. We can legitimately call Barack Obama's campaign promises of progressive change a LIE! His creation of a fascist regime proves he was lying!

     The issues can become clouded only if we allow the Obama junta propagandists to operate without challenge. We must set the terms of discourse, not allowing the Obama indoctrinators to define the issues or the concepts. The terms we're investigating possess commonly acknowledged meanings:

1. To lie: 4

  • To express an inaccurate or false statement

  • To convey an untruth

  • To make an untrue statement which may or may not be believed by the speaker

2. A lie:

  • An untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

  • Something that misleads or deceives

  • Something intended or serving to convey a falsehood

3. Truth: 4

  • Conformity to fact or actuality

  • Reality, actuality

  • That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence


     The Obama junta and its legion of falsifiers and deceivers (throughout the mainstream media outlets) make such statements as these:

  • "A statement is not a lie if it was caused by incomplete or false information."

  • "I don't believe Obama lied."

  • "Obama misspoke--but he didn't lie."

  • "Obama didn't intend to deceive, so what he said wasn't a lie."
     The purpose of all these Obama junta obfuscations is to redefine a lie as the truth. The statements Obama made in his campaign speeches were untrue: there was no intention of improving the plight of working-class Americans. Obama lied.

      It is of no significance what the press feel about whether or not Obama lied; their feelings don't change the fact that Obama lied. A person can lie deliberately or inadvertently. In either case, if a statement serves to convey a falsehood it is a lie. We can't know what Obama's intentions were, since those are subjective (and he doesn't have the moral fiber to admit his true intentions), but from his track record the most compelling hypothesis would be that he knew he was lying and intended to deceive the American people, so he could continue unnecessary, murderous wars and create a militarist police state.

     Any person interested in being honest has the responsibility of determining if what he says is true. If you don't know whether something is true or false, then you indicate that you don't know and make it clear that you're merely putting forward a likely hypothesis. That is not what Obama did. He deliberately and expressly made statements which were false.

Socrates' Approach to Dialectic

     In the Cratylus, Socrates makes it clear, through humor, that he believes the essence of truth and communication cannot be gained by merely listening to or studying with the "experts." In his day, the self-appointed "experts" in such imponderables were the sophists. So Socrates says that he does not know the ultimate reality of truth and communication because he only had enough money for the cheaper course offered by one of the sophists.

"Now if I had attended Prodicus's fifty-drachma course of lectures, after which, as he himself says, a man has a complete education on this subject, there would be nothing to hinder your learning the truth about the correctness of names at once; but I have heard only the one-drachma course, and so I do not know what the truth is about such matters."

     "However," Socrates says, "I am ready to join you and Cratylus in looking for it," that is, the essence of truth and naming. Socrates is joining the discussion, while recognizing that Hermogenes and Cratylus are assuming that:

  • The real question is the truth or correctness of names; are they "natural" or conventional?

  • The truth about this or any topic can be gained by studying with self-appointed experts: the sophists

  • The discussion is a debate as to whether Hermogenes or Cratylus is right.

     Socrates recognizes that in dialectic one must start with whoever is engaged in the investigation, whatever incorrect assumptions they bring to the endeavor. Socrates is saying that he is always ready to engage in the mystical science of dialectic (maieutic psychagogy). However, in the course of this dialogue, the goal of their investigation will soon be determined to be not the "correctness of names" but how words or names reveal a mysterious reality.

The Present Terms of Discourse

     In the twenty-first century, we must make certain to set the field of inquiry and controvert the criminal cabal's deliberate prevarications and dissimulations such as:

  • Obama is a great leader

  • Obama continues the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to bring democracy to the Iraqi and Afghani people

  • Americans must sacrifice their freedom for security

  • The criminal cabal had no complicity in 9/11

  • Spending over $1 trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is good for America

  • Social Security is in genuine difficulty and Obama has only good intentions in trying to solve the problems

  • Obama did not lie about his intentions during the election campaign

     The present enemies of truth and justice believe they can call a lie a truth: an aggressive, senseless, unnecessary war is a struggle against terrorism; a con-man is a great leader; and the destruction of America through fascism, deficit spending and militarism, are sound policies. They believe they can call anything whatever they want to and the American people will accept it.

"So essential is language to man's humanness, so deep a source is it of his own creativity, that it is by no means an accident in our time that those who have tried to degrade man and enslave him have first debased and misused language, arbitrarily turning meanings inside out. "

Lewis Mumford. The Conduct of Life


     We find the same kind of relativism and nominalism in the person of Hermogenes in the Cratylus: "For it seems to me that whatever name you give to a thing is its right name; and if you give up that name and change it for another, the later name is no less correct than the earlier, just as we change the names of our servants; for I think no name belongs to any particular thing by nature, but only by the habit and custom of those who employ it and who established the usage."

     Hermogenes believed that a name can have one meaning for an individual and another for society, that names and values and realities are completely subjective: whatever a person believes they are, that is their true nature.

Diogenes carried a lamp throughout the land looking for an honest man      When trying to dialogue with persons in the present era, we must limit our efforts to persons committed to honesty and truth, asking the same question Socrates did in the Cratylus:

"Is there anything which you call speaking the truth and speaking falsehood--is there true speech and false speech?"

     Dialogue is only possible with those persons who genuinely believe there is objective Truth--beyond personal belief, feeling, or desire.

     At present, it would be impossible to dialogue with Obama junta members or any of their fellow-travelers (media propagandists and brain-dead, reactionary citizens), since they simply have no commitment to truth whatsoever. They will tell any lie and commit any atrocity which leads to their goals: power and wealth.

      Even if one were the host of a radio or TV interview program, trying to dialogue with a person such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Robert Graves would be a total waste of time. Their entire output would be nothing but sophistry and propaganda: lies, obfuscations, and posturings.

     A person like Hermogenes can believe that truth can be expressed in words without knowing how to express truth in words. But if a person doesn't believe there is a reality named "truth," then there is no purpose in engaging in dialectic--searching for truth--when they don't believe there is truth.

     Some people say they believe there is truth, when what they really believe is that each person's beliefs express an individual, subjective truth. This is the denial of the reality of Truth, which is invariable, not subjective, possessing a fixed reality of its own, as Socrates explains.

"It is clear that things have some fixed reality of their own, not in relation to us nor caused by us; they do not vary, swaying one way and another in accordance with our fancy, but exist of themselves in relation to their own reality imposed by nature." [386e]

Words and Realities

     A horse, Socrates explains, is a horse, even if someone erroneously claims it is a man. And a human has a fixed nature, so it is incorrect to call a human a horse. Actions, such as cutting, are performed according to their own nature, not according to our opinion. If we want to perform the act of cutting, then we require a tool such as a knife.

     Entities and actions have a fixed nature and are not subjective in the sense of having a reality relative to a person's beliefs. A name is, Socrates explains, an instrument for separating one kind of reality from another, a horse from a human, for example. Each name refers to a fixed reality. Even if we change a name referring to a specific reality, the reality is the same.

      If a propagandist such as Obama, with the clear intention of deceiving, gives the false name of democracy to the forms of government in America and Iraq, he's still referring to the same, objective realities: American plutocracy (the rule of the wealthy) and Iraqi puppet government. False and deceptive names are used by indoctrinators to try to fool heedless people into believing they're referring to a reality (true democracy: a government for the people) when they're not.

      Current propagandists (liars) such as Ben Bernanke try to befuddle the minds of Americans by continuing to refer to "capitalism" as if it were the same as it was according to its classical definition: an economic system in which a "free market" allows for profit or loss according to the mechanics of supply and demand. From the beginning of the world capitalist system, persons with wealth have been able to manipulate the so-called "free market" through hidden, criminal means. What persons such as Bernanke and Timmy Geithner now call "capitalism" is actually "fascism:" the manipulation of the economy so that certain institutions (e.g. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan/Chase) receive money looted from tax payers while others (e.g. Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual) are destroyed. Their use of the term "capitalism" to describe the current fascist looting is a deliberate deception.

"At the top, a collectivized economy rules the day, hyenas hunting hyenas even as they herd together for another kill. If seemingly invisible to media exposure or reports, the men and women at the top know how to choose their potential enemies."

Norman Madarasz, "Rejection of the Oligarchs: Scouring the Atlantic Rim for Signs of Capitalism," State of Nature, Winter, 2006


     As Socrates, Cratylus, and Hermogenes continue in their dialogue, they come to recognize a truth they "did not know before, that names do possess a certain natural correctness, and that not every man knows how to give a name well to anything whatsoever." [391b]

      Most of the Cratylus is an exposition of Socrates demonstrating the chaos and adversity caused by scholastic etymologists, 5 propagandists, and sophists. It's amazing to see supposedly intelligent persons who call themselves "philosophers" not recognizing that Socrates is exposing sophism. These dullards take Socrates' disproof of propaganda to be his setting out a serious system of analytic semantics. Plato makes it perfectly clear that Socrates is debunking etymology and propaganda, even having Socrates say: "you had better watch me and see that I don't play tricks on you. . ." [393d]

"Plato could hardly do more to discredit this investigation of names without actually stating in his own person that it is not to be taken seriously." 6

     The search for truth is a serious matter, and Socrates is engaged in an earnest investigation into questions of critical importance--then and now. It's possible for a society to become so relativistic and intellectually bewildered that people lose the ability to comprehend reality. War is seen as peace. Tyranny is seen as sound government. A con-man President is seen as a great leader. Ignorance becomes suicidal. Intentional unawareness becomes lethal.

"There is only one way to degrade mankind permanently and that is to destroy language."

Northrop Frye


Primordial Knowledge of Realities

     Part of what Socrates is investigating is the phenomenon of our possessing a knowledge of reality in our very being. Entities have a definite, unique composition; one thing is not another thing. We know, primordially, when we are in our right mind, whether a name correctly or incorrectly refers to a particular reality. Mind control, propaganda, and social conditioning can so corrupt the human mind that it does not function correctly; then lies are taken for truth, our destroyers are taken for beneficent leaders. But even when programmed by an oppressive regime, humans retain some connection to their primordial awareness of reality.

     The American mind is very far gone: people suffer from generalized possession 7 and hysteria 8-- the loss of the ability to use our senses and our minds. But there is still a preexistent, ineradicable power of understanding in even the most subverted personality that can be awakened.

     There has to be this primordial ability to understand reality because we recognize when a name correctly or incorrectly refers to a particular entity. If we required a name in order to recognize a reality, then we would never have been able to know realities prior to their having names and know when names are correct.

Socrates: But how could he [the original name-giver] have learned or discovered things from names if the primitive names were not yet given? For, if our conjecture is correct, the only way of learning and discovering things, is either to discover names for ourselves or to learn them from others.

Cratylus: I think that there is a good deal in what you say, Socrates.

Socrates: But if things are only to be known through names, how can we suppose that the givers of names had knowledge, or were legislators before there were names at all, and therefore before they could have known them?

     One of the most profound conclusions of the dialectical investigation in the Cratylus is expressed by Socrates:

"How real existence is to be studied or discovered is, I suspect, too great a question for you or me to determine; but it is worth while to have reached even this conclusion, that real knowledge of things is not to be derived from names. No; they must be studied and investigated in themselves." [439c]

     As we are critically aware at the present time, what name an entity is given is of supreme importance. If an element is given a false name then people believe it has the characteristics of the specious name:

  • Iraq is a depository of weapons of mass destruction

  • Terrorism is an enemy which will require American opposition for an indeterminate period of time

  • The Patriot Act is an essential ingredient in the fight against terrorism

     It's critically important to give the proper name to things; otherwise people accept the false names which the propagandists give them and act accordingly.

     In the Cratylus, Socrates says that the man who knows how to ask and answer questions is a dialectician and one of the main things the dialectician asks questions about is the giving of true or false names to realities. The dialectician has the ability to recognize what the true reality of a thing is and make that apparent to people.

"The giving of names can hardly be, as you imagine, a trifling matter, or a task for trifling or casual persons: and Cratylus is right in saying that names belong to things by nature [390e] and that not every one is an artisan of names, but only he who keeps in view the name which belongs by nature to each particular thing and is able to embody its form in the letters and syllables."

     At present, the dialectician--the genuine philosopher (seeker of wisdom)--asks crucial questions such as: "What is good government?" In our ongoing American social dialogue, determining the true nature of the American Constitution remains a crucial issue. Since 1787, the American Constitution (signed by only 39 of the 55 members of the conspiratorial Constitutional Convention) has been thought to be a blueprint for good government. But in many ways and in many instances it has proven to be defective as a pattern of operation for good government. Especially is this so at the present time when a criminal cabal--and its Republican and Democratic Party accomplices--have seized all branches of the federal government. So we must continue to seek for the Form of Good Government.


The Reality of Forms

     Part of what Plato helps us understand is that there are ultimate realities to which names point, and that our responsibility in human life is to work toward an understanding and realization of these higher realities which Plato called Forms or Ideas.

     As we examine instances of government, for example--America, Britain, fifth century BCE Athens, the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania--we find that none of them contains the total reality which we primordially know to be Good Government.

      Intuitively, we recognize that Good Government does not involve a leader lying to the people, a regime supporting only the rich and impoverishing the poor. With each investigation of a particular government, we find a specific aspect of the reality--Good Government--we apprehend in our inner being. Thus there must a complete totality, a wholeness--Good Government--to which the particulars point and which they embody partially. There must be Forms of which Plato spoke. Unless there were Forms, we could not name, since naming presupposes the existence of unchanging natures by reference to which names are meaningful and correct.

     We recognize that the form, Good Government, is embodied partially in each of the particular instances of government cited above. What we experience are partial and ever-changing embodiments of Good Government only. But this very actuality of partially good government implies a changeless, enduring reality embodied in all the incomplete instances and containing the perfection of the Idea or Form.

     What Socrates does in the Cratylus (and all the other dialogues) is use names in such a way that the stable natures (Forms) presupposed by the very activity of naming become manifest in their use. Instead of simply using the word "virtue" to refer to virtuous acts, Socrates encourages the participants (including readers of the dialogues) to pay attention to the abiding reality (Form) that is made manifest by the very way in which the word "virtue" is used. Language presupposes in its function the existence of stable natures (Forms), and can be used by a dialectician in such a way as to make these natures (Forms) manifest.

"Sufism may be viewed in one sense as struggling against the use of words to establish patterns of thinking whereby mankind is kept at a certain stage of ineptitude; or made to serve organisms which are ultimately not of evolutionary value." 9

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
by Galileo Galilei (1632)
     When we use the words "Good Government" in speaking to intelligent people, they intuitively know what those words mean. That implies, as we've seen, that they have a primordial knowledge of the reality of Good Government. If humans didn't possess a preexistent awareness of realities--including Forms--then we could not communicate, since human communication presupposes meaning.

     Socrates does not even attempt to explain the exact nature of the relation between name and thing (reality). He recognizes that how a word makes manifest the true nature of a thing, expressing a truth that transcends it, is not possible to describe in words--it can only be experienced in the mystical experience called dialectic.


The Dialectical Use of Names to Disclose Realities

     Dialecticians like Socrates know how to use words in such a way that they point beyond themselves in making manifest those unchanging natures (Forms) to which they are essentially related, i.e., they would not be meaningful words without such a relation. The relation between word and thing is not created by dialecticians, but is made manifest by them.

     Socrates' very question "What is virtue?" presupposes that there is a difference between the manifestation (revelation, disclosure) of a thing's nature and a description of this nature. The question indicates that no definition can do justice to the nature of a reality such as Virtue (the Form) as revealed through dialectical inquiry.

     In the disclosure brought about by the use of a name in dialectic, we have not once and for all grasped (finalized, completed) the nature of the thing named. More is disclosed than can be adequately expressed in a description or a concept. Knowledge of the true nature of a reality can't be derived from words; that is realized only in attaining higher consciousness, as in the experience of dialectical interchange.

     A name is natural insofar as its discovery and use in dialectic reveals the true nature of the thing signified. What the name means, what it makes manifest in dialectic, is neither conventional nor relative. In the disclosure accomplished through the use of a name in dialectic, we have not once and for all grasped the nature of the thing named. This nature is manifest to us in its distinctness, but we then need to make explicit what is only implicit in this disclosure. It is only subsequent to the activity of naming and the disclosure of the reality in dialectic, that description and conceptualization have a place. In most instances it will be the case that no description and no concept can entirely do justice to the nature of the reality revealed by the activities of naming it and disclosing it in dialectical interchange.

     Socrates' enlightened investigation in dialectic of a word such as "harmony" ensures that the nature of Harmony (the Form) is somehow disclosed. In a dialectical inquiry, we find that we already exist in the relation between the name and the thing; we cannot explain how this relation comes about. Without this disclosure provided by the name's use, the search for the essence of an unknown reality--such as "harmony"--could never get underway or achieve consummation. But dialectic does not have as its goal a definition or a name. A name makes manifest not only the particular instantiation (entity) but points beyond itself to a Form manifest in the specific entity. A name or word, used properly, always transcends itself anagogically. 10

     A genuine dialectician such as Socrates is one who knows how to use words. He uses words for the purpose of making manifest those realities which the proper function of words presupposes. In introducing such Forms as Good Government itself and Beauty itself, Socrates shows us what is involved in a word's function of disclosing a known reality. In referring to a particular aspect or instance of Good Government, Socrates makes manifest that unchanging nature (Good Government itself) presupposed by the naming process. If we were to use the words "Good Government" to refer to a tyrannous plutocracy such as the cabal junta, we would be using the words incorrectly by contradicting their natural function of distinguishing the reality Good Government from the reality tyrannous plutocracy.

     Dialectic focuses on the function of words to disclose--precisely in order to reveal the reality presupposed by their function. In the dialogues, Socrates' engagement in dialectic is not concerned with using words to communicate ideas or even to point to illustrative instances. Words are used to reveal a reality beyond them. The best way to know a reality is through experiencing (encountering, communing with, participating in) that reality rather than through merely naming it.

     With Socrates' enlightened use of dialectic the dangers of everyday discourse are countered. In common verbal interchange a word such as "Democracy" can cease to serve its natural function of pointing to a reality we all know. The word "Democracy" is uttered by Obama continually, but is no longer used to make manifest a specific nature. It is simply tossed back and forth between people who have a vague feeling that it means something positive but have no genuine grasp of the reality to which it refers. Cabal propagandists deliberately misidentify the word "Democracy" so that it ceases to serve the function of referring to genuine Democracy.

     Even a reality such as "right speech" is known by people intuitively. We know that when someone uses words in any way he pleases, he is not speaking correctly. A person must speak according to the way in which things are correctly spoken of, in the way that words refer to a specific reality that we know.

     We must regain the understanding, taught by Perennialist sages throughout the ages, that there is a magic in language which contributes to human evolution. Language in some way creates the very world in which we live. Words and concepts point to realities beyond the sensory world and assist us in making contact with a higher dimension.

     Intangible Ideas, in Plato's conception--supersensible realities beyond human thought--are appropriated through words, as birds in our hands, and released by the act of discernment, setting the birds free. These Ideas reside in the words independent of the books or the sounds in which the words are encased.

     Humans today are rapidly losing the intellectual ability to realize or be concerned that their very lives are threatened by the loss of the ability to use language to understand and communicate. As Thomas Jefferson made clear, "no people can be both ignorant and free."

"Language is the armoury of the human mind, and at once contains the trophies of its past and the weapons of its future conquest."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge


Catapulting the Propaganda

     Contemporary Cabal propagandists do not even feel the need to disguise their deliberate lies and deceptions (as illustrated in the Geithner-Wall Street Journal propaganda video to the right). Even though many Americans have been taken in by this propaganda, we can be sure--as Plato's dialogues demonstrate--that there is still some primordial understanding of enduring realities in all intelligent persons who have not become debased to the status of sub-human.

      A heartening example of this awareness is now manifesting in the increasing number of Americans who are seeing Obama's continuing the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan as war crimes perpetrated for oil, American corporate profits, and the restructuring of the Middle East. Their awakening to this reality means that the U.S. military is now having immense difficulty in recruiting men and women as cannon fodder for their senseless wars of aggression.

     The awareness of the essence of Good Government is also reawakening in Americans in increasing numbers. Ultimately, this preexistent knowledge of reality will make it clear to Americans that the demonic cabal that has seized their government is working against the best interests of U.S. citizens. In our arsenal against the current tyranny, one of our most potent weapons is a penetrating understanding of the wisdom embodied in Plato's dialogues.

"Here is the silence of silences
Which dreams of becoming a sound, and the sound
Which will perfect itself in silence."

Conrad Aiken





Updates and Reference:



Notes:

1 The Perennial Tradition is the single stream of initiatory teaching flowing through all the great schools of genuine philosophy and mysticism. See the author's recently published book, The Perennial Tradition.

2 Taken from: "Who Was Socrates?" by Michael S. Russo, Molloy College, Department of Philosophy. Mr. Russo is not particularly any worse (or better) than most academics, but his unenlightened misunderstanding of Plato is typical of scholastic "professors." Academic "professors" are the modern equivalent of the charlatans Plato opposed, the sophists.

What is especially perplexing is how an academic so-called "Plato expert" (self-appointed) can comprehend certain elements of Plato's philosophy and yet--in the next paragraph sometimes--totally misrepresent what Plato is saying.

3 Arcane: known or knowable only to the initiate (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

4 As defined by:

American Heritage Dictionary

5 Etymology: the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Socrates debunks and ridicules every facet of sophistic etymology in the Cratylus.

6 Gonzalez, Francisco J., Dialectic and Dialogue: Plato's Practice of Philosophical Inquiry

7 Possession: domination by something (as a negative spirit, a passion, an obsession, an addiction, or a fixed idea); a psychological state in which an individual's normal personality is replaced or controlled by another. Humans can allow other entities--personalities or ideas--to control them to varying degrees. If they allow other persons or concepts to take dominant control of their thoughts and actions, they lose the ability to think or act autonomously. As a personality or an ideology takes progressive control of them, they become possessed (an obsessive, a bigot, an ideologue) and finally end in hysteria--the manifestation of self-limiting or self-destructive tendencies.

8 Hysteria refers to the loss of sensory or motor function without organic pathology. The person suddenly cannot hear, see, or feel, or his arm or leg may be paralyzed, or he may be unable to speak--even though the bodily organs are completely functional.

9 Idries Shah, Sufism

10 The word "anagogy" refers to entities (such as a word or a Sanctuary) which transport a person beyond himself to a higher consciousness. From the Greek anagein; to lift up, the word denotes any element (entity or experience) through which a person's actions, thoughts and feelings are lifted up from worldly sense experience to realize an experiential participation in the spiritual realm.