My older sister died yesterday. She was 85. She was suffering with shortness of breath, panic disorder, and bouts of pneumonia.

She was afraid to die. That added to her panic disorder. Add to that panic disorder, she was self centered. She lived in a form of cognitive dissonance. She believed she was kind and thoughtful but she seldom acted on those beliefs if it did not serve her interests.

Shifting gears, but still staying on the topic of beliefs, I asked my wife if she thought she(my wife) was opened minded. She said no and added because she firmly believed in Jesus and the Bible. I asked my friend that question and he said he was open minded so long as you proved to him with scientific facts what you believed. Needless to say my wife could never prove to him with scientific facts what he demanded. But my friend could find essentially nothing factual outside of his beliefs.

My point is the open minded declaration is scientifically supported that the majority of those who claim to be open minded in fact are not.

This train of thought has led me introspection of self. On the one hand I have a person who blindly accepts Jesus and another who believes in nothing. I am in between the two. My previous barage of posts show how frequently I change my opionion. So let me begin this conversation with a first step in searching for a belief.

I was raised Catholic with a Catholic grammar school education. By any measure I was indoctrinated. Throughout the indoctrination I resisted because what I was being taught did not make sense to what I could see in the world.

I went through the stages of life changing my beliefs constantly. I was a paramedic who saw death daily, I experienced death in my family, and I wondered what happens when you die. The term consciousness was in my background as a neuropsychologist. So I decided to explore consciousness as I read the Bible.

Having been raised Catholic the New Testament was the focus. I wondered why we always said Judeo Christian. The NT and the OT are not sequential. So I started reading more about the translation and origins of the BibleS. I read Mauro Bignino’s and Paul Wallis. There translations made sense.

In a nutshell, these are two different books with two different God’s. In the NT, Jesus preaches love and forgiveness. The OT preaches war and death. In the NT it says you cannot go to heaven UNLESS you believe in Jesus. This is frightening and compelling.

I challenged all my beliefs. I found many anecdotal experiences that could not be verified except the large number of near death experiences. (NDEs)

One of the anecdotal experiences was described to me by a woman who describes herself as a Messianic Jew. She was being attacked by several men on her property and begged them not to kill her. As they approached her, she said they looked up behind her, showed fear and ran away. I have seen similar anecdotal stories but with no details or history

Stay connected as I explore further in my introspections.

I recently was confronted with the question “Do you consider yourself open minded?”

Recent surveys suggest that people think they are open minded by self report. But when these claims were put through behavioral measures, the behavior did not manage the claim of open mindedness.

The measure of open mindedness is one’s ability to change position when confronted with evidence to the contrary of one’s held belief. I contend this concept of open mindedness is at the root of today’s current problem in the United States, possibly other countries.

As I started to pose a question, I realized that my question would sound like a “got you question.” Like an attorney would ask “just answer yes or no.”

Do you believe that laws should be obeyed?

An alternative might be, Do you believe disobeying the law should have consequences? The word believe is troublesome because your belief and another’s belief might conflict before you answer the question. For example, one cultural belief is to cut off your hand if you steal while another culture might believe in restitution. So your cultural belief will influence your response to the question. So I think one can safely say the question must be reworded to eliminate your cultural or religious belief. But can one adequately eliminate this bias.

It is a bias because your belief will bring a host of issues that is not intended in a question about open mindedness. The intent in the question is can you accept that the opinion of another may be correct when compared to your opinion. One would have to eliminate an alternative narrative and accept the question as is, without debate, if the facts are correct.

Asking if you believe in God is the type of question that does not bode well to showing open mindedness. I suppose one could respond with I hear your belief, I am open minded to it, but I don’t agree.

So my question is, do you believe that if one disobeys the law, that person should face consequences established for the act?

My office was down the road from a strip mall that housed a pizza restaurant. The restaurant owner learned I was a neuropsychologist and whenever I came to eat he seemed to find the time to sit and talk with me. I don’t remember his name. He had a unique ability to quickly turn every conversation into a philosophical discussion.

I miss those conversations. The questions posed had no right or wrong answer. Mainly because neither of us had an answer. We were asking questions like high school kids trying to understand something we hoped the other would give a clue.

Now I am an old man living in a foreign country. I am retired, own a farm with many animals and chores. I am busy but without the stress of my American life. I speak my second language like a three year old native child, but I get my point across. The funny part is others ask me what the native said. I usually reply with “I have no idea”. But the other gringos seem to think my three year vocabulary makes me a translator.

I love living in the mountains. Views are breathtaking. It is seldom hot or cold. We have two seasons — dry and wet. I have locked myself into what I consider good habits. After I feed the cats and check that my 96 year old mother in law with Alzheimers is still breathing, I take one or two of our four dogs to sit by the pond. I take off my shoes, ground myself, repeat a prayer to Jesus, then roll my feet over a ball, do some stretching, resistance exercises. All while drinking my homemade concoction of cappucino.

But I miss my conversations. When I drive over two mountains to get to the big city where the gringos live the conversations are right or wrong, left or right, and hold very little value to me. My wife is the best. She is kind and a true believer . I dare not approach a Bible verse without holding her blind faith interpretation.

We have a friend who we take care of because he decided to never pay taxes. Of course he is a Bible babbler who takes any conversation into the deep end of his belief of eternity.

I spend much time on the internet listening to podcasts because they discuss issues in depth. I particularly like certain interviewers who go in depth on interviews. Every few months on go on reading binges and read books I have heard recommended on podcasts. I often read 3 or 4 books at the same time. Not sure why but it keeps me awake and interested.

I am currently reading SPIRITUAL WARFARE. I rather enjoy the read but when I compare it with Paul Wallis series on Eden. Let’s just say I have questions. But no one to discuss them with. (I will probably get a response from Satan himself)

I am also reading STUMBLING ON HAPPINESS.I like the book because of my education but he seems to avoid the elephant in the room — the spiritual aspect. He is all science. I like it but it contrasts sharply with my thinking.

Here’s my questions. The word “thinking. Where do our thoughts come from? Why can’t you see in your thoughts what I see in my thoughts? Why does one disagree so violently against what I see as obvious? Why do I have to prove what I see as obvious? Why can’t I believe in something that you don’t without having to be correct?

I plan on writing a stream of consciousness in hopes of having someone stumble upon a similar wish to converse deeply about nothing.

EASE OF MANIPULATION

No one thinks themself to be a sheep.  Easily led to perform a task.  Possibly a ridiculous and damaging task.

In my graduate class, Experimental Psychology, each student had to devise and complete a simple experiment.  Upon completion they had to explain the steps that led to the goal of the experiment.  Most experiments dealt with pets.  Teaching a dog to obey some command or having their goldfish all swim to the side of the bowl where they expected food.  A variation of Pavlov’s fish.

My wife was in this class with me.  She was a class favorite.  She was sweet and bright and everyone liked her.  She and the class were amazed when I announced that I trained my wife to kiss me when she came home from work.  It was a cute and successful demonstration of how easy it could be to manipulate another’s behavior.  In this case for a good purpose.

Choosing an experiment might have another, more nefarious, purpose.  As an example can something occur that will allow someone (one of those evil James Bond foils who want to take over the world) to get people, people in every country, to stay locked up in their house, not congregate, stop protesting and become afraid for their future.

Oh yeah, like a plandemic.  To see if people could be steered into a behavior without being able to validate the level of severity.  Of course, this could only occur with effective mass communication.  This simply means that in the 17th century there existed no way to effectively communicate information that could cause fear let alone such a drastic economic disaster.  But with today’s internet and political climate this could easily be done.

So the purveyors of such a deed (cabal/illuminati/deep state/luciferians…) have tested the weakness of the the sheeple.  What is the next step in the experiment?

I have an experiment that might test the limits of sheeple behavior.  Release a manmade virus that is airborne.  Butt only after it goes through the human intestine.  It would be released as a gas, flatulence – fart if you will.  There are no signs, such as temperature, sneeze or cough.  The sneeze could be silent.. But the odor when detected would be too late.  The offending virus would be blown throughout the air stream.

Before you dismiss this idea as crass and ridiculous think of the science of thought behind this.  The fear in the masses. The money to be made.

Shortly after the discovery of the method of transmission of the latest deadly virus a cure is found.  Initially people were wearing leather pants.  Poor people were wearing rather large face masks about their derriers. Countries went on diets. Bean-o stock went sky high.

The cure was found by Bill Gates.  He just so happened to have millions of MASSKS in a ware house.  They were rather costly because of the special charcoal and the ability to repels less than one micron of this gas particle.  The MAASK was so effective at holding the deadly gas in that a special fume absorbing relief valve was added.  This kept the shape normal but added significantly to the life saving cost of the device,

The MAASK came in a variety of shapes, colors and designs.  An elite design (by Eddie Bauer) could contour your  posterior to a more perkier past.

Capitalism came to the rescue.  Dr. Fauci developed and designed a version simply called the ASS MASK.  Deborah Birx had a more masculine design called the ASS REFLECTOR. It was great to see scientists so interested in helping others.

GOAL ACHIEVED

The goal of this experiment was a success.  The goal was simply to have people sit on their ass and do nothing.  People were unwilling to discuss their expression of symptoms.

It is clear by this experiment the ease at which a population can be led.  The next step will be a crushing blow to humanity.  Like all great studies a silver lining might emerge.  Possibly an alien invasion will be thrust upon us.  Without proper forethought by the black hats the aliens might  succumb to the deadly gas.

Isn’t experimental psychology fun?

I am fascinated with how people think.  Not that a person disagrees with me but rather how they don’t or can’t interpret what I interpret.  For example, let’s take the obvious and overt lies spewed by John Brennan.  His own words do not comport with previous statements, written memos, reports, testimony and emails.

So an individual might agree that he is lying.  Let’s say they don’t spin it and excuse these statements as mistakes, misinterpretations or misreporting.  Let’s assume we can agree these are false statements – LIES.

Let’s add that these lies all appear to have a purpose.  He is lying for a reason.  He is trying to prevent you from learning something.

Compare and contrast his lies with President Trump’s statements. They are diametrically opposite.  Since we know Brennan is lying we have a reason to suspect that President Trump is telling the truth.

Add to this scenario that the news outlets support Brennan’s statements.  Actually they don’t necessarily support his statement but allow him to report his lies on air with overt acceptance.  Does that make the news media liars as well?

This scenario is not the point I am getting to.  I readily accept that both the news and Brennan are lying.  I even know why they are lying.  I know what they are concealing.  That so many refuse to see what sits before them is confusing to me.

I  have a remarkably intelligent and gifted friend who refuses to accept what I have stated above.  I want to know his logic?  I want to know why he closes his mind to a domino of facts that is obvious to me and others?

I am more interested on the thinking of Brennan.  He is cornered like a rat.  His lies have overwhelmed him.  Does he sleep?  Does he have a conscience?  Does he know he will face the death penalty?  Does he think telling a different lie will suddenly have the Justice Department say “Sorry, our bad”?

Brennan is currently the starting point of a collection of lies by a collection of people.  I hope to get into their lies from a different angle.  But Brennan’s lies are knowing lies.  He knows he is lying.  How does he go on the news station that hired him?  Do they know he is lying?  They see the same facts I do.