Targeted

Targeted: The Collective Soul

2012-02-28T10:57:00.000-05:00

Targeted: The Collective Soul: Before I write how I survived a burst appendix in the absence of medical care, I need to say why I believe those that exploited me coalesce...

The Collective Soul

2012-02-28T10:51:00.002-05:00

Before I write how I survived a burst appendix in the absence of medical care, I need to say why I believe those that exploited me coalesced in the first place. One is an offshoot of the other, yet I am not clear as to which came first: the refusal to provide medical care, or the hate of me prior to my need of it. Was I hated because of a known preexisting condition that led to my weakened state, or was it my person under attack that resulted in my weakened state? Was I targeted? To be sure, it was the unified hatred of me that propelled me forward to find out why I could not receive medical care, and then it was that contempt on my path to survival that enabled me to see beneath it all for the answer.

Looking back and through to the present I can only be convinced of one thing: There was indeed something at the top that trickled down that fed fuel to my fire; and although at first it was difficult to imagine there were others like me, I was later able to see with a slow but steady conviction that there had to be others like me and before me. That is when the horror of my ordeal began to wear on my mental state. To my mind, it meant my end was not merely the result of miscommunications and bungling, the consequences of a kind of “accidental” or random act (the kind of thing a physician might say, “It is an unfortunate thing that we missed the diagnosis in sufficient time”), but, rather, a purposeful and planned intention that was without a doubt “collective.”

I believe what happened to me, therefore, is a symptom of something greater that threatens us all, not only in universal healthcare, but in all economic life. Consider me then, if you will, that “microcosmic” cell of the greater whole that even the most intelligent from whom I sought opinion had no definite answer why I was the object of such “collective” focus, and how frightened anyone would be under such circumstances, and overwhelmed psychologically as a result. Some said it was the way I look, some said it was my religion, some said it was “gender.” However, none of these things by themselves I came to realize was an adequate answer. Rather, it had to be that these things about me were caused by all these prejudices put together against my whole being and then my soul - as though my presence were a threat to some New Order, something “fresh, bold, new and attractive” that it was known beforehand my countenance would not mold.

It is unlikely that people would collectivize against one person if that person were protected under a specific “class,” simply because it is unlawful to do so. For all practical purposes I was “disabled” as that term is defined under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), but since I was without diagnosis I was exempt from its protections, and thus not part of any protected class. I therefore came to the conclusion on my own that, at least where my co-workers were concerned, I represented some “higher value” to them as a whole which is the only logical and rational reason that any group of people would gather against an individual versus another antagonistic group.

It also immediately became apparent to me that the fact this could occur was not a result of anything I had done, but rather evidenced an erosion of independent values any individual within the group, if asked, would be incapable of seeing or admitting (like the “blind leading the blind”). This is evidenced by the fact that not one individual would speak out against the actions of the group. Not one. I believe this is because their membership in the group provided some sense of superiority over me and made moral any discriminatory acts that they, acting alone, would be morally restrained from committing, evidenced by the “collective” silence about it and the apparent felt superiority that destroying me conferred upon the group.

One example of many was my first day at a job in a law firm. I wore a suit and jacket (most of the staff wore casual clothing), like most people do on their first day at a new job. I said hello and goodnight to everyone (with no response from anyone) every day. I felt animosity towards me since my first day but was not sure whether it was actually my own depression from the severe pain I was in, or it was actual hatred like that I experienced from physicians. On my third day, however, the office administrator asked to speak with me. I went into her office and she shut the door and said, “I just want to warn you that the women told me that ‘you think you’re better than they are.’” I was astounded – absolutely floored, and I said to her, “How can they think they know my thoughts? [Silence.] I am here only three days! [Silence.] Every day I come in and say good morning they do not greet me. They do not answer any questions I have about office functions. They ignore me completely. How can they think they know me when they will not talk to me”? The administrator said, “I don’t know.” I then said, “I think I do. It is they that think I am better than they are. I don't think it, they do. Please tell them that they are wrong about my thoughts. What else can I say!?” She had no answer. [It is to be noted that this same administrator, after leaving the firm for another position, called me to offer me a job with her new firm and, regrettably, I had to decline since I was incredibly sick at the time and afraid to change jobs fearing loss of my health insurance (COBRA was not in place during this period).]

“Collectives” do not like “individuals” and “individuals” do not like “collectives.” Although for awhile after my meeting with the office administrator tensions cooled a little with the other women in the firm, the situation would once again become ignited when the office became aware of my medical complaint to the medical board (Office of Professional Medical Conduct), which was due in part to my own admission to one of the secretaries that I was preparing a complaint. From then on the situation boarded on “volatile.” I will not go into how all the hostilities played out here, but I thought it coincidental that in a telephone conversation with a representative from the Board of Health, I was told that, “We have been getting calls from other women saying the same thing.” [She was responding to my statement that I believe I am not liked by doctors because of the way I look.]

So I wish to provide some additional quotes from Road to Serfdom (because Hayek is so brilliant at describing collective thought) if only to emphasize how socialistic policies contributed to my demise, and how the motives behind the attack of me are representative of the ruthlessness and violence that I believe will result if more independent individuals do not come to terms with how urgent it is to speak out against this kind of thing when they see it. If enough do so, this will raise a force still stronger, more intelligent, and value oriented than what is encompassing us today, and no system of thought set in motion is likely to prevail with the power to cripple others, either physically or psychologically.

Apart from the basic fact that the community of collectivism can extend only as far as the unity of purpose of the individuals exists or can be created, several contributory factors strengthen the tendency of collectivism to become particularist and exclusive. Of these, one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb with the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group. There is a profound truth expressed in the title of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society – however little we can follow him in the conclusions he draws from his thesis. There is, indeed, as he says elsewhere, “an increasing tendency among modern man to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups.” To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group.

The definitely antagonistic attitude which most planners take toward internationalism is further explained by the fact that in the existing world all outside contacts of a group are obstacles to their effectively planning the sphere in which they can attempt it. It is therefore no accident that, as the editor of one of the most comprehensive collective studies on planning has discovered to his chagrin, “most ‘planners’ are militant nationalists.”

While to the great individualist social philosophers of the nineteenth century, to a Lord Acton or a Burckhardt, down to contemporary socialists, like Bertrand Russell, who have inherited the liberal tradition, power itself has always appeared the archevil, to strict collectivist it is a goal in itself. It is not only, as Russell has so well described, that the desire to organize social life according to a unitary plan itself springs largely from a desire for power. (See Cf. Karl Marx. Revolution and Counter-revolution, and Engels’ letter to Marx, May 23, 1851,) It is even more the outcome of the fact that, in order to achieve their end, collectivists must create power – power over men wielded by other men – of a magnitude never before known, and that their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power.

This remains true even though many liberal socialists are guided in their endeavors by the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualistic system, and by transferring this power to society, they can thereby extinguish power. What all those who argue in this manner overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transferred but infinitely heightened; that, by uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious when it is sometimes argued that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be “no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors.” There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess, and if nobody can consciously use the power, it is just an abuse of works to assert that it rests with all the capitalists put together.

Targeted Update: Collective Discrimination and Equal Employment Opp...

2012-02-24T17:27:00.000-05:00

Targeted: Collective Discrimination and Equal Employment Opp...: There have been many articles written in the recent past and even today – see “Measures Aim to End Bias Against Long-Term Jobless” [Feb. 24...

Targeted: Collective Discrimination and Equal Employment Opp...

2012-02-24T13:19:00.000-05:00

Collective Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Under the Law

2012-02-24T13:17:00.002-05:00

There have been many articles written in the recent past and even today – see “Measures Aim to End Bias Against Long-Term Jobless” [Feb. 24, 2012] Wall Street Journal) about what our state and/or local governments are trying to do to end discrimination against the long-term unemployed, and I do credit them at least for trying. But notice that none of them are talking or writing about “background checks.”

The use of background checks, as most of us know, became standard procedure for everyone only after 9/11, when employers partook in the over-the-top screening procedures to scrutinize and eliminate potential foreign and domestic terrorist sympathizers from gaining employment in firms and corporations, while, at the same time, buildings in cities were implementing tougher security measures to screen out any potential or “could-be” terrorists from entering buildings. However, as we are now seeing a “loosening” of strict adherence to building security (and the security of our entire country under the Obama Administration), so should we also be lifting certain background check barricades to employment.

Let’s be clear: It is no secret to the unemployed that they are being held back from job consideration due to long-term unemployment. The problem is in proving that the employer is discriminating based on that factor. Everyone knows that background checks are being used to weed out, not just terrorists, but anyone with the slightest blemish on their record, even when a particular blemish has no bearing on whether or not the individual is in any way a “threat” or seen as a liability to the employer. And while employers are entitled to discriminate based on some of these “blemishes,” what is denied the unemployed under the current procedures is the opportunity to speak about what their particular blemish – if they have one - is all about or where it emanates. [In example, if an individual from another job does not like you, he/she could say anything about you without you finding out – until an interview.]

That inability to be free to explain why there is a “mark” on your record, is entirely circumvented through the collective “background check” screening process, even when the blemish collectives worry most about is your age, lifestyle, religion, race, or political affiliation. Even if collectives deny they are discriminating based on any of these factors, does not the system ALLOW for anyone to do so, and, if so, should it not be gotten rid of in the name of fairness and equal opportunity under the law? Who of the current unemployed has not heard the employer phrase, “You’re not a good fit” as an explanation to rescind or disqualify you from a job? (The phrase really means “You do not fit into our progressive culture because of the way you look or what you believe.”)

The reality is that background checks are being used by collectives to keep certain people from any type of employment, and their objectives are purely political. [And I mean this sincerely in the sense that “collectives” only wish to hire people whose “politics” are identical to their own. (If even your countenance does not comport with their “Utopist” plans and agenda, it simply does not matter if you can do the job better than anyone else, or that you are more highly skilled or intelligent. Why? It’s not relevant!)].

How they accomplish their subversive ends is by requiring that the “Employment Agency” (hereinafter referred to as “Agency”) make their clients (potential employees) sign “Background Check Release Forms” as part of the hiring process. In this way, companies and firms get all they need to know beforehand without you, the employee, ever knowing about it, while at the same time rendering you powerless in the process and giving the company full protections from any

impropriety or discriminatory action.

Here’s how we need to empower ourselves: What the federal, state or local governments ought to do is make it unlawful for ANY Agency to conduct a background check. All the Agency should be allowed to do is check to see if their potential employee is a citizen of the United States. Only upon an offer of employment by a company, business, or firm, should the background check then be lawfully conducted and employment contingent on the results. In this way, if something shows up on the report, and the employer decides they want to rescind their offer, the employee has the right – with equal opportunity under the law – to require the employer to disclose its reason for rescinding the offer. Not only is this FAIR employment practice, but it would empower the employee the due process right to litigate what discriminatory practice, if any, is revealed in the process.

But, you ask, isn’t this exactly what the collectives do not want the employee empowered to do? Yes, of course it is. By paying the Agency to do the background check of the employee, the company is therefore insulated by the Agency against any discriminatory or perceived discriminatory actions in its hiring process. (In fact, this is perhaps the ONLY reason there are still employment agencies at all. Do we need them? Remember years ago Agencies worked for the “little guy,” and their purpose was to “market” you?) Moreover with the current process, the employee is powerless in following a paper trail back to the company if the company denies it received any background check information, or that it contacted previous employers without your consent. Why? The Agency did it for them because you, the employee, released it to do so. You signed a release with the Agency that it could contact your previous employers, but you did not sign a release that THE COMPANY could contact your employers. So any company’s decision to rescind an offer or to “change their mind” has the appearance of having nothing to do with the employee’s background check or the Agency, when in fact it has all the reason to do with the background check – and you, the potential employee, have no way to prove whether the company did or not contact previous employers. Is there discrimination? Sure. Can you prove it? No.

On the other hand, if federal, local and state laws were changed to make it unlawful for the Agency to conduct a background check beyond citizenship status, and required companies to “make an offer” BEFORE any background check is conducted, it would empower the employee equal opportunity under the law, not only with regard to hiring processes of a company, but also providing a venue under which the potential employee can explain any “blemish” on their record. This is critical if equal opportunity is to be the true law of the land, since ANYONE can blemish someone’s record without them knowing about it. We all know how blatantly true this is.

In addition, just as it is unlawful to sell antibiotics on the Internet without a doctor’s prescription, so should unauthorized background checks about individuals not be allowed without consent. This empowers the individual to know who, what and where with regard to any background check conducted of them. It might not be the entire answer, but at least it might make a dent towards equal opportunity under the law.

The Collective Mind

2012-02-20T13:55:00.001-05:00

Whoever it was that posted my x-ray next to my blog posts is the same person that wrote, “You did this to yourself. Just You,” on Google+ last week; and also the same person who posted it under the “Image” Google search of my name. Why not reveal who you are? My apologies to “Google” and “Linkin” since I know you do not have control over what the phishers are doing – but I want everyone to know that all that is negative about me on the Web is being put there by people on behalf of those who need to protect themselves, and I do not believe I should be censored for defending myself.

All that they say I am – or what I have done – is exaggerated to avoid bringing attention to what they have done. It is that simple. What is really happening is that what I am saying is the truth and I am being attacked because of that truth – in a collective effort to silence me. [Old tactic used by National Socialist Party was to create an illusion in other people’s minds about someone for the purposes of destroying them in their career or reputation. If everyone believes it, it must therefore be true, is the method of collectives.]

Thank you – you the phisher - for admitting by your actions how Universal Healthcare will “target” people! You, unbeknown to yourself, are admitting that there are (I am the example and may be the only experiement), or will be, “selection” of patients who will be targeted to not receive medical care – if only they remain naive enough to never give a thought to the collective mindset that is behind it. That is EXACTLY what you have said with both your comment and the posting of my x-ray picture next to the posts I share.

To you, in case you did not get it the first time: I DON’T CARE!!!! (The picture is 19 years old anyway!) You have made it obvious that I speak the truth, for why would it matter at all to you unless it were the truth? Moreover, if I cared about the distribution of my x-ray, I would have removed it from my website, which I did not do. Thank you for posting it! I have been trying to do it myself for some time now but did not know how.

To the other mostly normal people out there, just so you know: I responded to this individual before, in a message contained in my post of February 10, 2012 (which you should read now by clicking on my list of posts to the left). But the fact that this x-ray has been attached to my post of Feb. 17 evidences the collective threat we are all under with Universal Healthcare. Why? Who – except someone who knows me personally or who has been instructed to censor my on-line job applications, etc., would do this? Evidence you ask? This same individual – who became upset when I first posted my x-ray on my website – wrote an anonymous comment with a link to a job board in Pakistan – so he/she knows I am looking for a job! See the harassment I endure? Is there a mystery anymore as to why I cannot find a job? (Reader, please view “comments” to the left of this post and click on the one from “Crystal.”) The harassment I endure is “collective” now and Crystal evidences this with her(?) comment.

If a group of people know all about me, and are collectively trying to keep me unemployed and without medical care, why shouldn’t everybody else get in on it? Since medical information is now going to be fair game to attack persons, why not let people have the whole story? Social websites should therefore not bow down to them or to censorship of any kind. Don’t block this blog!

You must know, people, this x-ray photo (look to the right of this post if not attached here) is exactly the disease that some of those diagnosed falsely with Lyme disease might actually have (but not as large since it is unlikely they were born with it like I was [click the above NLM link and explore congenital manifestations of brucellosis], to evidence how this disease is transmitted to the unborn, which would beg the question whether the “collective” action surrounding me is deliberate [which I expound on below]).

It is why the antibiotics prescribed have no effect – because some people diagnosed with Lyme disease do not have Lyme disease (some people, not all). They have parasitical disease. Only targeted people have this disease (i.e., if you look rich or, if you’re merely “good looking” (doesn’t matter what race you are). Moreover, the only type of parasite that develops into a granuloma, is usually due to a “unicellular” variety, like Francisella, Bordetella and Brucella (and the disease is not contagious so no need to discriminate). Politically disseminated diseases are often not contagious person-to-person for if they were they would be recognized too easily and targeting people would be impossible.

One must also know that it is complete nonsense and a total lie that parasitical infection is exclusive to the poor, even though poverty does contribute to it. I did in fact grow up very poor. That fact is undeniable. But even if you are rich, if you eat your lunch out at restaurants every day, particularly in extreme radically left townships or cities, there is a good chance that you might have some kind of parasite. [Have you had a senior moment lately? Why is it that 35 year old people today do not think it strange they have senior moments and are chronically fatigued or catch colds every month? Is it really due to stress at work?]

Moreover, see New Ideas About The Cause, Spread and Therapy of Lyme Disease by Dr. James Howenstine Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, July 2004. Google this topic yourselves. When you research this topic you will find there are many who agree with me.

To all those normal people out there, a Canadian doctor told me I got this disease from my mother (who was the daughter of a meat buyer) after his review of my medical files, a doctor who specializes in this condition. In particular, the pupils of my eyes were unequal since birth but are now the same only after I began taking Chinese herbs (with years of antibiotics) that targeted my suspected condition. But if you, like the phisher, believe I did not get this from my mother and did this to myself – please comment as to what disease on planet earth (I was tested for every other disease imaginable except brucellosis) would produce this kind of sac in just 10 years? Moreover, if what I am saying is not true, there would be no emotional or hateful response to it and NO REASON to prevent me from blogging. Even more revealing, why not tell me what you think it is if the intention to ruin me be legitimately connected to my character? Answer: To do so would reveal that there are many other people also targeted that they wish none of us to know about. Do you see what I mean?

I promise my readers that my “disease” has NOTHING to do with a justified or even rational contempt of me. The disease is, rather, a symptom of the unjustified and irrational contempt of me. By following my blog you will come to understand that people who experience prejudice because of this disease are being targeted only for what another collective thought or “feels” about the person. If it is revealed through radiographic findings that you have this condition, it is not what you did but who you are that the presence of this condition signifies. What does it signify? That you are targeted by “collectives,” and if you are a collective and you do not conform to the prejudice of other collectives, you will end up revealing that you are not one of them. It is easier to conform than face retaliation. Therefore, the disease is the mark, or stain, that a previous collective left behind for other collectives to see and exploit.

Follow me and learn about the “collective” mindset that loves to see a certain type of person “sick,” and let us explore that coincidence of disease they have chosen not to treat and how it is designed to keep a person from achieving their highest potential. After all, that is what some diseases, particularly parasites, do. Could we conclude then by intellectual deducement that those who enjoy keeping others down might have a “jealousy of soul” if by seeing another sick, they feel better about themselves? (In delight and among themselves in secret, they are of that kind that whisper, “Look how good we are, for we do not have what she has”! when the only kind of person capable of this kind of thinking is one that feels inferior in some way.)

This whole thing is VERY SPIRITUAL really, so please stay with me. But, for now, I got to run. I will evolve on this site to show why there are certain “souls” that some do not want to see do well, which begs the big question we all should be asking “collectives” who engage in this type of thing, which is: How can we in the U.S. be persuaded that the objectives of collectives are merely “socialistic” policies as they say, or that their goals are to truly create a more just society that mirrors one like Canada or Sweden when those countries do not have collectives working to cripple certain people, medically and socially? Do not be deceived! The answer is that the collectives do not want socialism. They want control over people – bodies, minds and all manner of being.

Conclusion: If we deeply and honestly examine that proverbial pendulum and the direction it is swinging, we can no longer avoid contemplating whether we are actually swinging swiftly towards Fascism [that collectivists like to call “communism”] and that perhaps the reason we are is due to a “jealousy of soul” that is the embodiment of the individual [Talk amongst yourselves.].

Targeted: A Collective Silence

2012-02-17T10:29:00.000-05:00

Targeted: A Collective Silence: My being blocked from sharing my blog on Google and LinkedIn evidences what I have alleged in my legal case, which is: Every job I ever g...

A Collective Silence

2012-02-17T10:28:00.000-05:00

My being blocked from sharing my blog on Google and LinkedIn evidences what I have alleged in my legal case, which is: Every job I ever got after 2005 – either temporary or full-time – was a “set up” to further damage my career. In those jobs (see my post of February 5, 2012, “Collective Hate in the Office”) the liberal left were “giving” me a job and then abusing me on it to further insulate my previous employer from legal liabilities. My inability to receive medical care in the United States was also carried out by "collectivists" to insulate the same employer (without a "diagnosis" of my condition, it was unlikely I would prevail under ADA law).

On the term “fascist” the leftists get all upset when you use it to describe them. But the history of policies by the Socialist Party that contributed to Hitler’s rise provides the concrete evidence of this truth. It is one thing to simply throw out a term to describe the policies and precepts of what we are calling “liberal policy” today and then to describe them as “fascist” (for that would be irresponsible and mean), but it is quite another thing when their beliefs are totally in line with past policies that contributed to so much suffering and murder of a variety of religious peoples that one is only left to consider whether we are indeed heading in exactly the same direction (and perhaps faster with the use of social media).

See, for instance, the chapter titles in the Road to Serfdom, which book outlines the changes that preceded the rise of Hitler – which, coincidentally, describe what is happening in the United States today:

Chapter Title

1. The Abandoned Road

2. The Great Utopia

3. Individualism and Collectivism

4. The “Inevitability” of Planning

5. Planning and Democracy

6. Planning and the Rule of Law

7. Economic Control and Totalitarianism

8. Who, Whom?

9. Security and Freedom

10. Why the Worst Get on Top

11. The End of Truth

12. The Socialist Roots of Naziism

13. The Totalitarians in Our Midst

14. Material Conditions and Ideal Ends

15. The Prospects of International Order

16. Conclusion

That I am being “targeted” because I look a certain way (which is why I was left by doctors with a partially burst appendix) is what my blog is all about; and my inability to state this truth – by being blocked from communicating with the outside world about this truth – evidences, conclusively, that there is a "collectiveness" of persons united to not only keep me unemployed and unable to receive medical care, as I have alleged in my court documents, but that they are indeed “collectively” acting in furtherance of a biased, sanctimonious, self-righteous and thoroughly “fascist” agenda that they do not want others who are “targeted” to realize. Further to this truth is the “silence,” from everyone, as though they are afraid to speak to me, or comment, or email me about it. To those of you who possess a higher intelligence than the herd, do you really believe that your time will not come? Do you think everyone will care about you as long as you prove your allegiance with your silence? When the money runs out – which it is certain to do – where will you run and what country will you find rest? Will you remember me if I am not alive to see this truth play out? Will you remember this post if only you heard it second-hand?

Targeted: Do Women Really Have Choice?

2012-02-15T14:21:00.000-05:00

Targeted: Do Women Really Have Choice?: When women think their body is their own, they really are out of touch with reality. Gestational trophoblastic disease (see http://www.ncb...

Do Women Really Have Choice?

2012-02-15T14:19:00.001-05:00

When women think their body is their own, they really are out of touch with reality. Gestational trophoblastic disease (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22324277) is caused by fetal tissue left behind in either a miscarriage or abortion, and there are a variety of cervical cancers that can result years after either miscarriage or abortion; and because these cancers develop many years later, no medical evidence exists that can definitely connect the events.

One of the ways a woman can lessen her chances of developing this kind of cancer is to get pregnant, which would allow her organ system to be cleansed of any debris left behind at birth, or she can undergo a scraping of the uterus. But there are never any guarantees that all tissue will or can be removed in this procedure, so the prospect of trophoblasts (contained in fetal tissue) developing into a "mole," cyst or cancer is still very much a reality.

There are many diseases that women are exploited for today, so when women think they won some kind of independence with either use of birth control or abortion, the fact that they become more and more dependent on their doctors makes their claim of control of their own bodies a misnomer, to say the least. You have control over your own body when you do everything you can to avoid doctors.

Not only is trophoblastic disease exploited in women, but women should also know that doctors who miss or do not treat STDs (there is a lot of this kind of thing going around with doctors who deliberately not treat only to profit from you later with surgery), symptoms related to this kind of thing can sometimes not be experienced until 10 to 15 years after being contracted.

So, you see, women do not have control over their bodies as they like to think. Instead, they are more like the ignorant teenager who thinks he or she is part of something everyone is doing when they snort cocaine when, in reality, the drug King who is selling the stuff is intelligent enough to know the truth and never touches the drug himself.

Targeted: What If You're Targeted?

2012-02-15T11:50:00.001-05:00

Targeted: What If You're Targeted?: Another blatant observation to make about the x-ray on the right is the fact that I was given a barium enema during the throes of a burst a...

What If You're Targeted?

2012-02-15T11:50:00.000-05:00

Another blatant observation to make about the x-ray on the right is the fact that I was given a barium enema during the throes of a burst appendix, which can produce a fatal consequence, which became quite evident when I was told by a subsequent doctor that he saw barium on the outside of my intestine – that he said to me like it was just a “little thing”; which brings me to the basis of my blog. How many of you have found that when you were “fired” by your doctor became discriminated by subsequent doctors? How many of you are “targeted”?

Moreover, how many of you, if your child or loved one, whom you knew had a burst appendix that was “partially” treated with CIPRO (which would wipe out the infection in the abdomen but not systemically), who were in possession of enough of the scientific and medical evidence that your child or loved one was “sick” because of the inability to get intravenous antibiotics, would not get angry with physicians who told you that they did not know what you had when you know they did by the way they behaved? What would you do if you – or your loved one’s - social security number was preventing you from getting medical care even when you had the best medical insurance money could buy? What would you do if you understood that if a subsequent doctor diagnosed your loved one or child it would have legal consequences for the first doctor who “fired” you as a patient, and that doctors would rather have you or your loved one die then help you? Would you get panicked and angry? OF COURSE YOU WOULD!

As the disease spread through your loved one’s body, their facial bones began to become tender, and the abdominal pain more severe (the reason an appendix is removed surgically is because this is what will happen). The heart muscle is also under attack. It will beat furiously and the toes and feet will turn white. Death comes slow and you know it is inevitable. What do you do?

At this time, however, lawyers and other doctors will not help you, and you wonder why. Would you not be terrified at seeing this “collective” action? Moreover, if you were like me and you had the scientific evidence, wouldn’t you have it copied? You should!!! I had my x-rays copied by a digital photographer because I knew doctors would take them from me – which they did!

The truth is – you would have done exactly what I have done (all of it!) – and EVERYONE would call you nuts – because that is the only way physicians who collectively commit a crime would prevail against you. Then, as the myth of your mental state becomes spread around, you will find that EVERYONE believes the physicians but not you.

THIS IS THE AGE WE LIVE IN! If you think this kind of thing cannot happen to you, and you say to me that I am nuts because I screamed at doctors – knowing as I did that they knew I would die – because they would not help me, what would you become? You might write the government like I did. You might think that because doctors were sharing your medical information across state lines to protect the first doctor and themselves and kill you that they violated some kind of federal law; but then, to your amazement, you discover the government is protecting the doctor’s right to kill you. "We don't handle 'quality of care' issues" they say, as though a community of doctors that want you dead is a 'quality of care' issue. No it's not!

What would you do – where would you go – and what lengths would you take your case? Everything you heard about me was half-assed and yet you believe it all. WOW. If you think this can only happen to those you want dead, like me, wait until the money runs out and another group is targeted, or maybe you might be targeted.

The solution is to lobby with a group of patients who forego all medical privacy. I hope I can start a trend towards this because it truly is the only way to empower the patient against an overbearing and perverse medical establishment. Remember People: doctors are on the lowest rung of the scientific ladder. They are not scientists! They are in the business of making money. To give not the fair weight of truth to human behavior as I have expressed, is to admit you are one of those “collectives.” Do you know what I mean? Do you really believe a conservative republican would partake in your murder, when they believe in the opposite of universal healthcare? Do you really believe you are cared for and liked simply because you vote democratic?

Targeted: The Evolving Site

2012-02-13T14:05:00.000-05:00

Targeted: The Evolving Site: There is a reason I posted Dante’s Paradiso (see yesterday’s post) but that reason won’t become apparent until my site has evolved a bit. ...

The Evolving Site

2012-02-13T14:04:00.002-05:00

There is a reason I posted Dante’s Paradiso (see yesterday’s post) but that reason won’t become apparent until my site has evolved a bit. It is important to evolve to clearly communicate something. You know what I mean?

On the surface though, I can say that those who love this poem and all its mythological symbolism, often (not always) miss a lot of what it is about. I know this firsthand as a student of English. Professors always disappointed me with their mostly secular interpretations of things, like Dante was praying to God for perfection or something like that.

People who are not spiritual don’t get it and never will. I have learned it is always better to trust yourself sometimes with your own perceptions. But to people who are curious as to what I mean, I will only say that Dante was praying that his “vessel” (body) be used for God’s purpose – which is entirely left up to God. “Fault and shame of human wills” is Dante realizing that if he “strives” to be a good poet, he will fail, in the same way his intellect will fail him as it draws so near to its desire memory cannot follow it.

We all know this to be true in all endeavors, don’t we? If our only goal in life is to be great at something, like a great novelist, simply because we want the attention and money a great writer or artist receives, the art we strive to create appears as not part of us and unnatural to itself and often fails.

Anyway, all of this view has relevancy to being Targeted, since those today that are Targeted are people, usually, that one or more is jealous of simply because they believe that certain people are preventing others from having something when they’re not. I believe, for example, that I would not have been left untreated for my burst appendix if it were not for a visit to a female doctor whose hate of me snowballed out of control; and it was “collectivism” and protections from subsequent physicians that allowed it to play out the way it has.

As my site evolves it will become apparent that my life and what happened to me is a microcosmic example of what will happen on a grand scale if we let it. My site is about patient empowerment that I hope can be achieved by examining ways to circumvent current healthcare objectives and loopholes.

Targeted: The Divine Comedy

2012-02-12T10:23:00.000-05:00

Targeted: The Divine Comedy: There is something to be said for those who draw strength from the spirit of God within, even if they must endure ridicule from nonbeliever...

The Divine Comedy

2012-02-12T10:22:00.002-05:00

There is something to be said for those who draw strength from the spirit of God within, even if they must endure ridicule from nonbelievers for saying so. For those introverts with great faith, however, out of great suffering there is always a way out.

Consider then Dante and The Divine Comedy, which I put here because when he wrote his trilogy did so under the threat of death, amid the sound of war about his head. Who cannot say – even if you are one that does not believe in God – this deeply introverted plea is not more powerful than any extroverted effort or striving. The power of his prayers is made stronger by the fact that one could interpret the following as asking for more than mere perfection, or, as some scholars have suggested, a desire for perfection. Whether you are an atheist, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist – whatever – this prayer transcends your extroverted beliefs because it quiets that deep loneliness within that no other person can give you.

On some level we all think like Dante does here – if only we possess the slightest desire to be loved, which desire as humans we all have, so I am putting it here in a post because its depth of desire is truly infinite, transcending the material and physical, and conveys that desire we all share, not only in this world but in the world to come.

THE GLORY OF HIM who moves all things penetrates the universe and shines in one part more and in another less. I was in the heaven that most receives His light and I saw things which he that descends from it has not the knowledge or the power to tell again; for our intellect, drawing near to its desire, sinks so deep that memory cannot follow it. Nevertheless, so much of the holy kingdom as I was able to treasure in my mind shall now be matter of my song.

O good Apollo, for the last labour make me such a vessel of they power as thou requirest for the gift of thy loved laurel. Thus far the one peak of Parnassus has sufficed me, but now I have need of both, entering on the arena that remains. Come into my breast and breathe there as when thou drewest Marsyas from the scabbard of his limbs. O power divine, if thou grant me so much of thyself that I may show forth the shadow of the blessed kingdom imprinted in my brain thou shalt see me come to thy chosen tree and crown myself then with those leaves of which the theme and thou will make me worthy. So seldom, father, are they gathered for triumph of Caesar or of poet – fault and shame of human wills – that the Peneian bough must beget gladness in the glad Delphic god when it makes any long for it. A great flame follows a little spark. Perhaps after me prayer will be made with better words so that Cyrrha may respond.

Paradiso - Canto 1

Targeted: The Truth About Medicine and Follow Up to My Previ...

2012-02-10T11:00:00.001-05:00

Targeted: The Truth About Medicine and Follow Up to My Previ...: Before I go into the specifics of medical observations about my x-ray – which has been posted on Google – I must recommend a great book tha...

The Truth About Medicine and Follow Up to My Previous Post

2012-02-10T11:00:00.000-05:00

Before I go into the specifics of medical observations about my x-ray – which has been posted on Google – I must recommend a great book that should be on the bookshelves (or Kindle) in every household. The book is called “Racketeering in Medicine” (you can view it at Amazon.com) and it discusses the evolving changes in medical care since the 1970s and beyond; in particular, to those young persons who were not here when pharmaceutical drugs were not the mainstay of care, this book will be an eye-opener and education of how physicians long ago – because of their “God-like” healing capacity and intelligence – are truly responsible for the sometimes blind trust we, as patients, bestow upon doctors today. As one Russian scientist from that era said to me, “The United States at that time was the marvel of the world in science and medicine,” and he looked at me and smiled, shook his head back and forth in amazement, but then looked down and said, “But no longer.”

Physicians long ago did not have technology, neither CAT scans or any other apparatus, yet they diagnosed, treated and cured their patients more often than not. While the physicians today are still the best in the world with regard to “catastrophic care,” it is regarding systemic disease that I write this post.

The United States during this period – and in fact much earlier than the 1970s – was regarded as world leaders in science and healthcare. There were no crowded medical offices back then. Blood testing was minimal. If you were bitten by a stray animal back then, a doctor would think it nothing to stop by your house and administer a rabies shot (those long needles shot into the abdomen) while you lay on your dining room table. If you cut yourself and needed stitches, it took only a short while to administer a little Novocain and stitch you up – and you marveled at their ability to do things without getting grossed out (which I admire today also!); and if you came in with some malady, you usually felt better when you left. In fact, people back then rarely went to doctors because no one was sick. Sometimes it would be years before people saw their family doctors (unless you had children), and if you are a reader over 50 you might not even remember what your family doctor looked like because you rarely saw him if at all.

Doctors never smiled back then. Not that they were grumpy either. They were just plain, like direct and straightforward. If you had to get a measles shot, they never took you through a process of receiving the shot with soothing words and/or smiles; they just went ahead without mercy and stuck you in the arm. In other words, they didn’t stress themselves out with too many words to you; but you understood it. They examined you and wrote notes, and if you had a question they were very forthright on balance. They were part of your community too, and maybe their children went to the same school and were friends of friends.

On balance, looking back, doctors diagnosed based on clinical observation. I remember as a child, while stricken with Scarlet Fever from an untreated strep throat, that when I walked into my doctor’s office he took one look, frantically grabbed my arm and threw up the sleeve of my shirt where the rash was – like he knew he would find it there - and shouted at my mother, “Why did it take you so long to bring her to me? She has Scarlet Fever”! And he shouted at her so loud that I had to leave his office to wait in the waiting room. I remember feeling bad for my mother because at that time she was not so well herself. I am one of six children and so much was going on that eight posts on this blog would not suffice to describe it. My mother had issues is all I can say. She did the best she could under the circumstances.

Many years would pass without another visit to a doctor. I embarked on athletic training since 10 years of age because I was always a sickly child, and had come to understand that “running” made me feel better. This was back in the late 1960s, years before Jim Fix came out with his “Running” book and joggers were not to be found. No one “jogged” back then. I remember thinking back then, while running (and I ran, I did not “jog”) through the State Park near my house, “What am I running from”? It truly always perplexed me, and my neighbors would ask me, “Cynthia, why do you run”? and I would say, “I don’t know. It just makes me feel better.”

Leap ahead several years to age 17 that I shall briefly describe here. I made first cuts in the Junior Olympics, went on to become most athletic in my class and win a partial athletic scholarship to college, and apart from all of this, continued running about 15 miles a week in addition to, not part of, the 3-hour workouts I was obligated to commit to every day on behalf of the University I attended. In short, I was a tank of muscle. My brother once told me, “You could beat me up,” which was funny since he was an athlete too and four years older than me, but it is true I was a tank. I remember being weighed in for a “rope tow” contest at my University and when they announced my weight at 150 lbs., the men shouted, “Where is it”?

Now I Must Respond

So for anyone to say that I “did this to [myself]” (see burst appendix photo to the right), leaves a lot open for argument. First of all, if you notice the “sac-like” intestinal swelling in this barium enema radiographic photo, which was taken at the age of 33, it could only be so enlarged from very early years. In fact, a doctor who saw this x-ray was also astounded, exclaiming in exasperation “How old are you”? This same doctor would later provide a blood test for me for “medals” and discover also that I had been poisoned by arsenic. Arsenic never leaves the body, and indeed, when asked by the physician about it, I remembered being very very sick at about 7 years of age. When I asked my then living mother about it, she told me I was poisoned by my girlfriend’s mother, which would seem to fit the picture since my friend, who lived only a few miles away, had cockroaches in her house and arsenic and other poisons which were used in their home (they would say it was because they lived near a store but other homes did also and their neighbors did not have cockroaches so I did not understand it).

I was tested for “parasites” also and it came back positive for that as well. Indeed, then, the swelling – which would have had to take YEARS to develop – had to have begun early. Then the question is HOW EARLY? Was it during Olympic Trials? Was it during college when I worked out, on average, 4 hours a day? Indeed, was it after 1983 (when I came to New York) that it was contracted – or DID I DO THIS TO MYSELF – in only ten (10) short years? The question to ask is this: Is it medically possible to produce a parasitical swelling of such size in 10 years? [Please comment]

THIS WHOLE CRITICISM OF ME IS IRRELEVANT, PEOPLE!! Whether I have a swollen intestine because of arsenic poisoning and my body’s belated efforts to heal itself, or whatever the cause, why should this mean that I be left for dead by doctors when I clearly had a burst appendix? Do physicians, or should physicians, kill patients with AIDS when they have a disease some would argue is preventable? Of course not! Do physicians, or should physicians, kill patients because they smoke and have emphysema and therefore should not be provided treatment? Of course not! In fact, unbeknown to the majority of people, many of the root causes of all diseases could be so judged as consequences of behavior or the individual doing “something” to themselves, are they not? Even Hulda Clarke, a famous parasitologist, nurse practitioner, with a PhD in microbiology or whatever, wrote extensively and truly believed that even CANCER was caused by a person’s behavior and the cause the “flat worm.” So if some believe that physicians should kill all people who do things to themselves, should we also condone physicians killing cancer patients? (We do not and never will.)

Even Hippocrates, the father of medicine, believed 97% of all disease emanates from the intestine. So why did the person, the one who posted the picture of my x-ray on Google, if he or she truly believes I did this to myself, answer as to what relevance does that have to my being unable to receive medical care?

Answer: It is NOT the disease that offends as basis for my not receiving medical care. It is ONLY what I look like, or my “coloring” (skin or eyes). Might be my “religion.” My point is that this criticism can only be leveled against someone that another FEELS INFERIOR TO. Do you understand what I mean? Persons who have a “self-loathing” feel good when they see others – whom they admire or lust after - suffer. Women and men are both this way if they feel inferior and the pretty woman sees this so plainly in life, more so than most other women. I submit on this post that if I were unattractive or even ugly, I WOULD HAVE RECEIVED INTRAVENOUS ANTIBIOTICS FOR MY BURST APPENDIX!! I PROMISE YOU – AS GOD IS MY ONLY WITNESS!

People who feel powerless love to harm others. That is why pedophiles – who feel powerless near women they are sexually attracted to – must seek out and destroy and sometimes kill children who are pretty or attractive, as compensation for what they lack. They are also extremely “extroverted” people. They are the kind of people that live vicariously through others because they can never be convinced they have gifts of their own. They are jealous and covetous. They TRULY BELIEVE that we are doing something to them, they even imagine it, simply because they are jealous of you.

This is all very sad. At the bottom of it all lies low intelligence combined with lack of conscience and feelings of inferiority and self-loathing. In New York City, at least, this is what I believe is behind the high death rate in hospitals during the 1990s. So the person who posted the picture of my x-ray on Google, to you – I don’t care. But if you are not a lunatic you ought to be able to comment regarding your self-righteous indignation.

Targeted: The Posting of My Image

2012-02-09T22:17:00.000-05:00

Targeted: The Posting of My Image: Someone posted the pictures I put on my blog on Google's image page and wrote, "You created this. Only you." Why don't they have the coura...

The Posting of My Image

2012-02-09T22:15:00.002-05:00

Someone posted the pictures I put on my blog on Google's image page and wrote, "You created this. Only you." Why don't they have the courage to say more? Or, why don't they comment or email me directly? I challenge whoever wrote this. I hope you received my comments to my own image on the image page. I shared them again with all the world for you. Show me all you know. Isn't this curious, people, that this is something that only one who feels inferior to another would do - that is, attach a negative about someone secretly. Why do you not have the courage to say it to me? And how is it that you would know all about it but the physicians were mystified? Are you a physician? And if so, qualify to me what is so offensive to you. Gee - isn't that strange? Do you know what this means? It means that I am correct that only those who are "targeted" have this kind of thing - and all those who are part of the "collective" think they're soooooooooo smart when they give it to them.

Targeted: Material Conditions and Ideal Ends

2012-02-09T10:15:00.000-05:00

Targeted: Material Conditions and Ideal Ends: Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More...

Material Conditions and Ideal Ends

2012-02-09T10:09:00.001-05:00

Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end

of government should enslave the less number that would be free?

More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number

compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their

liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their

baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves.

They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always

the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the

voices never so numerous that oppose it.

-- John Milton

People who admit that present political trends constitute a serious thereat to our economic prospects, and through their economic effects endanger much higher values, are yet likely to deceive themselves that we are making material sacrifices to gain ideal ends. It is, however, more than doubtful whether a fifty years' approach toward collectivism has raised our moral standards, or whether the change has not rather been in the opposite direction. Though we are in the habit of priding ourselves on our more sensitive social conscience, it is by no means clear that this is justified by the practice of our individual conduct. On the negative side, in its indignation about the inequities of the existing social order, our generation probably surpasses most of its predecessors. But the effect of that movement on our positive standards in the proper field of morals, individual conduct, and on the seriousness with which we uphold moral principles against the expenditures and exigencies of social machinery, is a very different matter.

What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and is called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one's conviction by sacrificing one's desires to what one thinks right. Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value. We are neither entitled to be unselfish at someone else's expense nor is there any merit in being unselfish if we have no choice. The members of a society who in all respects are made to do the good thing have no title to praise.

As Milton said: "If every action which is good or evil in a man of ripe years were under pittance and prescription and compulsion, what were virtue but a name, what praise should then be due to well-doing, what gramercy to be sober, just or continent?"

Pgs. 230-231, fiftieth anniversary edition paperback, The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek

Targeted: Remedies for a Good Life

2012-02-08T13:31:00.000-05:00

Targeted: Remedies for a Good Life: I must resubmit my post of yesterday because I named certain products on my blog and associated them with Lyme disease. I was told it is ...

Remedies for a Good Life

2012-02-08T13:30:00.000-05:00

I must resubmit my post of yesterday because I named certain products on my blog and associated them with Lyme disease. I was told it is against the law for me to make recommendations on my site so I therefore removed the manufacture’s name from each of the products I name below:

As a patient falsely diagnosed with Lyme disease, I can only post what works for me as far as health remedies are concerned. Cat’s Claw, which has been touted as the best herbal remedy for Lyme does indeed work for me too, so I can conclude that anyone suffering the symptoms of Lyme would benefit from the same health products that I benefit from.

The truth about Cat’s Claw is that it is so darn expensive. To the extent you find it at a very low price, you will find the benefits are few. The best Cat’s Claw that produces noticeable effects is sold for about $35.00. You can buy it in liquid and capsules but the capsules are the best. However, if you have a bad case of Lyme disease, you would probably have to buy 2 bottles of the product at a cost of $70.00, which, for me at least, is much too expensive. In addition, there are only 30 caps per bottle, so you would only be getting a two month supply if you took only 1 pill a day.

Most people with a bad case of Lyme need to take about 4 capsules a day, so the practicality of it remains elusive for most of us. Instead, I recommend finding the least expensive Cat’s Claw (because there is some effect) that one distributor I know sells for $7.99 (I can’t put the name of it on my blog). Using their product in combination with the following (see below) is what I recommend. In fact, because the benefits are so good, I would recommend this regime to those who don’t even have Lyme disease – because this whole group of products, taken daily, takes care of everything.

1. Green Drink – (There are a variety of them but get the one that has the most probiotics). There is one I take that has 25 billion probiotics per dose from 12 strains (do a web search since I can’t name it here.) Good green drinks usually run from between $42-50.00. Keep it refrigerated after opening. If you have Lyme you might try taking two doses a day.

2. Liquid Calcium

For those with any systemic problem, liquid calcium is superior to hard calcium capsules or tablets. That is because the synthesis and absorption is much faster and, being a liquid, its benefits can actually be felt immediately. What are those benefits? Taking two soft liquid gel caps at night will help you sleep better and fall asleep faster. It also has a calming effect. Why make your body work harder to break down calcium from a tablet or capsule when you can just let it absorb from the gut? (A doctor told me that only a fraction of calcium is absorbed with hard calcium tablets, and the byproducts in many calcium products can negatively impact kidney function by causing “stones” or some other abnormality.)

This product is especially beneficial to women and from personal experience (I have been taking this product for many years) it helps with all kinds of pre-menstrual difficulties, like painful cramps, etc. In addition, you will and see the results in your fingernails. (Again, I cannot name the liquid gel caps I take but get a liquid calcium product that contains magnesium, various types of calcium and boron – all of which, together, are potent against bone (and muscle!) problems.

3. Cloves (in capsule form, found in practically all health food stores)

Cloves are great for the bronchial airways and immune system. You might already know that they are an ingredient in Ricola cough drops because they truly stop you from coughing. Taken in capsule form twice a day provides a good benefit for your intestinal health as well. (A co-worker at a temp assignment I worked was just coming off a bad cold and could not stop coughing. I felt bad for her when she told me her head hurt so much from having to cough all day. I gave her two clove capsules [I carry them in my bag at all times] and in about 15 minutes her cough stopped. She was so excited about the cloves and wanted her husband to try them so I gave her a few more to take home with her. Cloves are amazing. If you have a bad cold and you take one capsule, you can actually feel warmth throughout your chest. Don’t be alarmed though. The warmth goes away in about 20 minutes.

These products, along with your vitamins (which you should take as rule anyway) will make you feel better all over – even those who do not have Lyme disease.

I have more to list but that will be on another post. Win from within and have a great day.

Collective Hate In The Office

2012-02-05T14:24:00.002-05:00

I must resubmit this post with corrections since I typed it so fast the other day with such short time on the computer. Where I used the word “elites” it should instead be “collectives,” even though they are interchangeable. Also, in the title, I removed the word “fascist” even though the politics in employment and hiring does in fact embrace a lot of the philosophies previously held under such regimes (see my previous posts). By making these changes, I am not apologetic; it is simply that I wish to focus more closely upon how collectives have changed the workplace for the worse, particularly in their focus to dissolve “exceptionalism,” and their change and manipulation of certain employment policies.

Competition is disdained in most liberal corporate environments for the most part (particularly in New York City), or so it would seem; and since the “collective” philosophy is predominantly “feminine” in its construct (more women appointed to roles of hiring, or designers of HR policies and various sub-managerial roles), “cooperation” and “non-exceptional” traits in character are now touted as superior virtues than intelligence or high skills. [It has also become apparent that the former identifying characteristics of success, character and individualism, that embodied the early pioneers of the feminist movement, are absent or have become irrelevant to the collective feminists today, resulting in, paradoxically, an environment more hostile to women’s success as a gender than any former, albeit, “masculine”-created policy of the past.]

What has replaced character and individualism? “Group-mindedness” – or, I like to say – the “neighborhood-like” mentality, the kind of philosophy that exalts “fitting in” and being “with it” as more virtuous than being different; characteristics that, at least historically, most men held nothing but disdain. The overly valued collective mentality (viewing people as part of a “unit” above and beyond “individual” gifts and talents), has replaced the character values that historically were viewed as components of individual success, with “corporate culture” values. Although this can also be seen by the progressives’ great call for “diversity,” whose goal when first implemented was goodness and fairness for all races and creeds (who doesn’t want that!), it has instead created a hostile work environment by creating a “collective” hatred against those who are 1) individuals, or 2) contempt for any outspoken minority who does not agree that the “culture” created is fair to them at all. However, for purposes of this post, delineating the specific consequences of “collective thought and action” will be my focus.

To put it more bluntly, what individualistic men and women all ran from years ago, they can not get away from at the office today. The neighborhood “collectiveness” has now followed all of us, and what we ran from, in searching for ourselves as unique individuals (as a way out of the neighborhood that we found constricted who we were) has left us no where to run. We now feel imprisoned to an ideal that is a lie. Working harder or having skills no longer has its reward, just like getting an “A” in any academic subject is seen by this particular group to be “unfair” to anyone incapable of making the grade; and ideas or the exceptional is seen as “not acceptable” to the high-sounding policies of fairness and political correctness that collectives embrace as a group.

What has evolved, instead, if you are applying for work in New York City as an example, is an environment that will employ you based on a general consensus from the “collectives” as to whether you will be granted the opportunity, or entitled, to work at all. Employment is at their will, a bestowment, or “cattle call,” if you will. Why has it evolved this way? It is because the infamous “background check” or Internet communications have already been set in motion prior to your arriving at any job or interview – even if it is just a “temporary” assignment.

Here is how it works:

Once you do get work, everyone in these collective circles will know not only who you are and all about you and whether or not you have consigned yourself to the group-oriented practice of appropriate social websites, politically-correct emails, etc., but a careful watch is made of whether you are accepted by all rank and file employees – even if you do not work near them. You have entered unchartered “territory” and I do not use that word lightly here. (Collectives are “territorial” people.) Therefore, as I have said, your skills and talents are not the first measured characteristics of your appointment, even though you must at least be “equipped” with some foundation of a particular skill or knowledge.

What is most important in this “collective” age we live in is not what a great and thoroughly dedicated worker you are (because you are confident you are up to the task), it is whether everyone likes you, which we know in the past had the least relevance in securing and keeping a job (all that was important in the past was whether your boss liked you or your work). This is the terrain and you must move cautiously.

Here’s how you do it:

If you are a secretary by trade, you answer the phone on your first day at a new job with “trepidation.” You don’t want to sound too articulate, not yet anyway. [It is important not to sound as though you think you are better than everyone else.] And when you start your first day, you must introduce yourself to everyone, unlike in the past when management introduced you to the staff. (Be careful here and tread lightly. Truth be told that I was at a job where management told me I was “not friendly” because I did not introduce myself to the other employees and only said “good morning” (with no response!) when I arrived at my desk each morning.) Nevertheless, you will notice that NO ONE will talk to you. As they talk among themselves, it is wise to pretend you do not hear them. It is also smart at this point to be very “stoic,” almost “rigid” for management but employ “deference” when confronting the staff in any way: “Oh, excuse me,” “thank you,” “Where did you get your shoes? They’re beautiful”! etc., you get the picture.

Remember, all that could potentially bring contempt to you springs from the light behind your eyes - your "individualism,” your intelligence, character, or appearance; so do not overdo anything. (To collectives it matters much your physical appearance, whereas employers of the past were not so judgmental.) [Collectives argue this is simply not true but one only has to look at corporate America photos of the past to see I am correct. Men who dominated the workforce were and still are MORE FAIR and JUST in hiring people and awarding individual hard work than the more “feminine” collectives today [i.e., cooperation versus competition, whereby competition is too harsh, unfair]). Hard work and pushing yourself beyond others to achieve a goal is not only not a virtue to the collectives, it is irrelevant.

Once settled in, things will almost immediately get a little "rough." You will notice a "focus" on you. Others - those in administrative positions, in particular, who are with protective status, or are long-term definitive collectives and totally “accepted,” will not be experiencing what you are experiencing. They are the micromanaged souls who have evolved into automated individuals that you would swear a paper cut would reveal battery acid in their veins. “Is this for real”? you now ask yourself (and it’s only the first day!). A terror will begin to seep into your soul at this point and you will imagine all kinds of dark forces at work. It is not uncommon to feel a slight nausea set in (but you must seek resolve and go on).

These robotic individuals will be able to do their work without micromanagement or over-the-shoulder examination. They will be able to talk, take breaks, and do the normal things that you used to do too when you worked in New York City long ago when things were normal and character was an integral part of success (a time when you did not care whether anyone liked you or not).

But now you will toil alone. Collectives will not only work you harder, but they will dictate "how" they want you to do things, even if the manner they dictate makes no sense or use of available resources. [This is because if you are noticed to be exceptional, collectives want credit for your endeavors, so they can say that if it were not for them, you would not have been able to do what you do. Warning: Do not be exceptional. If you must, feign ignorance and ask questions that demonstrate your desire to learn.] You, after all, are an "individual" and to break your spirit is one of the most gratifying things "collectives" like to do.

Nevertheless, if you slip up just a little – like you express a negative opinion regarding a certain political view, or you make use of your “floating holiday” and request Good Friday off, or you accidentally wish another a Merry Christmas, all efforts at subservience cherished from you will suddenly be seen as serving no basis for your continued success. Eyes begin to follow you suspiciously. Big brother is watching how many times you go to the bathroom; your personal email account password is difficult to type (they’re watching your every move); and there is a persistent background noise on your cell phone, like a plane landing or taking off.

You hate yourself at this point. You blame yourself, “You slipped up, you asshole”! You had loosened up just too much in your second week and, up to this point, you even had been “thanked” for your efforts on at least two occasions: once when you voluntarily cleaned the office refrigerator, and once when you volunteered to pick up everybody’s lunch at reception. You begin to think of a way to remedy the hostility you see growing and vow to be more “collective.” You start to wear your hair differently: if you are blonde, you dye it black; if your eyes are blue, you buy brown contacts. You wear less makeup if you’re a woman and, if you’re a man, you start experimenting with makeup for the first time in your life. You gel your hair so it sticks up in points and arrows. You contemplate getting a highly visible tattoo.

But by this time, to no avail, the other employees know you are targeted. They see the "focus" on you, so in order to appear "with it" to a management that is by now intent on busting your ass, everyone else joins in. [After all, they want to keep their jobs. One tactic frequently employed is when the brainwashed co-worker sitting next to you makes loud noises to annoy you – which you politely ignore – only to find out later that management received a complaint that it was you creating too much noise.]

You are now totally ostracized, and the little conversation you do have will be dissected and unfairly criticized. If you remain totally silent, you are rude; but if you speak at all, management receives a complaint that you are talking too much. Here is when you begin to see sabotage of your work, and hear complaints about you that everyone knows are lies, because you know you “weren’t there at the time,” and you defend yourself by saying “my computer history shows definitively that I did not make that change in the document! I didn’t do it”! But it doesn’t matter to them at all. All that matters is whether others accept you, nothing more, so your defenses are not relevant to the big picture they have created about you.

You won’t find out about any of the complaints about you until you are fired and denied all opportunity to show the charges to be false; and even if you are able to submit your evidence, the collectives will not hear it. You are targeted because in the mind of the "collective" around you, you are inherently "evil" because you think differently and you have revealed to them that you see them for who they are. You are an individual, after all, and the herd-like mentality held up as virtuous might now be subject to attack and criticism because of your very presence – because you refuse to conform.

You do your best to ignore it all. But then the final stage and next tier of abuse begins after everyone is focused on you, and now at this stage even the owner of the business you work for has received exaggerated and false information about you. And because your presence unilaterally affects the collectives, your boss must now weigh in your true value. You begin to realize the truth and the horror that your near termination will come by "majority vote," not by anything you did at all, but because you are simply not “collective.” You never sought to be accepted and you never will. After all, the "majority," the "collective" mindset has created all that has prevailed against you. Besides, their reasoning - that you always had it easy - makes all ill-will job terminations justified and it is a losing battle from the start.

The next tier of abuse you are now faced with comes, not with your termination, which you know is inevitable and happens quite swiftly. It comes when you are unemployed and looking for work, like you have done before. You want to relocate but you do not have enough money. If you have family, it is terrifying. Face it: you are trapped. As you go to temporary work assignments, you are treated with great hostility because previous employer collectives have black-balled you on the Internet, so everyone knows all about you. Your ex-employer had to do it because, in truth, they are guilty of so much abuse of you and they need to protect themselves from any legal action you might take. After all, you have the evidence. Perhaps you have hostile emails and voice messages that evidence the collective hate expressed towards you. But – don’t forget – your collective-natured employer has more power than you. It has something greater than you will never have optimal use of because you have become powerless against the machine. What is it you ask? It’s the Internet, stupid!

It is on the Internet and through social networks your past employer creates a mean picture of you that virtually no other person would dare to dispute, not even in secret. There is, after all, too much at stake for anyone to be a witness for you. Allies are hard to find and in almost surreal fashion, they are also collectively silent, even when you know the names of one or two co-workers that saw it all and told you so (and you thought they were your friends). Whereas, before, they spoke to you in whispers and fear, now they pretend they do not remember and hang up on you when you call.

You are at your final assignment, this temporary job, and you are hated the moment eyes are laid upon you - because management from your previous job has already gotten the word out, and, lo and behold, it is on your background check reports and spread on the Internet and not one will cross the line and tell you it is there – because if they did, it would draw them into your hell-hole and make them the witness they do not want to be. They are all LINKEDIN and your profile on FACEBOOK is flagged in cyberspace, in-mail is being sent about you and you know it is so because you can see it on your co-workers faces at your new but temporary job.

You are TARGETED by the collectives and no one will cross the line on your behalf. What can you do? The answer is for another day and another post.

[Pssssst! If anyone reading this post thinks fascism is too strong a word to describe the workplace today, you are a “collective.”]

Targeted: The Introvert vs. The Extrovert: A Political Comm...

2012-02-02T13:14:00.000-05:00

Targeted: The Introvert vs. The Extrovert: A Political Comm...: Below are further descriptions of the extrovert and introvert in a follow up to my post of January 16, 2012: Listed Below Are the Objecti...

Targeted: What Would Carl Jung Say

2012-01-30T09:43:00.000-05:00

Targeted: What Would Carl Jung Say: I was just updating this post about the “Extroverted” liberal electorate and “Introverted” conservative electorate when I read in The New Y...

The Use of Aerosols in Population Control

2012-01-27T10:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ed1C0cQ-8 Ever wonder what all the aerosol spraying in New York is all about? Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate on the killing of mosquitoes by going to estuaries and ponds, lakes, etc., ON FOOT, where they populate? Is the spraying being done to kill the mosquito in flight? Hello? Anyone out there using some common sense? Why do they only seem to care about those affected with West Nile Virus when bartonella/brucellosis can be fatal too but they won't test you for it? Ever wonder why?

Are the "Progressives" of the Past Different Than the Progressives of Today?

2012-01-25T13:26:00.001-05:00

Below are some excerpts written 60 or more years ago by historians, philosophers and economists. Please note the similarities with today’s “progressives” and the “progressives” of that era.

Excerpts of the Past that Are Reflective of Today’s Progressive Policies

“What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.” – F. Holderlin

“That socialism has displaced liberalism as the doctrine held by the great majority of “progressives” [note that socialists called themselves "progressives" during this period] does not simply mean that people had forgotten the warnings of the great liberal thinkers of the past about the consequences of collectivism. It has happened because they were persuaded of the very opposite of what these men had predicted…It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. The French writers who laid the foundations of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by strong dictatorial government…Where freedom was concerned, the founders of socialism made no bones about their intentions. Freedom of thought they regarded as the root-evil of nineteenth-century society, and the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’” – F.A. Hayek

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – De Tocquerville

“It is…the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people. If a numerous group is needed, strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes – it will be those who form the “mass” in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals…He will be able to obtain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those who vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.’

‘That in Germany it was the Jew who became the enemy until his place was taken by the “plutocracies” was no less result of the anti-capitalist resentment on which the whole movement was based than the selection of the kulak in Russia. In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism because a traditional dislike of large classes of the population for commercial pursuits had left these more readily accessible to a group that was practically excluded from the more highly esteemed occupations. It is the old story of the alien race’s being admitted only to the less respected trades and then being hated still more for practicing them. The fact that German anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism spring from the same root is of great importance for the understanding of what has happened there, but this is rarely grasped by foreign observers.” – F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

Where Are All The Pretty People?

2012-01-21T11:19:00.000-05:00

I am always amazed when liberals like The New York Times publish articles about the statistics of "good looking" people finding employment versus "ugly" finding employment and continually publishing surface and shallow data that they say reflects the fact that "good looking" people get jobs more than "ugly" people.   Oh, really?  Who's pretty?  I mean, where are all these good looking people?   See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/fashion/30ugly.html (This is a Oct. 29, 2008 article but it nonetheless reflects the thinking of all liberals.)

Sure, we can all agree that a model on the cover of Vogue or Vanity Fair is "pretty." But who - and where - are all those pretty people getting jobs and promotions above and beyond ugly people? This is such a farce. Walk into any office in New York City, for example, and there is perhaps ONE pretty or handsome person per one hundred employees.

Truthfully, on the whole, the majority of human beings are not pretty or handsome. Good looks for the most part come from HARD WORK and ATTENTION TO DETAIL.  If one argues that someone can be born beautiful, well then, how many people are born beautiful? Very few!! So even if The New York Times is correct when it says that good looking people get more jobs than "ugly" people (to me, there is no such thing as ugly), I say - SHOW ME THESE BEAUTIFUL SOULS! Where the hell are they? Who are these people? Where are they?

Rather, this article says to me that the corollary of this is true: "good looking" people are discriminated against, not vice versa [See http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/08/09/discrimination-gender-beauty-study/] and this is supported in more comprehensive articles like http://www.careerealism.com/have-been-discriminated-against/.

For most of humanity, good looks come from 1) healthy eating habits, 2) exercise and 3) purposeful and rewarding work. You can take a person with features that are unattractive, but give them what they love to do in life and see the glow! If you strive for power only, you will be ugly inside, and your ugliness will ultimately affect your looks because people who seek to achieve power so they can order others about are inwardly ugly people!!

Such a glow can come from deep personal satisfaction in a variety of endeavors: It can come from the care and love of your children, or it can come from a satisfying career.   [Barbara Streisand is considered unattractive by many - and perhaps The New York Times thinks so too. But I know many do not see unattractiveness in her at all, including me.  Rather, there is a glow about her [her nails and skin like "butter"], and her hair beautiful - and that voice; well challenge me on this: Who doubts her beauty?   [Others would argue that money has something to do with it. True. But in Barbara's case, what came first, the chicken or the egg? One must have "balls" to make it on Broadway! You can have the greatest singing voice of all time but if you don't have chutzpa (don't know how to spell it), you can forget about achieving anything, including beauty.]

Recently, during the New Hampshire primary, a liberal was quoted as saying that the people in the Romney campaign looked as though they came from planet "Krypton," obviously said with a jealous pang. [Was he referring to the character "Superman," played by Christopher Reeves, who was a flaming liberal?] In all fairness, we ought to look more closely.   Discipline, hard work, intelligence (particularly, intelligence), will give you good looks. Do you think I forgot the word, "wealth"? No, I did not.  George Soros is wealthy. But is he attractive or handsome? My point is that anyone with convictions, a desire to find fulfillment in life, rather than strive to be merely rich, is always attractive.

So if it can be said then that if liberals are "collective" by philosophy, and conservatives "individualistic" by philosophy, is it the "individualistic" qualities conservatives possess that are attractive to liberals, and is it this quality of introverted fulfillment that gives the appearance of beauty, with money having nothing to do with it at all?  Is it spiritual?

Moreover, conservatives are "minimalist" in appearance. Mitt Romney's hair is "easy maintenance." He doesn't seek to belong to the "crowd," and he's not "with it," apparently, as far as that above-quoted liberal is concerned. The liberal believes he is the one who is "with it," when his thoughts are collective. What do the liberals want Romney to do, gel his hair like Harrison Ford (who looks like a perpetual adolescent)?   [In everything they do, liberals are "contrarions," so they hate everyone who does not conform to their own radical left anti-conservative styles.] But at the same time they are the first the quip about the conservative "good looks"! [Look closely at the features of some these conservatives and you will see they are not "pretty" or "handsome" (well - excluding Mitt), but they do know how to make it appear as such, don't they?]

Liberals are deceived by a conservative's good looks, like some men are deceived by a woman's made-up face. Conservatives wear their hair short, wear plain jackets and ties, and dress subdued. They are not flamboyant. Perhaps it is a conservatives lack of desire to not make a show of oneself that the liberals hate. If that is so, do they have a jealousy of soul? Is it the soul of the minimalist that produces that envy because it reflects that idiom and belief, "I am what I am" that provokes jealousy from the liberal, who is himself one who embodies collective thought?

Beauty is still in the eyes of the beholder, but from The New York Times article quoted above, it has never become more apparent until recently that ANYONE who is not group oriented in their thinking is "pretty." This is just further evidence how much "individualism" and "self-improvement" (hence, CAPITALISM) create beauty in anyone and how the subject of who is getting jobs is just fodder for liberals to further prevent those they cannot control (albeit, the "minimalist") from employment. The liberals always seek to qualify their own disdain and jealousy by projecting that hate onto others, as though it is they that are bad. Challenge: Find me a conservative in New York who supervises 100 or more employees in a company and then show me all the pretty people they hire! Not there! (Never mind that - Find me a successful conservative in New York, right?!) Answer: They arent' there either!

If the liberals would only understand how to become more "introverted" than "extroverted" then and only then will they stop judging and targeting people and be happier themselves.

Targeted: The Introvert vs. The Extrovert: A Political Comm...

2012-01-20T11:45:00.000-05:00

The Introvert vs. The Extrovert: A Political Commentary

2012-01-19T10:26:00.002-05:00

Below are further descriptions of the extrovert and introvert in a follow up to my post of January 16, 2012:

Listed Below Are the Objectives and Opinions of the Extremely Extroverted Radical Left or Radical Right Electorate:

1) economic control and the reduction of the workforce population into a cooperative, subservient, non-exceptional lot whose only goal is to serve and be thankful, and imbue it with a moral certitude that cannot be weighed against – or derived from – individual contribution of any kind but only weighed against the opinion of “collective” thought and action, 2) destroy with a vengeance all persons that provoke feelings of inferiority by either their appearance, wealth, general happiness, well being, or simply because they have a pretty or handsome face, 3) delegate power only to those crippled with self-loathing because then and only then is goodness, fairness and a just morality served, 4) demonize all those who value individualism and who possess original thought, 5) judge people by how they look and not by who they are inwardly because inner workings and the “soul” have no value unless they can be shared “collectively” (one notices this in liberals employed in corporate (particularly the financial sector) settings relatively easy by the way they stare and CAN’T TALK [have you noticed that they do not talk?], 6) avoids at all times personal inventory and introspection, and strives to invade the privacy of others (frequently they are “stalkers” or “prying eyes” in the lives of those they envy or want to covet), 7) judge and then alienate any person who does not partake in any collective action, for they are considered “evil,” 9) hate all persons who “appear” to be better off (particularly those humble souls who keep up appearances even though they have no money but exude refinement and strength of character in the midst of acute sufferings), regardless of their income or background, 10) never shrink away from someone who reminds you of what you lack and when the opportunity is available, find ways to destroy them, either financially or through outright poisonings (i.e., like in food or water), or in hospitals when sick and cannot fend for themselves.

Listed Below Are the Objectives and Opinions of the NORMAL Democratic/Conservative Electorate

1) possesses a balance of introverted and extroverted qualities in varying degrees and judges other people based on their individual gifts and strength of character, not by race, religion or creed or economic status, 2) is never jealous, but to the extent when envious (if so cursed), looks in the mirror or inside him or her self to determine what flaws in character he or she must change, 3) is never “collective” but is only involved in groups whose goals dictate extroverted action (i.e., like building a bridge, or fixing the community snowplow), 4) understands how difficult life is and is capable of seeing, and has compassionate for, a variety of sufferings, that include a variety of psychological sufferings and intellectual misgivings, as opposed to sufferings of poverty only, and is compassionate not only to the poor but also finds compassion for those who suffer immensely from more intellectual or philosophical thoughts – like having to work among “chatty” or extremely “groupthink” collective extroverted (and, thus, communistic) people who, as we all know, exhaust and bring down the spirit of all humanity and have been known to be totally shallow and thus destructive; 5) has not the least affinity with those who are jealous or gossipy, or those who strive solely to be wealthy or good looking in life, 6) is never a busy-body or covetous, or desirous to know “what others are doing” except to the extent virtues are lacking or shared that they wish to know about to better their own lives, 7) does not care what color eyes or hair one has, 8) possesses the gift of speech, unlike extroverted sociopaths who can only gawk (with mouth hung open) at those they admire or are jealous of (normal intelligent people are incapable of “idol” worship), 8) are not easily convinced that others are responsible for their failings, 9) are avid supporters of capitalism, freedom and privacy, and are well informed regarding historical truths, like the fact that Hitler could only have risen to power in the absence of capitalism and that, had capitalism existed in all of Germany at the time (it was a practice among the intellectual community), Hitler would have succeeded as the artist he wanted to be, and perhaps would have directed his energies towards opening his own art studio and selling his own art work (he was rejected by the “elite” high society art world by a Jewish art curator who told him, “You have no soul”^†). If capitalism were the practice in Germany at the time, Hitler would not have succeeded at convincing a general public that the “elite” were exploiting them, or denying them opportunity since capitalistic individuals disdain “mobs” and “swarms” of collective thought and action and are not easily swayed by simple ideas (unlike socialism, which produces a “herd-like” mentality), 10) do not define themselves as “progressive,” for to do so is to admit you possess ideals that are in fact “primitive” (i.e., collective thought and action).

† It is true historical account (a matter of historical record) that Hitler became enraged at the “elite” art world for rejecting him as an artist, and regarded that rejection of him as prejudice towards the non-Jewish German in the art world, which he was convinced relegated him to perpetual “inferior” status. Hitler aspired to be a great artist and believed he was in fact a great artist. He lived – virtually “breathed” - to become an artist. It was everything to him as a young man. Hitler’s artwork, however, was criticized as “soulless” for its photographic-type qualities that lacked individual expression (and they still are criticized as such!). However, had Hitler chosen to leave Germany and seek success in the United States, he may have risen to certain heights of success in the art world, even though he may not have been accepted by the elites in the U.S. either. (In example, Norman Rockwell is considered a non-artist by many elites in the art world (a commercial cheat!) but he was a huge commercial success in the U.S., and, despite criticism from elites, is nonetheless regarded as a talented artist by a subset of defected elites) But this is to contemplate Hitler as possessing “introverted” qualities – a belief in himself –, which he did not have. Because he grew under the auspices of “collective” thought and action, his inner self was never cultivated. In other words, had Hitler been imbued with a belief in “Capitalism” and the satisfying of his inner world, it is perhaps unlikely he would have found satisfaction in striking out against others in the outer world.

But we cannot change history. We can only do what we can to prevent a repeat of it.

What Would Carl Jung Say

2012-01-16T11:00:00.003-05:00

I was just updating this post about the “Extroverted” liberal electorate and “Introverted” conservative electorate when I read in The New York Times about a book coming out regarding the same subject – but the article did not raise the subject of politics at all. The article was called, “The Rise of the New Groupthink,” (Sunday Review, Jan. 15), by the author of the forthcoming book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.” I am submitting this post because nowhere in the article was “Carl Jung” mentioned at all. This is odd because he was the first psychoanalyst to coin the two extremes. Prior to that it was the philosopher Goethe (1800s) who referred to this duality in humans as diastole and systole.

But I would like to take this observation a bit further then the article or its author and extrapolate how the propensities of each of the two extremes plays a role in why we elect the leaders we do to; and, hopefully, in my view, shed some light on why we are so polarized politically in this country. This is important because it could also shed some light on why some groups are “targeted” by others and why there is so much jealousy of those with money or beauty. In case anyone has not noticed, it was only in and around the late 1980s that “beauty” or “money” became the be-all and end-all of all that was important for success in life. Prior to that decade, these attributes in a person were secondary (even meaningless to the intelligent among us), or sometimes considered “baggage,” to a purposeful life. (No one can dispute the fact that when a person if fulfilled from within, they invariably become attractive people. Remember the phrase “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”?)

Prior to the late 1980s (in fact, since the beginning of mankind on earth), persons with intelligence always judged people by more valued characteristics that were impartial as to whether the person was rich or poor, or physically attractive or not. In other words, people with money and/or beauty could be dumb and derelict jackasses just as much as those who were unattractive with no money. In other words, people during this period and in all generations past were judged by their predominant “introverted” characteristics, not their “extroverted” ones. Indeed, before the late 1980s, and beyond, people, both rich and poor, were judged by their own individual character and talents, not by what political party they were affiliated with. In other words, not all rich people were “evil” and not all poor people were “good” – which dictum is gaining momentum today, particularly with those in the so-called “liberal” party.

What is it about today that is so radically different? Answer: Lower intelligence, delusional envy, delusional jealousy, extroverted extremism and insufferable shallowness. Why is this happening? Well – that is another post on another day, but the obvious answer to me is that people get hypnotized by “groups” when they have no inner core or foundation. They are easily swayed by what the media is touting as truth because they have no inner convictions of their own. And our “communications,” like the ones we engage in on the Internet and its social sites are harbingers of shallow relationships and blind allegiance to “groups,” or “swarms” of extremist views.

But, as I said, this website is evolving and I will post more about this subject going forward. For now, please examine the chart below as it relates to this phenomenon. Please comment so we can get the conversation going! Don't let yourselves be targeted any longer!

	WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHY SOME PERSONS ARE UNFAIRLLY TARGETED			WHERE WE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – IF WE DON’T WATCH OUT
Extroverted Electorate Defined	Predominently Extroverted Electorate (Radical Left)	Extro-Introverted Electorate (Democrat)	Extro-Introverted Electorate (Republican/ Capitalist/ Conservative)	Predom-inently Introverted Electorate (Radical Right)	Introverted Electorate Defined
Interest in the external object; responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to “join in” and get “with it”; the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintenances, none too carefully selected (i.e., LinkedIn, Facebook, and other social networking contacts that the extrovert calls “friends”); and, finally, by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert’s philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when “other people know.” His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. The actual subject, the extrovert as a subjective entity, is, so far as possible, shrouded in darkness. He hides it from himself under veils of unconsciousness. The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. The psychic life of this person is enacted outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a “complex,” he finds refuge in the social whirl rather than self-examination, and any self-loathing is projected upon those he envies, as though they were the cause of it. He is often unyielding, narcisstic.	Total Intolerance of Introvert	Normal – (mixture of both)	Normal -(mixture of both)	Total Intolerance of Extrovert	No interest in the external object, but to the subject, and not being oriented by the object; continual retreat from the object; holds aloof from external happenings, does not “join in,” has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not the least “with it,” and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is – if introverted in the most extreme – morbidly individualistic. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to others. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. Under normal conditions he is pessimistic and worried, because the world and human beings, are not in the least good but crush him, so he never feels accepted. Yet he himself does not accept the world either, at any rate not outright. For him, self -communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. If ever he succeeds, after long and often wearisome struggles, in assimilating something alien to himself, he is capable of turning it to excellent account. Crowds, majority views, public opinion, popular enthusiasm never convince him of anything, but make him creep still deeper into his shell.

Hysterectomy Rates Continue To Rise in U.S.

2012-01-13T10:52:00.000-05:00

If anyone doubts that the rise of hysterectomies is directly proportional to women entering the obstetrics and gynecology profession, please think twice. Women entered the profession in droves during the 1980s and we women all believed it would improve our care and doctor/patient relationships with female patients. But - boy! - were we wrong!

[See http://www.yourspine.com/Chiropractic/US+Hysterectomy+Rates+Continue+To+Rise.aspx]

I met a woman who said her doctor (a female doctor that is) told her that if she does not have children she will eventually need a hysterectomy.  What did she do? She got a hysterectomy! Why? Because, she told me, since she did not want children, and would need a hysterectomy eventually, why not do it now? Absurd? What kind of doctor would perform a hysterectomy on a woman simply because she has decided she does not want children?

Answer:  When you consider that women inherently judge character "extrovertedly" in people (by how they look and how much money they have [i.e., on more shallow levels]) - as opposed to men who judge character (introvertedly) or substance - it is easy to see why female physicians would not blink an eye over emasculating another female.   I love children and I rarely meet women who do not like children; however, because raising children is a lot of work, women who have difficulties with their own children frequently display jealousy (sometimes outright contempt!) for women who do not have children. And no matter how successful a woman may be in her career, when she comes up against a woman whom she believes has more free time than she has – watch out! Women do not like it when other women think differently than the herd.

I would therefore never go to a female gynecologist - not ever. But this is a symptom of a greater problem we have in this country. It is called "shallowness." Believe it or not people, a lot of people DO NOT CARE about money or beauty as signs of success in life! Men have always known that shallowness leads to despair.   Men follow the ways of other men for different reasons than women who follow women. Women value "homogeneity" in their community (with the exception of true feminists) while men value the more subjective attributes of people – vive la difference!.

When will women stop hating other women who do not follow the herd? (Warning: Before responding to this post, please be aware that women will never admit their feelings of inferiority or jealousy to other women. All they will do is hate. Has anyone ever seen any of Nancy Friday's books in any public library? This is proof women cannot even confront this topic.)

Lyme Disease Map Statistics

2012-01-07T10:06:00.000-05:00

Is it a "vector" that causes Lyme disease (if you are a person who never had the classic "bulls-eye" rash of Lyme disease), or do some cases come from what we eat? Think about it: since life has sped up, don't we all eat out more often than at home? Could some cases be caused by what we eat and, if so, wouldn't that explain the demographics of Lyme disease as directly related to the location of slaughterhouses? I am not saying that all people with Lyme disease do not have it. I am simply opening up for comment as to whether ALL cases of Lyme disease are in fact Lyme disease. [Even the CDC considers Lyme disease to be over diagnosed.]

Targeted

2012-01-04T10:39:00.000-05:00

Has anyone ever wondered about why there is such a medical mystery surrounding that pig slaughterhouse in Minnesota? Or why doctors at the Mayo Clinic are mystified as to what kind of disease at the slaughterhouse would be responsible for the neurological deficits and myaglias (muscle pains) of workers who were responsible for removing the brains from pigs and became sick when blood splattered in their face?

See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22182348 for the answer. Consider that many of the symptoms associated with Lyme/Bartonella disease - currently afflicting many along the east coast - may not be caused by a "vector" as doctors have alleged. Get acquainted with this website. Surf it! Know everything about your symptoms and whether your symptoms support the diagnosis you have received.

In fact, from relying on my own experience, many are diagnosed with Lyme disease when they actually have something else. I was diagnosed with Lyme disease when I actually had a burst appendix!!

I am hoping that by sharing various reports in the media and websites and my own personal experience, I will be able to not only enlighten my viewers as to how infectious disease is exploited for profit by the medical community, but share with my readers, particularly those with Lyme disease, various remedies that target intestinal inflammation and combat the ravages of vitamin depletion that I have used with much success. I am doing so in the hope that by sharing my experiences, I will connect with others who have had similar experiences and through networking and sharing with each other about what truly heals us we can unite as a force against this exploitation. Medicine is after all a "business." When patients unite and seek the truth, and can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, presumptive therapy from our physicians will empower us over our own bodies once again.

The exploitation of infectious disease has been going on a long time, but we as patients must seek to become "empowered" once again in our own medical care. Brucellosis mimics over 50 diseases in the Merck Manual. We must know how to play the diagnosis game with our physicians so we can receive the appropriate care. For example, if you have been diagnosed with Lyme disease but oral antibiotics are not helping you, you might need intravenous antibiotics or intramuscular injections - both of which are not currently considered a remedy for Lyme disease - but are for Bartonella.

See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=human%20brucellosis%20minnesota%20slaughterhouse as evidence that physicians DO KNOW the disease is brucellosis.