![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Non-Human Entities?
I recently spotted a blog post on Mega Ilysmi that made me aware of how crazy I must sound to other people. In it, they are playing with some ideas I’ve enjoyed using as models in the past. One is the idea that there there are non-human entities masquerading as humans. Some people call them archons or organic portals, or any number of other things. The other is Timothy Leary’s idea of post-larval humans, that there are some people who are “not quite all there” and some who are more spiritually elect.
Now, I personally really enjoy both of these lines of inquiry. I love thinking “what if David Bowie is an alien?” or maybe Bush is so evil because he’s a reptile from outer space. I think these ideas have an excellent sci-fi thrill factor and are popular because they activate mythological circuits in the human mind.
But that doesn’t mean I believe them.
Or rather, that doesn’t mean I act on the idea. It’s one thing to study and entertain a notion, and apply it as a model to learn about how things work - but it’s totally another to say, found a cult on, or run around putting people into concentration camps who you believe “aren’t quite human.”
Hahaha. Hold on a second. I just went over to Cassiopae.org to post as a link from the words “found a cult on” and at the top of their page, they have a supposedly ironic banner proclaiming “Home to the Most Dangerous Idea In the World” Hilarious, because that’s pretty much exactly the point I’m trying to make here. The Cassiopean website seems to be either the founder or one of the big proponents of the idea that some people are organic portals - not fully human beings. Rather than beat a dead horse though, I’ll refer you to something Jeremy wrote on this a while back:
Before I conclude, I wanted to mention one thing in relation to this treatment of individuals as others. It’s really fun to consider the creepy possibility that some people who live on the planet Earth are aliens, or are possessed by demons, or are shape-shifting reptiles or, worst of all, “organic portals” — empty masses of protein with no intrinsic value. Hell, I’ll bet David Icke loved “V” as much as the rest of us. However, when you start thinking like this and allowing it to affect your perceptions, are you not committing an evil act?
Everybody who lives and walks the Earth and experiences reality has a part of the divine spark. Every individual being, no matter how repulsive or evil their actions, no matter whether they’ve got million-year contracts with Cthulhu and deliver fresh babies daily, is still a human individual and needs to be treated as such. To claim that evil is committed because of the presence among us of “nonhumans who look like humans” is to claim that some individuals have no intrinsic worth. Everyone– everyone– is open equally to the influence of the Archons and to the influence of the Logos/Sophia. Should it turn out that there are indeed “aliens among us” or “organic portals,” they are *still* individuals who contain the divine spark, and are therefore human and open to the Logos/Sophia.
The thing I think it’s most important to remember with this and other areas of occult study is that it’s a model. You use models to learn and grow, and there are some that you must be careful to eventually leave behind, because if you don’t they may end up controlling and warping your mind. For further discussion of this, also check out my article: The Alien-Archon Connection.
(UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that the Cassiopeans may not be a cult. Like always, it depends who you ask. In my opinion, they seem like a cult in it’s early stages. I find some of their teachings to be either potentially destructive if taken to the extreme - or at the very least not useful to me. However it’s important that you evaluate what they are saying and decide that sort of thing for yourself.)
Also, for a more concise explanation of why this idea is just so fucking bad, please read my article: How do you decide who doesn’t have a soul?
- Aliens Fear Factory
- Hooded Figures: Back for More!
- Alan Moore things
- The government officially denies that any supernatural entities exist or have any influence on human life.
- Ancient “Urban Myths”
- Prev: Bowie’s Ex-Wife Says He’s An Alien
- Next: The Occult Brand
June 7th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Well, it begs to ask then, what determines the presence of “the divine spark”? Is it something that occurs at birth or conception, or is it something that is just inheirent in everything, every atom (like the Force of Star Wars or the Tao)? Also, if this happens at birth or conception, is this divine spark limited to just humanity or is it present in all organisms?
If it is something that occurs at birth, can also occur in clones? If humanity steps in to change things could it get rid of the inheirent divine spark?
If this spark is limited to just humanity, is it possible for someone to “lose their humanity”, and possibly lose their divine spark, lose their soul? If so, couldn’t people just be empty portals?
Also, where is this divine spark located? Does it prevade every atom of our body, or is it centralized somewhere? (I suggest looking into the spooking “spiritual” connections that occurs with organ donors) If it is centralized somewhere, could it be removed and placed elsewhere (or just replaced), or perhaps destroyed?
If the spark is limited to just humanity, then could it be safe to assume that if aliens did exist and were present on earth, that they could be “organic portals”?
Just some questions and thoughts to contemplate.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
i understand, but that stuff doesnt worry me too much. the point is just to be good to people and not use mythology as an excuse to be an asshole (especially since there are a million better reasons to)
ive also never understood the argument that clones wouldnt have souls. why?
June 7th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
The clone argument lies in the source of the divine spark. Does that spark come from nature and the surrounding atoms (and thus transferred by the parents to the child), or does it come from a higher source upon conception/birth? If it comes from a higher power, would that higher power still grant the divine spark to a cloned person?
If it comes from nature and atoms, then it would be contained in the cells used to create the clones, and there wouldn’t be an issue.
June 7th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Hi Tim. First, congratulations on another great post. Second, I’ve always thought the Casseiopaians (sp?) were a little bit creepy [not to mention that one of the founders apparently has some pretty serious demons in her past]. Third, I remember Jeremy’s comment and thought it was spot-on.
Fourth, I completely agree with your characterization of a conspiracy theory as a ‘model’ to understand reality. My profession involves a very heavy reliance on statistical models, which are in my view just useful fictions to help us make predictions. A conspiracy theory can often lead to astonishingly accurate predictions, even though the underlying factual veracity of its narrative may never be proven (or may even be absurd).
Finally, I would like to weigh in on the divine spark issue for nonhumans. In my humble opinion, every animal has a divine spark, even a lousy cockroach. Anybody who has ever owned a dog knows that although they are not rational creatures, they very much have “souls”. It is very much a pet peeve of mine (pardon the pun) that people mistreat animals using the excuse that they don’t have souls. It’s bullshit. (I realize we need meat in our diet for our survival, but that doesn’t mean we have to mistreat and torture the animals that we will eventually sacrifice for food).
OK, end of rant.
June 7th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
The Archons are described as reptilian. This sounds exactly like David Icke.
It seems that Icke is on to the reality of evil alien occultists. They run the world.
June 7th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Aha, I just went to that Cassiopaea site and Laura Knight-Jadczyk totally reminds me of an Anakin Skywalker, but sans the Darth Vader. I went to the publishing page with info on her new book, which, I admit, sorta sold me on perusing it at least, but then went back to the Cassiopaea page to read about her.
She is whining about how Parabola refused her an ad for her book. And she goes on and on, comparing herself to the other ads, refuting them, just basically whining “I fit in, you assholes, so let me sell my most-dangerous-idea-in-the-world.”
Just like Anakin bitching about how “I’M THE HEAD OF SECURITY! ME! ME! ME! LET ME DO IT I CAN DO IT I AM IMPORTANT I AM WORTH ATTENTION!”
So to recap from an earlier post, I still hate George Lucas, though I am sure he’s nice enough to have over for dinner, and another conspiracy theorist can lick my nutsack.
Though, I have been thinking about what Tim said about the third-circuit and getting people to wrap up new ideas, associate, embrace these new symbolic models. This may be where design and marketing can come in? Essentially the job of a brand is to tell a story, to relate emotionally and via symbolism with the subconscious mind of the target market. Like whatshisname from The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Hagbard Celine or whatever, there are those that can be categorised and marketed to. Just be ready to back up the claims.
Cuz lord knows I hate hippies and conspiracy and occult nuts. Even though I might right be one, I hate the brand and the people that are wont to become its hearoes in the eyes of the public — the figureheads for the movement. And yes, I still hate you, George Lucas.
What we have currently for occult figureheads (I’m not sure whom for the conspiracy theorists) are like Maynard James Keenan of TOOL (even though Danny Carey, drummer, is more the occultist than Keenan), and perhaps Grant Morrison and Marilyn Manson. Maybe a little Iain Banks? Alan Moore remains out of public eye, though he demands the respect of anyone that reads his genius. Alesiter Crowley was the last great loudmouth the occult had. Jack Parsons was cool, but dropping his name ain’t gonna get you laid. And if you stretch too closely to the New Age, pop culture and science try to bite your head off. Oprah works, New Age prophet to soccer moms everywhere she seems to be, but any effort to get her to televise some ritual magic and I bet that plan would go to crap.
People can relate to heroes, they’re there to offer new bits into the stream. New ways of looking at things, handling situations. i.e., When I drove down to see Tool, I was amazed at the beauty that came upon Calgary when I listened to Maynard James Keenan tell the whole stadium to go home and love someone that night. It contrasts with their older brand, but he pushes it forth with their own wisdom and experience, and millions of people are listening. As Joseph Campbell, good marketing, and Bonnie Tyler say:—
Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where’s the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn’t there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and I turn and I dream of what I need
I need a hero
I’m holding out for at hero ’till the end of the night
He’s gotta be strong
And he’s gotta be fast
And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ’till the morning light
He’s gotta be sure
And it’s gotta be soon
And he’s gotta be larger than life
Lager than life
June 8th, 2005 at 1:05 am
man, youre totally right, and you said it much more eloquently than i have i think. the problem really is the brand. so far, we’ve allowed the branding to be controlled by “the enemy” for lack of a better term.
do you know that simpsons episode where they go to disney land? theres a ride they go on thats like paid for by the oil industry or something. its called something like “the land of the future” and in it, theres a talking electric car that has a whiny voice and it says something about how its not very good and cant go very far.
this is pretty much exactly what happens in conspiracy/occult circles. the competing brands just outperform and outmarket us. and they do it in a way that not only promotes them but paints a ridiculous caricature of us as well. and you’re right, we only right now have a handful of stereotypes that make up the brand:
- pagan/wiccan
- new ager
- conspiracy nut
- ufologist
- assorted cult member
- hippy yoga meditator
- goth/vampire
- fox mulder
there might be other subdivisions, but that seems like it basically. theres not really a word for somebody who delves into all those things, picks them apart, finds the good and the bad, and just has fun and a generally positive attitude. morrison and moore definitely seem to be at the forefront of it. dont know banks, and havent followed tool in years, and was never into manson.
and youre totally right about what you said here and elsewhere: if you run into any of the 7 or so stereotypes from that list above in real life, usually they are REALLY freaking weird or annoying. not always, but god, let’s be realistic.
anyway i really want to develop this idea further, because i think we’re starting to really pull it apart and figure out what to do with it…
June 8th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Tim said:
>
My response is that using models to learn and grow is indeed good advice. Leaving behind novel ideas is not.
The subject of organic portals is a good case in point.
The model for this novel idea originates from Boris Mouravieff, author of the Gnosis series (a version of the 4th Way teachings) where among other things, he introduces the concept of two races of humanity. These are respectively called adamic and preadamic man. The difference between adamic and preadamic man is that preadamic man does not have an individuated soul. In all other respects, preadamic man is indistinguishable from adamic man.
Our world is diverse. Neighbors, families, and workmates live harmoniously alongside people with all manner of different qualities and attributes.
It is missing the point entirely to assume that someone born without legs should be treated any differently than those born without souls.
For example, if you know that there are a certain number of people on the planet who are handicapped, you try to build buildings that are handicap accessible.
If, on the other hand, you try to believe that there are no handicapped people, not only do you end up excluding them from certain rights, you do not exert the effort to accommodate their needs.
It’s the same thing on a different level.
Just because we do not think that dogs and cats have individuated souls, we do not automatically decide to treat them badly. Well, yes, some people do. And maybe that is the point. A person who believes that making distinctions automatically means something negative is intended, is only projecting their own beliefs.
To assume that the concept of OPs automatically means that QFG is suggesting that anyone should NOT be decent to everyone is a complete misinterpretation.
June 8th, 2005 at 11:27 am
well i really dont think its a misinterpretation. perhaps the original concept was not intended to be used that way. but what im saying is that regardless IT WILL BE. you cant run around calling some people inhuman and expect to have good consequences come of it. we need only look at the historical record, or even world events today.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
geez, the whole idea that some people don’t have souls is a complete farce! it’s not about ‘treating people nice’– that’s a total cop-out. the idea is the slipperiest of slippery slopes and amounts to spiritual darwinism. i’m familiar with those ‘gnosis’ books and they have about as much to do with gnosticism as $cientology has to do with pop-psychology.
i hate to invoke godwin, but it’s so frickin’ apt. ‘just because the jews are subhuman doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be civil to them.’ ’some of my best friends are black!’ ‘oh, susan’s so great. of course, she doesn’t have a soul.’ i bet early american slave owners would tell you that even though their slaves only have 1/3 of a soul, they’re still some good ones.
there’s *no escape* once you start down that slope; whether or not you think it’s a totally benign belief-system, you’re creating a hierarchy because of the weight of the concept of the soul!
btw, i don’t give the tiniest little shit whether it seems like i’m ‘projecting my own beliefs’– i sure as hell am! how can you *not* be in a situation like this???
some people don’t have souls. sheesh!
June 8th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
YES! this shit really fries my tacos. there are no two acceptable answers on this. saying somebody doesnt have a soul leads nowhere useful at all. CASE CLOSED, BITCHES!
June 8th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Surprised to be referenced here! Thank you for the important ideas. I very much enjoy your posts. If interested, further thoughts on my end…
June 8th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Misinterpretation is putting it rather lightly. If a person cannot put forth the effort to research a concept and its meaning, this is what you get. A view of reality that is black and white. I see that mankind has a problem. A very deep problem rooted in its very soul. War, death, killing. Look at the current state of the world. The Bush administration and the machine behind its actions already does exactly the things mentioned by both the originator of this post and most of the commentors to said post. In fact the history of the United States of America is a case study in this behavior. Right now it is Muslims. Treat them as if they are less than human. Lock them up. Kill them. They are soul-less. (Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist) The concept that there is a division in the group soul of humanity is not new. It exists independent of time, history, … Whether it is the Gnostics or Mouravieff or Gurdjieff or Mythos of ancient cultures or current day researchers like Hervey Cleckley and Dr. Robert Hare.
For those who make the effort to research the state of the world as man has created it, it is there for all to see. For me it is very apparent that there are beings that are human on this planet that are different, that are built different, that are wired different. And most of them own the power that determines how the world is run. That is the state of the world. That is how it is. That is our Reality. Making remarks about this concept or defaming those who are able to see this, saying that the ones who are able to discern are saying they are, “some who are more spiritually elect” or one’s who are able to discern are saying to ‘run around putting people into concentration camps who you believe “aren’t quite human.”‘, these are your words. Where do you get this information. I never came across this concept in the Gnostics or Mouravieff or Gurdjieff or Jung or Cleckley or Hare. What I have read is in fact the opposite. It is being able to see the concept that is important. To recognize it as it is the current state of man. In fact most of the literature I have read about this type of concept states the opposite of what the poster of this article states, that it is very very difficult to tell on an individual basis what side of the fence any given person may be a part of. It may take years of personal experience in a one-to-one relationship to determine a person’s behavior and even then one can never be sure. From what I have read, I myself cannot even be sure that I am not a person on the other side of the fence. Most of the teachings in fact take the position that one should take the position that you yourself, that I myself am on the other side of the fence and the work is to go in the direction of building the part of myself that is not about self, that is capable of not sucking the life out of another. And it is a tremendously difficult task. I have read nothing saying this makes one or the other less of a person or not. I have read that it has to do with the concept of developing higher ideals and values and making them a part of the soul. If it is a valid hypothesis that some people do not have the circuitry in their soul (as this may not even be a physical distinction, even though it ultimately effects the physical world of everyone), if it is a valid hypothesis as many do see it, then it is just how things are.
Your mention of the Cassiopaea site I found rather interesting and so I spent some time looking around there. I want to thank you for mentioning them. It is amazing how much right on this site is. I have tried to read their information on the Organic Portal idea/concept and it does fit in quite well with all that I have read from Mouravieff, Gurdjieff, Hare and Cleckley, et al. I was amazed to see the amount (really amazed - tons) of research these people have done. They too, seem to have found Mouravieff, Gurdjieff, Cleckley and a whole bunch of others. I have not delved entirely into their site as it looks enormous. If I run in to a mention on their site that they are promoting as you espouse that there is a “spiritually elect” group and it is them or if they are promoting some religious group I will ditch them. But I haven’t seen it yet and I have read several hundred pages over there already. I haven’t seen anything about them espousing your idea of ‘run around putting people into concentration camps who you believe “aren’t quite human.”‘, either. If I do, I will ditch them. This does make we wonder though why you have made such a point about this site or why you are labeling them as a ‘cult’? It seems to me that your accusations are unfounded. I read up from Google searches on some of this cult stuff from a couple of guys (weidner and bridges) and I have not entirely made up my mind, but I am familiar a little bit with bridges and through my own decision I think this guy is himself a psychopath, leaving a trail of destruction everywhere he goes, destroying anyone he so chooses. In fact this bridges guy only makes me think the site is more important because he is against it. I have never seen anyone so full of themselves ever. I think if you look in the dictionary under B.S. you will find his name.
I still read your site from time to time. But I will be visiting much less - no great loss to you. By the way I am almost convinced now that the whole point of your post was to make these accusations against Cassiopaea. It is just a thought in my head, but in an overall review of your article/posting it appears to be the crux, the reason, that stands out. It does appear to be the exclamation point of your article. If it was, then thanks, you have given me a new resource that so far looks to be the best site I have ever found on what the hell is going on here on the planet. FYI - their news site “Signs of The Times” is a shocker, but I think they are probably hitting the nail squarely on the head there too.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
well, to each his own Roy.
i find your arguments difficult to follow. first you agree in the danger of calling people “less than human” by recognizing this is what is happening with terrorists and muslims. and then you go on to describe how great of an idea it is to do just that. i agree it is a complex issue, but i think the point that its not healthy to dehumanize people is a good one, and i stand by it. im glad you enjoy the cassiopean website. i however do not find it of much use personally.
June 8th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
[…] e, let’s talk about a more disturbing kind of elitism that actually is problematic. Tim recently posted on the tendency for certain groups to declare that some indi […]
June 8th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
“The concept that there is a division in the group soul of humanity is not new. It exists independent of time, history, Whether it is the Gnostics or Mouravieff or Gurdjieff or Mythos of ancient cultures”
hmm, having studied gnosticism for 12 years, i’ve never come across this ’soul division’ concept. i’d be interested in any passages within gnostic writing that you can come up with that defend this idea. in fact, you seem to be pretty sure that ‘the gnostics’ said a lot of things that i don’t recall having come across. do you mean the sethian gnostics? the barbelites? the ophites? perhaps the marcionites or valentinians? oh, wait, that’s right: THEY ALL BELIEVED DIFFERENT THINGS. maybe you mean the alexandrian gnostics or the syrian ones? is it in ‘the testimony of truth’? or ‘the pistis sophia’? or, did you find it in ireneus or maybe hippolytus? dude, don’t be all steppin’ up talkin’ about gnostics without representin’. you in the wrong ‘hood for that. if you actually have an argument based on gnostic sources, make your argument, don’t just pull this shit out of the air and start namedropping.
“Making remarks about this concept or defaming those who are able to see this, saying that the ones who are able to discern are saying they are, “some who are more spiritually elect” or one’s who are able to discern are saying to ‘run around putting people into concentration camps who you believe “aren’t quite human.”‘,”
this is really weird. maybe its a grammar issue. what are you saying here? who can “discern”? what does it even mean to “discern”? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
“By the way I am almost convinced now that the whole point of your post was to make these accusations against Cassiopaea”
s’funny, i’m almost convinced now that the whole point of *your* post was to leap to the cassiopaeans defense! poor, poor cassiopaeans, so persecuted by those who simply don’t understand.
pbbbtht.
June 8th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
the casseopaeans are as much a cult as $cientology or ramtha, imho. they claim to have a ’single’ universal truth, of which they offer tantalizing tidbits on their site and then make deeper versions available to paying members. their original material comes from the ouija board. they’re centered on the exlcusive teachings of laura knight jadcsyk, a bona-fide egomaniac (vide her latest screed:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/dangerous_ideas.htm
for the perfect example. how many times do the words “I” and “me” appear?).
more importantly, no matter how much they deny it, the slavish adherence of her devotees is exceptionally cult-like.
if it looks like a cult and quacks like a cult . . . .
June 9th, 2005 at 12:09 am
the brand name of people who had questions used to be renaissance men.they had questions that came through study of art,science,politics,religion,philosophy,etc.what has changed?
June 9th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Hi. To say that “some people have souls and others don’t” is an oversimplification of what Mouravieff (and the Cassiopaean website) is really saying. If you read him carefully, you will see that the point is more like “none of us have a soul yet, but some may develop or recover their individual souls, while others cannot and simply do not want to. The latter have a collective soul”. No one has an individual soul, but some have the potential to get one. Furthermore, it is next to impossible to determine for sure if someone has this potential or not.
So out of reading Mouravieff or the Cassiopaean website you don’t really get the “us vs them” idea, and they do emphasize that it is wrong. That is your interpretation. And I do agree that there is a danger that some people may want to use it that way. But that doesn’t mean the idea as originally explained is incorrect.
Now, you say that every living being has a “divine spark”. It may be so, but what is a “divine spark” then? You see, if everyone has a “divine spark”, no one has a “divine spark”. Perhaps you mean an individual soul. If so, an individual soul, as it is understood by the above mentioned sources (and Gurdjieff), is what gives a human being an objective consciousness, a true free will and empathy. Now, forgive me for being so politically incorrect, but I know a lot of people out there who give no signs of having any of those, and in complete honesty I sometimes doubt that I have them myself.
Since the theory suggests that someone with an individual soul is capable of empathy, then such a person would NOT have an “us vs them” attitude, but rather respect for everything and everyone. How many people do you know who truly respect everything and everyone?
Some people think that nobody has an individual soul and no one calls them crazy. Others think that everyone has a soul and no one calls them crazy. Mouravieff thinks that some have it in potential and others don’t. Why is it that such an idea makes you uncomfortable? Is it because it does not fit with our ideals of equality?
Well, while I do believe that everybody deserves the same rights and respect, observing human beings shows that people are not all the same. I am not as smart as Einstein nor as strong as an Olympic athlete. And Mother Theresa was not as evil as G. Bush.
Some people give their lives to help others, like those Medecin Sans Frontiers, while others murder, lie and rape without feeling any guilt. Don’t you think there’s a difference? I do. If I didn’t, I would be running the risk of thinking that no one would ever do anything bad to me because “I wouldn’t do that to others and everybody has a divine spark”, and so my ignorance and naivete would put me in danger. Evil does exist in human beings. In my mother tongue (English is not my first language) some bad people are called “inhuman” and “soul-less”, and perhaps rightly so.
You wrote: “Does someone who commits a hate crime have less of a soul? Guess what: If you answer “Yes” to that last one, then you also are committing a biased hate crime, and therefore have less of a soul.” But if you consider that empathy is a quality of the soul, then commiting a hate crime is actually a sign that this person has no soul and maybe not even the potential of having one. And recognizing this person’s crimes and lack of empathy does not automatically make me like him.
Now, if you tell me that being ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is no PROOF of having the potentiality of a soul or not, well I agree. How can we PROVE anything spiritual anyway? We have to deal only with probable hypotheses in the spiritual quest. And Mouravieff’s is the hypothesis that at this point in my life makes more sense to me because of what I see in myself and in the people around me.
June 10th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
if you take christopher hitchen`s factual observations about mother theresa as indicative then you have to question seriously what m.t`s motives were and therefore whether in fact she was more or less evil that g.b.,who we are led to believe,by some is “evil”.
briefly,c.h. states that mother teresa left prvate bank accounts around the world containing as much as sixty million dollars.
but,nontheless,your model of the potential for having a soul in our state here on earth would tend to be proven by general observation of what goes on,not by eminent types but by the rest of us.
political correctness is a game played by socialists to reinvent the meaning of words so that society becomes self-modifying.to suggest that the state or federal department of equality is actively working to make everyone the same is laughable,yet it`s what some assume.is there even such a department?where does this p.c. come from?college campuses?groups of victims?
people in china dress the same,at least in the maoist tradition.they are only allowed to think along certain lines,and now i read recently that websites and blogs all ahave to register.
what we think creates our world.if you control what people think then you control the production of that world.
when you discover who wants a politically correct america then you have found your master.