The Sovereignty Series - You Can’t Make Me!

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You Can’t Make Me!

Self Victimization through Personal Speech Patterns

The Sovereignty Series


Cognitive Dissonance



Introducing a new portal into the mind of Cognitive Dissonance



We’ve all heard of word association tests administered by the psychiatric profession which are used to determine our unconscious psychological makeup. The same goes for various other tests, such as the Rorschach test, that are (supposedly) designed to detect underlying thought disorder and overall personality characteristics.

I have often spoken about the hijacking of language to control and manipulate people, both as individuals and as the collective herd. George Orwell’s classic “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is a wonderful examination of the concept of language hijacking. I suggest that regardless of whether you have read “1984” or not, that you do so again in light of what we all see coming round the bend.

I tend to cringe whenever I use the word ‘hijack’ because it implies that our language has been forcibly taken from us, transformed into a weapon to be used against us, and then placed back in our hands disguised as an everyday tool of essential living. Even if the process I just described is actually what happened (in practice it’s more evolution than blunt force trauma) in order for the hijacking to be effective it still requires our consent and willingness to utilize and embrace the weaponized language.

So let’s try something a little different here. Instead of a word association test I would like to try a phrase association test with you. And I’ll bet that even if you tried you could not stop yourself from inserting a word into the blank at the end of the following phrase.

“You make me so <……….>.”


You make me so....


The lists of words you may have inserted into the <blank> are wide and varied. As well if I were to structure the sentence differently, such as “Sometimes you make me…..” or “Every time you do that you make me…..” the list may grow even longer. Sometimes we even declare that “It makes me so……” thereby giving inanimate objects or situations control over us. If you give it some thought you can come up with all kinds of variations.

The one commonality among most, if not all, of the words we place after ‘make me’ are words or possibly phrases that describe emotions, usually strong (triggering) emotions. In keeping with the theme of hijacking a language in order to control or manipulate, one of the techniques used is to distort the meaning of words or phrases in such a way as to promote a ‘victim’ mentality.

Other examples of victim phrases are “You can’t fight city hall” or “There’s nothing we can do to change the situation”, both classics because what we really mean when we say those things is that since we can’t change everything immediately why even try. This is what non sovereign entities say to each other and to their masters. We beg for permission from the ‘authorities’ to do what we as true sovereigns would never consider asking permission to do. This ‘conditioning’ begins with the language we use to speak and thus to think.

So my question here is simple. Since when is someone else responsible, as in “You make me…,” for our emotional ‘State of Mind’? Think about that for a few seconds before you respond because I would be willing to bet that your initial response, the one that quickly rolls off your mental or physical tongue, would itself be a triggered response rather than a logical and rational answer.

Now before you say, “Well, that’s just something we say. It doesn’t mean anything.” I beg to differ. Just watch two people verbally fight, or even just argue, and count the number of times one assigns the other blame for their own emotional state. If there is any emotional attachment between the parties, or the confrontation is emotionally triggering, blame will likely be assigned to the other. That’s the beauty of left/right politics as a control mechanism, to promote triggering emotions in order to divide and pacify a population.


Just Say No to Self Victimization


We are all guilty of this, including myself. Just ask Mrs. Cog. To counter this tendency I try to remain mindful of what I am saying at all times, especially when I’m feeling emotional or I’m triggered by something someone else said. For me one of the signs that I‘ve been triggered is when I won’t let the other person finish speaking or I’m just waiting for my turn to speak rather than actually listening to what they are saying.

I attempt to counter this in the same why I try to avoid using the words ‘I believe’. Often when I use that term I am simply regurgitating some doctrine or thought bubble that is commonly used among those I associate with. Or it is a label I can quickly assume or wear that enables the view I wish to express to be quickly or easily understood. What I should be saying is that ‘I think’ or ‘My opinion is’. Doing so changes the dynamic of my thoughts and speech because now I am expressing my own ‘State of Mind’ rather than repeating someone else’s.

One of the things that drives Mrs. Cog crazy, especially when we are having ‘words’, is that I sometimes reject her assignment of blame. She’s even turned the tables on me a few times to her everlasting amusement. More often though, whether or not we are having words, I try to slow down and think about what I am saying. If I force myself to take full and exclusive ownership of my emotional state by avoiding the “You make me…” statements, not only must I phrase my words differently, but I must think differently about not just whom I’m talking to or what I’m talking about, but I must also think differently about myself.

By accusing someone else of being responsible for my emotional outbursts I am in essence avoiding responsibility for my own actions. By blaming others for my ‘State of Mind’ I’m assigning myself to the ‘role’ of victim status. If it weren’t for you I wouldn’t be in this ‘State of Mind’. So you fix yourself and I’ll be all better. That is one of the definitions of a victim, someone who has no control over their ‘self’, who has had the control of their body and/or mind taken from them, often by force or deceit. Only in this case, because I self assign myself as victim, it is entirely by my consent that I am a victim.

While that assessment might sound simplistic and even childish, I contend that there are few conversations/arguments more childish than two or more adults blaming each other for their own (dysfunctional) emotional state. If you don’t believe me, just spend an hour or so in a public park or gathering place where young children are playing. You will hear little fights erupt now and then and if you are honest with yourself you will see the parallels between what is said on the playground and what is said in the heat of an argument with a friend, spouse or other loved one.


Round One


So……..are you ready to take the Cognitive Dissonance challenge? For one entire week starting from this moment let ‘us’ attempt to be mindful at all times, not just when we are emotionally triggered or in the middle of conflict or confrontation, but at all times, of the language we use that sheds us of personal responsibility for our own emotional ‘State of Mind’.

I suspect that at some point during our little experiment we will begin to recognize other words, phrases or mannerisms we regularly use that also directly or indirectly absolve ourselves of personal ‘blame’ or ‘responsibility’ for all manner of things. No one can ‘make you’ do, feel or say anything without your consent and the first consent we quickly (and often without conscious thought) give up/away is when someone else triggers our own inner emotional dysfunction.

The ultimate goal of this thought experiment is to elevate our awareness, our mindfulness, and our inner presence in order to begin to reclaim our own personal sovereignty. In my opinion (see, I didn’t say ‘I believe’) we cannot even begin to assert our own personal sovereignty if we can’t even accept responsibility for our own (emotional) State of Mind. 



Cognitive Dissonance

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dizzyfingers's picture

Wait. Think. Stay safe. Copy link and pass on:

DB Cooper's picture

Very interesting CD!  Thanks.  Along those lines I have always said "Happiness is nothing more than a decision".

tradewithdave's picture

Being imbued with the ability to choose to be your own sovereign doesn't make it so.  The prima facie evidence is to the contrary.  For convenience, I choose to refer to the Creator (capital C) and creator (small c) rather than co-Creator.  We are creative... He made us that way... but that doesn't make us Him.  Can we be "simply connected" and simultaneously not be the collective "Universe" or the singularity?  I would describe that as a mystery of Faith.  

Interestingly, if you consider Walter Russel or Ilya Prigogine or even Perelman relative to the 2nd (non) Law of Thermodynamics, I feel that it has a more scientific basis than if you are a adoptee of quantum theory ala Marx, Freud, Rosenthal, Sartre, Berlin and even Soros' Reflexivity which are all versions of the same leopard. 

TaxSlave's picture

Being imbued with the ability to choose to be your own sovereign doesn't make it so.

And you'll have a hard time walking if you cut off your feet.  So?

I choose to refer to the Creator (capital C) and creator (small c) rather than co-Creator.  We are creative... He made us that way... but that doesn't make us Him.

Blaming the wife for your mental state is so unproductive ... better to evade responsibility by shifting blame to some entity that can't answer back.

Too bad CG's explanation Made You Feel That Way ....

Orwell was right's picture

Anyone who quotes my avatar, automatically gets points from me....(  :-)  

Having said that, the author is spot-on.   Language often determines thought, which in turn defines action.

LawsofPhysics's picture

CD, the sovereignty of any nation/society is derived from the consent of many.

In my neck of the woods many of us have withdrawn our consent.

Good luck.

akarc's picture

so much to learn

akarc's picture

So much to learn

akarc's picture

So much to learn.

akarc's picture

Well attempts to place the above as a response to Blindman at the end of the thread have failed. Attempts to delete the three above have failed. Obviously it is supposed to be my new mantra

blindman's picture

here is something interesting that most people
don't think about much. it has been said that
deer "browse" while elk "graze" but the british
call elk "deer". now, that seems quite poetic to
me and in the following context it is just about
enough to blow your mind! speaking of so much to learn.
how wolves change rivers.
it is not that simple and the title is
misleading, still, worth the time and a
testament to the glory and power of life.

nowhereman's picture

Am I ever glad I dropped by, you guys, all of you, are on fire!!!

new game's picture

yea, how true. i am having an issue with paying 30 for what i have been doing on my own for 20 years. but he and she sure can improve my game as they are much better players...

Manipuflation's picture

See Cog, you are doing just fine.


JD Shots's picture

Great post Cog!

When someone says they "want to talk to me", I wonder if they expect a post-speech analysis, rather than engaging in conversation.  Certainly, you may "talk to" me, but I tend to respond to speech directed at me, so be prepared for some interaction.

Should someone say that they wish to speak WITH me, they may be better prepared to engage in a two-way conversation (unless they intend to speak simultaneously as me). 

jez's picture

Somewhat similarly, "We need to talk" usually means, "I want to talk to you. Your job will be to listen."


Statement: "We need to talk."


Response: "Speak for yourself" or "No, I have no such need".

akarc's picture

My lady will say to me would you like to chat?

I will respond sure, what would you like to chat about?

I don't know.

O.k. well get back to me when you do.

EDIT: I  have learned what she is really saying is, could you entertain me a bit?

carbonmutant's picture

When you blame someone else you give them the control... poor Obama

Bro of the Sorrowful Figure's picture

read: a guide to the good life, the ancient art of stoic joy by william irvine.

Emergency Ward's picture

The devil made me do it, Your Honor:

"....the gun I held was trembling in my hand
No I did not plan to give them any warning
For the devil on my shoulder had command
Oh the snakes crawl at night..."

-- Charlie Pride, "The Snakes Crawl At Night" 1966

JD Shots's picture

When someone mentions the number of the beast, I imagine them looking through a phone book.

janus's picture

salutations CD & & all, from the basest of neophytes to the wisest of initiate sages; to those and to all the rest of you idling away in the bulkiest portion of the bell-curve, today is the day the Lord hath made, and let us give thanks for it.

yes, i wanted to start things off by provoking a goodly lot of you; and, what's better, by the end of this i'll have successfully infuriated those whose sentiments were buoyed with my reference to The Almighty.  fret not, none shall come away from this empty-handed, all of you will at some point clinch your fist, or at the very least furrow your brow at ole janus.  and, most blessedly, there's maybe a fraction of a small percent now reading that'll savor the salt of my mirth (and it is you few to whom i dedicate all my efforts...always) and, alas, those are usually the atheists.  atheists and agnostics, at least the best among them, are often burdened by a sophisticated wit...but, as far as burdens go, a discriminating and difficult-to-please sensibility ain't all that bad; at least you have janus.  and you can thank God for that.

anyway, these thoughts of CD's remind me of something; they call to mind the musings of this philosopher-king i once knew...the man was possessed of the most dexterous and agile of intellects...can't recall his name off-hand, but i believe it started with a "j".  anyway, these thoughts pertained to a mischievous, duplicitous, impertinent and malicious species of carbon-based organism, homo-sapien.  he eventually came to love these sentient beasts because of, rather than in spite of, their multifarious flaws a foibles; for he was a partaker with them in all the ways that made them so very unacceptable.  and due to this philadelphian embrace of all that's best of dark & bright, he was in-turn able to accept himself, and on similar terms.  

if he were with us today, i'm sure he'd have some things to add to what CD's here said; and i'm concretely certain he'd have these things to say, and that he'd say them here on the Hedge...he so loved this place, and would do anything to protect, defend and extend the sanctity of its perfectly compatible plurality & singularity.

without any further vaguery, i'll say that individual sovereignty is a two-way street...not just that, it is a broad and evenly graded boulevard sheltered by the fulsome foliage of ancient oaks; it's a great place to visit and even better as a residence.  sovereignty not only says "i'm okay" but goes out of its way to stay in its lane, permitting the traffic moving the other direction free and safe passage, perhaps with a kindly wave out of courtesy and respect, it not only says "you're okay" it demonstrates it in its every action.

only true gentlemen, fully possessed within themselves -- so much so that they are willing to protect the rights and liberty of others over and above their own -- are deserving of citizenship in a republic (which is basically why we fore-fitted ours long ago).  and so i would like to take a moment and reflect on the manner by which gentlemen mediate and resolve disputes; and, most importantly, in what fashion do they carry-on in the aftermath.

whatever the dispute -- no matter its nature or magnitude -- is to first be addressed with debate and reasoned dialogue.  this is not only acceptable in a republic, open and untrammeled debate is the very undergirding of any vibrant, open and self-governing society. no limits, not of any sort -- whether the consideration be to protect the feelings, religious sensibilities, 'scientific' and/or historic certainty with respect to state sanctioned 'facts', or prerogatives of any group, select class or 'threatened' creed -- nothing can be excluded from submission.  this is why the first amendment is listed at the head of all the rest; for they all depend upon it; and all of everything associated with liberty is predicated by its inviolate sanctity; liberty is both reflected in and sustained by free and unfettered debate.

our society is now so thoroughly sissified, adolescent, fragile, victimized, traumatized and haunted by 'suffering' that the sane man is lucky if he can stave off apoplexy.  if you can't find a way to share in the suffering of others, and then find some way of blaming other-others, and then agreeing to whatever measures are offered for 'leveling the playing field' for the others who've been despoiled by the other-others, then...well, there's just no place for you, the individual gentleman, in this world of groups. 

we have in this country whole economies based on the exploitation, branding and marketing of suffering...ceasar is demanding his tax be rendered in a quotient of guilt; such that he may leverage it to resounding boos and spirited hurrahs in the colesium.  the mob doesn't live by bread and circuses alone; they must have faith to see them through the grim and grey spells seperating the spectacular distractions.

and so this abstract and craftily marketed suffering is magnified by the groups within their individuals, they are fatally wounded and they don't know why...everyone is shamed into filtering their every opinion, word and thought through the guilt matrix, lest they hurt the feelings of another, and dredge up all this pain and suffering he's obliged to carry around for those others that did suffer in the name of his group, allegedly...and typically before it was even a group, or the glimmer in some group-maker's eye.

here's the really vexing part:  sometimes feelings do get hurt; sometimes debates get heated; sometimes things are said to make a point in a decidedly hyperbolic fashion (not that such a charge can ever be brought against janus)...used to be, a gentleman would get up, brush himself off, shake hands, forget the whole thing, and move on.  but now, oh-no, each camp retreats further into its group, huddling tighter together, staking out more and more extreme positions, holding everlasting short, acting like a bunch of school girls.  a whole goddam society of catty, bitchy, cliquie, spiteful, self-pitying, spoiled brats and cry-babies.  

the flexibility and openness of a mature and healthily-debating society guarantees two wonderful things: 1) it necessarily limits the things we agree upon.  whenever the majority agrees upon a matter, they immediately conclude that the the thing must be universally true for all, and so they naturally pass laws to compel and forcibly convince all dissenters of their unpopular and punishable folly.  i don't know about y'all, but i'm well-convinced that that government that governs best, governs least.  consensus on many things is antithetical to liberty.  2) it ensures that those things upon which we agree, being so very-very few, are as close to right and wrong as we're gonna get.

BUT, and this is a big 'but' (which is why i all-capped it), once all debate -- and every avenue thereof -- is exhausted..once every effort is made to argue in the public arena, in the courts, in the voting booths; and after which, if an offending party remains unmoved and will not of its own accord amend its ways, then, well, i'll get to my other very germane Jefferson quote in just a bit.  before i do, i'd like to say that this quote applies to a situation of 'ifs': if, and only if, an offending party has violated the most basic of common understandings (among gentlemen) of right & wrong; if they've committed acts of, say, high-treason and murder (hypothetically, of course); and if the offending party has further abrogated the most basic principals of liberty by insulating themselves from penalty and have effectively subverted the law by lording over it, all while unforgivably using it as a weapon against those who would have them repent and relent...well, then, gentlemen, then it's time for a gully washer to water a very parched liberty-tree (i guess that was more a paraphrase than a quote).

so, gentlemen, what i'm trying to say is that i want a ZH and a republic wherein we 'all' agree on as little as possible and everyone is at liberty to unreservedly endorse any position he so chooses, and to do it in any fashion he fancies; and by the same token, he should do so aware that he may get the shit smacked outta him (metaphorically) for errors, idiocy, obscenity, lameness, or, sometimes, just for the hell of it.

and as to the liberty-tree and the state of the nation, yes, gentlemen, you should be angry...furious, in point of fact.  it's not a matter of them controlling your emotions, they've been trying to dilute your well-warrented fury for decades now.  the thing of it is, wholesale criminality and lawlessness have a way of upsetting liberty-lovers of every variety; moreover, it's a good thing to hate wickedness -- the moar the better...more than that, even the most servile of slaves despises despotic thuggery, and, really, that's something upon which everyone can agree -- no matter how much suffering your group needs to take out on the world. 

i christen this, The Age of Rage.

perfectly justified and coming soon to a central-bank protectorate near you!

like a fire in the sun,


Ignatius's picture

"i christen this, The Age of Rage."

I christen this The Age of Advertising and Public Relations

The rage comes from when you get it home outa the box and it's already broken and you're hungry.

Nothing is done these days in the name of its real agenda.  Hence, the rage.

janus's picture

hey Ignatius (or should i say, mr. o'reiley?),

thanks for sayin howdy...i'm rarely neighborly, as i assume all hate me unless they prove otherwise (and, to be fair, i can't blame them...i often go out of my way to be ornery (but i have my reasons)).

anyway, i always check out what you have to see, Ignatius, i'm on to you.  you have a very serious problem; i would go so far as to say you're addicted.  you have a habit, nay, a compulsion to express your thoughts in an interesting and often humorous way...i know that there is no help nor hope for you; and so i've learned to accept you, irredeemable junkie that you are.

yup, not just a house of lies, a whole goddam nation-state and world-order articulated, stilted and supported by mendacity, duplicity and in-your-face fully formed in falsehood and determined to stick to the contrived and sickening script that anything hinting at or even slightly tinctured with even a modicum of honesty, integrity or decency is suffocated in its infancy.

tis sad but true: in order to accomplish anything good, you must masquerade as bad.

btw, are you still scribbling away on those 'big chief' spiral notebooks? 

here's a dedication for Ignatius and all the denizens of new orleans:

you will know the man of true genius/

for he will be surrounded by a confederacy of dunces,


tradewithdave's picture

Can I keep my personal sovereignty intact and also forgive you? 

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You can do whatever you want. You do not need my permission to do what you want nor do you need my affirmation or confirmation after you have done it.

This is because you are sovereign.

In return you are completely and totally personally responsible for all your actions both before and after.

This is because you are sovereign.

tradewithdave's picture

I would suggest that your premise is fundamentally existential.  Your response implies that you can declare who is sovereign.  You're channeling Sartre.  This is Marx because in the absence of forgiveness, the burden of sin is too heavy to carry... and therefore gets transferred to the state or in "2.0" to some reputation corporation or The Hague or "money as a technology".  I would suggest that you are confusing being created in God's image with being a creator or co-creator.  You can choose to be sovereign, but you cannot assign sovereignty to me with words.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I understand and get your point. With my comment I was illustrating a sovereign mindset rather than assigning sovereignty.

Squiddly Diddly's picture

Cog, Love the forum you create and while you have my sympathies you'll generally see me take a different approach.  I had the same reaction as Dave, and I can't let you squirm out with "illustrating a sovereign mindset rather than assigning sovereignty."  Cognitive dissonance will result from the attempt by the nature of sovereignty itself, created beings already have a sovereign.  Irony intended.   The article by John Piper is worth the time.

"Therefore moral inability and moral necessity on the one hand and human accountability on the other are not an antinomy. Their unity is not contrary to reason or to the common moral experience of mankind. Therefore, in order to see how God's sovereignty and man's responsibility perfectly cohere, one need only realize that the way God works in the world is not by imposing natural necessity on men and then holding them accountable for what they can't do even though they will to do it. But rather God so disposes all things (Eph. 1:11) so that in accordance with moral necessity all men make only those choices ordained by God from all eternity."



Terminus C's picture

You choose to be dominated by a human power construction, religion.  This is your sovereign choice... which, I think, is Cog's point.

tip e. canoe's picture

perhaps the source of tension in this dialogue is due to the varying shades of interpretation of the word sovereign itself?

personally, i like the word, as even the sound of it conveys power (say it out loud a couple of times and see if you agree -- the first syllable seems to resonate between the heart & the gut and the second in the lower part of the head).
so when used in the context of encouraging self-empowerment (either one's own or in others), it can penetrate through the barriers to such like a hot sword through stone like few other words can.

but like all double-edged swords (especially those that have been used to signify Kings (and Kings of...) throughout the ages), it comes adorned with blood-soaked connotations and a heavy dialectical sheath.

for clarity's sake, this is not to side with either (personally after reading both cog's and dave's treatises, i personally choose to see both POVs as not necessarily mutually exclusive), but rather questioning the boundaries around which the dialectic is framed.

LurkMaster's picture

"Think twice, speak once"

"Never miss an opportunity to keep your mouth shut"

Two things I never see mentioned in the MSM: willpower or personal responsibility

blindman's picture

"measure twice, cut once."

akarc's picture

"Be an actor not a reactor," not my quote.

GoinFawr's picture

Word Association Football"

"...againilly..." gets me every time.


Ignatius's picture

"(1984) a wonderful examination of the concept of language hijacking."

CD, if you haven't already, treat yourself to Anthony Burgess' 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange.

Kubrick's movie was very good, but the book is well worth the trip.

headless blogger's picture

I see nothing wrong with blaming people when they are to blame.

But the New Age ideologies, as well as libertarian and anarcho ideologies, are taking personal responsibility to an extreme level. Example, I was watching a New Age spiritualist talking in a car while driving by two little children who were obviously very poor and hungry and drinking from a mud puddle. (was in India or someplace). He was saying the children were fulfilling some kind of karma from a previous life and they are NOT victims. He drove past them, his belly well fed, with not a second thought about those kids even though he is a well reknown teacher. The anarchos, New Agers, and some Libertarians think that there are never any victims. Those little kids? They brought it on themselves.

This kind of thinking is growing in popularity, especially since these last 12 years and more since 2008. It could turn dangerous if anyone wants to use the "logic and rational" thinking on where it can develop and go. Seriously, we can probably rationalize ourselves to death on this planet, which seems to be happening. It makes it easier to demonize others as people who need to take responsibility for their plight. We do need to take responsibility but we do not need to take blame where it belongs to others.


akarc's picture

"He was saying the children were fulfilling some kind of karma from a previous life and they are NOT victims."

This is not where I say, in my opinon, I believe, it may be, or it would appear that, it could be, I  think.............

This is where I say, the dude is a fucking dick and needs to be jack slapped and no I do not mean metaphorically! 

janus's picture

great post and well crafted...and thanks for bringing this up.

there is a group out there afflicted by legitimate suffering; it is a group whose agony and identity transcend all the fashionable affiliations of race, religion & sexual orientation...sadly, they're so un-hip, unnoticed and unskilled at PR that we hardly realize they're around; we collectively refer to them as 'the poor'...and even though most americans will pass the entirety of their lives without ever seeing real poverty and only understanding it as an abstract collage of images from third-world hell-holes (well, actually, i suspect many will confront this pitiless horror in a few short years; if we don't clean house and do it immediately).

and in my day, i've read, participated in and even tried my hand at conjuring some policy, program or system for addressing is an intractable villian and is forever turning all the most well-intentioned endeavors against the very problem it seeks to remedy.  and so i, understanding our collective helplessness in battling it, am resigned to The Savior's commandment as it relates to the numberless masses that lay down each night with a growling belly.   we are commanded to treat them with compassion...and i second the notion.

charity covereth many a sin,


akarc's picture

"(well, actually, i suspect many will confront this pitiless horror in a few short years; if we don't clean house and do it immediately)"

Experience is the best teacher.

And since this is a thread about communication it has been shown that the "savior" communicated best through parables and metaphors. Still shown to be the best form of communication and a cornerstone of "Stories for the third ear" Mark and Bonnie King.   Highly effective when combined with body lanquage and other tricks of communication as important as the words we use.  But then people have to listen to hear.

new game's picture

this excellent post drives to the core of the human dilema; personal responsibility without a hidden agenda whilst being intellectually honest.  From twenty some odd years dealing directly with fellow humans, very few met this criteria. The more you(and I) strive for this standard the more you(and I) feel alone, almost desparate, but at least comforted that "i was the best a human could be"...

Implicit simplicit's picture

Cogs, I haven't been commenting  in a while, but I been starting to again. I feel like we are due for some kind of event, and it has driven me back to posting. At least that is my theory.

How dare you talk about feelings and emotions. Our past does affect our emotions when alone. All that I have to do is look at my dreams. Alot of wild emotions going on there sometimes.

Anyways, I enjoyed your post.  Keep up the good work. I'll make an effort to think before I talk, and then I won't put my foot in my mouth. Dam it. What an idiot I am for saying that :+)

nmewn's picture

"Other examples of victim phrases are “You can’t fight city hall” or “There’s nothing we can do to change the situation”, both classics because what we really mean when we say those things is that since we can’t change everything immediately why even try. This is what non sovereign entities say to each other and to their masters. We beg for permission from the ‘authorities’ to do what we as true sovereigns would never consider asking permission to do. This ‘conditioning’ begins with the language we use to speak and thus to think."

One of my personal favorites is:

"How are___going to pay for this tax cut?" that has crept into language usage.

Its like, WTF are you talking about? Where does this mindset come from that someone has to "pay" for a tax cut? The government is simply not allowed to HAUL AWAY more. No one is paying anyone less or more, just less is taken from the ones who earned it.

So, apparently it can only mean, someones rights to their own labor & earnings doesn't really mean anything to them.

My next statist-vocabulary-exploding-taxation-micro-treatise will be on the word..."investment".

To be followed by..."customer" ;-)

DavidPierre's picture

Citizen devolved   ->  to a lousy 'consumer' !!!

That one has pissed me off for decades every time I read or hear it.


 "GOING FORWARD" -> actually just circling the drain.


tip e. canoe's picture

and consumer, once outliving one's usefulness, devolved  --> into "civilian"

or in the case one gets uppity --> "enemy combatant"

in either definition, the dehumanization & expendibility factors increase exponentially.


as Dewey Cheatum Howe noted last week, "language, people."

nmewn's picture

Citizen devolved   ->  to a lousy 'consumer' !!!

lol...good point. Because one chooses to save, they are labeled stingy or a "lousy consumer". Again, its like WTF, I'm not spending on their timeline so I'm a ba person, for not buying crap that I don't want.

Its incredible DP, they think its theirs, on loan to us. It may be Federal Reserve notes (so, technically not the governments either) but it represents units of OUR LABOR.

akarc's picture

"Where does this mindset come from that someone has to "pay" for a tax cut? "

Suspect we may know where the mindset came from. Question is how to get others to see it for what it is. Word games to perpetuate business as usual.

purplefrog's picture

In the heat of battle this is quite difficult, but even in hidesight it helps to view ourselves "from outside" and ask questions this like "Who got angry?"  "In 100 years, what difference will it make?"  "Why is this important?"

Sometimes is takes me several hours before I can confront myself.

This is good stuff COG.   You're pointing us to true consciousness.


wtf1369's picture

"In 100 years, what difference will it make?"


I said that to my father 30 years ago regarding a report card I had just brought home. I thought his head was gonna explode!

Mrs. Cog's picture

One of the references that best helped me to visualize this was that the mind really only has two positions - looking out and looking in. Seems it is all about the view (location, location, location.)