Entrenched thought processes, indoctrination and brain washing

Started this  thread as a means to dicuss what  is going on with people in respect to the silence, indifference, excusing and ignoring of what is going on politically and socially, in Canada and around the world.

What prompted the notion to discuss this is that I just found out a close relative of mine, who lives in Alberta, just had some tests done which found she has a mass in her stomach, that is quite likely cancer. Also of note, is  that 5 other women who live in and about her small northen AB community are also battling cancer. They are surrounded by sour gas heads that do repeated burn offs.

The most startling thing about her words, were not that she  may have cancer, but that she believes these other women and herself are martyres for the cause. What cause you ask? The cause of society's development and sustainment.

Her exact words were; "well ...if some of us have to suffer and die, so all people have oil to use and a high standard of living, then that is what has to happen, people in Pittsburg and Detroit have also chosen to suffer their possible fate, for the good of the many".

Needless to say my jaw dropped. I mean...how do you respond to that type of stuff? And how the hell did Pittsburg and Detroit peoples come into her factorings?

It is my view that it is coming from her church doctrine.  She and the other women all belong to the same Pentacostal Church that preaches the wonders of capitalism, along side salvation. What bolstered this perception was her noting that it does not  really matter, as everyone will be dead in 2012, and that is only 2 years away anyway, so she will be spared the tribulation then, if she is already dead.

If some AB churches have gone this far to excuse the oil company's pollution excesses, there have to be others doing the same across Canada, as they all belong to the Global Pentacostal affiliate organziation.

Of course the media also plays a huge part in corporate capitalist indoctrination too, which serves to re-enforce other brainwashing mechanisms present.

Personally, I have always believed that indoctrination on many levels, is a serious problem that has to be overcome, only now I believe it is much more serious and impending than I previously thought, especially if we have people believng they are martyres for the good of the many.

FM stated something very pertinent about this right indoctrination of the masses, which I am quoting below.  And here I wish we had a better term to embody those whom the elite have brainwashed to such success, for that matter I long for a better word  for "the elite", or any other name for those socio-paths who think they have the right to have and control everything, as they are not even close to being an elite at anything other than greed and corruption.

It is not "the right",  so to speak, in my view, it is those who are easily indoctrinated  and which are the critical mass component needed for the "elite" to be able to control  society as they wish.  This state of being has repeated itself many time throughout history, where a portion of the masses are convinced/indoctrinated into believing any measure taken, that is of a anti-human nature, is okay, as long it is for the good of the many. When indeed, it is only for the good of the "elite".

Take the witch hunts, the pogroms in eastern Europe leading up to the Holocaust, Haldamor,  for examples where such indoctrination was  successful, and the majority of people were at best apathetic, at most complicit.

How can we overcome this? Or is it just the way things are?

Good grief, remind. What an awful situation for your relative and the other women with cancer. As I was reading that they are looking at the situation in light of being "martyrs for the cause" what I thought you were going to say was that they were planning to take their situations public and become martyrs for the cause of changing these horrible situations. I'm saddened to hear that these churches are manipulating people into holding a belief like this.

For them, given what they are dealing with on the personal level in terms of their health, perhaps it's the only way that they can be at some peace around what's happened. Most folks who come out of that facet of christianity hold the belief that (pardon quoting the bible) "all things work together for those who love the Lord"...it's a way of letting go of what's outside of one's control.

However, that situation (the pollution,etc) is within the control of their community and they could work to change it for others and for the planet...not easily, but it could be done. I wonder how people can come to some understanding of (pardon another quote) "seek justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your god..." -- it is an entirely different paradigm. I think that some of the American evangelical churches are beginning to work in areas of environmentalism and bringing attention to climate change issues. Perhaps offering them some material from Sojourners (a left-ish evangelical website/magazine) might offer them another view within what they would be open to considering.

Loretta, I tried to broach it in such a way that she could see that changes should be made, and was told quite clearly, there is no other option available other than death for some, because any changes made to stop the levels of pollution, would put society  at large in  dire straights and no progress could be made, or society even sustained.

The level of indoctrination is mind boggling. What really twigged me to what it was, was her mentioning Detroit and Pittsburg.  I mean those 2 cities never even move into her conscious reality, let alone her knowing enough about either  to know that they have high cancer rates,  and  her believing that she knows enough about them to know that ALL the citizens, of both, have willingly chosen to have high cancer rates for the good of the many, is well beyond rational thought processes.

I saw Michael Moore's "Capitalism - A love story" yesterday in Montreal (loud applause from the audience at the end). Moore is very good about the way religion has been one of the forces that managed to "sell" us the capitalist system. Very funny montage of old film clips of how people have been hypnotized into drinking the Kool-Aid... But he also shows how even religious figures of authority are now identifying capitalism with evil and the last thing Jesus would support (more funny doctored film clips of Jesus speaking as if he was a Wall Street Journal propagandist).

OK, a MM film won't topple the Vatican or the Stock Exchange, but the words of a Chicago bishop in an occupied factory, encouraging workers to stand up for their rights against the thieves may get your friend thinking again.

I don't know what you could do to counter that and I agree that the level of indoctrination is mind boggling. My ex mother-in-law (xmil) was very like what you're describing. I was never successful in even engaging her in conversation regarding anything outside of her worldview. My xmil's behaviours and views on things were those of a person caught up in addiction and her religion functioned for her in that way -- everything in her life focussed around her religious views which she espoused constantly. She was also extremely intolerant to others in their faith journey and would not, at any time, have a conversation that wasn't loaded. She must have been in extreme emotional pain but I could not get to where she was...despite trying...it was never enough.

I don't know if your relative is like that but I can understand, from personal experience, how hard it is to see what's going on. It's awful.

French author La Boétie (1530-1563), a favourite of recently deceased Quebec filmmaker Pierre Falardeau, another cancer victim:

"... I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation!"

Who or where do we make appeals, to convince those that have the power to make changes, that they should alter the course of events, activities and structures that have been put in place?  Where the inevitable result consists of increased human suffering and eventual extinction no matter how much the grievous harm is increased or slightly lessened commensurate with the degree of belief in the same system that destroys us, with which religious entity, media propaganda outlet, government office, opposition group, or profit corporation does humanity make its dire representations?

An excellent thread on a what should be a crucial question to all about the pathologies of people-powerlessness here in Canada. How to reverse what is a terrible tendancy to just go along. Even many who understand and recognize the hidden hands behind the curtains of power, too often find it easier to acquiesce and remain silent. A very wise and politically experienced elder from the Haida Nation always used to say that Canadians are trapped in a "colonial mentality" which was how she apprehended the condition under discussion here. In any case a worthy topic which will hopefully inform, activate and dispel some of the "indoctrination and brain washing" and/or wilful indifference that afflicts us at a time in history when so much progressive awareness, change-making and hands on activism is so urgently required.

I've considered for some time the usefullness of activism within entities that have sprung up over time, be they lobby groups or political parties, where peoples ideas and energy are strained through an apparatus whereby the end result of their input becomes somewhat or completely unrecognizable from the original intent, because of the requirement to approach power on its own terms within boundaries and lanes determined by power for those purposes.  The dominant structures allow for a certain level of discontent, where outrages borne from its injustice and inhumanity are funneled into groups through which procedural manipulations and niceties distill the sentiments into acceptable gestures that can be more readily dealt from on high through platitudes at best, or complete indifference and derision as is often the case.  A few minor allowances here and there, bestowed by hegemony over the course of time serves the same purpose as a video gambling machine programmed to relinquish an occasional win every so often in order to pander to the client who is on the verge of investing their lifes worth into the contraption.  In that sense, hands on activism might be approached with the view that they are expecting it, while they point to the area where one must stand alongside others seeking an audience.

Excellent points slumberjack.

When seeking post secondary education, in order to further one's knowledge, in any field of humanities and social services, one comes face to face with this reality. I would perhaps exclude women's studies, but even then there is distillation to the cultural norm of white patriarchy.

That it goes unnoticed by most of those participating, says much about the level of indoctrination that also goes unrecognized.

But remarkedly, one prof I came across, was actually quite honest about it, and its ramifications on a functioning, or rather non-functioning equitable society, that believed it was. He was teaching cultural geography.

While  conversaly, another gave me an A+, on a 15 page paper that stated poverty and inequality has always existed, and always would exist, and thus it was not worth worrying about in the now. I wanted to see just how biased he was in his personal beliefs, and how it over-shadowed the social work course he was teaching. One could say I found out. It scared the crap out of me that such a person was instructing the social work degree programs.

Really, I believe,  it is going to take some huge disaster before the majority of people are going to be jarred out of their indoctination, a disaster well beyond any manufactured economic crisis.

Interesting subject Remind, I am sorry to hear about your relative's illness.

Thank you for your post Slumberjack, I agree.  I have felt for sometime that the gap between grass roots activism shifting to a bureacracy has gotten shorter and shorter.  It appears to me that once government funding enters the picture then the move has begun towards becoming part of the problem rather than of the solution.

And I agree with you Remind that it will take a disaster to wake people from their sleep.

In my experience most people seem somewhat discontented with their inherited lives yet resigned to accepting that experience as a definition of reality, they spend their lives acting out this of this belief system.  They live in the Matrix.

I think health will become a defining issue for us as we age, I think we will see those who trust the system die earlier but only after spending years on expensive medication and I think that those of us who choose alternatives will live longer and without medication.

How many times have you heard said, or said to your own children; "eat your (insert meal here), there are starving children in the world who are not as lucky as you"? Or variations thereof?

It seems to me this incisious little comment puts forth a far amount of indoctrination regarding privilege.

Thanks ennir, for your sentiments, and Loretta too, but  really am not felling much besides unmitigated astonishment. Plus a bit of resignation, that again  being called into the palliative care of loved dying seems likely. And that perhaps is framing my conceptions of being okay with it.

As in the last moments before transition into death  occurs, formerly held beliefs, that are not based upon truth, fall away, and deep truths are most always spoken.

Katrina was in full view for all to see, and at election time the deck chairs were rearranged at the behest of the pervasive order, with all of its supporting arms applying a particularly deft choreography of audacity and change to the malaise.  And if that wasn't enough, the worst economic disaster in memory saw droves of people lined up for hours at dawn to ensure their place in line at the polls.  The magic of mass persuasion at its finest with order and legitimacy renewed yet again to determine its own mandate, which consists of self preservation and power growth at all costs.  Once achieved and refreshed, they needn't even be troubled to permit protest at all, certainly not within the remotest of earshot from dissent, as the pummelled and gassed youth of the Pittsburgh G20 summit discovered.  In Canada, instead of wholly appropriate outrage coalescing to greet disaster Conservatism at the helm, increased polling numbers are its reward.  And just in case, the bland stasis of corporate neo-liberalism awaits on deck as an alternative.

The basis for belief, which requires applying ones head to this unyielding grindstone has escaped me for some time.  What I do believe in is the futility of attempting to appeal to, reckon with, or confront the perpetrators and accomplices intent on preserving the causes of perpetual destruction, this crazed apparatus of annihilation whereby setting about at varying speed towards self and planetary immolation is the only way to realize the satisfaction it craves.  Instead, utter indifference and contempt are its proper due, because to expect measures of adequate substance from a paradigm of nothingness is to squander valuable energy to the point of being immobilized into apathy, even as the well of delusion runs dry before us.

Indifference is not necessarily synonymous with apathy towards humanity and the disastrous tribulations inflicted upon it.  Each individual has or can acquire the ingenuity and capabilities within ones sphere of influence and scale, to superimpose over what exists a completely different reality through whatever means imaginable and possible.  Networks of individuals, neighbourhoods, and in time even communities can co-exist and cooperate together for a time within the very spaces set aside by corporate and patriarchal control for its own supporters.  In the common processes, where every vote supposedly counts towards the success of one lethargy or another, another measure of success would involve the one by one, block by block, acquaintance by acquaintance spreading of techniques, contacts, idea markets, and zones of safety all within the completely unsafe reality.

That's pretty pessimistic... ;) Going to ignore how it advocates doing nothing.

And I meant a huge catastrophe, like California falling into the ocean, or the US and European east coast being hit by a huge tidal wave, or perhaps even Yellowstone exploding. Katrina is but a small disaster when thinking about what needs to happen to wake people up.

In framing it that way, you didn't actually ignore it, but instead missed the point entirely.

Nope

Thinking about indoctrination and brain washing further, to see what exactly is the biggest one going on, that is  part of the mess society is in , is the  foisted belief in the rescuing hero.

We are living still in a reality that undervalues wome's input and actions, as nothing that could save the world.

People are indoctrinated into belieiving GOD is a rescuing male, and it starts from there. And it takes very little to re-enforce the false belief that men know and do what is best for humanity

Today, we are blasted with movie after movie, TV show after TV show, telling us it is only men who are heros and it is only they who do the recuing. It used to be the fairy tales in books, now so taken over and pushed by Disney, to further push that nonsensical messaging.

We have everything telling us that men are the only "rescuers", from Spiderman, to James Bond, and all points in between.

This message translates into women's and men's belief structures, to become a notion that only men are "strong leaders", and only their voices account for anything much worthwhile.

It is my view, that this is on of the major factors, why we have such male dominated politics in Canada, and indeed around the world.

If the lead male role is "stong" it does not matter if they are nasty, the voting masses believe they are the rescuers. Even when evidence indicates they are no such thing. They needonly sound like it.

Last night on the news here in BC, in response to protests against gutting mental health programs, Kevin Falcon, actually had the audacity to state in a strong nasty voice, to BCers; "I am not going to allow...." and that was that, the media accepted his not allowing. And so too, will the majority of the public believe he is actually rescuing them and their tax dollars because he stood in the indoctrinated role of the "strong male" , looking out for our best iinterests, that we all so readily accept as truth, when it is a lie.

Until society stops being indoctrinated into believing that only men can be all of that and a bag of chips, we will continue to be in the mess we are in.

Hear, hear.

I am starting to look for and find when I am in luck - microspaces where women speak with a better-grounded authority.

One is the Ladyfest spoken word event - First Women, First Voices - tomorrow night in Ottawa. I hope to meet some of you there. I'll be the smiling guy with silver sideburns and the red beret...

Talking about indoctrination is a diifficult thing, esp in places like Canada - one of the primary things that gets indoctrinated is the belief that the indoctrinated person is free!! - and a kneejerk sort of reaction "Me?!? No way!! I'm not indoctrinated!!!" - the process has been almost perfected in western 'democracies' such as Canada (it is in no way a real democracy - but that's not something many people want to consider). I explore the whole situation somewhat in a book I have written - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html which you may find interesting. Or not. (I mentioned this to a Rabble list when I finished it, and got a lot of that kind of response..)

I think that is perhaps because you are correct, people do not want to admit to themselves how indoctrinated they are. Either to themselves, or in general.

It is not knee jerk, it is responding to bells, buzzers and beeps, just the way they have been programed to.

Funny, though, that nobody ever, in an argument, steps up and says "Please disregard my opinions; I've been brainwashed".

How is it that it's always everyone else who's been indoctrinated? And how is it that the person accusing others of being indoctrinated has somehow managed to free their mind from the culture that indoctrinates every except them?

I won't suggest that the messages around us influence us at a population level, but for the most part I think that when "brainwashing" gets thrown about, it's usually just a "shut up" to someone we disagree with (and a non-starter to boot).

Edited to add a great example:

They? How about YOU? Which of your opinions should I disregard, on the grounds that it's not really your own? Be specific.

Thanks for asking snert, I have spent almost a life time now, extricating myself, from the indoctrination, just as others have done.

Just because you have not, does not mean that no one else has.

Recognition (of brainwashing/being brainwashed) is the first step: It is not merely a case of awareness, but having awareness of one's awareness. Not many people study and analyze their own awareness.

Hehe.  I'm glad to hear that you have access to The Truth now. 

Say... I don't suppose you'd be willing to use your clarity and truthseeing to point out for us when others have been brainwashed, would you?  That would be excellent.

No, not too many people do.

If there were a place the embodies a good number who do, it would be babble. Though of course it runs the spectrum of greater and lesser amounts, awareness of awareness, too.

Here's the thing about brainwashing:  brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed.  Brainwashed people insist that they're not brainwashed.  And that's what makes it one of the most brilliant conversation-killers EVER.

#1:  "I hold such and such an opinion"

#2:  "you've just been indoctrinated to hold that opinion!"

#1:  "uh, no, it's my opinion"

#2:  "of course you say that... that's just the indoctrination talking!"

[/end all dialog]

Here is the thing, brainwashed people can come to know that they are, and start eradicating it within themselves, and where they participate socially.

Once it is indicated people start examining, whether they admit to it or not, is another thing.

Perhaps men do not see it as much within themselves and other men, as women today, can quite easily see the brainwashing to the patriarchial norm that is pushed upon us, as it impacts us directly. And usually negatively. Unlike the positive benefits some men get from it.

However, patriarchy is just as much a control mechanism for men as it is for women. God forbid a majority align together against the centuries old elite hegemony, of pinky and the brains, out to rule the world.

All of what you said is true, but you're probably a white guy, which means you aren't really entitled to an opinion unless of course it perfectly fits the opinions of your progressive betters, you are evil, and even if you haven't really done anything evil, you are only one step away from it.

So...should we not have more sympathy for the poor indoctrinated and brainwashed trolls?

Ohhhhh, that is so cute, trying to play the victim, while white man's opinions are the only thing we ever hear in the majority.

The rest of your commentary is just as much "poor us we are so hard done by" tripe, as that was above so will not bother addressing it

And when they've figured things out they can say "I'm not brainwashed". Just like everyone else says they're not brainwashed. 

So then how will we know when someone has really shaken off the bonds of indoctrination, and when they're just deluded into thinking that they have?

May I suggest that the test should be whether they do or don't agree with Remind? Since she's already proven that she thinks for herself, by claiming to think for herself, that should be reliable and impartial, yes?

Oh snert you are just as cute, as yarg.

It is quite apparent through interpersonal discourse and dialogue, where another exists in the spectrum of awareness of awareness.

Ok, how about an example. Are those of who support legalization of prostitution brainwashed and indoctrinated?

But then, why leave it all to her in the process?

I think you make a good point regarding women Remind.  

As I said before we all have a life that we have inherited, some find no need to question that life, perhaps because the status quo is going their way but some of us do, some of us find ourselves diminished by the status quo and we do question it and we find that there are lies upon lies spun everyday just to keep us in our place.

You could take this question back to a thread it belongs in, I have no intention of dragging that debate into this subject thread.

However, we could look at how women  have been taught to believe they have to be superwomen, work full time, do all the cooking and  housework, and look after the children and all their needs, while their alleged "partner" goes fishing, sledding,  off roading, to the bar, etc etc...

Or indeed any of the other indoctrinations that are imposed upon women and girls.

For men we could look at how they are taught they are supposed to be "manly men", the tall studly good looking hero to one and all, and if they don't manage it then they are less in their own eyes too.

We've ALL been indoctrinated - that's what 'education' is all about these days - and then the media reinforces it, and your 'peers' who accept it all without reservation and don't care much for anyone who questions whatever the central dogma is, and your already-indoctrinated parents and older 'role-models' etc - it's just that some of us, for various reasons, manage to wake up at some point and start to fight it - I was well into my 30s before I started to understand any of this, and I had been an 'outcast' for many years before that (long-haired hippie musicion etc during the 60s in small-town Ontario - a thoroughly indoctrinated mileau). It's a bit like being an alcoholic - denial is always the first step - but you can never get cured until you admit you have a problem. It's not a matter of I am right and you are wrong about any particular issue - we can disagree about all kinds of things - the difference is, the indoctrinated person does not actually think about whatever the issue is, examine all sides and come to their own conclusion, they just believe whatever they have been taught to believe - and in an essentially knee'jerk reaction, mock those who dare disagree with the dogma they have all been taught. The 911 situation is a good example - anyone who has actually examined this situation and thought about it sees clearly the 'official conspiracy theory' is full of holes and obvious lies - the indoctrinated citizen follows the official line as fed them by their media every day.  

FWIW, wikipedia's take on indoctrination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

From the wiki article caissa linked to...thanks caissa.

The criteria I use is when people make statements where the contradiction is obvious to others but not to them. Brainwashing/manipulation/conditioning is a conditioned or learned response. We can uncondition and unlearn our and the behaviors of others by first recognizing it, asking thought provoking questions about our thoughts and behaviors and then consciously learning the thoughts, ideas, values and behaviors that we ideally wish to espouse and engage in.

Snert, you obviously have no idea of what 'indoctrination' is all about - the problem with getting too much 'information' from comic books and Saturday morning cartoons, I suppose, and the resultant shallow, black-and-white 'thinking' that results (in other words, being a card-carrying member of the indoctrinated masses - why would indoctrinators tell the indoctrinated about the process?!?). Modern indoctrination is very, very sophisticated, and is not directed at individuals directly, but at large groups of individuals - the population of Canada, for instance. Within this large group, it is not necessary to micro-manipulate the thoughts or actions of everyone, all you need to do is control a majority - and, with full media control, you ensure that anything contrary to the indoctrination that might tend to make some of the more intelligent question some things is kept off the mainstream airways or newspapers. The indoctrinated majority, not overly intelligent to begin with, are very used to the idea of taking their beliefs from the mainstream media, and the 'experts' allowed thereon or in, and it is easy enough to marginalize or ignore those few who dare to question the accepted dogma. When elections are held, the indoctrinated masses elect puppet politicians, who do as the behind-the-scenes rulers wish, and again, appear to have the 'approval' of some arguable majority - all reinforced by the media, of course. Indoctrination does not go to every aspect of life - as long as you stay in the box, you are 'free' to do all kinds of things, have all kinds of beliefs - but some things are out of bounds. For instance, Snert - how much do you know of the money creation process in our country? This is obviously of very great importance - and yet most people know next to nothing, and evidence no curiosity about their ignorance - and turn away quickly when someone tries to interest them in this process. This is indoctrination at work. Or you are free to argue about which political party you like, and why party X is better than party Y, who are just a gang of corrupt fascists / socialists (take your pick) - but you are not allowed to question the very legitimacy of the party system - that is, again, indoctrination. 

LOL! A rodeo bullrider has to stay on the back of a bull for at least 8 seconds. You managed to remain consistent with yourself for about 3 seconds.

And here's the inevitable shut-down. "Pay no attention to Snert, he's INDOCTRINATED!". I certainly won't bother protesting, since that too would just be proof of indoctrination, right? In fact, the more one protests, the deeper that indoctrination must be!

Here's the thing: any position that you could describe as "indoctrination" is also a position that one could arrive at through reason and reflection. And you have no way of differentiating, so you say "it's indoctrination".

Your first quote above ("It's not a matter of I am right and you are wrong...") isn't really honest if you're going to then turn around and say "If you believe this thing that's different from what I believe, that's proof of your brainwashing". But if you sleep easier at night believing that everyone except you and those who believe what you believe have been brainwashed then 'pleasant dreams' and all that.

Exactly, where discontinuity is apparent, there you will find indoctrination occuring.

Linking to nbeltov's thread about direct instances of it

C'mon, snert, name-calling isn't debate. Tell me why you know nothing whatsoever about where Canadian money comes from, and how that proves you are not indoctrinated.

I didn't call you any names.

Fascinating! A "reverse onus" clause on indoctrination.

Ya, no thanks. If you sleep better believing that people who don't share your beliefs are 'indoctrinated' then pleasant dreams.

Well that is kinda of an oxymoron, no?

How can one sleep better if one knows a dangerous amount of people are brainwashed and indoctrinated?

I know many First Nations peoples, who live on remote Reserves and never leave, because of their experiences at the hands of indoctrinated white people.

And to claim  white people are not indoctrinated into their supremacy beliefs is nonsensical.Too much documented evidence otherwise. And too many programs developed to combat it.

Also, I think too much of people, to  believe they, in majority, go around being racist and sexist on purpose to hurt and exploit people.

That is uttlerly amazing. All I can say is that at this point in her life, maybe it's best not to say very much to her about why she's so wrong about the corporatocracy being good for their victims. She needs medical help and to try to survive the cancer. Perhaps if and when she's recovered from the ordeal, then would be a good time to let her have it if she ever brings it up again. Is this what will become of all of us at some point, simple living Eloi bred to be food and sacrificed at the corporate altar?

Arthur Frayn: It was I who led you to the 'Wizard of Oz' book! Ha-hah, it was I who gave you access to the Stone! It was I!
[a chime is heard]
Arthur Frayn [56]: I bred you! I led you!
Zed [57]: And I have looked into the face of the force that put the idea in your mind. You are bred, and led, yourself.

Snert, seeing people like you brag about their indoctrination certainly does not help me sleep easier at night. The arrogance and stupidity of people like you are making yourself out to be are allowing the rulers of this country to destroy what all of our ancestors worked so hard to create. You needs a good shakin, boy. As for your clever little 'reverse indoctrination', if you could manage to think for yourself, you would understand that indoctrination leads you not only to think certain things (what a great democracy we have in Canada!!), but to avoid thinking about other things altogether. Such as the money supply - a very obvious scam, that most people are completely oblivious to. Not accidentally. But a non-indoctrinated person should understand this - maybe disagree with what I say, but at least understand it. But not wanting to look at it at all - and bragging about that - well, what would you call it? 

Siamdave, I agree with what you and others are saying, but let's not go here okay?

Yarg that's very inappropriate.  cut it out.

Snert, just because someone's being a jerk to you doesn't mean you get to pay it forward.

.

Whoa. Now there's an insult!

I'm not following. What are you referring to??

To reiterate what remind said at post #38 , I have no problems identifying that I have been taught, and have absorbed, racist, sexist, classist and other oppressive mindsets. I live from the standpoint that I will never, in fact, be free of such ideas and thoughts (and behaviours) and that it's a lifetime commitment of mine to work on this.

Not being able to imagine a world in which there are no armed police, no capitalism, no prisons, no poverty, all of which I'm truly incapable of constructing, even in my own head, except in brief flashes, are all examples of the ways in which I cannot break free of how I've been taught about "The Way The World (or Canada) Must Be Run."

Admitting or acknowledging that we have internalized the lies, and believe them, is only the first step.

Why is this necessary?

It's not.  And I'd like it to stop.

the problem I see with this topic and the reason it draws those that seem to live more in the internet world than the real world, is this idea that it's a shadowy elite behind the curtain rubbing their hands together with a devious plan to control everyone, rather than a total random evolution of ideas and technology that have led us here, there are no super human or reptiles disguised as human with a big plan to control the future of the world, just regular people like you and me in a system that we ended up with - it was not planned

the law of unintended consequences and the most common human traits - selfishness, laziness and fear are the reason we are where we are

Yeah, because the rest of us posting in this thread never actually, you know, leave the house.

Due to our fear of super-humans and reptiles disguised as humans.

sorry if I insulted anyone, i've just had it with conspiracy theories

Speaking of reptiles, humans who desire power continually strives to expand upon what exists, where the acquisition of power itself becomes the motivational element because in remaining stagnant, or to merely protect what has already been accumulated, the risk arises of being overcome by more voracious predators.  This tireless dynamic of survival of the fittest forms the basis upon which capitalism is inflicted upon us.  For these reptiles, humanity is the prey.

There was a CBC News special on cancer a few years ago. Cancer specialists from the US and Canada spoke about a need for governments to release more information about industrial pollution. And they all agreed that there seemed to be a real battle going on between cancer specialists and governments for the release of what is decades of studies that have produced reams of data on the subject but is never released to those requesting it. The US doctor said they will always recommend that people quit smoking and to eat less dairy and drink less alchohol etc. But those products, the specialists tend to strongly agree, simply can not be at the root cause of the growing cancer epidemic in North America they have observed over the last 50 or so years.

US doctor of public health, Devra Davis, told Peter Mansbridge in a One on One conversation that the US government suppressed knowledge of the health hazards of tobacco and various industrial solvents for many years. This was information that Nazi scientists brought with them to the English speaking countries when they were brought to the west and provided jobs in government and private industry after WW II.

Fidel, are you referring to Operation Paperclip?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Yes, Paperclip. And many of Himmler's SS were hired to run the spy ops out of West Germany after the war. Anyway, Devra Davis talks about "the war on cancer" which began at the time of the Nixon regime. Chemical industries, like big tobacco has done to stave off regulation of that industry, have waged an effective counter-war on the war on cancer ever since. Our governments talk about treating cancer, and funding cancer treatments. But they rarely ever talk about cancer prevention. That would be to go against the big oil and associated petrochemical companies producing the toxic waste. Besides the very toxic oil sands projects distribution pipeline system polluting hell out of everything from Alberta to the Great Lakes region, the US is shipping somewhere over 600,000 metric tonnes of toxic waste to Canada for "processing" in the GTA and Montreal areas every year. There are crimes being committed, and I think the mafia are gettting contracts to dispose of some of the stuff here in North America. It's cheaper and more profitable than foisting it on thirdworld capitalist countries in some cases. People all around the Great Lakes region with bad health, and the results are there in the fish and other wildlife.

Government (in the U.S.A. and Canada) are newcomers to the world of spin/manipulation/conditioning through the medium of television (ever since 1990 - First Iraq Gulf War - for the U.S.A and 2006 - election of the Harper administration - for Canada) but 50 years of commercial advertizing (spin/manipulation/conditioning) on television has paved the way.

Now that I have mentioned this, does anybody see it?

For sure, FrmrSldr. I can still remember the Hill&Knowlton mind fuck in the US., the "nurse Nayirah" bs to convince Americans that they needed to wage medieval siege against a desert nation for ten years in softening them up for shock and awe over Baghdad. And Mulroney-baloney and Chretien pretty much gutted the CBC from stern to stem. We have more media concentration here than in the USSA. Most countries promote a little domestic book publishing and selling. Not our stooges. Yanks sell books and magazines, and our little Pananma du Nord sans Polar bears buys the American content. They sell we buy. The bastards hate anything that's publicly-owned and stands a chance of broadcasting the truth about their US-friendly and corporate friendly shananigans in the colonial outpost of Ottawa.

Wonderfull topic!!

Ya, I see what you are saying FrmSldr. And I can get on board with it too, with a little codicile that perhaps there is an element in our society that is driving people's opinions to favour consumption and capitalism. That element gets it's message across to those people who are attending University, the ambitious ones, those who will become leaders in our society, and from whom most other people pick up their opinions from just because they are respected. In that, it appears to be a natural, unplanned, shift towards accepting the capitalist rules, but maybe there is a little shove to go with it.

The story at the top grabbed me. Those women with cancer who ACCEPT it as "for the greater good" are obviously they types who are just willing to go along with the crowd. In that, what Frmr Sldr says it right - people really DO want to just do whatever we all do, as in herd mentality is most comfortable. That is probably an ancient survival trait that got humans through the past 150,000 years or so.

Herd mentality is also a handy tool to latch on to if powerfull people were wanting to create a world of eager consumers, but you might be right it isn't that way, it just happened to turn out this way BECAUSE of the herd mentality. Lets just say that herd mentality helped to create the McD syndrome where we feel good about predictable things, so we all do the same things.

On the other hand there are those of us who buck the trends and see trends as folly. We often live uncomfortable lives.

Trend buckers, unite against the hoi polloi... it's sooo lonely at the top...

Noah, in respect to your bucking trends, and herd mentality, I tend to see it more as  energy in motions is.  Anywhere from bell curves to sharp spikes.

Those who are at the top  pinnacle, of the spike, or bell curve, first, hit the trough at the bottom of the wave, first too. ;)

From an Amazon review of Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda":

http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Formation-Attitudes-Jacques-Ellul/dp/03...

"... Published in 1965, this book is a significant, if creepy study of that oft-misunderstood concept of propaganda. The references are unfortunately dated, but the insights are valuable, especially given how much propaganda is ignored in American society, particularly. It's not an easy read by any means, mostly because he throws so much at you at once you're sort of left punch-drunk. He lays it all out forthrightly.

The most terrible revelation he offers is when he points out that the most informed individuals (in the sense of consuming the most media) are the most propagandized (but unaware of being so). This is why this book doesn't get more play -- it would put the Massive Media and the "public relations" (aka, propaganda industry) out of business if people understood their real social role.

The book is bleak, and leaves you reeling. But it does provide intellectual ammunition -- namely, critical thinking -- as a hopeful vaccination from propaganda, except for Ellul's statement that people who think propaganda doesn't affect them tend to be propagandized....

I guess the safest thing you can do is assume you are a victim of propaganda, and then deal with it by sorting out what opinions are genuinely yours, and what are the result of "conventional wisdom" and "common sense". The alternative is to pretend you're somehow immune. ..."

There seems to be an underlying assumption of 'Propaganda and indoctrination? Sure, they happen - but never to me!!' - but how many have actually done as the above writer suggested, and examined their beliefs to see which were actually the product of reason and thought, and which are just 'things everybody knows' or something, that may be somewhat less 'true' than they have been assuming? - rather than engaging in  denial through smartass comments of various sorts, anything but facing the question? As someone said, the truth can indeed be scary - but in the end liberating.

Crisis in the Post Industrial Age: Welcome to Role Play

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15885

"the question is now not whether the information society is real, but rather how to define its still forming structure, what are the contradictions that determine the dynamics of its development...?"

This is so true, and it is a constant struggle, when one knows the internalized propaganda is rearing its head, and fails to realize it until it is too.

So many women, I know, just repeat the male mantra propaganda, and give it no second, let alone first though. Indeed I find my self upon occasion framing things in patriarchial  and colonial conceptual thinking too.

We are so triggered by word and phrase use, that we do not see, the underlaying message and emotional trigger. Thus it becoomes even more entrenched and hard to dislodge.

Maybe in a different sort of way we can say we are sleeping in effect, by the things going on around us, that we would rather not have to deal with them. Of course, Naomi Klein and the Shock Doctrine helps to elucidate what is going on in some cases where new policies are implemented while we remain unawares of what is going on?

Governments elected given the mandate to do what ever they please?

I think this basically captures what it is "that has to happen." Fortunately, it doesn't have to be just at that time of such a transition that we would assign "discovery only then." You really do have to look for it. I mean, we are products of our upbringing reiterating what our parents voices speak when they reverberate out our own mouths, based on,  the way we were raised.

It doesn't have to be that way in trying to dislodge this aspect of our up bringing other then to realize that our parents were human beings, doing exactly what we are doing. Now given this insight for change toward the current society, how is it one can offer an "adult to adult" exchange without falling into the traps of "our parent's voices, our childhood" that we come face to face with, the possibility of change?

It's not alway easy to let go, and to recognized the attributes that are speaking at any one time. It can be an emotive struggle within our selves, or an intellectual one, or even a spiritual clamouring toward seeking those deeper truths.

[84]Ring of Power by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.

Emotions really should have no place in it, and I think that  is where I often go wrong, as do others...

I am not sxure  too many grapple with deeper truths, they can't handle the surface ones.

It shouldn't, but you wouldn't be human if you thought you could dispense with emotions.

Richards Wagners's Ring of Nibelung Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. Ring of Power was interesting. Strange that we could have seen A Jungian Understanding of the Wagners Ring cycle, portrayed in todays world and how could have this been accomplished. But by re-introducing a fictional story and imbuing it with the archetypal structures of what Jean Shinida Bolen called, "The Abandon Child, The Authoritarian Father, and the Disempowered Feminine."

You learn to understand a peculiar language. On first take, its not always apparent, but then you realize the myths that have been handed down. The dynamics of the family.

Yes, the dynamics of family....for those who existed within the "traditional" bonds of it.

For those that did not,  watching others dwell in patriarchy, for example, is sad and fascinating at the same time.

A Depraved, Violent and Indifferent Culture

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/11/depraved-violent-and-indiff...

"Kill that woman! - Again, Still, Always.."

By our very own nature one would believe possibly that the hierarchical structure of the brain matter can lead to a "more evolve human being?" How will our brains evolve given the mental capabilities we now use in this communication medium? A human being with a heighten awareness of that primitive aspect of who we are, while one moves to a more heighten awareness of the circumstances we are holding too?

How entangled can any moment be in an emotive state( one never ends dealing with it) that we might say I will not think this way again, too readjust how we experience the same situation over and over again, to recognize, a rearrangement of how we will meet experience?

So of course it is about education and understanding how we are "entangled beings" constituting aspect of the structural family and by individualisms we become aware of how these things work inside, to realize, that they work in society in dealing with each other. There is a prescribe goal toward how we want to talk to each and help each other to progress forward toward realization about how we can truly end sleeping our way through life.

Marketers get people to act against their own best interest:

http://richgrad.com/how-to-influence-anyone-to-do-anything/

http://wakalix.com/booknotes/Cialdini_interview.html [92]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#Six_.E2.80.9CWeapons_of_Inf... [93]

Things are more complicated than this. There is a huge increase in right brain activity, in general, among people and children exposed to advertising. I mean activity in which a person's critical faculties are turned off.  Understand? This is not a good thing ... especially when it comes to being able to evaluate the claims of advertisers.

It is not a good thing, and I would go beyond corporate advertisers with this, and move it into the territory of  "professionals" laying claims to know too, also in ads.

I mean we have Dr Ho advertising all night, and the Nip and tuck Drs mid afternoon, for example, and  bankers knowing what is best for us to do, in advertisements and in segments on the news,  CGA's are the only ones who know ads,  Chiropractors are only know what is good for your body, physiotherapists are the only ones who know refuting Chiros, etc...

Baa, baa, baa. 

Thanks, N.Beltov. Jill Bolte Taylor and her brain are a marketing wonder. She is a speaker at TED, which has not been very challenging of late.

In her TED video, the brain she handles so clinically is reported to have belonged to her best friend. 

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight....

Jill is a spokesperson for NAMI. NAMI gets 3/4 of its funding from drug manufacturers. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/22nami.html?_r=3 [97]

Authorities? Bah, bah, bah. 

Thanks, remind, edited to add full name. 

who is Jill?

Jill?  Link above, brain scientist that had a stroke and talks about it at TED.

oh  thank you had forgotten that

Canadian cartoonist Aislin weighs in on the marketing of trends - including H1N1 - in his

Thursday, Nov. 5 2009 cartoon:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html#

Sure, let's see the information.

(Just a quick note here. I actually click for the first time Remind's link to brain washing 101 [103]and now see where you are coming from. Sorry, never bothered to look at that thread.)

Second, I am not sure how you think I would condone turning off faculties while examining the processes of right/left brain thinking.

Obviously, you missed the point. It's sort of like stepping back and seeing the bigger picture. As far as,  selling of snake oil, it was more an "examination of perspective," and how one might dig deeper. Actually, wake up.

I have a track record in regards to healthcare and what I think here, and it's certainly not opinions that support homotherapeutic treatments to H1N1. Those were cheap shots.

If one thought what I was saying was inappropriate, I can fix that....

Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by experts. - Thomas Jefferson

removed for consistency

the activists toolkit

Rabble has one  - a great idea but there is not much in it.

The Long Gaze of the State:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10302009.html

"Concern with sexual behaviour has nothing to do with sex but everything to do with policy. American sexual prudery is part of political and social policy within the nominally legal context of supposed individual freedoms..."

Bob Altemeyer - The Authoritarians 

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

"...you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research. 

   For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.

  Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.

If, on the other hand, you’re way ahead of me, and believe the extreme right-wing elements in America are still working to take over the country despite the recent election--nay because of it--I think you can still get a lot from this book. The authoritarians aren’t going away.

        The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?

     I think you’ll find this book “explains a lot.” Many scattered impressions about the enemies of freedom and equality become solidified by science and coherently connected here."

I agree with remind on this but there is one thing that people should know.  Clusters of cancer (or any other illness) are a normal random thing.  It is in no way proof that sour gas burn off has anything to do with the clusters.   Even doctors get confused about random clustering.  If you got the cancers exactly spread out across an area,  that would be a bigger statistical anomoly than the clusters that you describe.  The science of random clusters is pretty well advanced but it takes a lot of computer power to tell random clusters from cause-effect clusters.

We do not have that power intuitively.   It is necessary to number crunch on a province wide basis before cause effect can even be hinted at from cluster data.

Thanks tigana....

I'm so sorry to hear this, remind.

The question of whether cancer is associated with sour gas flares is controversial only because of a lack of funding to study the question properly.

Sour gas flares are known to be among the most dangerous acute exposures that any Canadian workers can be faced with. It is also known that long-term exposure causes neurological damage and can also result in spontaneous abortion and many other serious health consequences.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/03/23/Sour_Gas_The_Smell_of_Money/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7814093 [112] 

These authors claim that the Canadian Cancer Surveys reveal elevated rates for many cancers in areas of western Canada with significant flaring activity -- including not only sour gas but even sweet gas flares. From their data, cancer of unknown primary is extremely prevalent, amost four times what it should be. This kind of cancer may be associated with multiple exposures. This fits with what we know about flaring and the many different toxins it releases.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/oil-and-gas-exploration/soss-oil-and-gas-flaring.pdf [113] (38-pg PDF)

Crunchy enough for me. 

But not enough to prove anything scientifically. 

It seems that the Harper administration and many of its opponents are on the same footing about science.

Scientifically,  gut feelings are meaningless unless your are checking for wind in the bowels.

(I think the sour gas is causing damage (not necessarly the cancers) ) and there is probably enough info available to prove it.  But proper analysis of the data must be done first.   

About 15 years ago, a medical doctor in ireland decided that a cluster of downs syndrome babys in a seaside town was proof that selafield nuclear plant caused the cluster.  National media got hold of it and ireland became a joke in scientific circles for years after because nobody listened to reason.

There was absolutely no scientific basis for the claim.  None whatsoever.  We eventually recovered our scientific self respect and science was used to analyse lung cancer deaths and help decide where special radon proof plastics should be put under house foundations.

(People die of lung cancer from radioactive radon)

Do they put radon barriers under houses in granite areas in Canada?

There is an entire branch of science devoted to cluster analysis and sorting clusters caused by something out from the background of random clusters.

But because of entrenched thought processes, indoctrination and brain washing, people do not need proper proof, they just jump to the nearest conclusion.

The nearest conclusion might be wrong.  It has to be tested properly.

Thanks tricia... and interesting reading...

Brian White, by the standard of certainty that you want to apply, tobacco does not cause lung cancer; at least, that is, or was for many decades, the tobacco industry's position.

You say that there is "probably" enough evidence to show that there is health "damage" associated with sour gas flares. This is incorrect. In fact it has been incontrovertibly domonstrated that these emissions can be fatal to workers who are exposed to them. When workers live, they often suffer long-term neurological damage manifested in many different ways. This is a known fact. Tragically, there are also reproductive effects, proven to the standard of certainty that you are citing -- scientific causation, or 99% certainty.

It is easier to prove a causal link regarding the short-term consequences of exposure, because it is not only common sense but also medically recognized that when an identifiable adverse health event preceeds a health consequence, when it is physiologically plausible that the two are connected, then more than likely, absent a better explanation, they are.

Cancer is also pysiologically -- ie scientifically -- compatible with long-term exposure to flare emissions, which contain over 250 identified toxins including not only carbon dioxide, methane and particulate matter (smoke), but benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthlene, mercury, arsenic, chromium, and for sour gas flares, supher dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and carbon disulfide. Flares are so hot that nothing will grow in their area.

http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/nigeria/cases/case-documents/nigeria/report/section7/doc7.1.pdf (6-pg PDF, see p.2)

The difficulty in establishing causation wrt cancer is that cancer is multi-factorial; many things can cause cancer, and the more of those things that a person is exposed to, the more likely they are to develop it. Cancer is a long-latency disease, so a population must be studied for 20, 30 or more years before the full excess incidence will be seen; at that remove it is difficult or impossible to accurately estimate each person's exposures, both to the emisssions being studied, and to other "lifestyle" (such as diet and smoking), environmental (including radon in clay soils), or occupational confounders. The size of the cohort must be large enough so that the results are statistically significant. Any changes in the industry during the period can also be taken into account -- to the extent that it is legitimately possible to do so, and beyond.

This takes a lot of money, over time, and it takes political will, both of which you can hopefully agree may be lacking wrt studies that would damage the oil and gas industry. This goes to the problem that was pointed out above: there is no "scientific" proof one way or the other, because no one has apparently looked for it -- although it begs the question why not, when oil and gas are rich industries; surely if it could be shown conclusively that these exposures are not harmful, the funding would have been extended and the evidence published long ago. Secondly, even when adequate studies are undertaken in good faith, there are so many assumptions required to produce a result that it is normal to see divergent results. It often takes many studies with meta-analysis over time, interpreted with the benefit of evolving scientific understanding, before a conclusive outcome can be reached.

Furthermore, there are separate questions to be addressed in considering the cause of a specific individual's cancer. The primary site of the cancer and cancer type must be determined, and this is sometimes possible only through autopsy. It is necessary to outline the individual's chronic exposures -- a complex question on its own -- as well as any acute exposures such as may result from fires. This information is routinely supressed by employers in which case it can only be established through a full-scope community hygeine investigation. The family history of cancer will be reviewed along with the question of whether a positive family history of cancer may be attributable to the same exposure history. In some cases, a person may have had gestational exposure, if they were born in the area. There may be other related exposures -- for example, mesothelioma is present in many oil and gas workers, caused by exposure to friable asbestos, and those fibres can also be present in the local environment and carried on clothing into the home. There are other medicolegal questions -- eg. if a person has a predisposition to cancer, less exposure may be needed to trigger a tumour in that person.

People living around gas flare activity can't wait for another twenty or thirty years until these questions are conclusively addressed. They are not offered inquests to address their specific circumstances. People are living their lives in these conditions, they are having children there and their children grow up under these conditions. They are not able to sell their houses, or they have no alternative source of income. They are dying now, and trying to make sense of their lives.

Yes, remind, I never could understand the timeless questions in philosophy, is our existence determined, and to what degree does free will enter the picture. After looking at the determining social and historical factors from psychology, sociology and history, I never could understand the degree to which people still agonized over the question.  Our lives are absolutely determined by myriad factors.

The chap dynamiting the pipelines taking gas from those sour gas deposits is exhibiting a degree of freedom still exists...for him. He  would not have to do it, of course, if enough people saw the relationship between their situation and the chain of life situations that brought it about. A whole host of people were involved in finding that gas and bringing it to production. And all the way up the chain they've complied with the demands of their job, which was itself a product of historcal developments, technological and demographic.

I think that we are forced to experience such things (it's leakage of chemicals from industry into the groundwater  over this way) because people do not put it in historical context, and imagine that freedom is expressed only in the narrow context of their own lives...history, schmistory, sort of reaction. This breeds the libertarian idea, which now creeps into left dialogue, with people demanding - yes, insisting on - their own freedom (presented as "rights").  And then, looking around, we see old Leo Strauss came to this point and fell back on "natural right" from his own area of study, classical Greek society.

"Nothing that I have learned has shaken my inclination to prefer "natural right," especially in its clasic form, to the reigning relativism, politivist or historicist. "  Liberals, says Strauss, choose the "uninhibited cultivation of individuality"  on a "demonstrably false premise, namely, that men can know what is good."  And then he sets about to argue, in 323 pages, that it is "superior individuals" who can and must lead.

That's the dominant prevailing moral and political sentiment, linked to industry and the corporation.  And it's not easily challenged,  just as the oil patch continues on its way in spite of world opinion that it is a pathological product of technical development - the internal combustion engine. And we rail against it, even while enjoying the freedom of the ride.

Please pardon my going all philosophical on a question rising out of people's deaths. But I have been watching the process in another rather close-up for a decade now, and I've had to turn to history for answers, or go bonkers. And all I'm saying, finally, is that it is too damned bad that folks can't bring that perspective to understanding what hits them.  We might be able to mitigate the effects of some of the worst features of modern industrial capitalism.

Science is well aware of the damageing effects of sour gas H2S etc. You are free to run with that aspect of it and I commend you for that and I think you can win on that basis. 

But if you decide to include cancer clusters, you are on very shaky ground.   Scientifically it detracts from your case.  By all means try and have it looked into by the right people.  The right people will be qualified in that field of science. Mahtematics and statictical anylisis.

But in my view you would be much better spending you efforts publicizing  known damaging effects of sour gas. (I believe there are lots of them)

The government might get medical people to investigate cancer clusters and most likely they will be in over their heads.  To do it proberly, you would need a team with someone expert in industrial quality assurance, mathematicians and some medical experts.  It is not as easy as you think or as the government thinks.

With the current governments, they will not appoint that type of team.

Just my opinion.   We started cluster analysis in quality control class years ago.  It is not for the faint hearted.

George Victor - thank you for your eloquence and uncommon common sense. 

triciamarie - excellent synthesis of information - more please!

let's continue over here to save my dial up connection