Well I can attest to experiencing similar feelings when talking to certain individuals. Somehow communicating online is much easier for me, like in a forum such as this, because I usually have relatively good mental clarity and am able to express myself and think critically (at least as much as I ever could), and remember details and make all sorts of mental connections to explain what I am trying to say and why I'm saying it and why it makes sense. But when speaking to someone face to face, I sometimes feel an inexplicable sense of confusion and mental "denseness", where I can't even back up my own points in any coherent way, and the other's person plausible statements, no matter how unlikely, always seem to sound more "sane" and things I say somehow sound insane, even to myself.
For example, I may say that US/Israeli governments are most likely responsible for 911, and can even back this statement up, except on occasion with certain people I feel so intimidated (without them actually doing anything visibly intimidating), for no apparent reason, and when they tell me that I'm wrong and then tell me why, I am mentally helpless to argue, and so they always end up sounding much more reasonable and valid, and I end up frustrated and confused as I try to figure out why is it that what I'm saying is not making sense to me, and what they are saying is so much more "logical" at that moment. I can feel that there is something terribly wrong, because I knew that what I was saying was perfectly logical and reasonable and backed up by facts, but somehow all this logic/reason/evidence evaded me, like it was never really there in the first place.
And Laura, you wrote an excellent article in your blog regarding plausible lies, and from my experience, some people have this magical ability to artificially "fudge" probabilities. What I mean is, they take what is highly improbable when you look at all the evidence and use common sense, and then they use some sort of reasoning/logic that ends up making me literally think that what they are saying is actually reasonable and very probable, and I end up being dumbfounded and confused as to why I ever had a different opinion! It is only upon reflection, when I'm by myself again, when I can SEE that what they were saying was based on merely plausible scenarios that were highly unlikely based on the available evidence, and simply common sense. But somehow common sense and that evidence evaded my mind while I was with the person, and THEIR "common sense" became my common sense for the moment.
I could never really explain this phenomenon, and this is a very major reason why I generally don't talk about this stuff anymore in real life, but only online. I've never had this dumbfounding/confusion/loss of clarity effect online, and when someone made unreasonable arguments in a forum or a chatroom, I usually saw them and was able to point them out and understand why they are "unreasonable" and what evidence suggests this etc. Even if I couldn't, I still retained my common sense and did not experience this confusion/befuddlement and intimidation, I simply did not have enough evidence to suggest one way or another.
And this experience makes me sympathize greatly with the average person who hears Bush talk about the evil and great terrorist threat on TV. It is so plausible and sounding, it sounds so logical, that it's simply hard for an uncritical mind to see what's wrong with these statements! And more than that, stuff like the spying on Americans also tends to get a reasonable explanation, a believable and plausible explanation that COULD be true. And somehow, just because there is some chance that it MAY be true, our minds end up artificially "fudging" this probability and making it more probable than it really is. So as long as something is within the realm of probability and plausibility, the actual amount of probability and plausibility can easily be distorted by those who know how. It's not so easy to make people believe the obviously implausible (unless the knowledge of what makes it implausible is kept from them that is), which is what is so frustrating about these lies - they are all perfectly plausible and take some serious critical thinking and lots of digging to see that they are actually not as probable as they at first seemed - but that lack of absolute certainty way way or another seems to be a serious problem for most people. We're so used to wishful thinking and working in absolutes (good vs evil, right vs wrong, true vs false) that we tend to believe the most improbable things as long as they are still plausible, as long as there is no absolute proof to refute them. Many people LOVE to just say "Oh yeah? Well PROVE IT!" and then they expect some irrefutable proof to be dropped on their lap, which simply does not exist, nor will it ever! And because there IS no absolute proof (and many people don't realise this), our own ignorance of that makes us assign the status of "truth" to what is only a plausible possibility, no matter how truly improbable it may be, or so it seems to me anyway. Isnt' that why religion is still so popular - I mean no one has been able to PROVE that it is wrong or right, and I bet no one will ever be able to because there is no "proof", there is only evidence, logic, and probability based on both. Those who gave it critical thought and looked at all the available evidence on many levels, tend to come to the conclusion that religion is a control mechanism, based on lies and contradictions. But they cannot prove it to anyone, each person must arrive at this conclusion in the same manner, through LOTS of personal effort, research, and lots of thinking. And yet everyone just wants some scientist to miraculously "discover" some absolute proof one way or another and the issue will be settled once and for all. Well they'll have to wait forever for that to happen, osit.
If, as according to the government, we're all supposed to be so afraid of the danger of terrorism, wouldn't it make just as much sense to be even MORE afraid of hurricanes, of house or forest fires, of floods and mudslides and earthquakes, of potential armed robberies, of being raped, of the mafia, etc? I mean, if you take all these things, have they not killed FAR more people than terrorists ever have? And don't they pose a lot more potential danger than terrorism and continue to kill people on a constant basis? Why then does the idea of a bunch of "pissed off muslims bent on hate" terrify the average person so much (regardless of whether it is real or not)? And why don't all those other much more serious and real dangers terrify that person nearly to the same degree!? The government has much more reasonable excuses to spy on us than terrorism, things that have existed for a LONG time and pose a REAL danger to every person in the world that could be potentially prevented by some serious "spying" if they wanted to! So against all logic, they use such a relatively insignificant and such a brand-new global "terrorist threat" to decide to officially and publically spy on us only now!?
That sounds exactly like a phobia - an entirely unreasonable and exaggerated fear of something. And what separates a phobia from a "normal" fear, is that it is fudging the probability - it takes something that is a very minor threat (if at all), and artificially makes it seem like a huge and terrifying immediate danger. It seems that this is EXACTLY what the pathocracy is trying to induce in the nation - a terror-phobia. Because if you have an unreasonable fear, you start acting in unreasonable and extreme ways to try to prevent whatever you're so afraid of from ever happening.
Here is something that Laura mentioned in "the Wave" that I think applies exactly to the threat of terrorism as it did to religion. The same logic that avangelists use to convince you that their religion is true, the government uses to convince us that terrorism is real. And I think it is centered around the "what if it's true" possibility, which is then "fudged" to the point of absurdity to create a "phobia" or a "paranoia", using emotions and circular logic that eventually makes a a susceptible and uncritical mind become dumbfounded, and often submit to the lie.
Recently a parody of door-to-door evangelizing was sent around the internet. It was so exceedingly irreverent that it probably was too shocking for many people to understand how truly enlightening it was. For those who may not have seen it, I am going to include it here because it makes very important points that need to be emphasized.
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His as?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the sh*t out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the sh*t out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the sh*t of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the desk of Karl
1) Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2) Use alcohol in moderation.
3) Kick the sh*t out of people who aren't like you.
4) Eat right.
5) Hank dictated this list Himself.
6) The moon is made of green cheese.
7) Everything Hank says is right.
8) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9) Don't use alcohol.
10) Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11) Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the sh*t out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the sh*t out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John:( He's shouting.) "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." (Mary faints.)
John: (He catches Mary.) "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the sh*t out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Laura then comments:
Did you get it? Did you REALLY get it? And did you see how accurately it portrays the whole religious mindset? Most important, did you notice how "good rules" can be posited for the express purpose of establishing Faith in rules that are not only lies, but are actually detrimental to growth and development? And did you notice how cleverly this little skit actually captured the dynamic of the "true believer?"
More than that, the totally illogical and nonsensical dynamic of "believe this" or you will be damned, punished or otherwise "left out" of some exclusive club is the essence of STS stalking wherein confusion and cross-purpose prevents a clear perception on the part of the Stalkees.
What is the designed objective of this STALKING? It is two-fold. First, the effect of Stalking is sort of like stampeding a herd of cattle so that they run into a dead end canyon or corral and have no way out. Bit by bit, they are consolidated into an "us against them mode." Even though, on the surface, it may seem that this "mode" is positive or STO, (i.e. save the world because it is "wrong" or flawed, or blighted with original sin or whatever) the very fact that it is formed in the "dominator" mode of perceiving salvation "outside," or from some "other" source no matter how it is presented, means that it can more easily be "taken over" body, mind and soul at a level that is "unseen and unseeable."
Taken from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13a.htm
P.S. - forgot to mention the most "dangerous" people in the world, the governments. Historically the rulers/governments of groups of humans have been responsible for the most atrocities and the most terrible lies and wars. So really, it is against ALL common sense to just assume that they'll always tell the truth. They are the people with the most ability to hurt everyone else, they are in control of everything, including the most powerful weapons in the world, and the most shadowy intelligence networks. So if ever they wanted to, they could wreak a LOT more havoc than terrorists from a cave ever could. So it actually makes sense to constantly spy on THEM and monitor their every move instead of them spying on US - it is them that present a potential threat to us, not vice versa.