Are you going insane? | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Are you going insane?

Distortions in perception are different from emotional distortion. Ie. insanity is not the same as emotional dysfunction.

I think that emotional dysfunction increases as people try to process increasingly incoherent, or contradictory information. The source of fundamental confusion, giving rise to emotional overload may be innate insanity; or increasingly, an over-exposure to insane ideas, without the critical judgement to dismiss the unreal and contradictory elements.


I think extreme pluralism and relativism disable people's ability to dismiss blarney. Also, much hogwash is presented in a style and medium which lowers people's critical judgement. (eg. false, or exaggerated claims as propaganda, advertising, or ideology).

I do not imagine that all the increase in mental health problems is due to our increased exposure to 'too many different opinions'. But I suspect a good deal of dysfunction arises from people trying to get their minds in-sync with artificial notions of reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
I am happy for you. If you do not mind me asking though, what exactly defines "sane" for you?

Sure. Let me run a search in my brain ----->

Well let's write this as i'm thinking. Or rather type in my thought process:

I define sanity as a mentally healthy state of mind, which consists (as our mind is very complex) of different aspects, such as:

The way i see myself; what do i feel about myself, what do i think about myself? Do i truly approve who i am / who i am becoming or am i going in a path that is not one with my heart? (most people really bullshit themselves into wrong turns in life, i strongly try to avoid doing that at all times). I believe that when you choose a path that has a heart it is a sane thing.

The way i see myself in relation to other people; Do i "race" other people in life? am i judging myself and my self value in comparison to other people? Do i let the ego run my social side? Or on the contrary - Am i the one who is running the ego, and do i choose when to race, and when to be at peace? I believe practicing self control is a sane thing.

How do i process fear?; Do i fight, or do i flight? What is fighting and what is fleeing? When i fight am i overly aggressive? When i flee am i overly cowardly? I believe choosing your own fights is a sane thing. I believe fighting with focus rather than with anger and/or hatred is a sane thing.

Am i accomplishing my true goals in life?; Are they even possible to achieve? If not, what can i achieve nonetheless without throwing all my dreams away? I believe aiming for the sun is a sane thing, if you realize you just might hit the moon instead, and be fine with it.

Edit: One more very important thing i would like to add is-

What is my view on humanity?; Do i think we are all just a virus spreading on the earth? Or do i think we are god's finest creation? Am i an extremist in my vision towards existence(like most people)? Or am i sustaining a balanced view on things? I believe knowing choices have consequences and taking responsibility for your actions is a sane thing.
 
Sure. Let me run a search in my brain ----->

Well let's write this as i'm thinking. Or rather type in my thought process:

I define sanity as a mentally healthy state of mind, which consists (as our mind is very complex) of different aspects, such as:

The way i see myself; what do i feel about myself, what do i think about myself? Do i truly approve who i am / who i am becoming or am i going in a path that is not one with my heart? (most people really bullshit themselves into wrong turns in life, i strongly try to avoid doing that at all times). I believe that when you choose a path that has a heart it is a sane thing.

The way i see myself in relation to other people; Do i "race" other people in life? am i judging myself and my self value in comparison to other people? Do i let the ego run my social side? Or on the contrary - Am i the one who is running the ego, and do i choose when to race, and when to be at peace? I believe practicing self control is a sane thing.

How do i process fear?; Do i fight, or do i flight? What is fighting and what is fleeing? When i fight am i overly aggressive? When i flee am i overly cowardly? I believe choosing your own fights is a sane thing. I believe fighting with focus rather than with anger and/or hatred is a sane thing.

Am i accomplishing my true goals in life?; Are they even possible to achieve? If not, what can i achieve nonetheless without throwing all my dreams away? I believe aiming for the sun is a sane thing, if you realize you just might hit the moon instead, and be fine with it.

Edit: One more very important thing i would like to add is-

What is my view on humanity?; Do i think we are all just a virus spreading on the earth? Or do i think we are god's finest creation? Am i an extremist in my vision towards existence(like most people)? Or am i sustaining a balanced view on things? I believe knowing choices have consequences and taking responsibility for your actions is a sane thing.

What is great about your post is the fact that not once did you elude to an idea that sanity is what is defined by the rest of the world or your peers. Sanity for you is your own definition of it. Im not sure if thats the best way yo say it but its what I came up with.

I honestly believe most of the people in the world define their sanity with how well they fit into other peoples and groups vision of it. Example, a church goer goes to church for 15 years apparently happy. One day the church goer decides hes not sure he believes exactly the same as the other people in his church do so he stands up and expresses his thoughts to the rest of them. "I believe most of what you believe but I do not believe this one aspect any more." The priest presiding over the congregation says, "Son we all have doubts from time to time but you must believe all of it if you wish to stay out of hell." Undeterred the faithful church goer pushes the idea he does not believe all of it and that he should not go to hell for not believing in all of it. Overtime, his church community begins to treat him as if he is an outsider though he knows he is the same person and has not changed. With enough pressure overtime, he begins to wonder if he is sane for questioning what they teach because they in subtle ways tell him that he is not.

Here he has a choice to make. Believe in himself or succumb to group pressure. I believe the majority of the people in the world cant or dont think for themselves. That they will always succumb to group pressure because its the easier thing to do. Its nice to know that not everyone is this way.
 
Here he has a choice to make. Believe in himself or succumb to group pressure. I believe the majority of the people in the world cant or dont think for themselves. That they will always succumb to group pressure because its the easier thing to do. Its nice to know that not everyone is this way.

I think a lot of people go along to get along instead of making a stand over things
 
What is great about your post is the fact that not once did you elude to an idea that sanity is what is defined by the rest of the world or your peers. Sanity for you is your own definition of it. Im not sure if thats the best way yo say it but its what I came up with.

I honestly believe most of the people in the world define their sanity with how well they fit into other peoples and groups vision of it. Example, a church goer goes to church for 15 years apparently happy. One day the church goer decides hes not sure he believes exactly the same as the other people in his church do so he stands up and expresses his thoughts to the rest of them. "I believe most of what you believe but I do not believe this one aspect any more." The priest presiding over the congregation says, "Son we all have doubts from time to time but you must believe all of it if you wish to stay out of hell." Undeterred the faithful church goer pushes the idea he does not believe all of it and that he should not go to hell for not believing in all of it. Overtime, his church community begins to treat him as if he is an outsider though he knows he is the same person and has not changed. With enough pressure overtime, he begins to wonder if he is sane for questioning what they teach because they in subtle ways tell him that he is not.

Here he has a choice to make. Believe in himself or succumb to group pressure. I believe the majority of the people in the world cant or dont think for themselves. That they will always succumb to group pressure because its the easier thing to do. Its nice to know that not everyone is this way.

Maybe some (most?) people feel sane when obeying orders. I'm the opposite, when i feel the orders are coming from corrupted liars. And since most people that have positions of power are corrupted liars, i stood my ground throughout all my childhood. I just feel miserable when conforming to an idea that i believe is wrong. I want to find the right way to live.
And by that i mean a life that is with sanity, happiness, balance and sharing. I find step by step the ways to accomplish this best. I still have a long way ahead of me, but i'd much rather fight the waves and find what i seek than to be carried away by the current just to arrive the starting point time after time until i'm old, disappointed, bitter and regretful.
 
What is great about your post is the fact that not once did you elude to an idea that sanity is what is defined by the rest of the world or your peers. Sanity for you is your own definition of it. Im not sure if thats the best way yo say it but its what I came up with.

I honestly believe most of the people in the world define their sanity with how well they fit into other peoples and groups vision of it. Example, a church goer goes to church for 15 years apparently happy. One day the church goer decides hes not sure he believes exactly the same as the other people in his church do so he stands up and expresses his thoughts to the rest of them. "I believe most of what you believe but I do not believe this one aspect any more." The priest presiding over the congregation says, "Son we all have doubts from time to time but you must believe all of it if you wish to stay out of hell." Undeterred the faithful church goer pushes the idea he does not believe all of it and that he should not go to hell for not believing in all of it. Overtime, his church community begins to treat him as if he is an outsider though he knows he is the same person and has not changed. With enough pressure overtime, he begins to wonder if he is sane for questioning what they teach because they in subtle ways tell him that he is not.

Here he has a choice to make. Believe in himself or succumb to group pressure. I believe the majority of the people in the world cant or dont think for themselves. That they will always succumb to group pressure because its the easier thing to do. Its nice to know that not everyone is this way.

Basically you are saying that crazy is a relative term.

In the hypothetical situation you describe, a group will implicitly consider a person crazy if his sense of what is real is different from theirs - which is expressed as negativity. But since crazy is relative, when a person holds that reality is different than what a group holds to be real, he is treating them as crazy and expressing negativity against them.


It seems equitable that an individual may express negativity towards a group, if he is willing to endure that group's negativity.
 
Last edited:
Basically you are saying that crazy is a relative term.

In the hypothetical situation you describe, a group will implicitly consider a person crazy if his sense of what is real is different from them - which is expressed as negativity. But since crazy is relative, when a person holds that reality is different than what a group holds to be real, he is treating them as crazy and expressing negativity against them.


It seems equitable that individuals may express negativity to a group, if he is willing to endure that group's negativity.

Not everyone considers the mentally ill negative...
 
That's an interesting thread with the inevitable sub-topic "What is insanity", so probably there is not much to add.

A few points maybe:

1. Yes, from an outsider's point of view US is way over-medicated, with psychiatrists having an itchy trigger finger for prescriptions. Having an unfortunate experience with my relatives taking neuroleptics, I can safely say that the side effects accumulate like a snowball to a point where the side effects become more serious than the original issue. It's also very difficult, if possible at all, to get rid of the psychological addiction.

I don't think there is a single cause, it's more of an aggregation of causes. Those I can think of:

  • Psychiatrists' fear of litigation. I heard (sorry, can't find the actual reference) about a case when a mentally ill person was released home, killed his family, and later sued the psychiatrist.

    Converting the patient into a vegetable is a safe, foolproof option. And hey, think about it. Did the patient talk about hurting him/herself or others? Then why didn't you try to prevent it? Obviously, your soothing talks were not enough.

    I saw a great movie a few weeks ago, Side Effects. Highly recommended.
  • Puritan morals of the early Americans, combined with the stress on productivity. Anything out of the rigid norm has to be "fixed".

    Today I don't think it's as uniform and close-minded, but the "fix things fast" mindset still seems to be there. Puritanism on its own is a recipe for mental ills (that's from someone who grew up in a more stuck up society, exUSSR).
  • Interests of the pharma companies. Before the age of the pharma there was lobotomy though, therefore I put it only third. Still, pharmas took it to a whole new level. Advertising Prozac is as immoral as advertising alcohol as a means to handle issues. "You can't fix the problem, but you can fix the attitude. Drink alcohol!"

2. What is insanity? Neither the psychiatrists nor the popular culture do anyone favours by throwing this word around with and without reason. Again, having witnessed this, I assure you that the real, actual insanity is neither funny nor romantic nor has any relation to political / religious / etc. views.

Personally, I believe the definition of insanity should be limited to:

  • What @ Flavus Aquila called "distortions in perception". Simply put, seeing and hearing stuff that does not exist in this physical reality (I'm sorry if this offends someone who believes that the mentally ill may live in a superior reality - I live in this one).
  • Emotional dysfunction to the point where the person poses physical threat to him/herself or others.

The rest really should be excluded. I could not care less if people are rambling about conspiracies, absence of conspiracies, political right, left, etc. These are abstract subjects which most of them only know from papers or the net, and even if someone's logic is flawed, the flawed logic is not a mental disorder. Stupid people, people with nasty attitude, people that litter - one may be annoyed with these, but trying to cure the perceived ills of society by mutilating someone's brain is plain immoral and short-sighted.
 
Last edited:
'distortions in perception': i'm not sure that is a good categorisation as i'd say the vast majority of people are suffering from distortions of perception

One thing i've noticed many people do is they project onto reality what they want reality to be instead of looking honestly at what it actually is. This is a distortion of perception and many supposedly 'sane' people do it all the time

'conspiracies': the dictionary definition of a conspiracy is as follows: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful

Ok so whenever a group agree secretly to do something harmful it is a CONSPIRACY. So clearly someone who's perception is not all out of whack can clearly see that conspiracies happen all the time, all over the place; in fact they may even have taken part in conspiracies themselves

So what about the term 'conspiracy theory'? Someone who has done their homework will know that the term 'conspiracy theory' was created by the intelligence agencies of the US after the assassination of John F Kennedy as a way of trying to smear those that were questioning the validity of the 'magic bullet' theory that was being offered to the public by the Warren Commission

The term is still being applied today to try and silence critics of the state. In fact president Bush the younger can be heard using the tem as a pejorative to try and stop people from questioning the states official version of events surrounding 911 which has been found to contain many contradictions:

[video=youtube;2oIdnLDea0U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oIdnLDea0U[/video]

This coming from the same guy that lied to the public about Iraq having 'weapons of mass destruction'!

So if distorted perception is a sign of insanity and if the magic bullet theory is a load of BS and if some of the public believe that BS theory given to them by the government can it be said that they are insane?

Because insanity is the accusation they often throw at so called 'conspiracy theorists'

A further sign of insanity is supposed to be that crazy people can't tell that they are crazy. So those people who believe in the official government story through a distorted perception of reality....they think because they are saying the same thing as the government that they are sane

Ok so they fulfill two criteria here for insanity. not only do they have a distorted perception but they are completely unaware of their distorted perception.

It would appear that large swathes of the population are insane
 
The psychiatric system is not created through a fear of litigation it is part of the planned architecture of our society

BBC journalist Adam Curtis made a good documentary called the 'The Century of the Self' which outlines some of the forces that shaped society and modern psychiatry; it hasn't grown organically, it has all been planned:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
 
@muir
What you are talking about is difference of interpretation, judgement, or opinion.

If people believe everything that politicians say, it is not craziness, but naivety. Conversely, if people do not believe anything that politicians say, it is paranoia.


On balance, it seems that naivety is less 'crazy' than paranoia, because it assumes that speech is fundamentally a form of communication, which it is; while paranoia assumes that speech is fundamentally a form of deception. Assuming the former is socially functional; assuming the latter makes listening redundant and is socially dysfunctional.
 
Last edited:
Increasingly, any emotion or behavior that is not conducive to ever more ridiculous productivity demands in working and/or grooming for a 9-5 work environment, is becoming diagnosable as a form of mental illness. Meds are, and are likely to remain, a form of psychological duct-tape as opposed to performing necessary lifestyle, behavioral, or environmental changes that are conducive to a given person's overall well-being.

There are legit mental illnesses that can keep a person from a baseline of being self-sufficient. Medication can help in some cases, but there will be side-effects, and a med regimen should never be viewed as an end in itself.

About the kids, well, this is just off the cuff, but what do people expect as far as ADHD? Our kids are constantly bombarded with random stimuli, the majority of which is utterly meaningless or full of consumerist hype. Society trains them to be unmanageably hyperactive, and in many ways we often unknowingly contribute to it, or the institutions that promote it, via lack of awareness or exhaustion from running our own psychological treadmills (hard day at work, just watch some tv, have some candy, and shut the hell up for 30 min little hellion).
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
@muir
What you are talking about is difference of interpretation, judgement, or opinion.

If people believe everything that politicians say, it is not craziness, but naivety. Conversely, if people do not believe anything that politicians say, it is paranoia.


On balance, it seems that naivety less 'crazy' than paranoia, because it assumes that speech is fundamentally a form of communication, which it is; while paranoia assumes that speech is fundamentally a form of deception. Assuming the former is socially functional; assuming the latter makes listening redundant and is socially dysfunctional.

No it does stray into the realms of insanity....i'll try and explain myself a bit better....

I just watched a bit of a programme that was on the BBC where this British couple go to Germany to live as average germans to try to figure out why germany is such a success while Britain is such a failure

In 1945 the second world war ended and germany had lost yet here we are decades later and germany is floursihing whilst britain is languishing. The programme goes into various differences between the two. i can't comment in too much detail because i haven't finished it yet but I was impressed myself when i went to germany and i have my own theories about what is going on. One aspect would be their more de-centralised form of government.

But i want to focus in on a psychological factor. The programme mentioned complacency by the british where the germans had to pull together after their defeat....ok i think there is something in that but its only part of it.

What i have noticed british people do a lot is project onto reality what they want reality to be instead of facing upto what reality actually is. This is a form of self delusion. An economist once described a similar form of behaviour as 'wishful non-thinking'

The germans are well known for efficiency whilst the british just flannel their way through situations. The germans come up with efficient solutions and systems whilst the british come up with half assed solutions that are completely inelegant and frustratingly ineffective

You just need to try and negotiate our road systems or public transport systems to see this in action and then do the same in germany to see the contrast

The british still have this mentality that is an echo from when britain had an empire that we are somehow innately better than other people. You can see this arrogance these days in US americans now as they buy into this idea of 'american exceptionalism'

The british rock band Pink Flyod often wrote songs about the british condition and they sang a very telling line which was borrowed from Theroux i think which was: 'hanging on in quiet desperation, that's the english way'

In britain people don't get off their butts to come up with good solutions they just muddle through instead in a sort of unproductive, ineffective and ultimately frustrating way that basically slowly grinds down peoples spirits boosting a feeling of malaise and dissatisfaction

In my opinion there are few things more satisfying than coming up with a good solution to a problem and then implementing it. i believe that is what we evolved over 200,000 years to do as hunter gatherers faced with fresh problems on a daily basis that we had to innovate our way around

Innovation in britain gets stifled by a number of things part of which is the class system and the culture

So in this world where British people are living in a fantasy version of reality instead of actually facing reality, dealing with it and improving it people are all running away from reality!

There is a national psychosis in this country

I know i go on about a lot of conspiracy stuff here but i honestly can't understand why most people can't notice some of the obvious shit that i can see eg the amount of shit they are spraying in the skies above us (chemtrails):

chemtrails.jpg

They really are under a form of hypnosis where they are not perceiveing reality properly

BBC programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038669g/Make_Me_a_German/
 
Last edited:
Increasingly, any emotion or behavior that is not conducive to ever more ridiculous productivity demands in working and/or grooming for a 9-5 work environment, is becoming diagnosable as a form of mental illness. Meds are, and are likely to remain, a form of psychological duct-tape as opposed to performing necessary lifestyle, behavioral, or environmental changes that are conducive to a given person's overall well-being.

There are legit mental illnesses that can keep a person from a baseline of being self-sufficient. Medication can help in some cases, but there will be side-effects, and a med regimen should never be viewed as an end in itself.

About the kids, well, this is just off the cuff, but what do people expect as far as ADHD? Our kids are constantly bombarded with random stimuli, the majority of which is utterly meaningless or full of consumerist hype. Society trains them to be unmanageably hyperactive, and in many ways we often unknowingly contribute to it, or the institutions that promote it, via lack of awareness or exhaustion from running our own psychological treadmills (hard day at work, just watch some tv, have some candy, and shut the hell up for 30 min little hellion).

Great post, there are a number of possible causes for the increase in chronic conditions we are seeing

The following doctor believes that the increase in exposure to electromagnetic radiation in modern society is having a detrimental effect. Just to support his stance i also want to post a clip below his of a group called 'stop smart meters' who went before the UK parliamentary select committee to argue for a stay on the roll out of smart meters which emit RF frequency radiation just to show that there is a scientific basis for all this and that it is not something far out there in the conspiracy world but rather something that is being discussed in the legislative body in the UK

It was in the mainstream media already about the harmful effects of RF frequency from mobile phones and how children shouldn't be overly exposed to it because of their thinner skulls but wireless uses the same technology and 'smart meters' work by sending out a pulse of wireless RF to the corporations that instal them. Some say that wireless is much weaker than the RF from mobiles but if you try to connect to wireless you don't just get the wireless from your hub, depending on where you are (eg in a city) you may be getting zapped by many peoples wireless hubs simultaneously so they are overlapping

There is now ample scientific evidence that wireless is harmful. I mean it is now common knowledge that there are pockets of leukemia around big electric pylons or substations due to exposure to electro magnetic radiation so when is there going to be a big outcry about wireless.....everyone is just installing it as if its nothing without a second thought

Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result has been said to be a sign of madness....ok well constantly dosing ourselves with electro-magnetic radiation when we know it to be harmful is not going to improve our health

I woke upto this in a big way a number of years ago when i suddenly noticed masts going up all over the place. They weren't there as i grew up but suddenly boom there they were EVERYWHERE

Wireless is now everywhere...its even in buses!

What we are doing....or rather what we are collectively allowing the corporations to do to our world is fucking crazy....we are all crazy for letting this stuff happen

And that's before even going into conspiracy angle stuff about how wireless can be used to control things remotely or to gain information from devices....

Doctor speaking about the correlation between the rise in chronic conditions and the rise of electromagnetic radiation:

[video=youtube;b_wxM6IAF1I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_wxM6IAF1I[/video]

Stop smart meters speak before the UK parliamentary select committee, clip 1 of 6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVoJ6fgwRdU
 
Last edited:
Some more examples of delusional thinking in action in the UK:

In the UK stand up comedy is very popular. It is often on the TV and big venues are often filled by comedians. Usually what comedians do is simply tell us the truth. What kind of sick society is so unfamiliar with the truth that they laugh when they hear it? Half the time they are shocked to hear someone telling the truth

As a society we have a terrible relationship with the truth

A lot of the so called 'conspiracy theory' stuff has been proven to be true for example with recent revelations about: banking scandals, government surveillance, lying by politicians and so on. Yet many people still use this brush off phrase of 'conspiracy theory'

If they actually had a relationship with reality they wouldn't call it 'conspiracy theory' they would just call it 'the truth'. So many people seem to feel uncomfortable discussing or hearing about the truth....and then they wonder why they're depressed or confused its because they cannot deal with reality....and that would be my definition of insanity...its when people stop dealing with reality
 
'distortions in perception': i'm not sure that is a good categorisation as i'd say the vast majority of people are suffering from distortions of perception

One thing i've noticed many people do is they project onto reality what they want reality to be instead of looking honestly at what it actually is. This is a distortion of perception and many supposedly 'sane' people do it all the time

'conspiracies': the dictionary definition of a conspiracy is as follows: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful

Ok so whenever a group agree secretly to do something harmful it is a CONSPIRACY. So clearly someone who's perception is not all out of whack can clearly see that conspiracies happen all the time, all over the place; in fact they may even have taken part in conspiracies themselves

So what about the term 'conspiracy theory'? Someone who has done their homework will know that the term 'conspiracy theory' was created by the intelligence agencies of the US after the assassination of John F Kennedy as a way of trying to smear those that were questioning the validity of the 'magic bullet' theory that was being offered to the public by the Warren Commission

The term is still being applied today to try and silence critics of the state. In fact president Bush the younger can be heard using the tem as a pejorative to try and stop people from questioning the states official version of events surrounding 911 which has been found to contain many contradictions:

[video=youtube;2oIdnLDea0U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oIdnLDea0U[/video]

This coming from the same guy that lied to the public about Iraq having 'weapons of mass destruction'!

So if distorted perception is a sign of insanity and if the magic bullet theory is a load of BS and if some of the public believe that BS theory given to them by the government can it be said that they are insane?

Because insanity is the accusation they often throw at so called 'conspiracy theorists'

A further sign of insanity is supposed to be that crazy people can't tell that they are crazy. So those people who believe in the official government story through a distorted perception of reality....they think because they are saying the same thing as the government that they are sane

Ok so they fulfill two criteria here for insanity. not only do they have a distorted perception but they are completely unaware of their distorted perception.

It would appear that large swathes of the population are insane

Do you really want to turn this political? Did Bush lie about WMDs or was he going on the best information he had? Colin Powell who many would argue can think for himself and all and all is and was more intelligent than Bush sat there and said Iraq had WMDs as well. How many people in congress, based on the same information, voted to go to war? You want to talk about lies? How about blatant in your face "I dont care if you know I am lying to you or not" lies. Lets talk about Obama with whom its doubtful has said anything true since he appeared on the scene.

And just so we are clear when given only two choices, I subscribe to republican ideals but not republicans. Democrats have an unrealistic view of the world, they forget and ignore human nature and choose rather to believe in illusion.

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams RIP
 
Do you really want to turn this political? Did Bush lie about WMDs or was he going on the best information he had? Colin Powell who many would argue can think for himself and all and all is and was more intelligent than Bush sat there and said Iraq had WMDs as well. How many people in congress, based on the same information, voted to go to war? You want to talk about lies? How about blatant in your face "I dont care if you know I am lying to you or not" lies. Lets talk about Obama with whom its doubtful has said anything true since he appeared on the scene.

Its all political really when you look at what the definition of politics is; also our society is very centrally controlled but it has many arms....like an octopus


So psychiatry is just one arm of the control octopus. The government is another arm, the military another, the police another etc

Colin Powell was used by the central controllers to make that speach to the UN because they knew that his image was good abroad....now his image is mud, but that's ok cos now he has a nice cushy job with the corporations

Bush knew he was lying...he is a puppet put out there by the central controllers for them to hide behind. He is a veil. He didn't get the top job because he is the brightest or best that the US has to offer he got the job because he is from a family that is part of the el-ite.....the guys a clown

There was a coherent strategy by the controllers to lie to the public to take them into war. In the first gulf war they got a woman from Kuweit to tell congress about how the iraqis had invaded kuweit and were killing babies in the hospital by taking them out of their incubators. the woman claimed she was a nurse. this speech then galvanised congress and public opinion against the iraqis.....except she wasn't a nurse she was the daughter of the kuweiti ambassador to the United states and no babies were taken out of their incubators!

here's a bit of info about that lie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah

The second gulf war was launched on the back of a comprehensive lying campaign by the neocons; the Us knew what weaponry the iraqis had because they sold it to them:

[video=youtube;nE2SdF1fN4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF1fN4s[/video]

There's a good interview with colin powels aide in the following clip that goes into that whole episode. I'll try and find it...
 
I can't find that interview with Powell's ex-aide but here's another clip of him talking. He is a retired officer from the US military:

[video=youtube;lbT5XFnhUGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbT5XFnhUGw[/video]
 
the central controllers...

I think thats a bit of a stretch. But I cant prove it so I suppose we could argue it all day and never get anywhere.