Reversed Assumptions


There is a big secret that isn’t discussed at parties or at the water cooler. It won’t even be said on the nightly news or told to you by your president, pope or king. Everything inter-penetrates everything, the present does have an effect on the future and not every action immediately has an effect.

It is also important to understand that the present can also reverse itself and find itself in very familiar territory as we are creatures of habit and patterns of ignorance return and we hope that we learn from the mistakes of history.

A surprising number of people will make two assumptions. One: you must not extend your thinking beyond the rigidity of what confirms your cognitive bias – and Two: There is a default position of non-action when you are confused about an issue.

When this happens we begin to see a “distancing effect” that confuses and issue and soon inaction is a response to something that shocks us or frightens us into doing nothing or abandoning something that was once important.

Obviously there are many things that we take for granted and it is unreasonable to believe that people are capable or even willing to challenge every assumption. It is however an even greater challenge to ask people to show that nothing is sacrosanct. Once we truly realize this we can be open to new and unusual discoveries.

The biggest challenge that most people have is to reverse their assumptions in order to find that the mind has a creative side that has the freedom to question, the freedom to challenge conventional thought and to push thought into the margins.

We are now more than a decade into the new century and we still have thoughts and ideas that are not only 20th century thoughts, but thoughts and ideas that seem to be medieval thoughts and as we think so comes the manifestation of things that we once thought disappeared like the horse and buggy or small pox.

The truth is, the news we read about the wars and the rumors of wars, the return plagues and antiquated thinking are beginning to shape and push the consciousness in a direction that stalls our progress.

Reversing these ideas and assumptions broadens our thinking and we realize the elasticity of thought and how we may look at the same thing as everybody else, yet seeing something different.

In a world where ideas and attitudes are as numerous as grains of sand on a beach, you may want to admit that there may not be one right answer and with that we can find many ways of viewing or understanding existing information.

The media has a tendency to judge commentary by those who fall into their trap of being “noticed,” and they fail to do research on what may be the source of these comments and where they may come from.

This morning I woke up to a talk show that was speaking about reported racist statements by Cliven Bundy, the rancher in Nevada that has been defending his farm against the BLM.

This was really discouraging because I was accused of being a racist days ago, only because I was on the side of Bundy, only because I think it is the right of every American to defend their land against hostile takeover.

The accusation of my so-called racism was based in the fact that if I support Bundy’s constitutional right to defend his farm and family, then I also side with the militia and within the militia there are racists.

Therefore, I must be a racist.

Well, I still can’t stand for the comment that was made by Harry Reid that those who defended Bundy were domestic terrorists.

For the record, I am not supportive of the comments that were made by Bundy regarding “the Negro”. However, I still support his right to defend his family against a hostile takeover by federal agents.

I winced as a I was reading his racist comments. Here they are from MSNBC:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I couldn’t help but think while reading his comments that this changes the entire image of the farmer and that his comments are going to have general impact on whether or not his fight to save his farm are valid.

I can tell you that his fight to save his farm is still valid even if he made these racist statements. He utilized his First Amendment right and used his right to free speech. It is not popular speech, and I don’t support his statements, but we can’t let his ignorant statements cloud the real issue of whether or not the BLM has the legal right to surround his property with armed agents, kill some of his cattle, and harass and physically harm his relatives.

The Republican contingent that supported Bundy have now distanced themselves from Bundy’s cause. This confuses me because I can recall tow GOP presidential hopefuls that shared the same views as Bundy or at least committed to them with a signature.

Back in July of 2011, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were in a swell of controversy when they both signed a conservative pledge entitled, “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.”

Back then the pledge “contained a controversial preamble suggesting black children born into slavery had better family structures than black children now,as CNN reported at the time.

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.” — excerpt from “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” (REDACTED)

Word got out about the statement within the pledge and it was immediately removed, however, not before Santorum and Bachmann signed it.

Once again, these statements are deplorable and yet these politicians seem to have no problem being supported by their GOP contributors.

The hypocrisy now seems to be rearing its head with regard to Bundy and Republicans that are now distancing themselves from the controversy.

For example, Republican junior Senator Dean Heller from Nevada went head-to-pointy-head with Democratic Senator Harry Reid over the issue of Reid’s comments about the militia and Bundy being domestic terrorists. Heller said that he thought the Bundy ranchers were patriots. “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.” As The Wire reported, “He added that he wanted hearings to figure out “who’s accountable for this.”

Since Bundy’s comments, he now is backing away from the issue and condemns the statements that were made. This is not surprising. In fact this is becoming a circus of assumptions and political bravado.

That is why Bundy as an individual may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and his racist statements now cloud the issue of who is right and who is wrong, but all people are guaranteed constitutional rights in the United States.

All thugs, malcontents, racists, morons and scumbags have rights under the Constitution.

While Bundy’s comments immediately make him ignorant and antiquated the issue is whether or not his cause still important to defend.

While I am not excusing racism, can we remember what Vicki Weaver, the victim of the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, thought of African Americans?

The Crime Library documents:

Even though the Weavers disagreed with many of the views held by the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist group, the couple attended several of their meetings throughout the mid to late 1980’s. Bikers, skinheads, Klansman and neo-Nazi’s usually attended these meetings, however it was common knowledge that undercover agents and informants also attended them in hopes of discovering illegal dealings or terrorist plots.

Vikki Weaver had racist views, but did she deserve to be shot and killed by agents while holding her baby? I often wonder about how controversial her killing would be today. After all she was a racist too, she was a mother and was shot has she was taking care of her child.

Randy Weaver lived with his wife Vikki and four children in an isolated cabin on Ruby Ridge in the Idaho mountains, 40 miles south of the Canadian border. Mr. Weaver did not favor violence against any other race, but believed that the races should live separately. Because of his extreme beliefs, he was targeted for a sting operation.

With Bundy’s comments are we beginning to see a reversed Ruby Ridge situation developing?

Perhaps we should call it out and demonstrate a causal reversal or temporal mirroring of Ruby Ridge, which can get worse before it gets better.

As James Bovard wrote in his 1995 Wall Street Journal article, ‘ No Accountability at the FBI’: “The Weaver case is by far the most important civil-rights/civil-liberties case the Clinton administration has yet resolved — and it resolved it in favor of granting unlimited deadly power to federal agents.

During that time, militias were vilified, gun rights were being threatened and government overreach was being decried as anti-Constitutional.

It is as if we have reversed time and are reliving nightmare of racial bating, threatening words from senators and threats against our First, Second and Fourth amendment rights.

It is difficult to challenge all assumptions, but we need to somehow remember our history in order to avoid repeating it.

I seem to have seen this all before and I am living it again.

The end of the story may have a different outcome than it did in the 1990’s; however, there is still that threat of watching more human rights violations taking place under the new and effective police state and security apparatus.