Back   OpEdNews
Post a Comment
Original Content at
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

September 14, 2016

The Importance of Instinct in Critical Thinking

By pablo mayhew

How Americans are being shut off from their own perceptions by too much reliance on corporate-media pronouncements.


The Importance of Instinct in Critical Thinking

The United States Government has never officially conceded that the cold-blooded murder of President John F. Kennedy, under the noonday sun in Dallas, was a conspiracy.* Quite to the contrary, the government has colluded with corporate media for more than half a century now in an attempt to condition Americans to think otherwise. And yet, despite this coercion, an overwhelming majority of Americans feel that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone...and many of them believe that he did not act at all, in facilitating Kennedy's death.

How, then, have a majority of American citizens come to regard the abiding governmental view on the murder of JFK as inaccurate, or even nefarious?

Through instinct.

Instinct, according to various dictionaries, is defined as, "natural intuitive power"; "something you know without learning it or thinking about it"; "a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned"; and "a natural ability."

Not long ago--before society was overrun by an avalanche of electronically disseminated information--those seeking to come to an understanding of controversial government policies and clandestine military operations were forced to rely to some great degree on their own internal judgment apparatus. With the tendency now running towards an overabundance of information--sources, propaganda, and nearly every other conceivable facet surrounding the concept of knowledge acquisition, interpretation and assimilation--the detective work, as it were, is continually being done for us.

This bodes ill for many reasons--not the least of which is that we are being shut off from not only our own history, or the world itself...but from our very perceptions.

There are some instances where definitive proof may never exist; where demanding evidence that one, thus, cannot hope to attain precludes the higher path to truth that an individual's perception may provide. Holding out for ultimate proof, then, can in some circumstances have a stultifying effect on one's capacity to realize truth. Humans were given instinct for a reason: But where it once reigned near the top of the hierarchy in mankind's approach to interpreting and understanding the world, it has since been relegated by many of its possessors to the role of a nearly useless accessory.

Facts are king now; perception a pauper.

This has become a ubiquitous and lamentable reality. Even here at Oped News--a bastion of fairly vigorous independent thought--there are, for example, those who admit to believing that 9/11 was a false-flag event; and yet, they still refuse formally to label it as such, as no one has validated for them what their own instinct should have sufficed to verify long ago. This correlates with the inability in some people to place deserved value on any bit of information that hasn't been sanctioned for them--generally, from on high, as it were; and it is a vital ingredient in the vile recipe that constitutes the systematic undermining of the concept of free thought that has become prevalent in our society.

Facts are one thing--and they are valuable...when and where practicality and responsibility permit them to be applied; this need for authoritarian vetting of every individual piece of a historical puzzle, though, is not only disturbing, but profoundly witless and wholly unproductive. There comes a point where one is obligated to keep one's own counsel on matters both large and small. To grant the power of any entity--in whatever form it may take--absolute dominion over one's own senses, where perception and common sense should prevail is, I contend, deleterious to the extreme. That, however, is what comes when the lust for convenience and the need to be told by so-called leaders or experts outstrips the value of individual perception--when those in a society allow a small group with ostensibly benign, but in truth largely questionable, virtues to do their thinking for them.

It is, I feel, worthwhile to note that in seeking definitive proof of some controversy, one may very well receive nothing more than an interpretation of said event from one who is no more qualified to interpret that event than the seeker himself. It may, in fact, lead to little more than flawed interpretations masquerading as factual proof...or, worse still, to someone else's propaganda holding sway, depending on the point of view of he who offers it. Again...there are some circumstances where definitive proof may never exist. In the matter of false-flag events, for instance, it is orchestrated from the outset that the only people who will ever know for certain the full scope of a particular event--including, of course, whether or not that event is indeed false flag in nature--are those who plan it and order its execution and who leave no written documentation of their crimes. ...Or even, in many cases, any credible witnesses.

In those instances, one seeking truth would be better served in accumulating what responsible evidence one can, and relying on instinct to bridge the remaining gulf.

...And so, too, would the rest of us be better served.


As a corollary to this proposition, I would like to address the issue of covert geo-engineering or atmospheric-aerosol spraying--known in present military jargon by the codename Indigo Skyfold, and pejoratively as chemtrails. Pejoratively, I say, because the elites, through support of the corporate media, label chemtrails a conspiracy theory, as they do with all of their actions which, once revealed, would prove harmful to the positions of power they occupy.

A few words about the term "conspiracy theory": As many are doubtless aware, it was coined by the CIA in 1964, in response to those who raised questions about various doubtful facets of the Warren Commission Report--including, most often and plainly, its conclusion. It has since been utilized by the Powers That Be as a sort of all-purpose leverage-tool that proactively applies the concept of peer-pressure to cow those with the temerity to question government-sanctioned and, thus, government-benefitting stories on controversial events that arise in the American ethos.

It is, in truth, a bullshit term, derived from the same Edward Bernays-Operation Paperclip-Madison Avenue mold as so many other words and euphemisms designed to drive mass public perception into confused, indecisive and obsequious realms of consciousness.

Personally, I refute "conspiracy theory" in toto, and I encourage all others to do the same. For consideration, I submit as an alternative what I feel is a far more accurate and much less derisible term: collusion exposure. Its adherents and practitioners would, then, be referred to as "collusion exposers."

It is the "theory" part of conspiracy theory that is, after all, problematic. If we are going to need to have for use at our disposal a term to express the concept of perceptive and instinctual questioning of nefarious government activity--and moving forward, it seems plain we will--let's at least use a term that we can feel comfortable owning. Not some debased CIA-proferred mind-scheme drivel that seeks to undermine our inborn right to and intellectual duty towards critical thinking.


Recently, the corporate mainstream media released the results of a survey in which a cabal of 76 purported leading atmospheric scientists--headed by Dr. Steven Davis of the University of California, Irvine--refuted, quite unscientifically, the existence of a Secret Large-Scale Atmospheric [Spraying] Program (SLAP). Unscientifically, I say, because the survey offered little scientific foundation to support its findings. Just a categorical, near-blanket denial, in which the terms chemtrail and contrail were conflated, along with the opinion that " is possible that climate change is causing contrails to persist for longer than they used to."

"Is possible"? Again, hardly scientific. More than a denial, though, such a hollow, general dismissal smacks of gross disinformation. This survey, I contend, was released by a group more adept at propaganda dissemination than credible science.

Chemtrails are not contrails. It requires only a working set of eyes and a vestige of memory to recognize the difference. I have sat at length with binoculars--by day and moon-lit night--watching planes in the sky overflying my area, in outrageously close proximity, criss-crossing each other in horizon-spanning patterns that defy logic. The emissions from those planes linger in the sky for long minutes before they begin to dissipate and turn into a pale mist that obfuscates the previously clear sky--an unnatural, gradually settling, pall of toxins, which water and soil samples indicate are comprised of--among other foul ingredients--potentially lethal amounts of aluminum, barium, strontium and mercury.

Rarely--at some point in the sky, while this is occurring--a true commercial airliner might appear (I live within 10 miles of a major airport). When it does, I am given an atavistic glimpse of a real condensation trail, which disappears from behind the plane that is emitting it almost as quickly as it forms.

...Multiple planes in the same sky that are virtually identical (and indeed designed to appear to be just that); using what one, then, imagines is the same type of fuel; and leaving entirely different emission trails in their wake.

How is that possible?

The short answer isn't possible. Not at all. _ajalstutc

My instinct tells me not to disregard what I see with my own two eyes, so I don't. Others may; that is their prerogative. But I do not recommend it.

There are still others who insist that chemtrails are just irregular-shaped clouds. But they are wrong: chemtrails are not clouds. Clouds, and only clouds, are clouds. Clouds are, by definition, irregular shaped; chemtrails are not, they are straight horizontal lines that disperse their poisons earthward from the same straight line at which they start.

Clouds, most certainly, are not excess emissions from airplanes that span the entire sky, hang in the air far longer than condensation trails could manage by scientific law, and then dissipate into some faux-metallic shitmist that dilutes the sun and renders what was a cerulean blue sky some sick shade of easter-egg pastel. I have viewed enough real contrails in my life to know a fake one when I see it.

It is, as I say, a matter of elementary perception.

Keep looking up.


*Notwithstanding the heavily compromised, quickly dismissed and mostly forgotten findings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, released March 29, 1979.

I urge all who have read this piece to watch What in the World Are They Spraying?...the link for which I have supplied at the end of paragraph 22. Aside from valuable information on the geo-engineering/aerosol spraying issue, it provides keen insight--beginning at roughly the one hour and 12 minute mark of the documentary--into the negligent and dismissive attitude of many of our elected senators and congressional representatives, and thus illustrates, I feel, just how shut out of the business of government and the political process American voters truly are. --PM

Submitters Bio:

I am a solemn, yet eminently passionate student of recent American history and political science, who is engaged in ongoing research on a work of historical fiction, which, if successful, will be an autopsy of the fading American empire.