911 and 77 (21)
Normally I avoid anything topical when I write because after a year or so any interest in the article will have disappeared and usually the persons concerned will have disappeared to - from the public eye and interest that is.
For similar reasons I haven't mentioned the name of the US President nor the two men who, it seemed to me were really pulling the Whitehouse strings - unless I just happened to be writing about a shrub or a plant that is (!).
All three have gone or at least will have before very long and as I write a new US President is now, as they say, in office.
But the swearing in of the president had a very interesting hiccup which may make it an enduring topic of interest for decades to come and rightly so too as it presents us with some extremely interesting information and is an excellent example of how the unconscious part of our consciousness - which seems like a contradiction I know but isn't really - works in a way which tries to express Truth or if you prefer, just: the truth.
Now to understand this some background information is called for if I am to impart the same understanding to this that I have to this episode.
Some years ago, many years ago in fact, around about 1975, I read a book which I think was about ideas that Mensa members shared (not that I am qualifed to be a member; I'm probably not) - at least I think it was that book but it's just so long ago I wouldn't like to place a bet on it now - and in that book was an example of an experiment designed to find out what happens when a hypnotic subject is put in to a situation, in his mind, which is two ideas that conflict, to find out how the subject deals with an 'internal' conflict.
The experimental subject was told, duing hypnosis, that he would attend a lecture in which he would find the speaker more and more difficult to put up with the more he spoke but equally he would feel a sense of politeness that would stop him from speaking his mind. That is a kind of paraphrasing of the situation but it gives you the essential idea in a nutshell.
This experiment took place in the 1950s I believe. The result was that during the setup 'lecture' the subject finally interupted with exactly this: "There's a terrible draught in here, does anyone mind if I shut the bore?"
That is the whole essential clue to the meaning that the fluffing of the presidential oath has to my mind.
To understand this the way I do you have to keep the lesson of that experiment in mind and understand that it demonstrates a basic human ability and inclination to unconsciously - unconsciously - change what we consciously intend to say so that what ends up being said is a modified version of what we start out to say. Do you understand and agree with me so far? If so then we are nearly the whole way there already.
You are now probably wondering if I am saying that the president was in that dilemma. No, not at all. It was the other guy who is the key player here. This other guy is the Chief of Justice at the Whitehouse and his fluffing in this particular way is VERY revealing and informative IF you bear in mind especially the US legal events, the legislative changes during the post 9/11 years (2002 to 2008).
In actual fact it isn't necessary to be a 9/11 truther or a conspiracy theorist believer to understand this and agree with me because a clear fact that is not disputed is that since 9/11, laws, basic rights and the US Constitution have been greatly changed, nazified (for want of a better term), greatly degraded in human and humanitarian terms during those years and the Chief of Justice can hardly have been oblivious to the fact, indeed he would be in exactly that position of the hypnotic subject - holding a conflicting pair of opposing ideas so something had to give. He will have witnessed the Whitehouse's legislative degeneration and would know that those behind those terrible changes only included the president as a kind of rubber-stamping official rather than a real key figure in those changes.
Whether you are awake or still asleep to 9/11 being a huge trick and the US government being a very different animal to what is generally portrayed and generally believed, the fluffing of the oath indicates that the Chief of Justice had an internal dilemma so instead of including the crucial word "faithfully" he dropped it which allowed the sentence some additional possible meaning.
If you look up the word 'execute' you will find there are meanings which are related so the word 'faithfully' could precede it quite appropriately and without conflicting with the meaning. But there is one meaning where that would not be the case at all which is the meaning 'to put to death'. One can faithfully execute an office, a contract, effect or accomplish something, or carry into effect something and no eyebrows would be raised among english pedants by the word 'faithfully' but to 'faithfully put to death', now that is just not meaningful at all and by missing the word out the implication is that other meaning: to kill.
The "will execute the office" of the president, instead of "will faithfully execute the office" is the equivalent of "does anyone mind if I shut the bore". The word 'execute' has a few different meanings depending on the context. One meaning is to kill. One does not faithfully kill something so to imply that meaning of execute requires the absence of such a qualifying word - exactly.
What was he really doing then? I am inclined to believe that he couldn't go along with the pretence that the new president would really be in charge and so he fluffed the essential line in the most revealing way without destroying the oath completely. This was spontaneous, unplanned and unconsciously done - as a consciencious act. He could not join in the statement that the new president would really be in charge of the office of president so he altered it as far as he could to indicate more truthfully the reality that he, the new president, would execute the office in the sense of killing the office. Whether the office was already killed off completely or is in the process of being killed off still is open to examination, either way, the Chief of Justice doesn't seem to believe the president would really be in any position to "faithfully execute" that office at all and so, in all good conscience, was unable to recite the oath as otherwise would have been very easy to do.
You will gather, I hope, that the president didn't have a role in this at all. In fact this was a subtle hint to his subconscious that all is not well nor what it seems in the office of the president - exactly.
This is a nice example of just how symbolism works, or, if you prefer, how unconscious or unintentional or natural symbolism works - it is a language that we all use and I want to emphasize that there is nothing conscious about it's use, that it is entirely an unconscious phenomenon. I think I would describe 'conscious symbolism' as an oxymoron, you know, like 'police intelligence' or perhaps 'spiritual leader' or perhaps 'caring politician'. It is, if you like, the expression of truth that we want to give but have sold out to so find it impossible to speak openly more directly. There is nothing necessarily lacking in terms of right mindedness that this reveals at all - quite the opposite very often, after all, only if you have a conscience that is bothering you would you tend to do this kind of thing at all and it is far easier not to as some payment is involved in doing so (embarassment, making a fool of oneself and so on).
If you didn't realize it before then this should teach you or hint to you that each of us has a powerful aspect to our consciousness that we are mostly completely oblivious to - often lumped in with the subconscious but in reality there is nothing 'sub' about it - it is more super than sub - and any understanding of this aspect tends to empower the individual. Or, it may incline you to reflect upon the deeper meaning of well heard phrases such as "seeking a new direction" and "a stiff upper lip" (which might be translated to mean "seeking a nude erection" and "a stiff up 'er lip" and I once heard a middle aged 'respectable' lady say about a youth she found him likeable because "...he's up and coming" - I'm sure you can think of more.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
24 January 2009
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
