The Trump Card. A Description of Reality.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35552030

Take a look at Trump's nominations for the highest levels of government. Virtually every appointment is someone that detests the Agencies that they are to manage. Why? Because their job is to destroy the "effectiveness" of those agencies, that is if they are not successful in actually dismantling the agencies in their entirety. Trump's reality is one in which the most ideal society is one that is run by those people that control the world distribution of resources (Exxon, Monsanto, Alibaba, Gazprom, Glencore, etc.). For Trump, a democracy is absurd. Trump *would be* a follower of Ayn Rand, that is, if he read at all. Trump's reality does not include books. He is functionally illiterate. At least that is what *he* has said.

How in the world can a complex society be governed by people that do not understand how the economy works? They can't ... *if* ... one's concept of governmental function is to aid the good guys in building a perfect world and stopping the bad guys from damaging the effort. Bad guys should not be voting. The success of said society is measured by the amount of profit made. Ones "importance" to society is directly related to the amount of resources/cash that they control. It makes no sense to Trump nor to his supporters nor to the Republican Party that anyone *but* the 1 percent should be *allowed* to determine the rules by which society is managed.

The first rule of this new 'elite' is that there are *no rules* for the good guys whose job it is to fight evil (them). The very first action that the new Congress took was to attempt to abolish the Ethics Committee. Rules are to be applied to control the evil nature of those that *call themselves* Homo sapiens, but are not really quite there yet. One must free the good guys (them) to create a wonderful society and one must control the "less gifted" (the rest of us) with laws to stop us from damaging society. Rules do not apply to them because they are working for good. Rules only apply to the evil ones to stop them from destroying society.

Jess Session's nomination for Attorney General is particularly instructive. Sessions is one of the most virulent racists in American politics and has been for his entire career. His appointment speaks loudly to Trumps desire to make sure that the disruptions caused by the "less enlightened" be controlled. There is ample evidence that Trump *believes* in his heart and soul that the reason that American has been successful is because the "white race" (yes, I know that there is no such thing) has a more effective reality model (genetically superior) than the "other races" and that the "almost humans" are trying to take over governance, which would result in the destruction modern civilization (built by them, of course). The unenlightened must be stopped from doing this, for the good of humanity. Jeff Sessions has been working for this his entire life. He is the best able to manage the systems that were designed to stop the bad guys from damaging his country. He is the best qualified for this task. Trump has indeed found the best man for the job.

Property values fall when "non-whites" move into a upper class neighborhoods (White neighborhoods) . This is a clear indication to Trump) that non-whites, if left to their own devices will damage the economic structures that he has worked hard to create. He has personally denied non-whites housing in units that he controls. He has said clearly that many of Americas economic woes, derive directly from immigrants. He probably does not see this as racism or hatred of non-whites; it is an economic fact, so it cannot possible be racist. He loves non-whites, they can't help it if they are not equipped to be fully human. He feels sorry for them but still, he must control them from damaging society. He has ample evidence that they, in fact, do damage society ... as *he* envisions it.

Unfortunately Trump thinks that *his* vision of society and the vision of his friends (Putin, for example) is the only *real* and accurate description of "reality". The rest of us are either uninformed, misinformed, uneducated, lying for our own benefit, or outright evil ... in that order of escalation. He *does* give his opponents the benefit of the doubt; he starts the enlightenment process by assuming the person who disagrees is just "uninformed". Magnanimously Trump will attempt to help the poor fool. Total failure to "educated" the deluded soul will result in the "evil" label. One is *obliged*, by all morality and good sense, to eliminate evil, by whatever means possible; it is his job, at least as he perceives it. The use of vengeance, torture, and deadly force are tools to be employed in the eradication of the evil that will destroy society as he envisions it. At least that is what *he* has said.

The justice system must therefore, be specifically tailored, to treat each level of society differently, *if* the good guys are to win this battle for the benefit of the human race. Full privilege is only to be given to those that are fully aware (real humans, not those that just look, on the surface to be human, blacks, for example). Traditionally this means rich white folks, the ones that actually understand how the system must be structured for it to be successful. Practically speaking, this means those that agree with them. They don't appreciate me, for example. Jeff Sessions is the man with the proven track record to do the job. This is why he was nominated.

Trump has been appointing the top White Supremacists and Racists in the political world to the very top positions in his future administration. He is appointing people to deconstruct many of the social systems that have taken 200 yr to develop. He is appointing the 0.1 percent to govern the country. He said that is what he was going to do before the election and he is doing it. His campaign promise was to dismantle the political control of economic and legal structures as they exist.

To some readers, it may seem that I am being dramatic and exaggerating. I am not. What Trump and the American people have done is dramatic; I am just describing it. All that I am doing is presenting a coherent Reality Model that might explain behavior that I have observed. Everything that I describe within this reality model has been openly debated and discussed on the House and in the Senate floors and in the editorial pages of both major and minor newspapers throughout the country for the last 200 years. No, I am not exaggerating, at all. Go look for yourselves.

Americans just elected an illiterate man to be the President of the most powerful and dangerous country on the planet. He himself has stated that he has not read a book his entire adult life. Let that sink in. The man cannot read and does not see the importance of reading and he controls the most powerful and aggressive military on the planet. *Seventy five* percent of the American people have no real objection to this. "Hey let's give him a chance."

There is an virulent intellectual/emotional pathogen that is ravaging the US population at the moment. Maybe it has always been present and modern technology has allowed it to grow and/or allows us to see it for the first time? I don't know, probably. American Culture is in very deep shit and the sharks have already begun to circle. Oh well.

"Belief kills thought: fact is different than opinion: thinking is different than feeling."

 Read the letter Coretta Scott King wrote opposing Sessions’s 1986 federal nomination

The Sanders - Clinton War

Recently on Facebook I saw a graphic flow by that caught my eye. It was a quote, taken out of context and I am not going to follow up.I know that it was taken out of context because it floating all alone with no context. I don't care about the context. I will address the words. The context is not important. I have no idea what Marianne Williamson actually thinks, it could easily be the opposite of what is has been presented. This is not about her, at all, even thought I use her name; it is about the words that someone told me that she said:

"I want a woman president - really, I do. A lot of us do. And yes, you're qualified, and yes, we've known you forever, and yes, you'd know what to do from Day 1. But none of that is enough to get my vote, or the vote of a lot of people I know. we only want to vote for you if you run like hell away from that corporate box you've landed in. Stop cozying up to the banks, to the chemical companies, to the military-industrial complex, to the party machine, and to all the various financiers who make up the plutocracy now ruining this country. I want you to rail against the chemical companies and their GMO's - not support them..." - Marianne Williamson.  Letter to Hillary Clinton.

I have a problem with what Marianne Williamson had to say. I WANT Hillary close to the banks and the centers of power. I *want* her knowing all their names and having lunch with them. I want her taking their money. I *want* her doing the same with the unions and the person on the street. Hell, if it were not for Clinton we would not have this step forward in Health Care. In her first effort she excluded the Health Industry and got nowhere. Democrats have gotten nowhere for 50 yr on this issue. In the following round, the industry was included and we win. It was in their best interest. There is an adage regarding conflict that has to do with keeping the "enemy" even closer than the friends. It has been around for a very long time. Marianne Williamson has said the the reverse is true. I humbly disagree.

This struggle between different segments of society has been going on for many thousands of generations and everyone has made substantial progress. The rates of violence, standards of living, rates of disease and hunger have been steadily falling for hundreds of generations. Statistically people on the planet are more free, the best fed and the most comfortable, in all senses of the word, than at any other point in the history of man. Two hundred years ago a person had a reasonably high chance of being murdered, robbed, raped and otherwise abused simply by traveling from Avignon to Paris. That is no longer the case. Mothers worried about their children taking such a trip. Not any more. now they worry if the train will be on time and complain at the price of wine in the dining car while they are en route. The lack of freedoms suffered in times passed were  suffered by the rich and poor alike. Disease is not interested in economic class; the Baron that criticized the king was likely to have his head chopped off as well. There has been, is, and always will be, a pecking order. That is how human society works. And it does work, if we exclude the rest of the species and planet.

Lets put this in perspective. Thirty minutes ago I ate a soup with white beans, leaks, potatoes, sausage, bell peppers, carrots with a side of sesame seed bread and coffee with a glass of red wine. OK, I did not drink the wine but I will get it right now. Many of these ingredients I pulled out of my refrigerator and I cooked it on my gas stove. I have a refrigerator and a gas stove in my apartment! Shoot, I have the thermostat set too high, I think that I will lower it. (actually I don't but I think you get my point). Three years ago I broke my leg and collar bone in a way that would have left me crippled 200 yr ago. I am totally and completely recovered. In another couple of months I am going to get on a plane and travel to another continent on the other side of the whole fucking planet *and back* for less than the average guys monthly salary. Freedom? Freedom! We have more freedom now than ever before in the history of mankind. Freedom to travel, from the constraints of hunger and disease. Hell, mothers no longer even worry about their children traveling from Avignon to Paris. Shit, I even have the freedom to say that the President's wife is fat and ugly, well I could have always said that, but now, I will not be killed or rot in jail for the rest of my short miserable life. {By the way, Michelle, if I may address you informally. I actually think that you are fantastically beautiful and so smart that I like being on the same planet as you. So, ... if you tire of Barack? ... } Two hundred years ago, that too could easily have me 'chastised'. Not today. Freedom.

Fine, rally the masses, that is important. But to handle this as a "war between the rich and the poor"? Please, this is frankly, stupid. Sorry for being blunt. Yes, there is a 'level one' conflict and people do get rich from running the economic machine that gives us the freedom and food that we have. I certainly agree that many in these centers of power are beginning to damage the system that has taken millennium to build. And I certainly agree that some of the people controlling the production machinery need to be in jail or at least be have their assets confiscated, then be given a janitors slot to clean up after others more worthy than they. Yes, some of them are just ass-holes. Fine. But there are others that are doing a damn good job. I know that just by looking at the life that I live. Statistically our systems with its central banks and tyrants and theft by taxes has been, overall, doing a damn good job. There is indeed a step backwards once in a while, no need to mention the most recent. The system works so long as the population does not go off the deep end. Which it is doing at the moment. It is not just the banks that have the power to destroy civilization. They 'masses' are pretty damn good at destroying everything too.

Presently there is a problem. A statistically significant percentage of the population believe things with their whole hearts and souls that are flat out demonstrably wrong. It is not a class war or a war between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots; it is a war between ideas, between memes. Both poor and rich believe that "poor people are lazy creatures that need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and get to work. Not, us or our friends, of course (the government is messing us up), but the others, you know the guys over there, the lazy ones that are sucking off the system, not us, them". This is an idea that transcends economic class. No, there is no class war. There is a war between memes. Are people inherently lazy, or not. Are Muslims mostly terrorist and do should we kill them all, or not. These ideas all transcend economic class. The fundamental problems that we have as a society today have absolutely nothing at all to do with economic class.

Essentially, Marianne Williamson has accused Clinton of being on the "side of the rich and powerful", not on the "side of the common man". She does this even as the man she 'supposedly' supports has asked her not to do it. Bernie Sanders has explicitly told her not to attack or be negative with respect to Hillary Clinton. She is doing it anyway; she is dividing the country into good and evil. She, of course, is on the side of the good and we need to destroy the evil. And she is not dividing it up into ineffective ideas vs effective ideas, she is promoting class warfare where none exists. I just demonstrated that. She has no respect for Sanders and his understanding on how to improve society, she thinks that she understands politics better then he. She wants the "powers at be" to listen to her and do it her way and on her schedule. She will be a supporter of Sanders but only if Sanders does it her way. Hey, she understands the world better than he does, or so she says.

Marianne Williamson is intellectually and emotionally a child. She criticizes Clinton for being close to the power centers? Well, OK. Williamson has her opinion. Maybe she is correct. Me, I'll stick with the wisdom of the ages. Stay a close as you can to everyone. Have lunch, talk about your children, get drunk together. That does *not* mean that you agree with their philosophy of life but unless you know the opposition, you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of countering their arguments and their power. Yes, take their money too. Yes, work to help their kids too. Do it *your* way, not theirs. There is very little in the career of Hillary Clinton that leads me to believe that she is in anyones pocket, or has ever been or ever will be. There is much in her record to tell me that she is the one who charts her course and that others follow. She does not have "keepers". She charts the course and how to get there; she always has.

Personally, I do not want another 'French Revolution' with rivers of blood flowing in the streets. I do not want revolution, at all. Been there done that personally, not at all interested in doing it again. It is a last and desperate move to stay alive, the last possible thing to do. It is a very bad idea and I oppose the rhetoric that leads in that direction. I am not a pacifist, in any sense of the word.

Yes, it is time to change, it is always time to change and for thousands of years, we *are* changing. The direction and the rate of change and the strategy for choosing the goal and the direction and the strategies are important. That is a bit more practical than discussing who is good for the job and who is bad for the job. Especially when we are discussing people who need, like and respect each other. Both candidates have asked their supporters not to slam the other. Marianne Williamson does not care what Sanders thinks, she only cares what she thinks. Both have asked their supporters to change the traditional approach and stop attacking the individuals and start discussing the issues. Marianne is not interested in change, she won't do it. She wants to tell Hillary and Sanders both how to do their jobs. I humbly submit that Marianne is *not* a Sanders supporter. If Sanders were ever to even suggest a different approach than Williamson approves, she will become a detractor and make is job more difficult. No, Marianne Williamson does not support Sanders, she does not support Clinton. She supports herself. That's it. She is the smart one on the planet.

Williamson wants to divide the world into 'us' and 'them'. It is the same thought process that many of us have been fighting for our whole lives. Sanders and Clinton included. I do not know this woman Williamson, at all. This quote is the first that I have heard of her and I don't think that it puts her in a good light. I do not think that she will make Sanders' or Clinton's job easier. She is already making Clinton's and Sanders' job (creating a more functional society) more difficult. And she has disregarded what Sanders has asked her not to do. She is *not* a Sanders supporter. She won't even follow his lead on this very simple concept.

Clinton and Sanders each have their own strengths and weaknesses and each needs the other; they know that. They have respect for each other. Neither wants their supporters to attack the other. They want to work together. They have each asked explicitly that their constituents work together without tearing down the other. There is an 'after election' and both candidates know that they need the other. They need each other badly. They like and respect each other. They each want the country to get to the same place. The strategy is different; that's fair. Do lets discuss the strategy, not which candidate is better, which strategy is better. Please do not forget that there is the 'after election' and both candidates  need the other especially after the election when the real work begins and unity is even more important. They like and respect each other. They each want the country to get to the same place.

Bernie Sanders has made it his life's mission to fight for the common man. He knows far more than Hilary Clinton about how the distribution of income affects the social structure of the country. He knows far more about the actual details of the capitalist economy and where its strengths and weaknesses are, he also knows far more about economic theories from around the world.  He has done this at ground level. His work has been directly with the people at the State level. Sanders has made his career knowing how to speak with the common man about those things that affect the health of the society. He is good at this; he is better than Clinton at this. He has studied the effects of the economic engine on the common man to a much higher degree than Clinton. He is a more effective speaker than Clinton from what I can see. Bernie Sanders is a strong candidate and I will be more than pleased to support him and to vote for him in the general elections should he when the opportunity.

Hillary Clinton has also made it her career to fight for the common man. I will use her efforts in Health Care and womens rights as examples. She is just as cognizant as Sanders about the short deal that many US workers have received at the hands of the power brokers, especially in the last 45 yr or so. Clinton has made it her business to know how the power flows in the economic and social systems. She has worked at the National and International levels for her career. She understands the reality of the working economic machine far better than Sanders. She has gotten up close to the political, economic, and military realities of the world far more than Sanders. This is hugely important for driving the ship of state. One cannot *only* pay attention to the desires of the common man, one must also pay attention to the machine that supplies the food, clothing, health care to the population. Clinton has made her career knowing how to work with the machine that provides the material needed for the 'general welfare'. She understands the power structures far better than Sanders. She understands the world power relationships better than Sanders.

So shall we go with the rally the crowd and tear down the establishment strategy (no that is not what Sanders is all about) or the be nice to the power structure and ask them to change nicely strategy (no that is not what Clinton is about either). Does anyone out there actually know what the different strategies are? Anyone. The candidates do, so do I. Time to get real and stop calling the candidates names. Time to talk about the strategies. It is time to recognize the the war is not a class war it is a war between effective and ineffective ideas. Clinton and Sanders both know this. They are saying the same thing. So, supporters of either, don't you think that it is time to actually give your chosen candidates a certain amount of respect and actually listen to what they are saying and help them get the job done?

The Liberal/Conservative Divide

Russell Square, London, England. A Street View photo I found in the Square named after the philosopher Bertrand Russell (my favorite) I thought the photo appropriate.

There are a lot of people and I mean a lot of conservatives, who see Donald Trump as the only real leader on the presidential stage today. For the Republican side, I agree with them. Many of these conservatives think that the Democratic candidates are idiotic *liberals* that are ruining the country and that they should not even be considered seriously. Based on factual history, Clinton and Sanders and the liberals in general are totally destroying the country; this is evident and clear to anyone that cares to take even the most superficial look around. The United States of America needs to be taken back by people that can discuss issues as they really are; people like Sanders and Clinton have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt their intentions and approach. This really needs to stop. The liberal elite is killing the country dead and if we do not get it straight the US is finished as the worlds leader. This is as clear as day to a large number of people. Huge numbers of people.

I know personally people that are highly intelligent and understand the use of maths and logic and have studied the issues and political systems for years that believe the above with their whole hearts and souls. To them Obama and Clinton and Sanders and "Liberals" are total idiots that are in the process of destroying the country. I exaggerate, but not by much. This is not new; it has been simmering on the back burner for a very long time. So what is happening? Here is an idea that at least fits the data and renders coherent the strange twist that vocabulary has taken in the last few (50 or so, at least) years. No, I do not "believe" this idea. It fits the data and may even lead in a productive direction. Hell, it might even be correct but I don't know. Allow me to put some paint on the canvas.

People have been attacking the concept of 'political correctness' for a long time. This has always seemed appropriate to me, at least in the sense that it does not seem productive to insult the people around us, but hey, that is just an idea floating around in my head; I could be wrong, evolution is a powerful force. Another strange concept to me is the idea that 'the press is liberal' when, almost by definition, the press is not liberal with any generally accepted dictionary definition of the term. The concept of 'elite', the term was a positive attribute at one time; it no longer is. The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have morphed radically in their meaning as well. There is a powerful force at play here; what is it?

All of this comes together if one considers that many people have been feeling oppressed because the ideas and desires that float around in their heads have been impossible to express in public without being viciously attacked by the *liberals* and the guys the run the newspapers, the *elite*. *Conservatives* are called racist and stupid for traditional ideas and *facts* that anyone can *observe*. There are many who have been hiding in their closets with thoughts running around in their heads that have been deemed 'inappropriate' by the culture as a whole. They have been hiding in their closets fearful of the repercussions of even discussing the important issues of the day. They see the country falling apart and they cannot even discuss the major causes of this without the liberals destroying their social existence.

It has been considered politically incorrect for quite a few years, for instance, to call black folks as a group, "lazy niggers" but those indeed are the thoughts that rattle around in some peoples brains (oddly enough in some black brains as well). It the same with poor people (lazy) and sick people (bad lifestyle) and Homosexuals (evil aberrations). Many want to isolate those that they consider a detriment to the human race; they want nothing to do with them; they want the gone. This is true with many other animal species as well. Isolating and/or killing those that are annoyingly different is common; it would be foolish to think that humans are totally immune to what affects the entire animal kingdom. Why the devil would one encourage the traits that will eventually destroy the culture and/or the economic engine that feeds it? Clearly it would be silly to encourage that which will destroy one, either slowly or quickly.

Evolution is a powerful force. Heck, It is so important that it has been dictated by God himself; destroy that which will destroy you; one must throw the first stone to survive. Practically speaking and theoretically, this is good advice; at least I think so. Unfortunately, in order to follow this practical survival technique, it is necessary to *know* what is going to destroy/damage an individual and/or a civilization; it is necessary to understand motivation, etc., at least when dealing with other human beings. Unfortunately because these items are impossible to know. All we know is that they violate our own personal take on reality. And it has been definitively demonstrated that personal interpretations of reality are heavily flawed and mostly wrong. Understanding motivation and good and evil and morality is less important when eradicating the non-human microbes that kill people.

*Conservatives* see nothing wrong with their ideas because their ideas are well supported by observation, look at the *data*. It is clear as one's own eye color that the homosexual lifestyle will indeed destroy the family as they know it; they find the concept of one of their children choosing to be homosexual abhorrent. It certainly would not have come from them so, it must come from homosexuals that trick their children into a life of sin. Of course homosexuals need to be isolated and eliminated, it is a disease. This is clear for anyone to see, yet these idiotic *liberals* behave in a way the will spread the disease. They are clearly nuts. They will destroy the culture. The homosexual lifestyle must be stopped. We are commanded by God to destroy that which will destroy us, are we not?

I do not know, but I suspect the many conservatives find it annoying that one cannot speak frankly about other important topics concerning the reality of the world as well. Another example of might be 'the way the people are'. 'Playing the race card' is now a popular expressions when it comes to responding to liberal accusations. Why is that? What does it actually mean? Perhaps this will help. It is impossible to openly discuss the observable fact that blacks are indeed lazy and violent at least statistically; the *liberals* will have nothing to do with it and make it impossible to discuss the fundamentals of differences between the races. These things need to be talked about, it is important; but they cannot be discussed in this atmosphere that is controlled by the *liberal elite*. They will destroy the country by turning over hard earned work to lazy people; it will destroy incentive and will eventually kill the American spirit. The US was built on hard work and now it is impossible to even discuss the issue without very negative social consequences. These things are important and need to be discussed. This is one of the major reasons that the country is going to hell. The weak and lazy have taken over and they will destroy the country. The country needs to be taken back by the people that understand and can see things as they really are. These topics cannot even be discussed properly with the liberals in charge. Liberal want to pretend that everyone is nice and hard-working and capitalism is evil. Liberals live in a fantasy land. I am pretty sure that this is the way the argument goes.

Some conservatives would agree with the statement that "Liberals are dumb and do not live in the 'real world'." This statement is true, in my opinion. But, I can say the same of 'Conservatives' as well. In fact, I can say the same about everyone on the planet, including myself and including all species that have the structure we call a brain; it is a consequence of having a brain and consciousness and physical devices that record a portion of what happens around us. It should not be considered an insult to say that a person or group of persons do not see the world as it is; no one does. None of our interpretations of 'reality' are correct. We do not experience existence as it exists independent of our own personal existence. We do not understand time and our entire 3 dimensional interpretation of space has been demonstrated wrong, definitively. Everyone lives in a fantasy land to some extent and many of us know that. That is why we have developed physical and intellectual tools to help sort all of this out. We have thermometers to end the arguments about the temperature. We have developed logic as a way to identify fallacious arguments. We have developed the scientific method to help choose between different ideas. There are a myriad of physical and intellectual tools to help create a reasonable reality model that can by supported by the entire population without bloodshed. We have developed tools because no one, not anyone, sees the world as it actually is, everyone lives in a fantasy land.

No, I do not know what is rattling around inside another person's brain no matter how clear that it seems. No, I do not know what another persons motivations are, nor can I know even if they tell me; people lie to themselves all the time; they don't really know themselves. I can only guess at my own motivations. 'Facts', that which can be measured independently are a bit more reliable for constructing our Reality Models. But, our interpretations of these facts are astoundingly unreliable. Yes, a stranger gave me the 'thumbs up'. I assume he meant good job, but ... it also means 'stick it up your ass'. So, hell, I can't even be sure of that; I really don't know what he means with his "thumbs up" gesture; I make an educated guess which in many situations will be accurate. But to actually *believe* that our interpretations are absolutely correct and build our entire reality structure on the *fact* that a stranger gave me a sign that I interpret as meaning that I have done a good job seems like madness to me. Sure, we think that is what he meant, can act on it and often,it will work but often it will result in disaster as well.(innocent gestures that can get you killed overseas). So how to figure it out? Like I said we have a catalogue of tools. Pity that so many people don't know how to use the tools or even that they are necessary. Some do not even know that they exist.

I suppose that it is normal that many people think that what they see is real and if the interpretation makes sense then it is true. I suppose that it is normal that people think that others emotional response of most people is the same as what they themselves feel. That being the case there is no real need to define terms like: liberal, conservative, fact, opinion, lazy, elite, Christian, hot, cold, good, bad. We all know what we mean. Well, we all know what we mean by those terms but we have only the vaguest notion of what other people mean by those terms. What is hot for you may not be hot for me. What is good for you may be bad for me. A leader for you may not be a leader for me. So what the hell are you talking about? This is where facts come into the picture, they help straighten out what is real from that which is a personal sensation and nothing more. They help us sort out what is real for both of us.

I suppose it is normal to believe that our ideas are the best ideas, they are the ones that are correct. After all they are based upon what we see clearly in the world and they are coherent, they make sense, they are correct, at least to us. Here is how the discussion goes for someone that *believes* what they think. One can see this played out every day in almost any political/religious discussion between 'believers':

--The other guy has not been paying attention; he can be shown. Did not work?
--He has missed something, one can teach him. He still does not agree?
--He is thinking about it wrong? one can demonstrate the correct thought process. Still not there?
--He is just not very smart and can never understand? Oh, he is smart?
--He has an economic investment? No?
--He is lying to fool me. I expose his lie. Still not convinced?
--He is evil, he does not care, he wants to destroy for the sake of destruction.
--He or his idea needs to be destroyed. Evil must die. We have war.

Belief Kills Thought, by definition.
Opinions are different than fact.
Emotion and thinking are different processes.