legitimate whistleblower:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/02/03/obamacare-a-primer/

(The reason some “conswervatives”/”liberals” are quoting

each other with ease and increasing frequency is fiefdoms

are not legitimate to either.)

Legitimate President:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/JohnFK.png/220px-JohnFK.png

Jimmy Carter actually challenged the water monopoly

in the West, but I think he’s not sufficiently

balanced as to these:

http://www.camera.org/

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/israel-radical-left-part-1

Those to me are demonizing for monopolists

(the rich demagogue subbing monopoly for capitalism

and the mouthpiece demonizing the objector–

women were the target when midwives threatened

medievel doctors)

(I turn witchhunt on itself for a proving of

traditional morality–but I don’t spam and never

link myself–at least not here. I welcome

FDL’s rigid watchout for that, knowing

the trustworthy dedication here.)

So it’s fiefdoms, all right. But it’s also

the protection racket, modeled literally after

history’s real fiefdoms. That’s why people disappear

when they challenge large concerns, though it wasn’t

that long ago Karen Silkwood was murdered.

It’s that mouthpiece thing above that explains,

for me, how sociopathy substitutes for real morality.

It sounds profoundly please go away trite, but it

really is the Oz analogy, with OZ being ounces of

gold, of course.

Borglum (Rushmore) was anti-monopoly leaders.

Baum was anti-”witch-”hunt, literally/figuratively/

theatrically. But he and Borglum were dire

racists. But Baum’s mother-in-law, Joslyn

Matilda Gage, appears to have

been a close Susan B. Anthony follower, and she’s

either the inspiration (and bankroller) for Baum’s

theatre and play; or, she’s literally the author.

That being the case, I’m in good company turning

witchhunt on itself so as to favor morality.

Freaky, Dorothy Height’s one who just happened along,

a perfect re-make of Dorothy.

B.O. cried at her funeral, but for real?

On

http://www.camera.org/

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/israel-radical-left-part-1

I think it’s demonizing and overreaction.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e8_1364168554

http://goo.gl/35Z2H (is Wikipedia)

Judging and transference (transfering distubence onto

others; confusing the person resembling the obnoxious
prior with the obnoxious prior) exist at the expense of love.

There being too much to our present
experience to ignore as regards
personal theory reflected below, I’ve
decided to retain the reference; but,
there is absolutely no spam.

On the one hand if I were a pro police
state control freaky sort of person,
which is to say a paranoid (all knowingly
sort of judgemental person) or someone
desparately needing to mollify myself over
something or desparately needing to deflect
blame from my own nefarious activity, I’d
welcome shoot-ups in grammar schools
cause even Hitler didn’t militarize
grammar schools.

On the other hand, guns have to be
something clung to desparately by masculine
insecure obnoxious paranoid clowns.

They have to be the world’s most obvious
phallic symbol.

I’ve so far failed finding a way to not use the
witch-hunt word or thesis.
But I mean no ill-will, having come from atheist to
pretty much being convinced information enjoys multiple
stages of life, for one thing, and even that there just might
be some real validity to this theory as regards there being
a conveyed lesson wherein it is intended for us to understand
the conceptualizations of freedom/equality/love as living
beings are meant to be taken seriously and in terms of their
being able to show themselves in different manners.

In a nutshell, simply to quickly explain the seeming contradiction,
I theorize that after a date East/West are morally identical per plan,
with the West admonished not to judge but having embarked on that
anyway.

WItch-hunt enables judging to control and enslave, and originally for
ancient despots to rumble with their neighbors and have other men’s
women.

Imagine a rich person switching out monopoly for capitalism and his
cohorts shouting demon-like labels at anyone not concurring.

THAT DEFINES THE PROCESS OF CONFLATING
SOCIOPATHY WITH FALSE GOOD MORALITY.

That formula led to the process-self-creation of a ruling class so
steeped in witch-hunt but also by that process genetically so
infused with gay genetics, with them being the hypocritical
gays now finally believably foreseen, with gays otherwise utterly,
utterly normal, even optimally occurring, that said class has
grown drunk on deception and profit from fraud.

Fear having been their own would-be legacy for their own
families, but transferred, literally into a system of
‘Government by Transference,” they further bring a
resentment to their deception and profit from fraud.

The process of the community that springs forth witch-hunt
is about everything having nothing to do with
love.

Just as was described to have been the case during
earlier moments of history similar to our present experience,
this ruling class is a class of inadequates–both psychologically
from emotional deprivations and physically, most likely.

The witch-hunter is definitionally homicidally paranoid,
paranoia being Greek for all knowing. The fat witch-hunter,
self-limited by such things as voluntary obesity lest
he, to his self limiting thinking, be wrongly demonized,
will thus be: fat; impotent; inadequate; ruled by a God
complex; likely a product of a father lacking in his own
recognition, likely a product of a mother more interested
in making people afraid of being demonized than affording
affection to her children.

DISCLAIMER:
NOTHING KNOWN OF THE PSYCHE OF ANYONE
IDENTIFIED/IDENTIFIABLE OR OF ANY OF THEIR
RELATION(S.)
OPINION. SUPPOSITION. THEORY.
ALSO REFLECTS OPINION, SUPPOSITION, THEORY AS
TO EVENTS OR ACTIONS REGARDING OR CAUSED BY
SAID EXPRESS OR IMAGINABLE PERSONS OR THEIR
RELATIONS.
WITH THIS DISCLAIMER AT THIS POINT, ADD:
I INTEND FOR NOTHING HERE TO REFLECT/IDENTIFY/RELATE TO
ANY ACTUAL PERSON, AND I DISCLAIM THE ABILITY FOR IT TO
DO SO, FOR I CAN NOT POSSIBLY HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
IN SUCH REGARDS AS THE SUBJECT MATTERS IDENTIFIED.
EVEN IF ONE CAN IMAGINE SUCH PERSON(S) I CANNOT
KNOW THE VALIDITY OF ANY RUMOR OR PUBLICITY AS TO
SAID PERSON. I CAN ONLY HAVE LESS KNOWLEDGE OF
THE CHARACTER OR OTHER NATURE OF ANY RELATION(S)
OF SAID PERSON, AND ANY/ALL STATEMENTS AS TO WHAT
ONE MIGHT EXPECT IN THAT REGARD
ENTIRELY REFLECT PERSONAL
THEORY/SUPPOSTION/OPINION.

That would be the logical candidate for the blowhard with the
suitcase full of Viagra telling women what they can’t do.

That would be the cops denying birthright and freedom/equality/love
with gratuitous severe punishment, and they would be deliberately
understood as such by that ruling class.

It’s saddest, I think, though, seeing
police state elementary schools.

Besides depriving the kids of their
rainbows and lollipops, it will tend to
make them shy, some ultimately likely
more like the paranoid judgemental control
freaks imposing it, just as the latter likely
became that way from their own parents.

Though, it’s more pathetic thinking that the
gun tot’ers on Texas campuses would be pre-selected
paranoids by virtue of the last decade of the likes
of rich demagogues substituting monopoly for
capitalism and politicos using long historic witch-hunts
to make afraid of being demonized anyone
tending to not agree with that, with that thus
also conflating (good) morality with sociopathy.

Ancient despots used witch-hunt to enable rumbling
with neighbors and to have other men’s women.
(Women only recently gained a semblance of equality
though they were burned at the stake when midwives
threatened medieval doctors.)

Judging is to control to enslave.
Witch-hunt enables judging.

Adults don’t simply remain childish from that,
not only in terms of arrested growth
(boys hurt animals, but men don’t but they
do if they need asserting gender.)
Children imitate their parents’ witch-hunting,
judging and controlling. They otherwise plainly
have the capacity to be far more adult far earlier
than their childish parents realize.

Judging to control to enslave, and transference
(of fear or pain (THINK: Spock’s half-brother:
tell me your pain so I can relieve you of it,))
and concomitant ego defense (self-assurance, self-
adulation,) with all these forms of paranoia typically
quite insulting, though the actor is the loser in
advance, exists in perfect inverse relation to the
capacity to socialize beyond one’s own nose.

The products of the witch-hunting community
would not be employable in my eyes.

Today, it’s gay fascists (not the optimally
occurring–numerical genetic advantage
of the group-) transferring the fear
of being wrongly ferreted out.

That’s how monopoly can substitute for capitalism
with some mouthpiece(s)demonizing anyone not going
along.

All that constituting judging to control to enslave,
with killing and stealing tossed in, the above thereby
entirely confirms traditional morality and highlights
the very realization of prophesy that today’s would-be
witch-hunters have sought to see realized.

(It makes sense if it’s conveyed and part of an
experiment for our benefit, with the East identical
after a date but for the judging.)

Bye.

I hope you realize this is on point because
whether supporting monopolistic companies
in one sector or banking, it’s six of one
half dozen the other.

One Cong. from NY proposes privatizing immigration
for banks selling government-protected monopoly in
overvalued collateral to foreigners; NY’s mayor proposes
requiring recreating 19th Century housing standards to
make that collateral look better (I think;) a Fed Chairman
privatizes the currency when his bank buddies need
free reserves.

Then they call you renegades by every name.

What causes the arrogance:

The child of a parent given to
limitation or limiting, and judging, instead
of reasoning empathetically, will be
vulnerable to feeling deprived of recognition
and love. They will be vulnerable to
mollifying themselves, or to arrogance
(ego defense.)

I think that’s a consequence of, among
other causes being available, of course,
political power based on demonizing so
rich demonizers can hire mouthpieces to
define the demons to taste and identify who
might be thus (wrongly, as if demonizing
is O.K. to begin with) ferreted out as a demon.

Of course, if you know me, I’m into the idea
of a proving (math/history/morality) wherein the
self-produced demons, compared with morally
identical people elsewhere otherwise, provide
one heck of an experimental gradient and control.

But I personally think the
world’s problems are80% scapegoating
and mollification, 20% arrogance.

You know the routine if you know me.

Job/family.

Absence of reply thus does not reflect
indifference/Just hitting and running
really would be f’n obnoxious though, so
I’m here briefly to answer early replies.

FDL: Noone more than me appreciates not
putting people off. I simply have a personal
flavor on these issues but work at not spamming.

Otherwise, please enjoy the rest of your holiday.

I anticipated a couple obvious Q’s.

Safety nets are good, of course.
Adam Smith actually was a profoundly
compassionate man who advocated them, along
with not abusing labor, though the mouthpieces
supporting the super-rich cite the opposite,
falsely.

I would agree with Smith corp’s are great
at applying resources for next greatest return.

But he never advocated monopolies.

The U.S. is supposed to be about freedom and
after T. Roosevelt anti-monopoly.

That is obviously entirely incongruent for
the person who’s a control freak, an ego-
challenged person, or the person who obnoxiously
believes in one dollar one vote (Eleanor R. had it
right: one person one vote) or plutocracy
generally (I think if you toss the control
freak part everyone is educated and has
no need for annoying plutocrats.)

Now it really is a bientot.

Bye for now.

I think:

When you run a monopoly what’s
even better than charging different
prices for different people like a
pricing control freak is having
the government help pay a higher
than otherwise price along with,
where appropriate to the monopolist,
taking the lion’s share of the risk.

These people will be the ones with
the obnoxious self-important faces.

But they’ll typically actually be
clueless, only the very few, including
I’m guessing the ones play acting in the
woods (in women’s clothes?) but nonetheless
enjoying the transfering of fear so as to
control and conflate bad morality with
the opposite of control, which is what
FDR explained: the only thing
we have to fear is fear itself.

Obama replaced an obvious shell game
with the above with the cartel having
a free hand with those who’re rich and
free from risk factors. But it’s still
a cartel’s delight.

Which has to be why it was voted in by
senators who prior thereto had just
been exposed as really be joined at
the hip with the insurers.

The name of the game is deception.

I’ve had my own fascinations in the area
of deception in our lives today.

It seems to be a product of people
who love to scapegoat as well as those
who just love themselves.

They had ill-prepared or ill-suited
parents, having nothing to do, of course,
with sexual orientation.

Job/family–lack of response to a reply
does not mean disinterest on my part.
However, I do stand by a while, of course,
as doing less really would be obnoxious.

As the man would say on Dragnet,
just the facts, Ma’am.

http://smu.edu/experts/stories/batra-on-greenspan.asp

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2007/10/greenspans-dark-legacy-unmasked.html

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dragnet+Theme+I+think+1967&oq=Dragnet+Theme+I+think+1967&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=youtube.12…8094.15685.0.17237.26.25.0.1.1.0.108.2186.22j3.25.0…0.0.A8w-CVK1mEY

(Is Dragnet theme search–there is no spam present whatsoever.)

It’s Marginal Expected Shortfall that gets blown out by,
well, what looks a heck of a lot like self-deluded bank
managers who think it’s smart to reward their people for
accepting larger risk for a smaller price than will their
competitors.
http://vlab.stern.nyu.edu/welcome/risk

What Bernanke, Greenspan et al. ignored:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11728

With right decision makers shafted, with war for
car cultures based only on oil taking priority
over even the fracking that’s spoiling our water,
the very “ultimate economic recovery” from that
is actually a losing proposition.

If you’re going to frack, at least roll out
cars that can use it, I would think.

But it’s Just Wars Just Oil and Just Near Free Reserves
for Big Banks – R – Us.

When the banks get essentially free reserves and lend it
back to Treasury, and when you get otherwise a half point
on the proceeds from your house, for a negative real return,
while the bank charges several times that, though the nominal
rate doesn’t look like much, on that capital that’s otherwise
available to lend, that’s gangbusters net interest margin
indeed. In fact, I think from memory that’s even made
Cramer bullish on the TBTF banks on a recent show (pre-Facebook,
pre-Whale?)

We’ve never seen $US trillions in free reserves before any more
than we have credit guarantees multiple 10′s X bank net assets.

So after how many $100 billions in interest income has been
surrendered to these bank favors (for anyone to be surprised by
these bank results, I’m sorry, you’d have to be a sorry individual.)

and $US trillions have been extended in near free reserves (raising
reserve requirements is simply a way of saying shaft employment now,
we had to feed the banks but we can’t let that ignite “velocity,”)
I think we’re all part of their crap shoot, though I think Nassim
Taleb would put it differently (self-serving reckless possibilities?
Yaha! economics?)

A little background you might find interesting:

Before Blaise Pascal added coefficients to Yang Hui’s “Triangle,”
(one choice leads to two, leads to 4, etc., in a triangle-like fashion,)
he and a correspondent mathematician pretended they wanted to unwind
a card game of chance such that each players relative strength and
biddings would be fairly settled.

It’s my guess his coefficients were inspired by a coding within
Nostradamus’ quatrains, running first vertically, then horizontally,
but with Nostradamus’ work, I’m further guessing, having conveyed to
Pascal that choices over time mathematically reflect (as in the web
bot, iChing, digital forensics, the like, this being funky now and salient, so I’m sparing persons’ names) moral decisions, which of
course is in and of itself obvious and almost meaningless. But
then again, it’s not. It says morality is math.
(Economists look at “tails,” historians “periodization.”)

(There’s potentially more. Parallel events but for slight
alterations in moral choices (as in, say, identical East – West,
but for one item here or there) seem to then offer actual
meta-experiment value, which would be handy if someone
cared to convey something through history.)

It sure looks like there’s a morality of life vs. one that’s not.
We’re obviously headed toward imitating the mistakes of the
inhabitants of Easter Island. It looks conversely like
freedom, equality and love are the path to life, though I
personally try seeing those now as generalized states, rather
than think of them in terms of the confines of my particular
language (which I think you’ve guessed is English.)

That triangle actually becomes spherical, though I’m
capable of taking this to a funkier level and suggest the
pyramids are confirmational. So if something imparted
character rather than blink out, it would have become morality,
math and history all by itself.

This decision pattern is very similar looking to those experienced
with fractals (ultra simple concept: repeated iterations of one thing
to many of the same until it forms a forest, with life the building
block.) I wonder if the two can be connected, as I also wonder if
probabilities and relativity can be connected in parallel. If they
can, can it be seamlessly? We actually have that already, somewhat,
in economics, such as in Taleb’s work. In fact, that’s now glaringly
obvious. I happen to think (factual characterizations subject to my
mis-characterizing them) what with the game of footsie with the employment
participation rate, the playing with the real estate statistics
by virtue of loss sharing and toxic mortgage sales subsidized by the
taxpayer, and thus a bubble bought by you and now distorting in myriad
ways, we’re in a much worse place with much worse probabilities. Heck,
it’s not just the M.E. that’s had it with the dollar, the Asian states
are struggling to break free too. All for avoiding bank holding cos.’
holders being the losers. (The interesting question would be do
probabilities and relativity provide a theoretical fixed point.)

And, if it should be Nostradamus saw the future in “real time,”
then surprise! Morality teaches us how to travel through
space (that time is distance thing.)

The buying of the bubble from the bubble creators looks correct, to me.
Except the taxpayer is paying for much of the loss sharing.

This isn’t to be taken as legal advice, as it’s simply sensible doubting
that any market participant should understandably have. But I wouldn’t trust the title of a foreclosure part and parcel to an MBS absent an independent look at the title chain, particularly looking for whomever would be an unspoken for lienholder, especially at the moment of a
would be settlement, that apart from tracing the current conveyor every step back to the original. I don’t know that I could happily rely on the title insurer. And, where a settlement occurs but with other lienholders present but not participating (again not legal advice–get your own,) I really doubt the title insurer has seen anything like it before, and, I
honestly don’t know what quitclaim value a settlement’s supposed to have.

After all, if someone’s foreclosed, and his first was sold, there was
still nothing stopping him (absent a clause) from earlier adding a second.
What about that lender? It could simply be a home equity line from
a broker (and not one owned by the foreclosing bank.)

I agree with all the doubts expressed.

There are two additional areas I would have questions in.

Aside from $US trillions in virtually free reserves extended to the
TBTF banks by Bernanke at the expense of the earning power of everyone
else’s savings, including those of all who did the EXACT OPPOSITE of those
banks, that is, they sold the bubble (they made the RIGHT decision,)
the Fed has purchased $100′s billions in those banks’ MBS’s.

That’s a form of indirect lending power that just as well could have
been devoted to, say, free tuition. And that would represent an
investment indeed.

On the other hand, when the Fed sells the MBS’s, and when interest rates rise from the level of the Liquidity Trap, it, of course, will require less equity for the equivalent return. So the free interest reserves and the MBS purchases seem to be, if I’m not mistaken, a sure-fire give not just in interest to those banks but in an interest rate hit on the MBS’s as well, I would guess (I’m always legally defensive–I don’t know that interest rates will/won’t reflect near free reserves for bad banks forever or that Bernanke will/won’t be changing reserve accounts forever while
then necessarily letting employment suffer forever lest inflation break out, even if it means a generation lost to a mortgage derivatives Ponzi scheme,) indirectly against the taxpayers’ interest.

When the MBS’s are sold at a loss, I don’t see anything stopping the banks
from buying them back. That’s not fencing? That’s not laundering?

Add:
http://www.econmatters.com/2012/04/myth-buster-us-treasury-says-tarp.html

Also:
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&ix=seb&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=US+taxpayers+to+subsidise+%2440bn+housing+settlement

Buying toxic mortgages also could be less stupid looking if the’
buyers are bank proxies aiming to quickly use the taxpayer-supported
loss sharing, and then to simple resell them (that’s different from
the Federal Reserve selling MBS’s at a loss and the banks buying them
back.)

The reserve ratios on the MBS insurance was said to have left the
large banks with 3% liquidity ratios. After the losses are laundered,
the taxpayer will have bought the bubble, those who sold their homes at
the top of the market will have bought the bubble back, they will have
paid for the banks’ loss sharing programs, and the banks will be back
at it, though, with what, 5% liquidity ratios? I don’t think that would
be a happy economy, cause the bubble will have been bought instead of
corrected, those who would have taken the banks’ collateral at the banks’
loss will have been shaken down, saving for retirement will have been
strangled, and the bubble will still be there with only a weaker
support system.

(Still the legal paranoid, this is only a guess too:) I think the
shadow inventory is hugely under-appreciated and only getting worse
faster than you’re buying the loss-sharing and thus subsidizing the
toxic mortgage sales.

Everything middle class will have been hacked. Teachers. Nurses.
Medicare. Social Security.

The Europeans will have been told they pay too much taxes.
(Remember? Europe: a tax and spend mistake?)

The Europeans will have been told they pay too little taxes.
(Remember? It’s more recent: Greeks: you pay too little taxes.
Actually, they pay, I think, about 23% VAT.)

I don’t mean to harp, but hypocrisy, running a mortgage
security Ponzi scheme cause you feel you’re good for it while
sneering at those who complain about it, even as they’re
forced to buy it with student sharecropper-hood and the like,
is like “transference.”
That’s taking a fear/pain experienced and pushing it onto others.

It doesn’t have to be subliminal, though for the bankers
it obviously is.

It can be understood, mastered and
used.

That the bank holding cos. won’t simply suck up their own losses
and get recapped is simply what I call the “Government of Transference”
of the bank holding company owners.

It’s all so obvious and transparent it would be funny if it weren’t
for Capt. Lewis getting strung up and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Wlrslerw0
I’m guessing now being illegal
(note Kovic getting wrongly demonized “communist,” Nixon cynically
using anti-divisive rhetoric when he actually depended on division.)

As to the happy talk, a 3% bump after 2 mos down, with record low
mortgage rates, and an ocean of delinquent properties, with people often unable to move between states if they have pre-existing health issues,
with states laying off people cause of the bubble-induced recession, and
with an accumulating pent up need to sell, and with existing home sales
still a small fraction of the pre-collapse level, I really have to wonder how much is laundering, using the loss sharing, and how much is people
finally throwing in the towel on negative returns on Bernanke’s benchmarking returns to below inflation. Why even do these guys commute
to work in Washington? You can easily force people to buy a bubble,
subsidize loss sharing, or accept negative returns from your netbook.

And when the banks are taxpayer subsidized for placing their overvalued
collateral up for rent, there’s a laugher. The best places to rent, if you sold your home at the top of the bubble, is where, as you’re getting
close to nothing on the proceeds, where you might otherwise have expected to be getting $10,000 annually interest, are, then, where the rent level
will let you survive yet another year or two or three of Bernanke’s
free reserves, and then, if it’s from a large manager experienced in
clumping developments so as to allow it attention to detail and responsiveness to tenant requests, and to allow it to extend really nice amenities across that scale, you can make out pretty well.

If you rent a TBTF bank’s overvalued collateral, I assume the prop at this
point’s starting to look slummy. It could very well have origly been
spec in a nice place and have common amenities. However, where/when there’s a problem with something that’s customarily the landlord’s
responsibility, I wouldn’t want to have to call that bank.

FDL: If this results in a double-posting, what happened was
I edited $10,000 to $10,000′s; then, upon submission, the paragraph
formatting vanished. So I deleted at my account activity. And I’m
thus resubmitting here and now.

This pertains the original basis of demonization for the sake of associating foes with the demonized and use of division for
the sake of ulterior motives.

It’s indistinguishable, where g are a capital status crime, from the calls to exterminate J’s.

http://pages.citebite.com/g2a2d0expuk

That those who engage in the demonization have been likeliest carriers of the gy gene is proof,
on top of this, of the genetic, apart from the developmental, incidence.

http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3016012img069.jpg

Hitler was famously feminine, JFK’s killers substantially gay fascists, many / most religious right
gay bashers ultimately proved gay themselves, or, their kid(s) come out. The ultimate gradient and
proof: virtually all murderers of gays and persons wrongly presumed gay have proven being gay.
What’s this guy?
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/us_congresswoman_shot_final_hours/

So a history, a genetic science, and a morality prove each other simultaneously, and it is mathematical across event streams and meta-experimental where the East is identical but for the
transference. And all manner of indicia identify this “Government by Transference” as the operative proof.

It’s been a source of not simply the transference defining monopoly protected by fear and pacification (including those standing in as the American basij in the Tea Party,) but of the arrogance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zPSO4REesc

How sad.

It’s division that has bought student sharecropper-hood and monopolies and war.

It’s division that murdered Ghandi.

It’s transference-tainted families (the ones with the hypocritical gays attacking gays and making a world afraid of being demonized,) not married gays, that are a world’s evil. One can easily imagine the hypocrites being the ones thought by many foreseen. I’m guessing they really want understanding, forgiveness and love now instead.

But if transference, fear mastered and transferred, and if it’s then the person in the street fearing the person resembling the obnoxious prior (which defines transference for him / her at that point,) is proposed ended by one who would today otherwise make this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UephHvStdWw

(Is Ronnie Kovic being demonized as a “communist” and Nixon co-opting “divide and conquer.”)

illegal (!,) is the purpose then to end transference, or is it to see its triumph?

(same story, same reply as last from me; but, this time, w/o
the stuff as to how the process of demonization understood because it was receive, how it was transferred to everyone else, how it process self-produced, how it was the basis of division for the sake of judging to control to scapegoat to offer a target for blame instead of the that being the self-serving demagogue puppet-master go started (though folks know how to find my thoughts on that))