Social Psychologist & Personal Advisor

The follow ideas address the topic of my next book:

*    *    *    *    *    *
 Prejudice, Propaganda, and Perception 
by Matt Moody, Ph.D. 

Problem

With hearsay propaganda running rampant at facebook (blogs and other social media), Wayne Dyer cautions of "mind viruses" — a mental malady that occurs when we hold an idea to be true, that is actually false. That's why Dr. Dyer advises: "Don't believe everything you think!" The father of American psychology, William James, asserts similar advice: "A great many people think they are thinking when they are really just rearranging their prejudices."

With the advent of the Internet, every critic who has a computer can pollute cyber-space with propaganda. Teddy Roosevelt reminds us of an important priority:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who
is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm,
the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the
triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls
who know neither victory nor defeat."
~ Theodore Roosevelt 

Before the advent of the Internet, people would have to manually type letter and snail-mail it to a newspaper editor, for their voice to be heard publicly. Now, we have a nation of critics who are voicing careless criticism of those you strive valiantly in the area of action. And with little, if any, vetting of their ideas, "mind viruses" spread via the Internet in epidemic proportions.

Isaiah prophesy of our stone-throwing society, saying that in the last days there will be "scorners" who "watch for iniquity" and "make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him; and with false testimony deprive the innocent of justice." (Isaiah 29:20-21) Prophecy fulfilled.

A century ago, the American culture included some people afflicted by the mind virus of racial prejudice — narrow minded bigots who were liable to lynch a man, just because of his skin color. Today, there are many Americans who are verbally lynching people they've never met, just because of their religious or political affiliations.

Pattern

I sent an email to Steve McMahon informing him of this passage from The Book of Mormon: ". . . there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." (Mosiah 3:17). I also made McMahon aware of the book's complete title: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

It is a myth to conclude that Mitt Romney, and Mormons in general, are not Christian. In sorting Fact from Fiction, Mark Twain offered this advice: "It ain't what you don't know that makes you a fool, but what you think you know . . . that ain't so!"

Pushing past prejudice is easy: If you want to know what Catholics believe: Ask a Catholic! And if you want to know what political Candidates stand for: Ask the Candidates (or get info directly from their websites). The worse source of valid information will come from antagonists who have covert motives for hiding or distorting the truth. Being Honest means conscientiously sorting credible info from piles of propaganda.

Vetting information takes time and effort; plus, some people don't really have a heartfelt commitment to being purely honest, in the first place. More than four decades ago in their song, "The Boxer," Simon and Garfunkel poetically pointed out this problem of prejudice: "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Prejudice

"How is it that Jesus, a perfect man,
was perceived as deserving crucifixion? Answer:
"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is
nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Titus 1:15).
In a similar way, people who harbor a cynical view
of the world also reveal their lack of purity."

Knowing the Truth, in its highest sense, comes only by Living the Truth: The way we Live is inseparable from the way we See and Know. The Apostle Paul taught: "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Seeing and Knowing the Truth comes only by Living the Truth.

Gordon Allport, author of "The Nature of Prejudice," defined prejudice thus:
"A feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."

"A great many people think they are thinking, when they are
really just rearranging their prejudices."
~ William James 

"Answering a matter before hearing it, is folly and shame" (Proverbs 18:13).

Allport gives an example of how easy and common it is to form attitudes of prejudice, and then express those pre-judgments into stereotypes that obscure the reality of individuals:

"In Rhodesia a white truck driver passed a group of idle natives and muttered, "They're lazy brutes." A few hours laterhe saw those same natives heaving two-humdred pound sacks of grain onto a truck, singing in rhythm to their work. "Savages," he grumbled. "What do you expect?"

In forming prejudices, there are two essential ingredients: Inward Attitudes & Outward Expressions.
The following illustrates the subtle difference between the two:

Inward Attitude: I dislike liberals.
Outward Expressions: "Liberals are elitist snobs."

Inward Attitude: I dislike conservatives.
Outward Expressions: Tea party extremists want to throw grandma over the cliff.

An attitude is a feeling of affect — a sentiment of like or dislike towards a person, place, or thing.
From attitudes come prejudicial expressions — judgmental conclusions about a person, place, or thing, prior to having any direct experience with the object of one's judgments.

Attitudes and Expressions go hand in hand: As we observe one, we will also see the other. A distinction between the two becomes important as we try to break down, and change, prejudices:

For example, a bigoted person may strongly distain Mormons (attitude) — "they're a bunch of carnally-minded polygamists (expression). It can be fairly easy to up-root an expression simply by vetting this outward judgment against credible evidence.

When a prejudiced person discovers "Oh really, Mormons don't practice polygamy, currently." that same bigot may still retain the prejudicial attitude: I still disdain Mormons, anyway! Why? Because a century ago some Mormons did practice polygamy? Bible believers need to realize that Abraham and Jacob were married to multiple wives — Abraham married Sariah, Bilha, Zilpah; Jacob was married to Rachel and

As you question the bigot, a laundry list of assumptions may emerge. And even if each assumption were defeated by the facts, a bigot may still cling to the attude — I disdain Mormons.

The key to this disdain is in pigeon-holing a person into the stereotypic category in the first place.

When prejudicial categories clash against evidence!

Prejudice is manifest by an overgeneralizing language! General-Talk is the language of prejudice: All Irishmen are fighters; all Muslims are terrorists; all Mormons are polygamists; all Jews are bankers; all Rock Stars abuse drugs.

In casual conversation, generalizations are convenient. The government is spending 160 billion dollars a month more than it takes in. The "government" is a generalized term that represents hundreds of specific individual, some of which are firmly against deficit spending, and would like to change it if they could. Because it is convenient in talking, statements like these are common: Congress is a bunch of idiots! Republicans are buffoons! Democrats are crazy. The government doesn't care about me at all.

Truth is "the government" can't care about anyone! For "the government" does not have a single brain with wich to think, or a a single heart with which to care. The government, is a general construct; it is a categorical idea that exist in language! When this general construct is translated into living, breathing reality, we discover that "the government" has a million dynamic moving parts called "people" and "buildings" and "laws" and "agreements" — these elements combine to create the mental construct called "social structure."

Efforts to erase prejudice center upon this principle: The more we learn about a person, we are less likely to hold hostility towards them. In the old testiment the story of Ruth, she was inspired to without the fact that she was a hebrew, for she knew that that would inhibit the King from choosing her as a wife. And as the King became acquainted with her, he learned to like her — the very sentiment essential to breaking down prejudicial attitutes.

Cognitive Dissonance! When a person hold two conflicting attitudes: 1) I love Ruth, but Ruth is a Hebrew 2) I hate Hebrews

Five Fallacies of Sound Reasoning:

1) Ad Hominem Attacks — we mistakenly imagine that attacking a person somehow diminishes ideas and issues expressed by that person. Propagandists use Ad Hominem Attacks when they have no facts to prove their points. Using Ad Hominem Attack typically ties to the persuasion: Consider the Source! The logic goes like this: Since this person is worthless-scum, then anything this person says must also be worthless and scummy! In the end, we can separate the messanger from the message, and simpy examine evidence in support of the message — regardless of the chararcter of the messanger.

2) Claiming Hypocrisy. As a good point in made by one person, instead of embracing the valid point, an oppoent will turn the tables and declare: You do it too! As if one person's bad behavior can justify the misdeeds of another.

3) Pooh-Pooh. This is a variation of Sour Grape. To "pooh pooh" something means to down-play its importance. We don't need to waste time on this, it's a bunch of boloney anyway.

4) Straw Man. The fallacy of the straw man is committed when a position is distorted in a way so weak, that it is easily defeated — Straw men are easily blown over. A position is made more radical and extreme that it really is, making it easy to attack.

5) Loaded Words. (slanted words). When trying to write in a fair of objective manner, inevitably, our language makes it hard to illiminate judgmental implications.

Consider these two contrasting paragraphs describing the SAME PERSON:

"He had apparently not shaved for seveal days, and his face and hands were voered with grime. His shoes were to torn, and his coat, which was several sizes too small for him was spotted with dried clay."

Compare the image the previous words created to this description of the SAME PERSON:

"Alghough his face was bearded, his eyes were clear, and he looked straight ahead as he walked rapidly down the road. He seemed very tall; prhaps the fact that his caot was too samll for him emphasized that impression. He was carrying a book under his arm, and a small terrier ran at his heels."

This point to selective memory, and selective discription: When a person wants to slant a description towards an impression that fits one's agenda, they simply ignor the details that don't help the agenda, and only point out the details that do.

Rigid Judgements Halt Dialogue and Understanding

Conclusions like: Republican are stupid, tend to bring a discussion to a halt. For the only way to proceed from this rigid conclusion is to engage in an argument where one person will be right and the other, wrong — one person will win, and the other, lose. To avoid conention, people will skirt around rigid, overgeneralizing judgments. And in this way, dialogue grinds to a halt:

In contrast, if a person offers a stament like, "CNN Polls found that 80% of Americans want the federal government to fix their habit of deficit-spending." There are many non-controversial comments that can be made in response to statements that avoid drawing rigid conclusions.

Convenience vs Condemnation:

So, General-Talk can be casual and non-controvesial, and non-judgment — General-Talk is Convenient.

General-Talk is commonly use to Condemn — and this is where open dialogues are come to an end.

General descriptions of categories of people tend to foster prejudice; whereas specific descriptions of individuals can break down prejudice — when a person becomes real to us, it is harder to slander them. In contrast, prejudicial language can become more hostile to the same proportions that a person can be dehumanized.

Judging a person fresh, in every new day:

"The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor;
he took my measurement anew every time he saw me,
while all the rest went on with their old measurements
and expected them to fit me."
~ George Bernard Shaw

However, when you've been stung by a scorpion a few times, you learn NOT to be around scorpions — hence an attitude-category is created: Scorpions are BAD. And it is based upon experience: Scorpions will sting you!

But in prejudice, the basis for the attitude-category is NOT based upon experience, it is based upon assumption:

Attitude: I don't like Martians
Assumption: Martians are Mean!

But you've never experienced a Martian before, let alone a group of Martians. This is how prejudice is passed on, like a tradition: "Remember my son, Martians are Mean! Stay away from Martians"

Over-Generalizing: The Language of Prejudice

I watched a television show today. It's called "Hardball" on MSNBC. I'm listening to a segment about the war between Media Matters and Fox News. Chris Matthews is fielding comments from one of his guests, Ron Reagan, who made this statement:

The difference between Fox News and let's say MSNBC, which I think we can say has one of the more progressive points of view of any of the networks out there, is that you, and your fellow hosts and newspeople, actually stick to the facts. You don't go out and make things up. Fox makes things up!"

The language of prejudice is an over-generalizing language. Here's why Ron Reagan's statement cannot be true; in fact, it is impossible for his assertion to be true — impossible. Why?

Because "Fox News" does not have a single Mind or a single Mouth by which IT can "make things up" — only specific people can make things up, just like Ron Reagan "made up" the illusion that "Fox News" speaks with a one Mind and Mouth by which to "make things up."

General-Talk obscures all manner of details about reality — specific things that really happened. If certain assertions are "made up" at Fox News or at MSNBC, those lies will be concocted, one persons at a time, one lie at a time. So, the follow up question that cuts past General-Talk and gets to living-breathing reality, is simply this: "Can you give me an example of Fox News making things up?"

Now if the person asserting, responds with "they do it all the time," then you know that te asserter is still living in an Over-Generalizing mindset. Follow up question: "specifically, who is making things up?"

Human life happens particularly, it never happens generally; general conceptions only exist through language, as human being use sounds and symbols to describe thuman experience. the language we use to describe our world is inescapably general and categorical, while the world in which we live is personal and particular.

Walking home from Church yesterday, a young girl (age 7) and her little brother (age 3) were playing on the sidewalk in front of me. I felt to be friendly and say "hi," as I passed by. Both greeted me with broad smiles, then to my surprise, the young boy stepped toward me and hugged my leg. He did not know me; I was a stranger. The innocence and love of a little child is beautiful — an ideal to emulate.

Politics Defined
#1 - The art or science of government or governing;
#2 - The tactics involved in managing government;
#3 - Maneuvering within a political group to gain control or power.

Clearly, the common connotation of the word "Politics" is pejorative, and the idea of an "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron, similar to the contradiction of an "Honest Lawyer."

"It's hard for Presidential Candidates to say what they mean, when, for motives of pride or propaganda, others will not perceive a candidate's true intent. Each candidate's meaning is at the mercy those who interpret, and this is why some say "elect" and others say "reject" — while many are merely expressing their preference, others are expressing their prejudice."

sweep aside the secondary spin of ideologues, name-callers, and haters, and solely rely upon Primary Sources.

A proverb states: "A wise man changes his mind sometimes, a fool never."

There are honest misunderstandings, and then there are malicious political motives that twist a candidate's true intent.

Live will class and character: Leave the name-calling to those who don't believe in Christian Values. Jesus taught: "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks; out of the evil treasure of the heart comes forth that which is evil."

"The greater part of most people's thinking is involuntary, automatic, and repetitive. It is no more than a kind of mental static and fulfills no real purpose. Strictly speaking, you don't think: Thinking happens to you. The statement "I think" implies volition. It implies that you have a say in the matter, that there is choice involved on your part. For most people, this is not the case. "I think" is just as false a statement as "I digest" or "I circulate my blood." Digestion happens, circulation happens, thinking happens." (A New Earth, p. 129)

Here's an article about why we cannot really choose NOT to be Stressed — when a provoking moment is upon us — because, it is not IN US to be otherwise? Along the same line of logic, we cannot choose NOT to think in terms of prejudicial categories: We cannot choose NOT to be ourselves.

Language and Prejudice

Prejudice because an inheritance from our upbringing as we learn a language: We learn loaded words in association with particular groups of people — the loaded words subtly teach us who to like and dislike.

The more we understand how Language works, the more we can break down prejudices.

The Symbol IS NOT the Thing Symbolized. The Map IS NOT the territory. The Word IS NOT the Thing.

S. I Hayakawa states: "The habitual confusion of symbols with things symbolized, whether on the part of individuals or societies, is serious enough at all levels of culture to provide a perennial human problem."

We are constantly being talked at, by teachers, preachers, politicians, salesmen, pro atheletes, pundits, experts, news anchers and each of them may over overgeneralizing words that will feed our "likes" and "dislikes" toward categories of people, places, and things.

I hate Hawaii
I love New Hampshire

I hate brocoli
I love carrots

I hate Martians
I love Venusians

As we believe that WORDS are what WORDS-ARE-DESCRIBING, then we take too seriously such overgeneralizing comments like: Politicians are liars. Millionaires don't care about the poor. Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. Democrats want to destroy our ecomony.

I like to say, and so I do: All Generalization are always True! Except when they are not.

The proper use of Generalizations are thus:

1) In casual, non-accusing conversations where it is convenient to refer to something generally.

2) In political conversations when empirical research is cited, In which case generalization are always expressed as a percentage of people — 75% of Americans support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

When citing a research study, or a scientific poll, general statements describe only a portion of the population by percentage: 66% of American would like to Cut and Cap federal spending.

Propaganda

What we assert as True, neither creates Reality nor makes it disappear.
Reality will Be, whatever it Is. Thus, it's wise to let Evidence guide our conclusions;
instead of insisting that Facts must fit within the prejudice of an Ideology. Even before communications are made, Ideologues are stubbornly set upon certain conclusions —
"Answering a matter before hearing it, is folly and shame." (Proverbs 18:13).

Persuasion. If a group of people were asked to say what associations are brought to mind by the term persuasion, a range of responses may include: manipulation, seduction, coaxing, influencing, selling, inducing, etc. Most conceptions of persuasion tend to be neutral, however some people think of persuasion as a deceitful and undesirable method for subtly playing on the emotions and feelings of others through unfair manipulation of information. From a positive perspective persuasion can be thought of as an interactive exchange where the people involved have mutual respect and self respect for the role that each plays in this communicative process (Andersen, 1978: 9). In this more favorable view of persuasion, people maintain a respect for the ability of the sender to "take his/her best shot" so to speak at convincing or influencing the receiver; as well as preserving a respect for the receiver's ability to make a choice. Different authors have conceptualized persuasion in various ways as follows:

"Power or quality to induce a person to believe or do something; to argue into an opinion or course of action."
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1963)

"Persuasion is that activity in which speaker and listener are conjoined and in which the speaker consciously attempts to influence the behavior of the listener by transmitting audible and visible symbolic cues."
Thomas M. Scheidel (1967)

"Persuasion is a process whereby decision options are intentionally limited or extended through the interaction of messages, sources, and receivers, and through which attitudes, beliefs, opinions, or behaviors are changed by a cognitive restructuring of one's image of the world or of his frame of reference." Charles U. Larson (1973)

"Persuasion is a communicative activity that unites people--yet it also permits maximum individual choice. Persuasion is a key to maintaining a complex, voluntary society in which people have the right to their choices and responsibility for them."
Kenneth E. Andersen (1978)

"To be labeled as persuasive, a communication situation must involve a conscious attempt by one individual to change the attitudes, beliefs, or behavior of another individual or group of individuals through the transmission of some message."
Erwin P. Bettinghaus (1980)

"Persuasion is a complex, continuing, interactive process in which a sender and a receiver are linked by symbols, verbal and nonverbal, through which the persuader attempts to influence the persuadee to adopt a change in a given attitude or behavior because the persuadee has had perceptions enlarged or changed." Victoria O'Donnell & June Kable (1982)

"Persuasion implies a process of winning over by an appeal, entreaty, or expostulation addressed as much to feelings as to reason; it usually implies that the one persuaded is more or less won over by the one that persuades."
Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1984)

". . . . a communication process the purpose of which is to influence. A persuasive message has a point of view or a desired behavior for the recipient to adopt in a voluntary fashion . . . . persuasion attempts to evoke a specific change in the attitude or behavior of an audience."
Garth S. Jowett & Victoria O'Donnell (1986)

Seven Aspects of Persuasion. From the previous definitions the following elements of persuasion are identified:

1) Persuasion is an interactive process requiring two or more people; at minimum a sender and receiver are necessary (persuader & persuadee).
2) It involves an exchange of communicative symbols both verbal and nonverbal; persuasion tends to be reciprocal, meaning the sender will most often take his/her turn at being a receiver.
3) Persuasion is a process where the verbal and/or non verbal messages are manipulated to elicit a desired effect in the receiver.
4) In a specific sense of the word, persuasion is an activity which involves conscious intent as opposed to subconscious or unplanned spontaneity.
5) Persuasion is an activity engaged in to influence the receiver towards a specific and definite goal or response.
6) The intended goal focuses on influencing the attitudes and/or behaviors of the receiver.
7) Persuasion is differentiated from force, violence, and coercion in that it allows and respects the voluntary choice of the receivers to change their attitudes, beliefs, opinions, or behaviors.

Distinguishing between communication and persuasion. Offering an interesting and all encompassing definition, Cooley (1909: 61) describes communication this way:

"By Communication is here meant the mechanism through which human relations exist and develop--all the symbols of the mind, together with the means of conveying them through space and preserving them in time. It includes the expression of the face, attitude and gesture, the tones of the voice, words, writing, printing, railways, telegraphs, telephones, and whatever else may be the latest achievement in the conquest of space and time."

Because they were not invented yet, Cooley does not mention television and radio in his definition; however, he does mention "the latest achievement in the conquest of space and time," which is a good 1909 definition for "technology." Cooley's insightful definition allows for and recognizes the potential advancement of future communicative inventions.

Communication is defined by Andersen (1978: 8) as "a process that is focused upon achieving a degree of shared understanding, of shared meanings for the symbols used in the transaction;" and is also conceptualized by Jowett & O'Donnell (1986: 21) as "a convergence process in which sender and receiver, either through mediated or non-mediated means, create and share information." If persuasion is not distinguished from accidental communications, it would be difficult to urge writer and speakers to some uniform standards or techniques for persuasion (Bettinghaus, 1980: 4). Simply by comparing the content of the definitions of communication and persuasion, one clearly gets the impression that the two are related, but each have there distinct connotations.

It can be argued that all communication is persuasive to some degree especially if the definition of persuasion includes subconscious intent of a message. Impromptu communications can be "persuasive" in the sense that the listener does change an outlook as a result of the communication, however, the purpose of this paper is concerned with persuasion as a specific process (as opposed to general) in which people deliberately and consciously construct messages designed to maximize the potential for inducing a specific behavior or attitude. If persuasion is not distinguished from accidental communications, it would be difficult to urge writer and speakers to some uniform standards or techniques for the persuasion process (Bettinghaus, 1980).

Therefore, it is useful to concentrate on the various consciously weighed efforts to persuade so the workings of this process can be most clearly analyzed and differentiated from general communicative exchanges. Along this line of reasoning, persuasion is a sub-set of communication that seeks to elicit specific responses. Jowett & O'Donnell (p. 25) delineate these persuasive responses into three categories:

1) Response shaping,
2) Response reinforcing, and
3) Response changing.

Message Manipulation. Manipulation is a word like propaganda, that is commonly thought of as having a "dark cloud hanging over it." One of the aspect of persuasion is the conscious and strategic manipulation of symbols to form the message of influence. The use of the word in this context implies an "ordering" of words in a neutral sense. Manipulate in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (1963) means to: "to treat or work with the hands with skill" and "to manage skillfully; sometimes, to manage artfully or fraudulently." The root of the word is "manus," which in Latin means "hand;" it is the same root from which the word manuel is derived--as in manuel labor, or labor by hand. Manipulation as applied to our description of persuasion means a "handling" or "arranging" of the word symbols in the communicative.

The dictionary definition of manipulate offers a possible range of motives or means from skillful to fraudulent, or from ethical to non-ethical. Like the word propaganda, manipulation need not be thought in a negative sense; using a Jowett & O'Donnell (1986: 17-18) characterization, manipulation can also be viewed as a continuum concept varying from "white" to "black." The possibility that both ethical or unethical manipulations might be used in the influencing process becomes the final choice of the particular persuader/propagandist in question.

The Big Lie: "because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Propaganda shares many of the same aspect as those found in persuasion. Jowett & O'Donnell (p. 15-16) define propaganda this way, "to disseminate or promote particular ideas. . . . a deliberate attempt to alter or maintain a balance of power that is advantageous to the propagandist. . . . the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulated cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." This definition could easily pass as a definition of persuasion, the two process have many overlapping elements. Given the previous analysis of persuasion, the aspects of propaganda that seem common to both are:

* an exchange of communicative symbols,
* having conscious intent,
* involving a deliberate manipulation of messages,
* directed toward definite intentions or goals, and
* the ultimate aim being the changing or influencing of attitudes or behaviors of the receivers.

Differences. It must be remembered that Jowett & O'Donnell did write a 200+ page book to explore the phenomenon of propaganda; therefore, the depth of its meaning cannot be captured in a mere definition. From their book, four important differences between propaganda and persuasion emerge:

* propaganda is a one-to-many communicative exchange,
* because it attempts to influence large groups of people,
   the mass media is employed as the primary means of dissemination of information, and
* because the propagandist is detached from the group by the media,
   it does not have the degree of concern and respect for
   personal decision making as compared to persuasion; and
* this detached aspect implies a unidirectional dissemination of information
   because the physical separation between propagandist and his audience.

Analysis of Comparitive Aspects. The following detailed analysis between these two communicative processes of persuasion and propaganda is as follows:

1) Interactive process. While both persuasion and propaganda can be considered interactive processes requiring two or more people (persuader & persuadee), a useful distinction can be drawn in the type of interactions. Propaganda describes those persuasive interactions that involve a "one-to-many" ratio; in other words, propaganda is always a mass persuasion process, whereas persuasion can be conceptualized as "an individual psychological process" (p. 21). Hence, propaganda is simply a macro level phenomenon with persuasion operating at the micro level.

2) Exchange of communicative symbols. In persuasion, the interaction is characterized more by a two way exchange (the sender takes turns at being a receiver too); contrastingly, propaganda has an element of detachment from his audience (Jowett & O'Donnell, 1986: 34) and his/her "exchanges" tend to be more one directional. Because the propagandist utilizes the some form of media to induce the audience towards his/her goals, the propagandist is physically separated from the group to be influenced. This notion of reciprocity in the persuasion process is illuminated by Bettinghaus (1980: 5), he asserts, "At the same time a source is sending a message, the source is being influenced by the actions of the receiver for whom the message is intended. Messages are not sent in vacuums, . . . . Both source and receiver are typically influenced by each other, . . . . when I am trying to persuade you to my point of view, I am also trying to understand your point of view, and am exposed to your message to me." Therefore, propaganda differs from persuasion in that it is more detached from its target, disseminating information one-way without an consistent dialogue with the audience.

3) Messages are manipulated. In both persuasion and propaganda the communicative symbols are arranged and ordered in a deliberate fashion to facilitate the desired goal. The means of communication is basically difference, with persuasion utilizing face to face and person to person exchanges as compared to propaganda's utilization of television, radio, and the print media, etc., as its mode of message sending and message manipulation.

4) Conscious intent. While both processes are defined as having definite conscious and preplanned motives, the propaganda process may require and imply more premeditation and systematic calculation because propaganda campaigns tend to be executed on a long term basis (Barney, 1991), contrastingly, persuasion can be generally characterized as a short term process which is consummated with the passing success or failure to elicit each intended response; therefore, the conscious intent is likely to be less intricate. While there may be persuasion efforts that as detailed and intricate as any propaganda scheme, relatively speaking, the claim made here should be generally valid.

5) Specific and definite goal. Given the previous argument that propaganda campaigns require more premeditation and conscious calculation, because of the long term nature as well as the magnitude of the "stakes," the same argument would contend that the goals of the propagandist are generally more specific and detailed than those of the persuader. This is a very slight distinction, for on this point as in the previous one, the two processes probably have more similarity than differences.

6) Influencing attitudes and/or behaviors. Both propaganda and persuasion seeks similar ends--a change in the receiver. On the topic of influence it is useful to refer to Jowett & O'Donnell's (1986: 17-18) descriptions of "means" of influence in degrees of accuracy--white to black. While the propagandist may not be as concerned with, or as respectful of, the individual choices of its audience, still the propagandist can find it useful to be accurate in his/her dissemination of information. When the disseminated information of mass persuasion campaign is basically accurate, this is referred to as "white propaganda". Black propaganda, on the other hand, occurs when "a false source is given and lies, fabrications, and deceptions are spread." Gray propaganda appropriately falls somewhere in the middle between accuracy and intentional error, where the source of propaganda "may or may not be correctly identified" and the overall "accuracy of information is uncertain. These same shades of accuracy are applicable to the persuasion process as well.

7) Respects voluntary choice. Just when you think Jowett & O'Donnell are making a case for a neutral definition of propaganda, they cite the following characteristic of propaganda, "the point is that the propagandist does not regard the well-being of the audience as a primary concern . . . not only does the propagandist not care about the audience, he or she may not believe in the message that is being sent" (p. 34). Therefore, the propaganda process according to Jowett & O'Donnell does not share the notion of respect for the interactive process and choices of the receiver as does persuasion.

Perception

Jesus taught "for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks,
an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil."
Watch what comes out of a person's mouth, that defines the Cynic — a person who
fails to focus on and seek out things that are virtuous, lovely,
of good report, and praiseworthy."

Our eyes are like cameras, they process the pictures of Life — but it is the mind that brings "meaning" to those pictures. So, while the eyes "look" . . . it is the mind that "sees" and "assumes" — in a similar way, you and I don't really taste with our mouths, we really taste with our minds. That is why to some brocolli is bitter and to others brocolli is beautiful.

Your Way of Knowing is a direct function of your Way of Seeing, and our Way of Seeing is inseparable from your Way of Being.

There is an enlightened way of seeing & knowing that is only accessible to those who Live True; only as we Be True, can we See True, . . . and only when we See True can we Know True. The scriptures call this enlightened understanding: Pure Knowledge.

Only a pure mind can conceive pure knowledge. Paul implies two kinds of minds in this verse: "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled" (Titus 1:15). A mind that is "defiled" will see the world and know the world differently than a mind that is pure.

The Gospels give account of a man from whom "devils were departed," after which he was restored to "his right mind" (Mark 15:5). Alma speaks of "the effect of a frenzied mind; and . . . derangement of your minds" (Alma 30:16). The outside force of unseen evil explains the "derangement of . . . minds" and the associated dark way of seeing and knowing; in contrast, the presence of light and love brings back into clarity . . . a "right mind." A "frenzied mind" will bring meaning to the pictures supplied by the eyes . . . differently than a pure and "right mind."

Paul makes it clear that Pure Knowledge is not know-able by the carnal mind of the natural man:

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. . . . For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. . . . But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:5,11-14).

Again, an impure mind cannot know the precepts of purity: ". . . the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Romans 8:7). The "natural man" is blocked and blinded from seeing and knowing Pure Knowledge. The carnal man has eyes . . . but cannot see the truth; he has ears . . . but cannot hear the truth. Paul describes in detail the ways of the carnal, natural man:

"In the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, disobedient to parents, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, fierce, despisers of those that are good, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God" (2 Tim. 3:1-4).

The previous verse aptly captures the motives that feed hedonistic living: "lovers of their own selves, . . . boasters, proud, . . . lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." Further, the Apostle describes carnal man's correlated way of knowing as "heady" & "high-minded," and asserts that such arrogant intellectualism is: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7).

Pure Knowledge Flows to the Faithful

Because the carnal mind cannot understand pure knowledge, the carnal man casts aside plain and precious precepts as foolish and simple-minded. To the carnal mind, great knowledge is complex, intricate, esoteric, intellectual, and especially . . . empirical. In contrast, Pure Knowledge is plainly stated and understood by simple faith, and not primarily through empirical approaches:

"And Ether was a prophet of the Lord . . . and began to prophesy unto the people . . . exhorting the people to believe in God unto repentance lest they should be destroyed, saying unto them that by faith all things are fulfilled . . . And it came to pass that Ether did prophesy great and marvelous things unto the people, which they did not believe, because they saw them not" (Ether 12:2-5).

These disbelievers wanted the very thing that science requires to establish knowledge, . . . empirical evidence, and unless they could visually "see," they would "not believe." Moroni adds this about living by faith and receiving enlightenment from Heaven:

"And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith" (Ether 12:6).

No witness of pure knowledge comes until we prove faithful. Pure Knowledge is endowed by the Spirit through faith . . . and does not come by mental machinations of willful figuring. Thus, Pure Knowledge is unavailable to the heady and high-minded:

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not" (2 Nephi 9:28-29).

Nephi adds a stern warning to heady, high-minded intellectuals:

"Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 28:31).

Paul echoes a similar warning to those who think they are wise and suppose they know of themselves:

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men" (Corinthians 3:18-21).

Two Possible Worlds to See and Know

While we live upon only one earth, yet two diametrically different kinds of minds perceive and experience two possible worlds: A world of Simplicity versus a world of Complexity. Within each world is a way of knowing that is also diametrically different. Isaiah taught of the higher way of knowing:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). This higher way of knowing is described by Nephi as plain:

"And now I, Nephi, . . . am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be" (2 Nephi 32:7).

The way of seeing and knowing in the world of simplicity comes by plain and simple means:

"Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear. For my Spirit is sent forth into the world to enlighten the humble and contrite" (D& C 136:32-33).

"And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures" (D&C 89:18-19).

Through the enlightened seeing and knowing that comes only to the humble and obedient, even the prophecies of Isaiah can be plainly understood:

"Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy. But I give unto you a prophecy, according to the spirit which is in me; wherefore I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me . . . for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn" (2 Nephi 25:4).

Consider this ultimate irony of enlightenment: The writings of Isaiah are best understood by the simple-minded. Indeed, plain precepts and simple faith bring Light to our minds:

"For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding" (2 Nephi 31:3).

Of Truth, Light, and Love

Pure Knowledge is inseparably tied to the reality of Light and Truth. Of Truth, Christ gave this unflinching declaration: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

Truth is not a metaphor to represent a non-tangible essence; instead, Christ is "the truth" by virtue of his whole way of Being True, . . . Truth is the very Being of Christ!

Of Light, Jesus taught: "If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light" (Matt. 6:22).
And in modern-day revelation, this principle is expanded: "And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things" (D&C 88:67).

"And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you" (D&C 50:23-25).

Pure Knowledge distills as "dews from Heaven," upon the humble, contrite, obedient, and virtuous . . . for a Divine Purpose: That the faithful might influence and impact others to their eternal advantage; enlightened understanding is graciously given that we might love one another in the example of the Savior, . . . in similitude of the Being of Christ. Christ-like love is always expressed within these guiding parameters:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile (D&C 121:41-42).

Godly Knowledge is inseparable from faithful application; a truth suggested in this Old Testament verse:

"Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed" (1 Samuel 2:3).

In the same mention of "knowledge" is a statement of human accountability: "actions are weighed." Thus, we "know" that we might "act" . . . and we "act" . . . that we might "know." Knowing happens in a hermeneutic circle, a mutually-informing circle of action and insight that either spirals upward to the Light, or downward to darkness.

Of the upward ascending circle, the scriptures teach: "For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith" (D&C 98:12). Reaffirming that only those who Live True, . . . can Know True, Jesus spoke of the inseparable tie between knowing and doing: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17).

Pure Knowing for a Purifying Purpose

In all human action, there is no act we can choose that does not carry with it impact upon others for either their betterment, . . . or their detriment. Mortal Life is an inescapable moral context where all human beings are accountable to the Creator for the influencing impact of all thoughts, words, and deeds (Mosiah 4:31).

Pure Knowledge, . . . Plain Knowledge . . . is Purposeful Knowledge; and that purpose is centered in Jesus Christ: That we might walk in His Ways of Light and Love and be redeemed from darkness by his precious blood. Nephi writes of the purifying purpose of plain precepts: "I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell" (2 Nephi 33:6).

All who live in the Light of His Love will joyously receive the words of plainness:

"But I, Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great worth, . . . and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal. And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written save he shall be of the spirit of the devil" (2 Nephi 33:3-5).

Pure Knowledge is not gleaned by intellectual means; rather, it is revealed by the Spirit of God to those who live in the Bright White Light of Purity. Pure Knowledge flows to those with a single eye and a pure heart, those who are faithful, humble, and virtuous: "Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly then shall the doctrines . . . distill upon thy soul as the dews from Heaven" (D&C 121:43).

Pure Heart, Pure Mind, Pure Knowing

"When people are being true to their own sense of truth,
they display peaceful emotionsin their bodies and upon their faces.
Integrity of character is evidenced by a calm and contented countenance.
Whereas, feeling unsettled emotions like Being Bothered, Irritated,
or Angry openly reveals our betrayal of Truth.
Because these feelings are false, we are
Being False as we harbor them."

Jesus taught that "the tree is known by his fruit" (Matthew 12:33); by observing the "fruit" of everyday doings, people reveal "who they are," . . . they expose the nature of their heart: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matthew 6:21).

Integrity of Heart is foundational to enlightened understanding: "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life (Proverbs 4:23). In an admonition to his son, David affirmed the importance of a pure heart: "And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts" (1 Chronicles 28:9).

Of this correlation between a perfect heart and a willing mind, Christ confirms: "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh" (Luke 6:45).
The mouth speaks according to the good treasures of the heart; but the benefits of an abundant heart extend to all human faculties (see D&C 84:33). The treasures that we harbor in our heart determine either a deadening or an invigorating of the senses:

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matthew 13:15).

When the Savior proclaimed this seemingly unattainable standard, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as our Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48), Christ could have just as well stated, "Repent and come unto me, that I should heal you; for I am able to make you holy and your sins are forgiven you." Being "perfect" is primarily about being healed of "defect," being made clean from the stain of sin. Godly Knowing, . . . Pure Knowing is not about being magnificently accomplished and complex, but about being simply and purely clean, . . . perfect! "But no man is possessor of all things except he be purified and cleansed from all sin" (D&C 50:28). (Changing Your Stripes Manual, pages 8-8 thru 8-11)

"If your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, 
and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is
filled with light comprehendeth all things."

.* * * * *.

In Contrast to Pure Knowledge and Pure White. Visualize a canvas of pure white, the kind of canvas that an artist uses to paint a portrait. Think of your life as a collection of colors being painted upon this clean, clear canvas. With every word you think and every deed you do, the portrait of your life is painted, and in contrast to pure white, any tint or shade less than white is obvious and conspicuous. Against an immaculate backdrop, you are able to see, with perfect clarity, how some motives and emotions fall short of pure white.

In your mind's eye, imagine that all loving words and deeds possess the unsullied shine of bright white. The purity of love would have no hint of darkness, not even the slightest shade of gray. Every word, deed, thought, or emotion that is "less-than" pure white, is a shade of betrayal:

                                               Pure Love                                                         Less-than-Love
                                 Emotions of Bright White                                  Black & Gray Emotions

                                  calm           approachable                                  impetuous               edgy
                                  lovely           enthusiastic                                  suspicious            angry
                                  amiable           nurturing                                  defensive            cranky
                                  engaging             friendly                                  arrogant             forlorn
                                  fascinating              happy                                  jealous              resentful
                                  welcoming                sweet                                  galled                annoying
                                  cherishing                giving                                  mean               impatient
                                  animated            genuine                                  bitter              malicious
                                  gracious           generous                                  bored               apathetic
                                  cheery             passionate                                  listless                worried
                                  lively           comfortable                                  irritated              fearful
                                  real           warmhearted                                  conceited                tense

Shades of Betrayal: Less-than-Love. When we are being less-than-loving, the portrait we paint upon the white canvas is clouded by confusion; instead of vivid hues of red, blue, and green, a quarreling collision of colors makes the muddied shades of black and gray. Thus the portrait of our Life loses clarity . . . and beauty. Against the backdrop of bright white, even the subtlest shades of gray are easily exposed.

* * * * *
The Light of Innocence shines in the Heart of all Humanity;
It carries the Clarity and Purity of Bright White.
When I betray the Light of Innocence,
tense and agitated shades of black and gray
stand in stark contrast: Emotions Less-than-Love,
these Emotions signal my departure from Pure Light.
.* * * * *.

Look back on your life: Remember a time when you were crystal clear that something was wrong to do, . . . but you did it anyway. With your very first act that betrayed the Light of Innocence within, you were completely clear that a lesser way was being chosen. With each subsequent betrayal, this crystal sense of honesty became increasingly clouded; you became accustomed to the muddied shades of a dreary portrait. You became desensitized to the darkness, . . . deadened by the darkness.

* * * * *
Pure White . . . portrays Pure Love.
Anything less than Pure White is Less-than-Love.
All acts that are Less-than-Loving are acts of Betrayal.
.* * * * *.

The Light of Innocence will naturally lead you back to the complete purity you possessed as a child. Followed consistently over time, the Light of Innocence will lead you to recover and renew . . . the You that is True. Returning to pure white is how you began and is who you are from your core. When you recover and renew, euphoric feelings of Love fill you, and flow from you. As you choose Love, you also choose the peace that comes with Love. To follow these impressions of Inner Innocence . . . is to experience rebirth.

* * * * *
The Light always leads to Love.
Pure Love is an absence of Anxious Emotions.
Acts of Love I feel to do . . . bring Healing and Contentment.
As I choose Acts that are Less-than-Love,
I choose chaos and contention.
They come together
just as certain seeds
bring forth specific fruits:
confusion, clamor, and complexity
comes with every act that is Less-than Love.
The Motives and Emotions of My Heart, define the Acts I do.
.* * * * *.

The Fallibility of Following Feelings. The words "feeling" and "emotion" are essentially synonymous. Emotional moments, feeling moments, are the exclamation points of life; they give emphasis to a particular experience. Through our "feelings" we are constrained to pay greater attention to things that likely need more attention—this is true whether the feelings are white, black, or gray.

When emotions flow from darkness, the discomfort of unsettled feelings is educational—it can teach us NOT to do "something like that again." The rule of thumb, "follow your feelings" became a common guide precisely because all emotional experience is instructive.

However "following your feelings" per se is an unreliable rule—because some feelings are fallible. The fact is that emotions flow from prior perceptions and choices; thus, any physiological feeling that arises in you, is actually following your lead. It makes no sense to follow something . . . that is following you! Because YOU author of your emotions, if your perceptions are skewed then the feelings that flow from you will be equally warped. Bottom Line: Emotions should not always be followed, but should always be listened to for what they might teach.

* * * * *
You can trust your emotional feelings to
be a good teacher, but not always a good leader.
You are the author of your emotions; you should not follow,
that which is following you, . . . for if you are false, then
foulable feelings—which should not be followed—
will flow from your falseness.
.* * * * *.

Foul-Able Feelings: A Sign of Leaving the Light. Feelings are fundamentally of two types: feelings of Light and feelings of darkness; emotions of Bright White and emotions of black and gray. Again, emotions are Life's exclamations . . . that point to moments and matters that need attention—what to reinforce in Bright White moments, and what to avoid when black and gray emotions arise. Emotional feelings "kick in" as a function of how you perceive your world; thus, if your perceptions are incorrect or impure, you will generate body physiology in support of a "false alarm."

* * * * *
Fallacious Feelings should not be followed,
but should be "listened to" and "learned from."
.* * * * *.

The most important function that foulable feelings serve . . . is to let us know we have left the Light. Negative emotions can be useful exclamation points that help us correct our course; however, they are only helpful if we hear and heed their warning, otherwise the experience of feeling negative emotions is just one more useless, needless occurrence of Self-Inflicted Suffering. Listening to what anxious emotions are willing to teach is one way that Life is Self-Correcting.

Because foulable feelings let us know that we have strayed from the Light, the way to discern is clear: Feelings of Light lead to do good, . . . and when you do good, you feel good. In the very same way you recognize a good tree by its good fruit, you may also know that you are being true by the joyful feelings that fill you, and shine from you.

A thorough understanding of the tell-tale signs of betrayal can provide awareness sufficient to catch yourself and correct your course. The patterns are predictable and observable; they are signs central to the aim of Un-Doing! Seeing these signs in yourself will provide a huge clue . . . to what you need to Un-Do:

* * * * *
When I go against my own sense of Truth,
I go against myself, . . . I am false.
Being false, the way I experience the world is colored by my falseness:
I see darkness in my world, because of the darkness in me.
My thinking, my emotions, and how I behave
are all tainted by betrayal.
My search for solutions is skewed;
It is wrong, . . . . because I am wrong.
.* * * * *.

When caught in the trap of betrayal, we encounter the connected consequence of diminished vision; betrayal and blindness always occur together. People will not even attempt to correct a problem if they don't think they have a problem--yet they do . . . and are blind to it! Thus, having an intellectual awareness of the tell-tale signs of betrayal is a good start in "seeing" beyond the blindness. Intellectually identifying the tell-tale signs can be quite easy; the harder task is "seeing" the full implications of these outward signs and humbly admitting one's betrayal. Even though there is intellectual acknowledgment of tell-tale signs, yet we will continue to be blind as long as we remain in betrayal. Clear Vision and Pure Knowledge only come with harmony of heart. (Changing Your Stripes, pages 194-200)

Sold Exclusively
through this website

Changing Your Stripes is a
unique reference book that will help
you understand, . . . and solve all of
Life's ever-appearing problems
Here are more reasons to buy
Changing Your Stripes

Social Psychologist & Personal Advisor