Illusion or Reality?

Logical treatment of false dichotomy, illusion and reality

Note from the author: This article is being presented in its short and redacted form for publishing purposes. To read the full, unredacted article go here.

Reliance on worldviews curated by television contributes to a high level of obfuscation when one attempts to perceive a conflicted objective reality, thereby insulating against the onset of epiphany, realization and natural growth. Ingesting so much fantasy and fiction causes a person to default toward inaction, apathy and deferral after being emotionally overwhelmed by the detection of complex possible realities that do not conform to the simplistic fake reality being presented by corporations on television. A delicate battle takes place inside such a person, and, whether or not they can actually surmount the intentional obfuscation relies totally on the strength of their will, character and their level of emotional maturity, which ultimately governs synthesis of new information, or lack thereof.

Definition Of Obfuscate /Define

  • To make obscure. Examples: Obfuscate the issue. || Officials who … continue to obscure and obfuscate what happened.
  • To be evasive, unclear, or confusing. Example: The suspect often obfuscated during the interrogation.


Is it a rabbit or a duck?
Which one is it?


Why does there exist such an emphasis on the consumption of fiction from television, netflix and movie theaters? Have you ever had a racing heart beat while watching someone being chased in a horror movie? Have your hairs stood on end during a pivotal cinematic climax? Many famous experiments determined the human subconscious cannot detect differences in what the conscious mind perceives, actually believing that what it perceives happens to the individual themselves.

Incongruity often causes such profound confusion in an individual, they will, in many instances, defer to the authority of official narratives rather than contend with conflicting information, much like a child defers to the authority of a parent when faced with something they’ve never seen before that could be scary or unusual. Confusion forms an important basis on which to develop the obfuscation of reality and we see, quite regularly, advanced psychological techniques that facilitate such mental states.

Now we will examine, in detail, the psychology being generated in the public when receiving complex information, in order to lay a proper foundation for today’s topic.


[REDACTED] provides us a perfect example of the confusion and incongruity that works on the greater psyche of Americans, thereby fostering a non-consensus that insulates people against the synthesis of complex truths. In this debunking article from Popular Mechanics, they explain to us that the air force was not told to stand down during the attacks.

CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. “On [REDACTED] Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.,” says the website “They failed to do their job.” “There is only one explanation for this,” writes Mark R. Elsis of “Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down [REDACTED].”

FACT: On [REDACTED] there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. “They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,” says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD.

In another article about [REDACTED], from the United States Department of Defense, it states:

New York Air National Guard Maj. Jeremy Powell was a 31-year-old tech sergeant taking part in Exercise Vigilant Guardian when [REDACTED] occurred. He was the first military person to learn about the hijackings, having taken the initial call from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Boston center. Master Sgt. Stacia Rountree was a 23-year-old senior airman working as an identification technician. Vigilant Guardian was her first major NORAD exercise.

The United States Department of Defense says, “It took some time for NEADS to realize [REDACTED] was a real-world scenario and not part of the exercise.” Operation Vigilant Guardian and Operation Northern Vigilance sent fighter jets to the northwestern United States, outside the region of where the [REDACTED] attacks occurred, so the air force was not necessarily told to stand down, rather, many of their fighter jets were sent away on training exercises.

In the above debunking article from Popular Mechanics, one claim suggests the air force was told to stand down, while the counterclaim suggests the problem was the slow rate at which the warning communications occurred via telephone. Ultimately, the reasoning being put forth by both the claim and the counterclaim are not really relevant. Only the literal situation of no air force response remains essential to the situation and not necessarily the reasoning, meaning that, both the claim and counterclaim are only muddying the waters of a real event, in which the air force failed to act resulting in thousands of American deaths. People who are following the situation are then led down a logical path of reasoning that quickly moves passed air force fault, directly into the narrative that relies on obfuscation, confusion and contention, thereby creating the argument between different reasonings and narratives.


Now we will begin to examine, objectively, both the claims and counterclaims being put forth in the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] theater of discussion, treating them as equally relevant, just as we did in the above exercise regarding [REDACTED], in order to fully explore the situation we are being presented with. In the compilation below, we see the comparison of a [REDACTED] from a fictional video game and one of the microscopic organisms found in present day [REDACTED].


In yet another debunking article from Forbes magazine, the title explains to us, rather definitively and presumptuously, “[REDACTED] Don’t Alter Your DNA — They Help Choose Cells To Strengthen Your Immune Response”. When we examine the language being employed in the article, we are immediately presented with: “One of the common tropes among [REDACTED] lately is that the [REDACTED] “changes your DNA.” Oh, the horrors!”.

In the first sentence of the debunking article, it immediately employs advanced divisive terminology of “[REDACTED]”, facilitating an instant reliance in the reader on the fallacy of false dichotomy of “us vs them”, but I am not interested in “either or” arguments, and neither should you be, just as I am not interested in any mindset that must subscribe to an “either one or the other” mentality, because, as we saw above in the [REDACTED] rendition, reality often contains nuances left out of such simplistic arguments. After relying on the false dichotomy, the article then employs a rather simplistic debasement of the idea itself by saying “Oh, the horrors” as if to make fun of such an assertion, that seriously alleges, whether rightfully or wrongfully, a potential of the [REDACTED] [REDACTED]to alter human DNA: an assertion that should not be taken so lightly nor frivolously, especially by a legitimate publication like Forbes magazine.

Now, as an important exercise, we will examine the scientific information surrounding the potential of the [REDACTED] to alter our DNA, without a reliance on believing either mindset to be wrong or right.

In an article entitled [REDACTED] alters human genes, explaining mystery behind [REDACTED] ‘long haulers’, they explain to us that “scientists reveal the [REDACTED], the [REDACTED], creates long-lasting changes to human gene expression.”

In another article from ABC news, entitled In-Depth: Study suggests [REDACTED]infection could alter our DNA it states: “New research from a team of prominent scientists suggests the pandemic [REDACTED] doesn’t just hijack our cells; in some cases it can actually alter our DNA.”

From the scientific study mentioned in the above ABC News article, it states: “We show here that [REDACTED] can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of the infected cell and be expressed as chimeric transcripts fusing viral with cellular sequences. Importantly, such chimeric transcripts are detected in patient-derived tissues.”

In an article from the CDC website, entitled How [REDACTED] Work, it states: “First, [REDACTED]s are given in the upper arm muscle. After [REDACTED], the [REDACTED] will enter the muscle cells. Once inside, they use the cells’ machinery to produce a harmless piece of what is called the [REDACTED]. The [REDACTED] is found on the surface of the [REDACTED] that causes [REDACTED].”

Now, when we refer back to the initial article about [REDACTED] altering human genes, we see that “scientists reveal the [REDACTED] of [REDACTED], the [REDACTED] causing[REDACTED], creates long-lasting changes to human gene expression.”

From the CDC article referred to immediately above, it states: “After [REDACTED], the [REDACTED] will enter the muscle cells. Once inside, they use the cells’ machinery to produce a harmless piece of what is called the [REDACTED]. The [REDACTED] is found on the surface of the [REDACTED] that causes [REDACTED].”

Regardless of our opinion concerning the subject matter, we have independently established, from legitimate medical literature, the following assertions:

  1. [REDACTED] can alter human DNA

2. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] causes long-lasting changes to human gene expression

3. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] doesn’t just highjack our cells, but actually alters human DNA

4. [REDACTED] physically create [REDACTED] inside the human body

Much like in the [REDACTED] rendition above, the claim and the counterclaim don’t really provide us with any pertinent information because such exclusive arguments only foster a dependence on a “this or that” mentality. The facts themselves, however, paint a very different picture of possibility than the oversimplified debunking rendition put forth by Forbes magazine, with irresponsibly weighted and divisive language that detracts from the objective assessment of such a serious potential issue.

As we continue to explore the veracity of controversial claims put forth by doctors from around the world, we are presented with a very high visibility news show called the [REDACTED]. When we look into this individual [REDACTED], we see he is regularly associated with [REDACTED], which, itself, corrals the minds of individuals into yet another false-dichotomy, giving any reasonable person pause as they are investigating. As we saw above in the [REDACTED] rendition, those who put forth claims and counterclaims are not necessarily relevant themselves because they rely on obvious false dichotomies; what is relevant is the true rendition being obfuscated among the contention created by both arguments. In the [REDACTED] rendition, the situation of who to believe depends on there being strong claims from both sides inside the false dichotomy because each argument requires its counterpart to make an effective obfuscation.

Read the full unredacted article here, complete with several photographic compilations.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store


I’m an environmental ecologist from San Francisco, providing extensive scientific information to the people.