My Psych Profile of Fidem Turbare

Image

 

For my own pleasure I am going to write this as though Fidem were a wanted person and I was righting a criminal profile so that we could recognize her if we found her.  I have taken wild liberties in characterizing her and made huge assumptions.  I am not as afraid as being wrong as I am of being boring, but I do feel that I might be correct in some rather interesting and unusual ways.  I am testing my theories and my ability to extrapolate a persons personality from their narrative as per the psycholinguistic science I have created.  I hope Fidem with grace me by letting me know how close I came to getting some of this stuff correct.  

I suspect that she is a lot like me in a lot of ways.  She says that she has autism, I suspect that like me she has a large amount of the motherfucker gene, the MTHFKR.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenetetrahydrofolate_reductase

She most likely has shadow syndromes of tourette’s, aspergers, and ADHD, which are associated with the same thing.  I suspect but I cannot prove that this gene is associated with the tribe of Aaron, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron.

SIGN OF THE KOHANIM

Image

Etymology[edit]

From Hebrew אהרן (Ahărōn), of unknown meaning, possibly meaning “bearer of martyrs“, or perhaps also, or instead, related to the Ancient Egyptian “aha rw” (“warrior lion“), though it has been suggested to also mean elevated, “exalted” or “high mountain“, or “woe to this pregnancy”.  ~wikipedia

There are some other associations that I will not get into right now.

Her ability to grasp higher philosophy is much like my own, it is not natural.  She has a highly evolved sense of morality and responsibility.  She is rational to a fault but I suspect that she also has some intense dislikes that she worries about.  I suspect that she doesn’t like the sexual attention of black men or black music, in general.  This bothers her because, being that she is most likely in college and possibly slightly younger than I suspected, she is exposed to a liberal, elitist, feminist environment which she perceives as normal and good.  She likes to think that her feelings are based on reason, and being rational and she is correct.  A meritocracy of reason does create disparate impact because not all people are capable of attaining to being lead by reason.  She is entitled to her experience of reality and her preferences.  College environments tend to be so open minded that your brains fall out.  I have known of people that ignored their instincts and forced themselves to do things that were not natural for them in such environments in order to prove to themselves that they were not biased.  Sometimes this can lead to life long emotional scars.

If she were tested for leadership ability, she would test off the chart, like me.  She is not a follower and she doesn’t allow the herd to do her thinking for her.

She has depression, like me, that is ok, they say that depressed people are the only people that evaluate themselves correctly.

She has a manic side to which is associated with creativity.  She might have a type of berserker rage that she goes into, a slight bi-polar.  It is possible that this aspect of her personality hasn’t fully manifested yet, but could be triggered by a single incident or she could become aware of patterns in her life that habitually repeat ad nauseum and no matter what she does  she can’t get a different result.  Currently she is probably enjoying good results in an environment that more or less supports her.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BAchulainn

Berserkers (or berserks) were Norse warriors who are primarily reported in the Old Norse literature to have fought in a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury, a characteristic which later gave rise to the English word berserk. Berserkers are attested to in numerous Old Norse sources. Most historians believe that berserkers worked themselves into a rage before battle, but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods.

The Úlfhéðnar (singular Úlfheðinn), another term associated with berserkers, mentioned in the Vatnsdœla sagaHaraldskvæði and the Völsunga saga, were said to wear the pelt of a wolf when they entered battle.[1] Úlfhéðnar are sometimes described as Odin‘s special warriors: “[Odin’s] men went without their mailcoats and were mad as hounds or wolves, bit their shields…they slew men, but neither fire nor iron had effect upon them. This is called ‘going berserk.[2]‘” In addition, the helm-plate press from Torslunda depicts (below) a scene of Odin with a berserker—”a wolf skinned warrior with the apparently one-eyed dancer in the bird-horned helm, which is generally interpreted as showing a scene indicative of a relationship between berserkgang… and the god Odin[3]“—with a wolf pelt and a spear as distinguishing features.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker

I suspect that she is bi-sexual but hasn’t had many sexual partners and has always been underwhelmed by sex.  As time progresses she will become exclusively homosexual.  She likes having time to herself to hear herself think.  As she gets older she will want more and more time to herself.

I sense a touch of an existentialist in her which she conceals because she knows that Jean-Paul Sartre was full of shit.  But it manifests in her shoe fetish.  She likes fuzzy things, she has more than one pair of suede shoes, her shoes are more akin to shoes that would be worn in the 20’s.  She doesn’t like high heals and probably doesn’t have any shoes over 1.5  inches high.  She dresses neatly, but not provocatively.  She probably wears glasses even though she doesn’t need to.  She is most likely a little shorter than average.  She likes libraries and coffee shops.  I see her wearing tweed, and plaid.

The part of herself that she chooses to exhibit is her intelligence, and her sense of humor, and a little bit of her sadistic side in tormenting people that are morally insane.  I sometimes think that she might want to be a police officer, or an autopsy person but I think she might be too sensitive to do either of these things.  She might also be pursuing a career in politics.  (I would vote for her)

I don’t think she has any addictions, I suspect she might be on one type of medication, her online presence seems to be her addiction.  I don’t sense that she drinks.

I don’t know if she is vegan, I doubt it, but she might try to minimize the amount of meat that she eats and only eat cruelty free meat.  If she is a vegan, which she doesn’t seem to be, she might have issues with scoliosis and anemia.

She has a huge guilt reflex.  She doesn’t wish to harm good people.  She has an almost wrathful reflex against emotional cruelty that is undeserved.  Sometimes she has the most warm, loving, and maternal voice when she feels that somebody understands her and she does want to be understood, she also wants to understand herself.  She might dabble in psychology which she feels is not helpful, and that is because of the dumbing down of the curriculum so that it doesn’t offend women.  That is why they are getting Freud out of the academia.  It is so pleasant that it says nothing.

She is very sensitive to people that are smarter than average and don’t fit in.  She wants to protect them and include them.  She is very sensitive and warm to them.

Parrhesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In rhetoricparrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking.[1] The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.

An example of this is the quote “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” by Winston Churchill.[2]

I hope this has been fun if not helpful.

http://www.fidemturbare.com/

Advertisements

The Origins of Hitchen’s Razor

Image

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are not the smartest people in the world, they are the smartest people that silly Americans are capable of recognizing as smart.  They take credit for things they didn’t do and instead of being intellectually honest they obfuscate, conflate, and create false dichotomies.  

“Christopher Hitchens doesn’t take himself seriously, there is no reason anybody else should.” ~ Noam Chomsky

Now, the original argument came up between the Vienna Circle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Karl Popper. The Vienna Circle was creating what would become the modern philosophy of science and they were studying the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of Ludwig Wittgenstein, I am not even sure if he was technically part of the Vienna Circle or just mentoring it.  He used to say, “Deep is that which cannot be said.” Based on the fact that according to the new Philosophy of Science it would only accept A priori, and empirical data, which means it was editing it’s consideration set to exclude personal experiences that could not be verified by peer review.  Wittgenstein’s favorite hobby was to enjoy the poetry of Sri Aurobindo:

Sri Aurobindo (Sri Ôrobindo), (15 August 1872 – 5 December 1950), born Aurobindo Ghose, was an Indiannationalist, philosopher, yogiguru and poet.[2][3] He joined the Indian movement for independence from British rule, for a while became one of its influential leaders and then became a spiritual reformer, introducing his visions on human progress and spiritual evolution.[4]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo

Karl Popper was also from Vienna and having inferior support and recognition he had a short man complex.  Popper thought that he was falsifying Ludwig Wittgenstein, he believed that he understood Wittgenstein through the Vienna Circle, and he thought that Wittgenstein was some manner of Pope and that the Vienna Circle took his word on everything.  Popper accused Wittgenstein of making ex Cathedra assertions:

Image

A person in making an ex cathedra assertion presupposes their own authority to make that assertion, if they don’t support it with reason or evidence.  Hitchen’s razor is basically a tautology of that moment in the history of science.  He just reworded it and then didn’t give credit to the source.  So not exactly plagiarism but maybe in spirit…

Now where Mr. Popper’s argument is weakest is when the person is giving information on something about which they are a priorily an authority.  Like themselves, what they think and what they believe.  People are authorities on themselves, so unless their is some reason to believe that they are lying, one should accept their word on what they believe as long as they are not arguing for what other people should believe.  Scientific materials are descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive, so when a person is describing what they believe that is scientific in a sense.  But if they are arguing for what another must believe they don’t have that authority.  Furthermore, Atheist like to use the extraordinary claims argument on religious people describing what they believe.  An extraordinary claim is a claim which if true would radically alter the way in which the scientific community went about its business.  The last time I checked nobody was trying to force the scientific community into accepting god, and Dawkinites and Hitchenites are trolls, they aren’t the scientific community.  

Image

Strategic Communication, Psychopathology, and Richard Dawkins.

Image

 

The first time I read the God Delusion, I knew it was wrong on a number of points, but recently Richard Dawkins said some things that mad me interested in the book again and I bought a copy and started rereading it.  I didn’t realize the first time what a truly manipulative and strategic communicator he really was.  The reason this is important to me is that some of you know that I am a psycholinguist that looks for psychopathic patterns in communication and psychopaths are manipulative, strategic communicators.  

One of Richards favorite tactics is to quote somebody else and agree with them instead of saying something himself, or he will invite somebody to make a logical fallacy that he himself doesn’t actually assert, or he will ask a question instead of making an assertion that could be falsified, he edits his consideration set to prove himself correct and he doesn’t include information that weakens his arguments.  I will point out a couple of examples of these behaviors in his rants.  

When the police are interrogating someone they look for the story to change, this is very important, how the story changes and what the story changes to because it can reveal intent to conceal or mislead.  Every time the story changes it is important.  When I first read the book Richard quotes a female friend of his as saying that she was sexually molested and it was “icky” but it did no long term damage and he agreed with her, then recently he said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html

 

In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/9/7/dawkins-under-attack-for-his-lenient-view-of-mild-sex-abuse-the-times

So we see that he was concealing his real narrative.  This is a strategy that he uses repeatedly to avoid taking responsibility for what he is saying.  Here is another instance where he is quoting Douglas Adams:

If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’ you say, ‘I respect that’.

Who hear is expressing contempt for Orthodox Judaism?  Is it Richard or Douglas?  Who do I falsify?  Does Richard agree with Douglas?  If not why does he include the quote?  In the next paragraph he he attacks Quakers, who started in England by rebelling against the Atheistic sexual debauchery and had to leave the country to get away from them.  Now I don’t know about you, but I have never had an Chassidic Jew tell me that I wasn’t allowed to move a light switch on Saturday.  Who is arguing for the authority to force Orthodox Jews to use the lights on Saturday?  Not only are they mocking one of the first revolutions in civil rights, the original Holy Day, the first weekend that guaranteed that you were not allowed to work your slaves to death, and that you wouldn’t have to compete against people working 7 days a week and you had one day to yourself in which to relax and roger your wife, but it is also a post modernist movement for people that are tired of the rigors, deuchery, and psychopathic hypocrisy of modern life. 

Oh, yeah, I will just leave this here….

“the right to be Christian seems in this case to mean the right to poke your nose into other people’s private lives’.”

EINSTEIN IS CONFUSING

Image

“confuse” or enlighten?  “deism is watered down theism“.  Now what is so telling is that one moment he is saying that Deism is Theism and then he says he is not trying to debate Einstein’s god, but Einstein was a deist…  Not only that, he doesn’t explain Einstein’s god because if he did some people would say, “Well, that is actually pretty interesting, I think I might be a deist too”  and then they wouldn’t be as easily hypnotized by his propaganda that they must from now on harass and bully religious people.  Richard Dawkins is not an authority on deism and he defines it falsely.  I should know, I am a deist, Einstein and myself have the same god.  

(http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm)

Image

HITLER QUOTE

This is truly bizarre, he quotes Adolf Hitler verbatim but he doesn’t give credit to Hitler for the quote.  

ImageImage

http://f.eed.bz/the-top-six-craziest-richarddawkins-tweets-of-2013-so-far/

Now why is it that knowledge has to be fought?  That is what is so strange about this quote, not only does it tell me he is most likely quoting Hitler, it tells me that he is manipulating people.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, unfortunately most Americans are not smart enough to detect what is for me the powerful stench of horse shit.  He can easily befuddle the minds of people with a little bit of knowledge and turn them against the people of faith, just like somebody else I know, hmmm….

BORROWING AUTHORITY

One of his communication strategies is to borrow authority from other cool people to make his ideas seem more hip.  He uses the Beatles song to support his claim that without religion there would be no violence because there would be no clicks or groups of people that disagree with one another and fight each other.  Not only is this assertion unproven, that a world without religion would be a peaceful world, but he ignores the fact that state enforced atheism has always failed, and has always been associated with violence and human rights atrocities.  Furthermore, he ignores the fact of the first two primary influences of the Beatles music.  Not to mention he is smart enough to know that children are not born as blank slates, that is why Noam Chomsky is famous, he falsified the Behaviorists who thought that children were blank slates.  On top of that, if lets say we got rid of Islam would the thought tools, Abeed, Harem, and Taqiyya disappear?  Would people no longer think in those terms?  Or should we eradicate their language as well, like the Catholics who indoctrinated people into their own language?  

 

ImageImage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukteswar_Giri

 

Yukteswar Giri (also written yuktesvaraSri Yukteswar) (Bengaliশ্রী যুক্তেশ্বর গিরী) (10 May 1855 – 9 March 1936) is the monastic name of Priya Nath Karar (Bengaliপ্রিয়নাথ কাঁড়ার), the guru of Satyananda Giri and Paramahansa Yogananda. Yukteswar was an educator, astronomer, a Jyotisha (Vedic astrologer), a yogi, and a scholar of the Bhagavad Gitaand the Bible. He was a disciple of Lahiri Mahasaya of Varanasi and a member of the Giri branch of the swami order. Yogananda considered Yukteswar as Jnanavatar, or “Incarnation of Wisdom”.[1]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

 

Aleister Crowley (/ˈkrli/; born Edward Alexander Crowley; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an Englishoccultistceremonial magicianpoet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He was responsible for founding the religion and philosophy of Thelema, in which role he identified himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into theAeon of Horus in the early 20th century.

And then Richard contradicts himself again by creating another clique or group of people that is adversarial with everybody else…

“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to ‘come out,’ thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

Now what I find so interesting about the behavior of Atheists is that Atheism was not an organization, it was the absence of the presence of the belief in god, as such their behavior was not informed by Atheism and not organized.  Now it is becoming organized and informed.  But Atheists while attacking other groups ignore the bad stuff that their people say and do, just like a religion, while insisting that their bad behavior doesn’t characterize Atheism, at the same time atheists cannot be falsified by any praxis of Atheism, since they are still insisting that it is not an organization when in fact it is.  Atheism is becoming a religion.  What they are forgetting is that the highest form of their good is the absence of the presence of a form of good…  If you want to talk about Delusional…

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

Image

He just won’t give up on defending pedophilia.  Notice the change in narrative, the first time he spoke it happened to a woman, then it happened to him, and it was “putting hands in my shorts” and then he mentioned it again and this time it was, “putting hands in clothes” he is using vague tautologies in order to make the whole matter look more harmless, and he is using an exaggerated comparison set in order to herd people towards the answer he wants in order to make it look more reasonable than it is.  

I have spent a lot of time studying how psychopaths like Hitler rise to power, how they communicate harmlessness, and how they pass your threat filter, and then they get behind you and get you doing their dirty work.  In the book click!, they say the fastest way to get a group of people to have a sense of unity is by instilling in them a shared sense of suffering, they need to feel victimized, persecuted.  And then he uses his scientific authority to get them to attack his enemies, while he stays at home and “mildly” Frotteurises your children, but as my stand up comedy alter ego says:

Image

 

 

MCDONALD TRIAD, SOCIOPATH,

 

Imagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

Firesetting[edit]

In Singer and Hensley (2004), firesetting is theorized to be a less severe or first shot at releasing aggression. Extensive periods of humiliation have been found to be present in the childhoods of several adult serial killers. These repetitive episodes of humiliation can lead to feelings of frustration and anger, which need to somehow be released in order to return to a normal state of self-worth.[5] However, the triad combination has been questioned in this regard also, and a review has suggested that this behavior is just one that can occur in the context of childhood antisocial behavior and isn’t necessarily predictive of later violence.[8]

Cruelty to animals[edit]

FBI Special Agent Alan Brantly believed that some offenders kill animals as a rehearsal for killing human victims.[9] Cruelty to animals is mainly used to vent frustration and anger the same way firesetting is. Extensive amounts of humiliation were also found in the childhoods of children who engaged in acts of cruelty to animals. During childhood, serial killers could not retaliate towards those who caused them humiliation, so they chose animals because they [animals] were viewed as weak and vulnerable. Future victim selection is already in the process at a young age. Studies have found that those who engaged in childhood acts of cruelty to animals used the same method of killing on their human victims as they did on their animal victims.[10]

Wright and Hensley (2003) named three recurring themes in their study of five cases of serial murderers: As children, they vented their frustrations because the person causing them anger or humiliation was too powerful to take down; they felt as if they regained some control and power over their lives through the torture and killing of the animals; they gained the power and control they needed to cause pain and suffering of a weaker, more vulnerable animal – escalating to humans in the future.[11]

In a study of 45 male prison inmates who were deemed violent offenders, McClellan (2003) found that 56% admitted to having committed acts of violence against animals. It was also found that children who abused animals were more often the victims of parental abuse than children who did not abuse animals.[12] As previously stated, animal cruelty was a way for the children to feel as if they were retaliating against those who abused, frustrated, or humiliated them.

Tallichet and Hensley (2004) postulated that studies have been uncertain in regard to animal cruelty and later violence against humans. In their study, which considered not one-off events but patterns of repeat violence, Tallichet and Hensley did find a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. They examined prisoners in maximum or medium security prisons. [13] Furthermore, over-generalizing possible links between animal violence and human violence can have unwanted consequences such as detracting focus from other possible predictors or causes.[14]

Enuresis[edit]

Enuresis is the “unintentional bed-wetting during sleep, persistent after the age of five”.[15] The bed-wetting must continue twice a week for at least three consecutive months.

The idea that bedwetting has anything to do with psychological maladjustment, and certainly with later antisocial or violent tendencies, or plays some part in a triad of predictors, has been described as a destructive myth entirely discredited. Crime researchers acknowledge that it is not linked with later sociopathic behavior. It is not even clear that it is necessarily associated with distress.[16][17]

However, some authors continue to speculate that enuresis may be related to firesetting and animal cruelty in some way. One argument is that because persistent bed-wetting beyond the age of five can be humiliating for a child, especially if he or she is belittled by a parental figure or other adult as a result, this could cause the child to use firesetting or cruelty to animals as an outlet for his or her frustration.[5] Enuresis is an “unconscious, involuntary, and nonviolent act and therefore linking it to violent crime is more problematic than doing so with animal cruelty or firesetting”.[18]

According to Douglas and his fellow researchers, the triad behaviors are not causal when examining a relationship with later predatory behavior, but rather, are predictive of an increased likelihood of the future behavior patterns, and give professionals a chance to halt some patterns before they progress.