Id Ego and Super Ego in Richard Dawkins



 I am going to describe how I use my methods to construct details psychological profiles of people.  In every human psyche there are the son, the mother, and the father.  

The id is the persons issues, and delusions their diseases mental and emotional.  Children are born being delusional and incapable of dealing with reality or the truth in it’s uncorrupted form.  For this reason the mother exists, the existence of the child validates the authority of the mother who protects the child from reality but she also protects the child’s mental and emotional diseases as well.  As the child reaches the end of the mother’s authority the child comes under the authority of the father, who prepares the child to be a functional part of the world, removing the mental and emotional diseases from the child.  


Now what happened with Dawkin’s and what happens with Psychopaths is that they refuse the last stage of evolution, the neural myelination of the frontal lobe that governs right and wrong and relationship.  He clings to ego because he clings to the disease. He is a histrionic psychopath.  He clings to the frame that he was victimized by religion, and he invites other people not only to also feel victimized by religion but to champion his cause.  It is really fascinating observing how strategic psychopaths can be and how much time and energy they will spend devising plans to manipulate people so that they can feel that their issues are correct.  What are his issues?  (

Now with histrionic psychopaths they use their damage or perceived damage in this case as a source of power and energy, they keep that ball of morbid emotion alive and seething.  Now what is interesting is that the psychopath can’t appear to be the instigator, they have to appear to be the victim.  Why is he damaged?  Because he was shamed for his sexual inclinations or orientation, (read the link, I am not re-explaining myself).  According to his perspective he was molested by being shamed, but not harmed by being molested, and he resents the shaming, which is why he tries to humiliate and ridicule religious people.  According to shared state theory of communication, a person communicates whatever state they are in.  To my knowledge Dawkins has not yet described the shaming and I will explain why, he says he was not “permanently damaged” by the sexual contact with his teacher.  What I know is that her feels he was permanently harmed by the shaming.  Now what is interesting is that If he told us why he was shamed, and how he actually feels, SOCIETY would reject his ideas and perspective, because what he actually feels is socially unacceptable, which is why he is concealing it and also why the repression continues and also why he is permanently wounded, and he blames religiosity for it.  

Now the sum of a psychopath’s actions have to take them towards doing their will.  So in the form of the conquest they repeat you can see what they are trying to do or undo.  Dawkins is trying to create an environment and a world where what he really wants can be indulged.  As I have shown in the other article he is creating an environment for children where they can learn and be exposed to the casual contempt of others for religion, this is evidenced by the material I have gleaned from observing dawkinite trolls on this blog (  

Now you have the cause of the good and the cause of the bad, which makes in the person’s narrative the form of the good or their god and the form of the bad, which is the opposite of their highest good.  As I have demonstrated in Dawkin’s narrative, he frames himself as the victim of religiosity, that was the first cause, the teleological error, not that his sexual inclinations are frowned upon and socially unacceptable today, by our standards, but he feels molested by having been instilled with sense of shame at something that is now socially unacceptable.  So from his perspective and in his narrative, his personal mental association with (sexual arousal, science, education) is the form of the good and very much associated with his personal happiness and his sense of self.  If you look at my plasticity of the sense of self theory you know we automatically and unconsciously expand and retract our sense of self in a way that appears arbitrary but is not.  What is the form of his conquest? (fagging, the humiliation of inferiors or the opposite of the form of the good), and what is the form of the bad?  (religiosity, shame, moral authority)  remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  

It is amazing to me how people can choose to stay in relationship with the disease and protect the disease and even nurture the disease.  Psychopaths are so good at manipulating other people while concealing who they are.  They act harmless, like victims and bypass everyone’s threat filter.  I HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED!  YOU HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED!  WE ARE BEING VICTIMIZED!  WE MUST TURN THE TIDE ON OUR ABUSERS!  GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS AND YOUR TORCHES AND YOUR NOOSES AND FOLLOW ME TO THE INTERWEBZ!  So he gets people to extend their sense of self to him and his issues, concealing what is really going on.  And once everybody is facing the “enemy” and attacking the enemy, then he reveals his real self.  

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly tyrants rise to power and with the aid of everyone around them.  I have often thought that the tyrant is a reflection of the people that worship him, and if you remove the tyrant they will replace him with the exact same type of tyrant.  This was recently confirmed for me with the democratic elections in the Muslim worlds.  





Richard Dawkins Deconstructed by the Mindhacker.


So, I am going to practice describing Richard Dawkins inner world based on my psychological models and using my terms.  It is good for me to practice describing peoples profiles so I get used to using my thought technology (terms).  Religious language, in a manner of speaking, describes our internal world or the way we think the world works.  Our internal world is our soul, or our gestalt, it is our understanding of the world.  Now what is interesting with some atheists with the conceit that god doesn’t exist is that they don’t have any system for describing their internal world workings, which is to say they can’t scrutinize themselves.  Now I created my psycholinguistic model for detecting psychopaths while I was observing troll behavior on social networking sites.  Psychopaths conceal their true self and represent themselves falsely.  My model was created to understand the soul of people that were concealing themselves and revealing themselves strategically, people that don’t want to be understood.

Richard Dawkins, narrative recently changed, in his book, THE GOD DELUSION he mentions that a female associate of his said emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse and that he agrees with her.  Then recently this statement changed to, I was physically abused and I can’t condemn mild pedophilia.  One of the things I do in my deconstruction of narrative is learn to distinguish between authentic behavior and strategic behavior.  The second piece is closer to his true narrative (what is actually going on in his head)  but he is still concealing, although he did sidle up to his true narrative a little.  Now we look for variations on the narrative, and look for different deviations of narrative, and potentially contradictions.  One could say “nancy is a little loose” “nancy is a floozy” or “nancy is a slut.”  Each statement communicates slightly different data and characterizes the person speaking and the relationship between the two objects.  “I was molested and I can’t condemn it” in no way contradicts the narratives, “I enjoyed it” or “I wouldn’t mind doing it”.  So just like minesweeper we are going to go through his other actions and statements all of which are tautologies from his world view, as we think, so we speak, and so we act, unless you are a psychopath and concealing yourself, but we have the MIND HACKER on our side.



Richard Dawkins was habituated into an environment that was highly sexually charged at a young age, boys punished each other sexually, and they rewarded each other sexually too, C.S. Lewis experienced this behavior in school, the boys called it tarting and fagging.  Dawkins also had a teacher that rewarded the boys with sexual attention, and put his hands in his pants at one point and knocked his junk around.  People have a normative bias, they think what is normal is good.  Although Dawkins portrays himself as a victim of circumstances as a tacit emotional appeal, I suspect that he actually enjoyed the environment, and the sexual attention and we will get into why later.  It is also important to mention that in Richard Dawkin’s mind, learning is associated with sexual arousal (and so is teaching), from his experience, teaching and learning are sexy and arousing.

Psychopaths perseverate in their behavior and internal narrative.  Psychopaths can’t reform they only become more manipulative.

In psychology and psychiatry, perseveration is the repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.[1] Symptoms include “the inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate,”[2] or the “act or task of doing so,”[3] and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).

The mind is averse, and it reacts against things it doesn’t like.  This eventually creates the form of the conquest for psychopaths.  Being morbidly in relationship with their issues and in the case of a histrionic psychopath clinging to those issues instead of seeking mental health, they need to change or attack whoever they blame for whatever their mind is averse to.  So what is Richard Dawkins mind averse to?


He is averse to shame and he blames Religion as the cause of the bad for his shame.  Now when he says “child abuse” he is referring to emotional abuse and when we say emotional abuse we mean shame, specifically sexual shame.


Notice the association between not being able to enjoy your life, and god not existing?  That is the way he is mentally in relationship with god.  If god exists it means you don’t get to enjoy your life.  Because of sexual shame.  So now we look for repeating occurrences in his behavior and narrative for sexual shame, what do we find?  Do we find a perseveration of emotional morbidity?

Out Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Out Campaign is a public awareness initiative for freethought and atheism. It was initiated by Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and is endorsed by Richard Dawkins, who is a prominent atheist.[1][2]


“There is a big closet population of atheists that need to come out.”  Richard Dawkins

R. Elisabeth Cornwell has stated that the gay rights movement was a source of inspiration for the campaign.[5] The campaign, however, encourages one to “out” only oneself; it invites atheists to:

  • Reach out and talk to others about atheism and help spread a positive view of atheism
  • Speak out about their own beliefs and values without feeling intimidated, thus helping people realize that atheists don’t fit stereotypes and are a very diverse group
  • Keep out, meaning to promote the idea that religion should be kept out of public schools and government, and that nobody’s religious agenda should be allowed to intimidate
  • Stand out and become visible in their communities and become involved. An offshoot of Stand out is the Non-Believers Giving Aid campaign, which has raised money to help out in the aftermath of disaster. The A+ symbol used in the campaign refers to Atheists Standing out for their activism in social and humanitarian efforts.

So we see he was inspired by a campaign for reversing the sexual shame of the stigma associated with being gay.  How do they identify themselves?

The campaign aims to create more openness about being an atheist by providing a means by which atheists can identify themselves to others by displaying the movement’s scarlet letterA, an allusion to the scarlet letter A worn by Hester Prynne after being convicted of adultery in Nathaniel Hawthorne‘s The Scarlet Letter.[3] It encourages those who wish to be part of the campaign to come out and re-appropriate, in a humorous way, the social stigma that in some places persists against atheism, by branding themselves with a scarlet letter.
Again we see the recurring theme of sexual shame.  What this signals to me is that he is concealing something that was very powerful and he is very averse to, and that was caused by his being shamed, by a religious person, and that is why the form of his conquest is to attack and marginalize religion, and humiliate and ridicule religious people.  Let’s see if we can’t piece together more of his narrative.

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

So exactly where do morals come from?  And what are your morals Richard Dawkins?  Some of his arguments suggest that humans are innately moral.  I find this interesting.  I think he is suggesting that his morals are good which means that he doing what he wants is innately correct.  Because men are innately good, and we shouldn’t be being good because somebody is watching us or threatening us.  Are you starting to get the picture yet?  Let’s take it a step further, what of the morals of a psychopath or a sociopath or a child molester?  If people are innately good than whatever their morals allow them to do is also innately good.  How does he propose we agree on what is good and moral?  Should we turn Science into a religion?  and then science can tell us what is moral?  I mean this is coming from the man that wants to eradicate religion.  Should our morals come from the government?



Thought Uncommon

Image Everthing that I know looks through me at the world, every experience, every book I have read, every interaction I have had, every person I have loved.

Aristotle, “The soul is in a way phenomena.”

My experiences in the world, of the world, look back at the world. What I know of the world turns again on the world and scrutinizes it.

God be thanked for books; they are the voices of the distant and the dead, and make us heirs of the spiritual life of past ages.Channing, William Ellery

Every time you touch the world the world leaves its mark on you and you on it.  Like two ponds touching each other and both rippling in response.  If relationship is an approaching, then how are you in relationship with relationship?  How do you approach approaching?  You judge and interpret the world and the world judges and interprets you…

View original post 209 more words

Ayn Rand, Falsified.


So, how do we go about falsifying Ayn Rand’s “philosophy”?  We could mention that she was addicted to meth amphetamines during almost her entire career, but some would consider that an attack on her character and not on her philosophy.  We could mention that she modeled two of her main characters after a man ( that kidnapped and dismembered a little girl, but that doesn’t mean that her philosophy is wrong, does it?  It might even be taken as an emotional appeal.  We could mention that after positing a pure meritocracy of capitalism, she immediately gave the character representing herself a discount because she was pretty, kind of a way of flattering herself.  But that seems petty and trivial.  We could mention that she basically said that nobody can call themselves an objectivist unless she says they are an objectivist and she can retract the status at any time if she doesn’t like what you are doing, that makes her philosophy arbitrary in a way, but I kind of see the need to control your own brand.  We could mention that the only influence she ever admitted to was Aristotle, the father of science, thus making herself the greatest philosopher since Aristotle which means all the philosophers between herself and Aristotle didn’t really matter or make an impact.  We could mention that she concealed the prodigious contribution of Nietzsche, to her philosophy because he was also a huge influence on Hitler, it was also his regime that invented Meth amphetamines, to which she was addicted, but all of those things are kind of attacks on her character. 

But this is how we are going to falsify her.  Alan Greenspan was asked why he didn’t see the sub-prime mortgage drop out coming.  His response was that he thought all of the players in the stockmarket were “rational”.  Some of you might know he was one of her closest disciples.  Now what is interesting is that he is not using the Objectivist definition of Rational which Ayn Rand herself defined as greed.  In order to make himself correct he is using the normal definition of rational.  So either he was doing it strategically and lying, or he had realized that Rand herself had been full of poop, but either way his switching of definitions should be addressed and questioned. 

Some people might argue that self interest is no longer self interest when it becomes self harm.  But most of the people that took the money in the sub prime mortgage still have it, it never found it’s way back into the economy, and it was Alan Greenspan’s job to prevent stuff like that from happening.  So he failed at his position and thereby falsified her philosophy on a grand scale.  He either intentionally didn’t do his job or he accidentally failed to do his job, but either way it falsifies her conception of the meritocracy of capitalism in which there is no theft and every exchange is perfectly equitable.  There is no way around it, either the market falsified her or Greenspan did, and they don’t get to pass blame around in order to conceal the fact that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is and was wrong. 


Expressions of contempt



I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models.  Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded.  People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win.  So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns.  When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.

The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples.  What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt.  Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.

So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them.  So what does this mean for the near future?  Society is about to get a divorce?  No, much much worse.  The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust.  And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science.  And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet.  If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog ( you can see that I am not making these claims lightly.  I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.

Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric.  What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist.  He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science.  What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion.  He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good.  And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields.  What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.

This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t.  Socrates was accused of being an atheist.  So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful?  Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government.  There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is.  Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego.  He wants to be worshiped.  He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.

When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.

“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels[1] to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.”

And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail.  Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent.  You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights.  They are amoral systems.  Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new.  What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.

Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists.  It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it.  Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right?  If you survive or succeed you are the fittest.  Evolution works!

But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.





So, a couple of days ago my room mate told me that I have to watch this show, Mermaids on Animal Planet.  I watched a portion of it and as always I deconstruct the micro expressions, body language, and tone of voice as well as my linguistic deconstruction.  I have gotten very fast at doing this, it doesn’t require any effort on my part any more, I do it automatically now.  The portion of the show that I watched disturbed me because though it seemed to be a genuine documentary bringing up new evidence the videos were obviously to high quality to be cell phone videos, I doubt the technology on cell phones was that good at the time, and the reactions of the people were to deliberate and not spontaneous, there was no honest emotion.  I resolved to watch the whole show again later, to carefully inspect everybody’s behavior and I found myself even more convinced the whole thing was contrived.  There was one man with a beard that seemed like he honestly believed what he was saying but there were a few tells at times he let his mask slip.  

The only fact that I believed was that the Navy had been causing whales to beach with their sonar.  At first I thought it was a mean spirited hoax on the part of Atheists or something to sucker people into believing it and then show them how stupid they were.  I thought it would be like the big foot hoax, where the police man lied and used his reputation to get other people to believe him.  It made me very depressed about society that people would spend so much time and energy making other people feel stupid by lying and misrepresenting facts.  That doesn’t prove the people are stupid, it proves that people are stupid for trusting you and not realizing that you are a crappy person.  But this is becoming a recurring problem with the investment agencies, stock markets, and banks in this country, lying to everybody and essentially stealing from them.  

There is a disclaimer on the end of the movie saying that it is a pseudo-documentary, but when War of the Worlds first aired they were up front with telling people that it was just a radio show.  So people’s reactions were their own responsibility.  According to the owner of animal planet he wanted people to think that it was a possibility to inspire them or something, I don’t think he accomplished his goal. I think he kind of demoralized people.  

Dr. Paul Robertson, who presented the video “evidence” of mermaids cavorting in cold northern waters, had stated that they deliberately presented the “evidence” in documentary form to make it enhance the credulity of unwary views. He said: “I wanted the story to appeal to a sense of genuine possibility, and incorporating real science and evolutionary theory and real-world scientific examples — such as animals that have made the transition from land to sea, much as we suggest mermaids did — and citing real, albeit controversial theories like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, grounded it. Using a straight, documentarian approach made the story more persuasive by appealing more to a sense of intellectual possibility as well as emotional possibility.”

Read more:





My Psychological Profile of Richard Dawkins


 In the book, Dawkins mentions one occasion when a teacher put a hand down his trousers at a prep school in Salisbury, and four others at Oundle, when he “had to fend off nocturnal visits to my bed from senior boys much larger and stronger than I was”. 

One master at his public school, Oundle, he writes, “was prone to fall in love with the prettier boys. He never, as far as we knew, went any further than to put an arm around them in class and make suggestive remarks, but nowadays that would probably be enough to land him in terrible trouble with the police – and tabloid-inflamed vigilantes.””I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”  ”I think we should acknowledge it. That’s one point… But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”


Most people don’t know how to visualize things or how to switch perspectives and see things from another person’s eyes, I do, that is why they call me the mind hacker and the psychopath hunter.  I have repeatedly pointed out psychopaths and predicted their behavior years ahead of time.  My psychological model was made based on detecting how psychopaths communicate so that I could recognize them and understand how they think, what the form of their conquest is, what their motivation is, what their end game is.  Psychopaths don’t want to be understood, they misrepresent themselves.  The truth of what they say is based on the effect they hope to elicit from you.  They manipulate your emotions, and bypass your threat filter, and then they strike.  They approach you strategically and not authentically and honestly.

I believe that some psychopaths are basically over-coddled children, they had a parental authority that let them get away with things and rewarded them for psychopathic behavior, and created an environment for them to be a little psychopath.  When this type of person grows up they continue forcing the frame in which they were raised, trying to get people to participate with that premise.  Let me paint a picture for you, Dawkins is describing a highly sexualized environment in which boys reward and punish each other with sexual behavior and a parental authority that participates with it and even encourages it.  C. S. Lewis described a similar environment in which boys used what her referred to as tarting and fagging, in order to gain approval or humiliate someone into submission.  Now the thing is that Dawkins thrived in this environment, he succeeded in this environment, most people do not hate the environment in which they succeeded and rose to the top.

What I suspect that Dawkins is concealing, though he continues to paint himself as a victim, is that he actually enjoyed the attention.  I suspect that teacher inspired him, just as Dawkins is emotionally connected to the event and can’t condemn it.  Dawkins has never missed out on any opportunity to condemn and ridicule religious people so it is a huge departure for him to defend “mild pedophilia” there is something else going on here, a topic so intimately associated with religious abuse which he is so eager to exploit and he vacillates all of a sudden?  I think it likely that Dawkins not only loved that teacher but her modeled himself after that teacher, who was probably a role model for him.  The mind is an association making machine, and Dawkins associated sex with learning and science at a very young age.  He had a teacher that rewarded him with sexual attention, this would have been noticed by the other students.  Dawkins flatters himself by saying that the teacher was only attracted to the pretty students.

We see that just like a varsity all state baseball or football champion Dawkins is stuck in that time trying to relive his Golden Years, we all know somebody like that.  He is reproducing behaviors from his childhood.  When he subjects religious people to humiliation he is using the behaviors he picked up in school, the sexual bullying, Dawkins is picking on the intellectual queers.  Dawkins behavior is based on flaunting his sexual prowess, his evolutionary superiority, he is demonstrating why he is the most eligible bachelor.  We emulate whatever behavior we believe to be dominant.  Also our worldview has to make us correct in doing what we want to do, so of course he doesn’t condemn “mild pedophilia”.

I break everything down into patterns and tautologies, and I look for repetition and departures from repetition in a person’s rhetoric and behavior.  Dawkins is a conflation master, he is very strategic and deliberate in his arguing method.  He premeditates his arguments and I think he might also be premeditating his life and moving towards an end game.  In his book, THE GOD DELUSION, which is a clever way of inviting people to make the assumption that religious people are insane, (notice how he doesn’t say it but he invites his readers to make that conclusion?)   he originally quoted another woman talking about being sexually molested and she said that the experience was “icky” but didn’t do any lasting damage as emotional abuse would have.  That narrative changed to, he was the victim of molestation and it didn’t do any permanent damage, oh, and he can’t condemn it.  So, what we see is that their is some guilt, concealment, and strategic behavior, the narrative changed, Dawkins is sidling up to his actual position.

Nothing in the narrative, “I wasn’t permanently damaged” and “I can’t condemn it.”  would disagree with the idea that he enjoyed it and wouldn’t mind being affectionate with a young student.  You can’t condemn it but at what point does that become condoning it or desiring it?  Remember what we said about the philosophy or the world view of the individual necessarily making themselves correct in their desires and goals?

The Master Conflater, conflates religious people with insane people, Agnostics with intellectual cowards, and deists with theists, and forces them to defend fundies.  He strategically attacks the weakest and stupidest religious people and believes that he is falsifying religiosity.  But he does for some bizarre reason make a distinction with pedophilia…


I believe that Dawkins wants to be honest about himself and he feels like people would reject him if he says that he is aroused by educating young boys.  I believe that at some point he will be honest when his reputation or legacy is no longer in danger.  He wants to be known as he is and he wants everything about himself to be loved.  He posthumously wants to be absolved but more than that he wants to be worshiped by young boys, and he is peacocking for them.  I would bet that his claim to be straight is nothing more than a way of throwing off his scent.  We see in his debating style that he conceals, conflates, and obfuscates.

Part of my profile method is figuring out who is speaking, and by who I mean what personality, what meme.  Dawkins meme is a manly intellectual homosexual meme that more or less despises women as intellectual inferiors.  You aren’t familiar with the meme because it isn’t common in America, but it is common in Britain.  He is using your lack of knowledge against you to manipulate you and conceal himself or reveal himself strategically.




The Mind Hacker…