Tag Archives: america

Relationship has become a form of Asymmetric Warfare.

female_soldier_by_amat3urnov3lwrit3r-d4hh4h8

In this blog we are going to discuss the current state of relationship between men and women in this country based on shifting ideologies, socially created incentives,  views of sexes that are being reified, general properties of male and female perspectives, and natural instincts, strategies, and judgments of society and those sexes.

This is a difficult topic to discuss because unlike other countries that accept that men and women are different there has been a century long successful campaign in this country to blur the lines between men and women while at the same time marginalizing men and promoting women.  This means that we don’t have the vocabulary to discuss the topic, the topic itself is unfamiliar, and their is a social taboo on the topic itself, that topic being left for certain people to discuss in dark corners and by making back door deals and choosing what is good for everybody to be allowed think.

dicksee_chivalry

Relationship seems like a simple enough thing.  One man one woman, but we find that is not actually the case.  There is a playing field of public opinion and normalcy that is slanted in favor of the woman.  Western Society itself has a feminine bias which we are going to examine.

In cultures where survival is difficult masculine values dominate, in cultures where survival is easy female values dominate.  What are female values, you say?  Mercy and Charity.  Millions of years of Neural Myelination create the instincts of the female mind.  Nature has compartmentalized male and female minds to focus on two different subjects, survival (male) and Procreation (female). The female mind edits its consideration set to focus on the things that it likes, that make it feel good and it expands and increases it’s authority by usurping masculine authority in the form of reason.

Women are attracted to the most alpha man (they can control) in the largest group of people that they like.  This is herding instinct.  They feel safer because of the size of the herd and then upon starting a relationship with a man in good standing in that herd, they instantaneously have status and recognition in that herd.  But the female mind is more self interested in relationship, being that it’s instinct is to enter into relationship for it’s own benefit, not mutual benefit.  This happens because women need the surplus created by men to care for their children, they are weak when they are pregnant and the also need a safe environment for taking care of the children.  So the female mind has an incentive to have a child and then protect the child, to do this she needs the resources and participation of other people.  But the female mind is more sympathetic to the child and herself than it is to the man she is in relationship with.  So women are aggressive in relationship but also submissive to the herd.  From the woman’s perspective she is more part of the herd than she is part of the relationship and when she can’t get what she wants from the relationship she will go outside the relationship to enlist the peer pressure of others to put pressure on her male partner to give her what she feels she deserves or what she wants, when she does this she weakens her mates reputation in the herd.

Babies start out as whiny emotional creatures, completely Dependant on everybody to do everything for them.  They communicate no analytical data and only emotional data, for this reason the female mind was created to interpret the babies emotional data and communicate emotional data to the child.  From the mother’s perspective the emotional perspective of the child is valid, as it has to be for the survival of the species.  But this also means that the mother’s perspective itself is more emotional and less analytical which is why feminine reasoning appeals to emotions, makes certain logical appeals, throws histrionic fits to get its way and engages in other irrational behaviors.  The babies perspective, is completely delusional as far as the world is concerned because it would immediately perish on it’s own.  The mother’s perspective is slightly less so, still depending on the herd and her husband to protect and provide a surplus for her and an environment for her  with which she can take care of the baby.  The existence of the baby reifies the authority of the mother in the form of mercy and charity for the baby.  The female mind edits it’s consideration set to focus on things that please it and make sense to it.  Puppies, babies, kittens, relationship, poor people, victims, anybody that she can expand her authority over and usurp the authority of reason.

If men and women are the same, as some people argue, why are men thought of as bad for wanting what they want (sex) and women are thought of as good for wanting what they want (children)?  Why since this world is so massively over populated does society not think of women as evil for reproducing irresponsibly?  If men and women are the same, why is society so hostile to masculine opinions and so accepting of feminine reasoning and emotional appeals?  Why does society tolerate more violent and insane behavior from women then it will from men?  Why is society less concerned for the fate of men than it is for women?  Why is it that society is more concerned about breast cancer than it is for Veterans that have fought and bled for the country and risked their lives and their health?  Because Western Society itself has a feminine bias.

FEMALE COMMUNICATION RITUALS

A brief description of female communication rituals is as follows:

  1. the conversation proceeds pleasantly and ends pleasantly.
  2. the conversation ends in the appearance of agreement.
  3. Women communicate sameness.
  4. If it isn’t pleasant you can’t say it.

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/cnvAnlys.htm

The problem is the way this conversation style edits it’s consideration set and application set.  It is possible to lie, or to be passive aggressive.  The female mind being more psychopathic is less capable of detecting the psychopath because it defends against the sociopath (male mind) which can be demonstrated by masculine communication rituals and how women are hostile to male communication.

When a society forces political correctness, it counter incentivizes masculine thought and solutions, it also fails to detect the strategic behavior of psychopaths that are gaming society, by lying, concealing their true intention and motivation and manipulating others or stealing from them.

Women have double and triple standards.  Women are tacitly arrogant, in that they view femininity superior to masculinity.  Even though they depend on the surplus created by male minds they like being what they are, they don’t realize that the male minds and the herd have to be successful first before their is a surplus to satisfy their needs.  If a man uses female communication rituals a woman can interpret that as he is admitting that women are superior.  If a man tries to get a woman to speak as a man, she will either refuse to participate, lie, or try to communicate that she is dominant by being abusive, if he accelerates the situation to get her to submit at some point she acts like the victim and goes outside the relationship. Some women, tacitly believing in their superiority, frame male minds as childish minds, and try to manipulate men as a mother does a child.  Trying to get him to take a course of action and making him think it was his idea.  I call this jingling the keys.  The female mind tries to control the focal point of the conversation and then communicates emotional data to the male to control how he is in relationship with the topic emotionally.  This tactic is very effective on way too many males.

SOCIETY DOES WOMEN’S THINKING FOR THEM. 

Millions of years of Neural Myelination have hardwired certain behaviors and strategies into feminine instinct.  Women want to appear submissive to the herd, so they adopt an intellectual camouflage in the form of agreeing with the social norms.  Whatever society thinks is true about black people, white men, women, Mexicans, Muslims, or what have you, women in general will adopt the most common perspective.  Not just women but psychopaths and female minds.  You see this every day in the form of the P.C. Police that presuppose their own authority to judge and punish anybody that doesn’t agree with the common opinion.  Champions of normalcy and enemies of freedom of speech and individuality.  You got the “Cool Honky” who thinks he is the only one who is down with the black people and tries to act as a mediator and an expert on the topic.  Or you have the “White Knight” who will police conversations between men about women.  They conversation block, or through histrionic fits, or make emotional appeals, or complain to other people in the herd to manipulate your reputation and standing in the herd.

Women/female minds/psychopaths are innate social climbers.  They enter into a large herd and try to climb as high as they can get using various strategies.  Since they have to get “up there” they have to push others down, so they will attack pre-emptively because they need to get “up there” as fast as they can and they have unwarranted, innate, feelings of superiority.  Instead of using a masculine, democratic, horizontal communication process, they use tyrannical, vertical, female communication processes.

mcr fce

EMERGENT PROPERTIES WITH WOMEN

Imagine for a moment that you have put together a fraternity of a successful group of people.  Everything is working out fine and then you decide to add a woman, nothing bad happens so you decide to add another women.  Because of the way women reason, relate and think this is what happens.

untitled

This isn’t an isolated incident, it happens all of the time.  A good looking woman goes to a grocery store, finds the biggest most pussy starved gomer that dotes on her and caters to her every whim and then complains that other team members are giving her bad service when they don’t treat her like he does.  And then Helga Unibrow shows up.

Missi-Pyle-as-Fran-in-Dodgeball-A-True-Underdog-Story-missi-pyle-25072436-1360-768

Women and psychopaths take advantage of the way things appear to game and manipulate society, and to win against reason.  Recently in Ferguson one advocate said, “it’s not enough that things are right they have to look right.”  This is an appeal to what I refer to as the female mind, Superficial, Aesthetic, Snap decisions without understanding or reason.  When we cater to the Aesthitics of the uninformed or stupid you unleash the Lowest Common Good, not the Highest Common Good that is released when people exert an influence on themselves to be reasonable.

When you scale a government down so that all of women’s needs are satisfied and given priority over men’s so that women don’t rely on relationship to satisfy them, what happens is that the female mind keeps editing it’s consideration set.  The psychopath and the female mind try to maximize the amount of return while minimizing their investment.  When you change the playing field to suit women that becomes the norm, which becomes the expectation, which is then taken for granted.  Women being natural social climbers, unconscious of their instincts and behavior and incapable of self discipline or self scrutiny will just raise the level of their expectations, as they are doing right now.  Women as a group are more inclined to reward only, and men to punish only.  For men the reward is that you did it right and you get to live, they expect you to be reasonable because it is about success and survival, this is not enough for women, they also have to have a support group and like children they have to be bribed with pleasant words and candy in order to do the right thing, and then they have to be encouraged afterward.

Women in western society treat men as if they are disposable, now that they make as much or more then men they still date men that can buy them nice things.  Now that women don’t need men, they show less interest and arousal for them.  Women act as though it is some manner of accomplishment to not be attracted sexually to men.  This is just a natural outcropping of society stigmatizing them and diminishing their role and constantly humiliating them.  Some women only date men who will let them dominate the relationship.  Some women only date men that chase them, compete with other men, and make them the center of attention.  None of this impresses me, what impresses me is a woman who has good taste in men and pursues one pointedly that which she wants.  What impresses me is a rational woman.

SOCIETIES THAT CAN CONTROL THEIR WOMEN

The other interesting thing is that while western civilized men are not allowed to exert an influence on their women because of societal judgments, Western Society turns a blind eye to cultures that are tribal and do control their women.  Black people as a culture are for more likely to view a Black woman dating a white man as a race traitor.  In the Mexican culture, males sons have a say in who their sister dates, and they are more controlling of their women.  The Muslim culture even in the united states still kills their daughters for having intercourse with Non-muslim men.  If it isn’t strictly frowned on it is downright forbidden.  But none of this enters the consideration set of the Western Female because she only cares about herself and getting what she wants.  And from the perspective of the western mind, this kind of behavior gets categorized as requiring charity and mercy, it falls into the protected category of children and women, it’s just part of their culture, they don’t know any better. . .

Advertisements

The Holy Trinity as a Psychological Metaphor

SI_the_resistance

I have been trying to figure out how to put this information together in the least offensive way.  The western brain, male and female has a feminine bias, and reacts emotionally and violently to certain Ideas.  The information expressed in this blog is descriptive of a philosophy from a long time ago and explanatory of the situation we currently find ourselves in.  Please do not presuppose that I agree with everything in this blog.  You don’t know how I am in relationship with the information in this blog, if you ask me I will tell you.  Above all I would like to appreciate Fidem Turbare for having the open mindedness to entertain my explanations, and the intelligence to understand what I am talking about.  It is a huge frustration when there is nobody on your level capable of evaluating you or understanding what you are talking about.  I have decided to rewrite this blog as a personal conversation between me and Fidem.  

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Fidem_Turb%C4%81re

http://www.fidemturbare.com/

As some of you know I am a philologist and a linguistic philosopher, I have traced the origins of Christianity to India through Judaism.  Many of you might not know this but the people that created the religions were not theists, they were deists.  I set out a long time ago to understand the perspective of the people that created the religions.  Jesus was a member of the cult of Pythagorus, I know this because I have learned how to recognize rhetorical tautologies, and languages of experience in a person’s narrative.  Jesus references the corner stone that was rejected, even today this symbolism is very important to freemasonry which also traces it’s origins back to Pythagorus.

golden-mean

In my very popular piece here (http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/the-metaphysics-of-joxua-luxor/) I lay out my metaphysics and explain the rolls assigned men and women in an attempt to make a scientific marriage unit, scientific from ancient standards, but still not without merit as we will discuss later in this blog.

From the perspective of the ancients, male and female roles were internalized and externalized, there was a division of labor and a division of attention.  In Persia women were property, in Greece marriage was a business contract.  It had less to do with love and more to do with survival.  Women naturally and instinctively like to think about things that women like, puppies, kittens, babies, etc.  It was known back in the day that women are interested in extending and expanding their authority, anybody that is not a threat and that expands their authority they want to protect, the sick, the poor, etc.  Women expand their authority to usurp masculine authority.  They don’t think about the political environment, or the economic environment, and when they make decisions they take fewer considerations into account.  They think only of their own needs and the needs of those under their authority.  For this reason the man represented Sapiential Authority, the Mother Moral authority and the child survival and action in the future, also acting on the fathers wisdom.

division

It is important to note that the average western male no longer studies Torah everyday, or attends a Wisdom school like Freemasonry, and even if he did Freemasonry is no longer the moral science that it once was, it has devolved into a business fraternity and drinking club for the most part.  The average American male is no longer conversant in high philosophy, he doesn’t hang out with the boys at the gymnasium discussing politics and policy.  So the rules have changed.

If you observe women’s behavior under life threatening circumstances you realize that in that state of temporary autism a person operates on their hard wiring.  Never have I heard of a woman throwing herself between her boyfriend and a gunman.  I have heard of women sheltering their babies.  In the recent batman movie shootings 3 young men died protecting their girlfriends.

Aristotle wrote on this subject immensely, of interest is that any society that stops reading Aristotle shortly ends up back in the Dark Ages.  Aristotle wrote extensively on the proper relationship between men and women noting too that men sexually peak at the age of 18 and women at the age of 40.

aristotle

In the Hindu Epic the Ramayana, which I believe is the source of inspiration for the biblical account of Adam and Eve, Sita is kidnapped because she sees a beautiful deer and she wants Rama and his brother to go and catch it for her so she can have it as a pet.  At the end of the book it is because of her Fickle sentimental thinking that the whole escapade happened in the first place.  Women are sentimental thinkers.  They weigh emotions as more important than reason.

Most people don’t know this but God’s Holy Spirit is actually a woman:

ShekinahShechinahShechina, or Schechinah (Hebrewשכינה‎), is the English spelling of agrammatically feminineHebrewname of God in Judaism.[citation needed] The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem.

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

The reason that the Catholic Church had to turn her into a ghost is to silence her.  There is a psychological reason for shaming girls for their sexual behavior, women need to be more careful and take more responsibility for their actions because of their nature.  Women do not take responsibility for their actions in general.  A woman will have sex with a man and just assume the relationship is about her needs, desires, and wants, without communication ahead of time.  When men are blamed and shamed for the desire for sex this creates negative, unsustainable, patterns in society.  It counter incentivizes masculine sexuality.  This is something that should be meditated on.

Because women don’t solve problems in such a way as they create value for men (IN GENERAL) they automatically presuppose their own authority and think that men should be like women.  It is a cognitive bias to think that everyone thinks like you do.  Men and women were separated back in the day not to protect women from men but to protect masculinity from femininity.

ark_covenant

pythag

 

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

Genesis 2:18  Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.”

In societies where survival is difficult masculine values dominate, in societies where survival is easy, feminine values dominate.  To believe is the current virtues of Western culture you have to presuppose a leisurely ability to survive.  But that isn’t the case is it?  The economy isn’t coming back because we do not have a large surplus of anything to sell that we don’t appreciate or need.  We do not have an infinite supply of energy with which to transport those products.  Atomic energy has proven to be unsustainable, which is why they are shutting down the atomic energy plants.  We are running out of oil which America needs because it has the larges military in the world and China needs that oil because they are industrializing.  So the military is a depreciating asset and the oil is a resource that every day gets more expensive and less abundant.  

A few years ago I downloaded all of the free classes from Itunes university from all of the Ivy league colleges on all of the subjects I was interested in, and I listened to them over and over.  Cognitive science, philosophy, and psychology.  I also downloaded a bunch of commentaries on literature and such.  One of the things I downloaded, and I wish I remembered her name, was a speech by a black female Judge from Chicago, explaining how the no fault divorce was created in order to get women out of abusive marriages, but what it did was it allowed a windfall of women divorcing their husbands for no reason.  She specifically blamed women for the divorce epidemic.  And I believe she was correct.  Once a man has been divorced he doesn’t have a home but he still has to pay her bills, he can’t see his children unless she allows him to, and somehow, depressed and alone he still has to support himself.

The female mind is naturally insensitive to the male mind.  So in a society which every day is being scaled down to please women NO VALUE IS BEING CREATED FOR MEN.  Men don’t have an incentive to protect this society or these women.  Every woman that comes along wants to hitch her wagon to my horse.  She enters into relationship for her own benefit presupposing herself good and correct in her desires and giving not a single fuck about my desires and happiness unless my will is to serve her needs alone.  What is being said to American men is this, “Oh, I am sorry, me and the children do not have enough stuff, perhaps you can kindly go kill yourself so that we can get the insurance money.”

Now ponder this, Muslim men and the Islamic culture CAN control their women, while our women are not reasonable and refuse to be controlled.  Which society is going to survive?  Especially, when women edit their consideration sets so that they only look at the things that make them happy, immediately are suspicious of western men, and blame and abuse the very men they expect to serve and protect them?

The liberal, elitist, feminist mentality is only sustainable in a society that is highly successful.  Imagine that we are in ancient Greece and it isn’t that easy to survive.  You have to survive into the future or your culture will disappear, so you have to have children.  You have to have a relationship that maximizes value for everybody.  Everybody has roles to fill and they have rights. You can’t afford to give any person in that relationship more than is sustainable from the surplus of value created by the success of the relationship.


MUSLIMS CONSIDER CHRISTIANS POLYTHEISTS

Muslims consider Christians polytheists and therefore heretics and blasphemers BECAUSE of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  From their perspective:

“There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

That is a rhetorical tautology of a masculine only perspective.  So who is going to inherit the earth?  What precedes the collapse of Western rule historically?

In my psychological models what I did was I studied, Deborah Tannen’s work on male female communication rituals.  All narrative is doxography, which is to say point of view.  So it characterizes each person speaking.  What you realize is that the human brain was compartmentalized into 2 different brains by evolution. Due to their natural strengths and weaknesses a division of labors if you will.  What modern society is doing is undoing what evolution did, while at the same time destroying  modern society.  If you observe female vs. male communication rituals you see also how the male brain and female brain are in relationship with one another.

Now here is the key for you, when I say “male and female” part of that is based on yin and yang or broken and unbroken.  Which is to say an inferior mind to a superior mind and the relationship between them.  The reason you cannot infer from your experience to falsify my research is this, you are not normal, you are a lot smarter than most people and completely different from any other woman I have met.  From your perspective, the majority of psychopaths/female minds that you have experienced in relationship are men.  Psychopaths are aggressive in relationship, they approach relationship strategically for their own benefit.  They expect you to stay in the relationship while they continue to judge you, abuse you, lie to you, manipulate you, and punish you.  No matter how many times they are wrong or they fail they still feel themselves your equal and refuse to participate with reason.

The Science of yoga is the art of finding all of the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases that the human brain makes.  In essence, throwing the mind.  Emotions warp and distort reality around us.  I call this the averseness of the mind, it happens unconsciously without our knowing it.  Familiarity breeds contempt.  Nassim Nicholas Taleb documented a similar phenomenon.  On long flights statisticians were more likely to buy insurance for things that were far less likely to happen, like terrorism, than insurance for accidents that were far more likely to happen, due to what I call the averseness of the mind.  Observe if you will the behavior of the Atheists.  They are far more verbally abusive against Christians than the far more menacing threat of Muslims.  Even in the middle of a global Jihad push they would rather harass Christians.  Richard Dawkins himself says that you won’t see atheists leading troupes into battle.  Who is fighting the Muslims?  The Christians.

Women are aggressive communicators while at the same time being deaf to reason.  If appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy than communicating emotionally is a dynamic tautology of the appeal to emotion fallacy. Observe how women argue, histrionic fits, changing the pitch, tone, and cadence of their speech, talking over your.  Observe how this deviates from Socratic dialogue.  Men are sensitive listeners, women adopt these communication rituals to abuse the male mind, and to force it’s compliance.  When I was younger I actually developed a psychosomatic response to the sound of Diane Chamber’s voice on Cheers, my eyes would dilate and my heart would race, I was having a panic attack, it was stimulated by my having to talk to my mother and my relationship with my sister.  All of her smarmy sanctimony and her self appointed moral authority, presupposing her right to judge everybody from her own narrow perspective.  The funny thing about her was that she wasn’t acting, that is really who she was.  Everybody on the caste hated her.  One time they threw a party and they gave her the wrong address.  True story.

Inferior minds are bitch move artists, (I am sorry, I know you don’t like that word)  they are artists that express themselves through the medium of bitch moves to appear to be more than they are.  They try to expand and increase their authority and interrupt the rational conversation.  They approach the conversation strategically, concealing their true intention and misrepresenting themselves, they try to control what can be said, the direction of the conversation, the focus of the conversation and they attempt to force the conclusion of the conversation.  The conversation is the relationship, every event in the relationship characterizes the relationship.  All of these tactics are the same tactics used by mothers on babies.  I call it “jingling the keys” the mother tries to control your focal point, and then communicates to you emotional data as to how you should feel about the thing and what you should do.

sasd

The feminine bias in society is also associated with tacit judgments I refer to as superficial aesthetic snap decisions.  This is based on the flow of negative emotional data.  The child can communicate negative emotional data to the mother, and the mother to the father, but the flow of negative emotional data cannot be reversed without invoking the refractory state of the western mind which reveals a tacit bias in favor of femininity.  Here is a picture I photo-shopped to illustrate the way in which the male and female mind are in relationship with one another.

090613133116

In ancient times they had the age of accountability. It was at that age that the authority of the mother ended and the authority of the father began.  The role of the father was to make the child suitable for society, psychologically sound and whole, capable of being a citizen and understanding the values of the culture.  The highest form of the good and the worst form of the bad.  With daughters when the age of accountability was reached, they were given or sold or married to a man and he took over her instruction.  In our current modern society the authority of the mother never ends, and people never take responsibility, they never understand, they never grow up.  We have created an entire generation of babies expecting to be provided for.  When they do something wrong or stupid they just appeal to feminine authority to mercy and charity, claiming that they weren’t responsible and they didn’t know what they were doing.

Other countries and cultures have no problem recognizing that men and women are different.  It is only because of propaganda in Western science that we hold this prejudice.  Even Western science is starting to realize it’s error.  If Western society hasn’t degenerated it is degenerating. . .

At least that is the view from my seat.

ngbbs4f5d3dd925d86

Incentives and Psychopathology.

Image

 

In a further attempt explain my psychological models and the difference between psychopathic and sociopathic brains.  Psychopaths are externally incentivized, which means that their is something outside of themselves that they need or want.  Sociopaths incentive themselves from inside.  They do what they do out of a sense of morality, and responsibility or obligation or a desire to understand.  Not all sociopaths are good sociopaths.   Religion was created to control the bad sociopaths.  Sociopaths are philosophical in nature, it is just that some sociopaths are not good philosophers, so authority had to be extracted from them in order so that they would not act on their worser demons.

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Hebrews recognized a religious “right of asylum,” protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent.[2][3] This principle was later adopted by the established Christian church, and various rules developed to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.[4]

According to the Council of Orleans in 511, in the presence of Clovis I, asylum was granted to anyone who took refuge in a church, in its dependences or in the house of a bishop. This protection was given to murderersthieves or people accused ofadultery. It also concerned fugitive slaves, who would however be handed back to their owners when their owners swore on the Bible not to be evil.

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

Religion was created as a moral science and as one progressed up the ladder, more authority, more god, was put back in them so that they had more freedom.   I am not stating this arbitrarily, yoga is also a moral science, and Freemasonry in it’s true form is western yoga, I am willing to defend that position, I have copious amounts of evidence.

The Secret Societies were the religions back in the day.  Pythagorean cults were the origins of western religion.  Much wisdom and intelligence has been lost in the evolution.

Image

The external incentivization of psychopaths is also obvious in their narrative and their behavior.  Psychopaths are social climbers, which presupposes their attraction to a herd in which they can social climb.  Sociopaths are more democratic and they like horizontal relationship not vertical relationship.  Psychopaths conceal their real intentions from scrutiny and reveal themselves falsely.   They hide from your threat filter by blending in.  They don’t attract negative attention to themselves.  If you ask a psychopath a question they will respond with whatever the most common answer is, blending into society, waiting for an opportunity to strike.

Psychopaths want something they shouldn’t have and don’t deserve that belongs to someone else, like power over them or to trespass your boundaries (rape) or use your resources to do their will.  For this reason they conceal their intention and opportunistically bide their time.  Psychopaths manipulate your emotions.  The truth about what a psychopath says is based on the reaction they hope to elicit from you.

Ponder how much good has been done by monks and nuns for little or no money, only for the internal incentive of feeling good about themselves.  For being able to serve others, teaching them, helping them, etc. Image

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

 

 

Id Ego and Super Ego in Richard Dawkins

Image

 

 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.  

Image

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?  (https://psykolinguist.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/richard-dawkins-deconstructed-by-the-mindhacker/)

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 (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/).  

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.  

Image

 

 

Richard Dawkins Deconstructed by the Mindhacker.

Image

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.

Image

(http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/everything-i-know-looks-through-me/)

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?

Image

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.

Image

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?

Image
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.
ImageImage

“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?

RELATED ARTICLES