Tag Archives: Britain

The Psychopathology of Islam and Muslims

untitled About 8 years ago Bruce Buena de Mesqita did a TED talk in which he purported to have an algorithm that could predict social events.  He applied it to Iran and generated a number of predictions.  At that time I was working on fleshing out my psychopath models and I immediately responded, “his algorithm doesn’t account for psychopathic behavior.”  To this day almost all of his predictions are dead wrong, the only on he got right was that students would protest. What makes my psychological models so different from everybody else’s?  Well regular psychology is based on comparing the individual to the normal person in society, but if society itself is becoming psychopathic then psychopathy is the norm. My models don’t compare the individual to the norm they compare the individual to the rational person. My models were created, in part, observing troll behavior online.  When I am trying to understand a person I ask myself who is the person saying this,?  What story are they in?  And what character are they playing in that story?  How well are they playing that character and what missteps are they making in portraying that character?  Some people refer to this as profiling and they think that something is wrong with it.  That presupposes a superficial nature to relationship in which you don’t really understand anyone around you and you don’t scrutinize or examine them closely. psychopathy PRAXIS IS THE KEY Ancient civilizations had this concept of Praxis, which is essentially, the individual has a philosophy, that philosophy is known and it informs the behavior of the individual.  The words Process and Practice come from the word Praxis.  People are a lot less philosophical nowadays but belief still informs action.  So it is possible, with careful attention, to know why a person is doing what they are doing and what they will do in the future, for reasons we will discuss. In my Organic Computer Theory I hold that humans are a lot more predictable than people think.  If you understand the individual you know how they will interpret events and how they will react to those events.  Every event has positive or negative survival data to the individual this is the Binary Code for Organic Computers.

PSYCHOPATHS

My psycholinguistic technique is to compare what a person says, with what they do, with what they think.  Psychopaths conceal who they really are and represent themselves strategically.  Psychopaths lie, they manipulate, they are authoritarian, they are aggressively narcissistic, they have innate feelings of superiority.  They do not have a sense of humor about themselves.  They feel that everything they do is good because they are the one’s doing it and they feel that they are deserving of everything they want.  They don’t respect the boundaries of other people because they don’t feel that other people are equal to themselves. ayatollah khomeiniSo, what is Islam? Islam is a tyrannical, psychopathic, masculine only perspective.  If your philosophy is arbitrary it creates a disparate impact and is therefore invalid, which is to say it isn’t a genuine philosophy.  If your philosophy can’t be used to falsify you it isn’t valid. MARRIAGE IN ISLAM The Greeks, Jews, and Christians in an effort to separate themselves from the tyrannical practices of the East created a different marriage contract, a business contract, women had rights but also responsibilities.  In Islam which is resurrected and cleverly re-branded ancient evil from Babylon and Persia, marriage is a property contract in which women have no rights but they do have copious responsibilities. OEDIPAL AGGRESSION Jews and Christians demonstrate aggression towards the penis slightly shaming men for the sexual urge.  Catholics shame girls so that they will take more responsibility for having sex and exert an influence on themselves to choose a mate wisely.  In Islam it is a common practice to cut off the clitoris and  labia and bind the legs together so that they grow over the vagina so that the first act of intercourse is painful.  Women are not supposed to enjoy sex in Islam, that makes them whores.

14 - 1

SEXUAL SHAMING In the west we have a feminine bias, which means we tacitly frame women as the cause of the good and men as the cause of the bad.  In Islam it is reversed.  Men can get closer to the children, the penis is the cause of the good and is not suspect, women and the vagina is the cause of the bad.  Men are not shamed for their sexual desires.  It takes 4 witnesses to accuse a man of adultery, and he can have multiple wives and sex slaves.  If a man is accused of adultery and is to be stoned, he is buried up to the knees or waist while a woman is buried up to her shoulders, if he escapes he gets to live, same goes for her.  While bestiality is forbidden here is how Muslims typically punish offenders. http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Bestiality#In_the_Islamic_world AUTHORITARIANISM Islam was designed to create disparate impact in it’s own favor.  The fastest growing population on earth is also the stupidest and most violent.  Mohammed resurrected a priest class which hasn’t been seen since Ancient Egypt or earlier. Writing evolved and religion evolved but Islam devolved.  The Priest class interprets the holy writings and tells Muslims what to think, how to feel, and what to do.  Saudi Arabia translates fewer books into Arabic than any other country by far, Greece translates almost 2x as many books into Greek. story of Mo

VEXATIOUS LITIGATIONS

With rich, vexatious lawyers, they change the laws so that you can’t criticize them or scrutinize them.  The prevent Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other anti-islam advocates from stating their case.  They push to get blasphemy laws legalized so that you can’t make fun of their religion or their prophets.  I am not part of your religion, how is it that you can legislate my opinions and expression? Muslims presuppose their right to judge others by their values and then act as judge, jury, and executioner, literally.  If that isn’t a narcissistic, authoritarian mentality I don’t know what is.  Also the very act of speaking out against another Muslim is a potential act of apostasy which is punishable by death.  Which means that Jamal can go martyr himself and blow up a synagogue in Turkey, but if you say anything bad about him you are an infidel. PATHOLOGICAL LYING CAIR Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad In Shi’a Islamtaqiyya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation‘,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] The corresponding concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) “coercion”. A related concept is known as kitman “concealment; dissimulation by omission”. Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya So a religion that admits it is based on a lie, that openly states the only people that believe Mohammed’s lie are the nations that are going to get screwed by the Muslims, also protects itself and promotes itself by lying.   In closing, it is obvious to me that Islam is a psychopathic ideology, more so than any other religion, and Islam is doing what it intended to do.  To just sit back and think that they will somehow stop is delusional.  They have no incentive to stop.  They have no incentive to be reasonable.  They are already succeeding.

muslims

islam


http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/turkey/


untitledturkey

Advertisements

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

Narcissistic Narrative.

Image

They say that psychopathology can be summed up as aggressive narcissism.  If you are familiar with my theories you know that I consider psychopaths to be over-coddled children and their is a strong co-morbidity with the female mind.  One of the things that I found interesting in the L case study was how she would correct my narrative automatically without even thinking about it and replace the stuff she didn’t like with stuff that was more pleasant.  She would discount my perspective and my testimony.  But she consistently chose to replace it with childish narrative, one time she even started singing to me a nursery rhyme.  I was like:

Image

What is so amazing to me is that people will disagree with me about my theories on psychology and my philosophy and then turn around and prove me exactly correct.  See, I am a rational philosopher, I am not trying to prove myself right, I am trying to prove myself wrong.  I want to be wrong.  I don’t want to be right.  Because if I am right I can’t have the kind of relationship I want.  Because nobody is capable of having that kind of relationship with me and that is the only relationship in which I can be happy.  It is the only relationship in which I can succeed and change my position in life based on merit and not based on manipulation.  Only rational relationships are relationships.  

Crib talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crib talk or crib speech is pre-sleep monologue made by young children while in bed. This starts somewhere around one-and-a-half years and usually ends by about two-and-a-half years of age, though children can continue longer.[1][2] It consists of conversational discourse with turn-taking often containing semantically and syntactically coherent question-answer sequences. It may contain word play and bits of song and nursery rhyme.

Crib talk has been found in deaf children in their early sign language.[3] It also occurs in autistic children.[4]

She wasn’t talking to me, we have strict rules about what she can say to me and how she can say it, it is based on rational communication and my theories that if you don’t speak correctly you don’t think correctly and you don’t act correctly.  The Holy Trinity of my theories.  Psychopaths have to do things psychopathicly.  They are incapable of doing things rationally because they have to attract attention to their egos.  I use a kind of speech therapy with my students, forcing them to communicate correctly and then forcing them to do what they said and bringing up any disparity between what they say and what they do.  They have to explain the disparity and they aren’t allowed to bullshit.  They don’t get to rationalize because even their explanation is going to be tested and scrutinized, and it better be predictive and ameliorative. 

So if she wasn’t talking to me, who was she talking to?  Herself.  She was rebuilding her little bubble world around herself.  She isn’t so much in the world as she is in her world.  This is the problem, it is not possible to have a relationship with a delusional person.  Imagine trying to write something on Teflon paper, nothing sticks.  That isn’t relationship.  Her mind is so full of her narrative and only her narrative that I have no influence on her.  She doesn’t listen to me, she doesn’t act on what we agree upon, she doesn’t remember what I tell her.  How is that relationship, other than being in physical proximity to each other?  I don’t and can’t influence her behavior, and she can’t control herself, and yet I am supposed to be responsible for her and rational towards her while she gets to be batshit insane, and only concerned for herself?  

Image

I am sure that some of you are perplexed by some of my online behavior.  You have to understand that I am strategic towards the world and authentic in relationship.  Not only am I not of this world, I am against the world.  My relationship with the world is not my relationship with you, and you can’t conflate the two.  It is a logical fallacy that I discovered which I call “the general, the specific, and the personal”.  People change the way they are in relationship strategically because of how a person is in relationship with someone else or something else, and it is an invalid process, a psychopathic process.  It is a form of theft, a form of social climbing.  It robs the world of value and it fails at relationship.  The way you change the patterns in the world for the better is by being rational in the one to one relationships.  It is those patterns that create the emergent properties and patterns that inform the general rule.  You aren’t going to change the world for the better by failing at relationship.  

I am not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I am a sheep in wolf’s clothing.  I am trying to get you to wake the fuck up.  I want you to know what is about to happen to you and why.  I want you to see for yourself who the enemy is.  Obvious threats are known knowns, I am an obvious threat because I am dangerous, and smart, and what I say is scary and intimidating.  But as I say when I am doing comedy, “It’s not the asshole in front of you that you have to worry about, it’s the dick behind you.”  -Adam Wolfe (a damn wolf)

Image

Image

About the photo at the top of the article, I didn’t Photoshop it, I did a word search for a term I use in this article and it was the first image to pop up.  Weird…