R1b Haplogroup is European DNA.
R1b Haplogroup is European DNA.
I am starting to get sick of the strategic behavior of the Establishment Republicans (as well as Establishment Democrats). Living incarnation of Medusa and Wandering Eyed Wonder, Debby Wasserman Schultz, attacked Nikki, saying the only reason she was allowed to comment on Barack Hussein Obama’s SOTU was because she was a woman and the Republicans have a diversity problem. Apparently, Liberal Progressive Democrats are allowed to make sexist, slurs, since they are the TRUE champions of all of the TRUE icons of Diversity
I liked most of Nikki’s speech but I disagree with certain subtle manipulations and nuanced semantic persuasions she used in her speech in order to caste shade on the progress of Donald Trump. Some of you know me as The American Guru, apparently Nikki was eager to apologize for the existence of the confederate flag, I wonder how happy she would be to have the Swastika stricken from the record of India’s history. I ponder what arguments she would make in its defense. Muslim’s hate history, which is why they destroy it when ever they get a chance, history belongs to all of us. When Muslims burn books, and destroy statues they are robbing all of us of our cultural richness. People like her come to America so they can be themselves freely without persecution, in a safe environment and then once they get here they start bombarding the people who made this environment safe for them. They start marginalizing the very people and the virtues we hold deal that allow them free self expression. I can’t express how angry I am with her, and how wrong I feel she is as a Jnana Guru who has much respect for Sikhism and who associates with many Sikh advocates, but SHAME ON YOU NIKKI, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF, YOU HAVE HUMILIATED AND DISHONORED YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILY, AND THE VALUES OF INDIA.
America has been silent for the past 7 years as we put trust in the Obama Regime and gave him an opportunity to prove himself. What he did was sell us out, quietly, in back rooms with secret handshakes and agreements. Her semantic argument and tacit emotional appeal was designed to throw a negative light on Donald Trump and make him appear not to be a legitimate candidate to the American Voter. Don’t tell us how to be American. All of these politicians are dirty and if you don’t want a serious Revolution on your hands you better start representing the American people and stop condescending to them and telling them what to think. The Disgusting Establishment Republicans want to pick up where Obama left off and quietly slink back into the back rooms and quietly fix things while padding the pockets of themselves and their friends. This is precisely why we don’t want another politician in office who knows how things go down in the political world, who’s ass to kiss, who not to offend, who has us by the nuts. I want everything out in the open, I want to know who has been fucking up. I want them out. I want to know who has been selling us down the river. I want everything out in the open. You will all be judged in the court of public opinion.
People can lie quietly and pleasantly, people can be wrong pleasantly, there is no correlation between being quiet and being successful. There is a strong correlation between people that communicate anger and use foul language and people who speak truth. So your Leading insinuations are scientifically and factually WRONG!!! You frame it as anger while precluding the possibility that it could be RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.
Moslems want us to be silent. Moslems are afraid of our freedom of speech. Moslems don’t like us telling the truth about them and their intentions. They don’t want us speaking honestly about their Holy books or the Life of their Serial Murdering Pedophile Prophet. Everywhere in the western world they try to bring in their Sharia Law and force us to be punished for their Blasphemy Laws which have no place in this country and are directly against the first amendment of the constitution. If you don’t know and respect that then not only do you not belong in office you don’t belong in this country. As the American Guru, I am telling you, Nikki Haley, you should stop shaming yourself. If silence is how we get things done, then please show us how to be silent and keep your stupid, incorrect, pleasant opinions to yourself.
The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali are a philosophical explanation of the logical fallacies and cognitive biases that prevent the individual from being in relationship with reality. In our life time we have a false sense of who we are reified in us through out the course of our lives. This false sense of self is the Ego. Life Characterizes us to our self, thus we develop a self image that is an illusion in so far as it distracts us from knowing our true inner self. Neural myelination is created every time a pattern is repeated. This essentially hard wires the brain into certain patterns and instincts and habits which are hard to break, and some people do not have the strength or self discipline either to be aware of themselves and the patterns the create, repeating them like a crazy person and expecting a different result. I refer to humans as organic computers because they are much more predictable than people think.
Imagine if you will that neural myelination is like a dirt road in an old west town, when it rains, mud is created, and when a carriage is drawn through the town it makes grooves in the road, the natural weight of the carriage, drops it into the grooves and the course the carriage takes is almost exactly like that of every other carriage. This instinct prevents creativity in changing times. It prevents people from reacting correctly to what is happening right now. Eventually people are in relationship with a non reality because they are in relationship with the way things were or are supposed to be and not in relationship with the moment, the present. They are, in all effect, delusional.
Some of you know that I am a linguistic philosopher. I do subscribe somewhat to the theory of linguistic determinism. The patterns that the vast majority of people are capable of creating are based on their vocabulary which is their thought tool set as it were. Most people do not personally create their own patterns or break pattern without permission because Authority has been extracted from most people in order to make them civil and controllable. Society tells us what the correct response is and the correct action is, even when people do break pattern from the social norm often times they do not do so in a beneficial or constructive way. People that can think new thoughts, come up with new arguments, look at things in a way no one has ever looked at them before are few and far between. The rest of humans are copy cats. Only when they see another person create a pattern are they then able to copy that pattern, but if they had never seen it they never would have come to that action of their own accord. This has been referred to as the acquisitively mimetic behavior of humans.
The word Yoga, is the origin of the word Yoke, which essentially means to make one.
“The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body will be lightsome: but if it be evil, thy body also will be darksome.” Luke 11: 34
The word here translated as single is sometimes translated as healthy, which has the connotation of whole, or holy, perfect or complete. Some of you know that I have done a lot of work in pointing out the similarities between what Jesus taught and the ancient Saraswati cults of India. This statement is a rhetorical tautology of the third eye chakra.
10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears,and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’a
I am not preaching any particular branch of yoga, and I am not trying to push christianity on anybody, I am merely describing and explaining.
heal (v.)Old English hælan “cure; save; make whole, sound and well,” from Proto-Germanic *hailjan (cognates: Old Saxon helian, Old Norse heila, Old Frisian hela, Dutch helen, German heilen, Gothic ga-hailjan “to heal, cure”), literally “to make whole” (see health). Related: Healed; healing. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heal
holy (adj.)Old English halig “holy, consecrated, sacred, godly,” from Proto-Germanic *hailaga- (cognates: Old Norse heilagr, Old Frisian helich “holy,” Old Saxon helag, Middle Dutch helich, Old High German heilag, German heilig, Gothic hailags “holy”). Adopted at conversion for Latin sanctus.
Primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not possible to determine, but probably it was “that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated,” and connected with Old English hal (see health) and Old High German heil“health, happiness, good luck” (source of the German salutation Heil). Holy water was in Old English. Holy has been used as an intensifying word from 1837; used in expletives since 1880s (such as holy smoke, 1883, holy mackerel, 1876, holy cow, 1914, holy molyetc.), most of them euphemisms for holy Christ or holy Moses. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=holy
Yoga essentially means to make one, or to become whole, it is about the marriage of everything with everything, the marrying of the individual to reality, which is a rhetorical tautology of becoming one with god, which in turn means to understand and be wise and to be properly in relationship with the world around you and the people as well. This means to be correctly in relationship with facts but more than that to have a deep and intimate and correct understanding of the very nature or reality, as god. The Fruity Spiritualists that don’t really know what Yoga is about or even spirituality for that matter, presuppose a pleasant, non violent, superficial spouting of shibboleths and telling people what they want to hear. Instead of waking people up to reality, which can be unpleasant, what they do instead is put them asleep to the nature of reality and indoctrinate them into a pleasantly deluded cognitive dissonance, a running away from reality and putting oneself in a trance of artificial pleasantness, this is the opposite of the intention of Yoga.
Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness[note 3], and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness.[note 4][note 5] Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidyā (knowledge) of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Attaining this liberation takes a long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. Advaita thought can also be found in non-orthodox Indian religious traditions, such as the tantric Nath tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
Vidya is vitiated knowledge.
vi·ti·ateˈviSHēˌāt/verbformalpast tense: vitiated; past participle: vitiate, spoil or impair the quality or efficiency of.”development programs have been vitiated by the rise in population destroy or impair the legal validity of.
For the Epicureans
For the Epicureans, ataraxia was synonymous with the only true happiness possible for a person. It signifies the state of robust tranquility that derives from eschewing faith in an afterlife, not fearing the gods because they are distant and unconcerned with us, avoiding politics and vexatious people, surrounding oneself with trustworthy and affectionate friends and, most importantly, being an affectionate, virtuous person, worthy of trust.
For the Pyrrhonists
For the Pyrrhonists, given that neither the sense impressions nor the intellect, nor both combined, is a sufficient means of knowing and conveying truth, one suspends judgement on dogmatic beliefs or anything non-evident. It is from this suspension of belief ataraxia arises as one realizes one thing is ‘no more’ than that. No more up than down, no more wet than dry, no more hot than cold, no more night than day, “the number of stars one can see in the night sky is no more even than odd”, no more left than right, no more black than white as when Anaxagoras countered the notion that snow is white with the argument “Snow is frozen water, and water is black; therefore snow is also black”, etc. Most important of all, in enunciation of ‘no more’ or ‘I determine nothing’, in uttering these expressions, one is merely stating how things appear to them, at the time and in an undogmatic way, without making any assertion of truth regarding external reality.
For the Stoics
The Stoics, too, sought mental tranquility, and saw ataraxia as something to be highly desired and often made use of the term, but for them the analogous state, attained by the Stoic sage, was apatheia or absence of passion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataraxia#For_the_Pyrrhonists
From the perspective of the Ancients, Yoga was a lifetime commitment and their was no guarantee that the seeker would ever actually attain the fruit of their desire and work. The individual is born in ignorance and may never get to the point of attaining to non vitiated knowledge, or understanding, or wisdom, but if he does he becomes a jivamukti, he becomes free in his own lifetime, reborn, free from illusion. Having discovered the One True Self that connects us all and indwells us all the True self, Shiva. When one comes into union (yoga) with the supreme reality, jiva becomes Shiva. The individual self becomes, the ONE SELF.
The Advaita school holds the view that the world appearance is owing to Avidya (“ignorance”) that has the power to project i.e. to super-impose, the unreal on the real (Adhyasa), and also the power to conceal the real resulting in the delusion of the Jiva who experiences objects created by his mind and sees difference in this world, he sees difference between the atman (“the individual self”) and Brahman (“the supreme Self”). This delusion caused by ignorance is destroyed when ignorance itself is destroyed by knowledge. When all delusion is removed there remains no awareness of difference. He who sees no difference is said to be a Jivanmukta. Perception of difference leads one from death to death, non-difference can be perceived only by the highly trained intellect, so states the Sruti (Katha Upanishad II.4.11). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jivanmukta#Implication
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, yogi, guru and poet. 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. 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:
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.
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:
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.”
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
“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.
This is truly bizarre, he quotes Adolf Hitler verbatim but he doesn’t give credit to Hitler for the quote.
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….
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?
Yukteswar Giri (also written yuktesvara, Sri Yukteswar) (Bengali: শ্রী যুক্তেশ্বর গিরী) (10 May 1855 – 9 March 1936) is the monastic name of Priya Nath Karar (Bengali: প্রিয়নাথ 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”.
Aleister Crowley (/ˈkroʊli/; born Edward Alexander Crowley; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an Englishoccultist, ceremonial magician, poet, 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…
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…
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: