R1b Haplogroup is European DNA.
R1b Haplogroup is European DNA.
“The Soul is, in a way, Phenomena.” ~Aristotle.
In this modern age where people don’t like to talk about religious or spiritual topics it makes it difficult to approach certain subjects that are very real and commonly used to control and manipulate people. Rituals are used in business and in religion and in many other places. For example, if you look at the rituals around the recent category of Organic Produce you will see that their is special cleaning and even segregation of conventional and organic. This is to communicate to everyone that they are different and one is superior to the other. It reifies to people that one of them has more value and that value is real because it controls the behavior of people. The ritual creates a pattern, a movement of energy in the world.
If you think about it, the person that created the organic standards gets to control the behavior of the people that deal with organics, a special kind of priest class.
There are other kinds of rituals too. Fidem Turbare recently told me that when I am making my photoshops I shouldn’t use too many different fonts, and I should put borders around the words. The border thing actually worked, somehow making my photoshops look more professional and increasing their perceived value and professionalism. The visually separating and emphasizing with the use of boundaries is a subtle kind of ritual.
Wikipedia defines a ritual thusly:
A ritual “is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and performed according to set sequence.” Rituals may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including a religious community. Rituals are characterized by formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rule-governance, sacral symbolism and performance.
In psychology, the term ritual is sometimes used in a technical sense for a repetitive behavior systematically used by a person to neutralize or prevent anxiety; it is a symptom of obsessive–compulsive disorder.
If you contemplate it the difference between a cult and a religion is the cult’s rituals are different and less common than the rituals of religions and yet people feel the more common and frequently something happens the less innocuous it is and the more correct it is.
If you observe the rituals of Islam, which are more or less rituals of abuse or terror. They attempt to terrorize people into doing what they consider the right thing to do. This horrific behavior becomes common place for Muslims and correct, even spiritual and good.
There are other rituals as well. The packaging of a happy meal, the layers, boxes in boxes, creates anticipation, because you have to open the box and then take a box out and then open the wrapping, before you can enjoy the nutrition poor, gut wrenching, food tasting substance inside. A natural outcropping of unregulated capitalism is to maximize the cost while minimizing the actual value and this is done by manipulating the perceived value of the product, making it look better or more enticing than it actually is. The more prestige you have in the form of brand recognition, the more you can get away with. People want to be a part of something that matters and their cognitive bias tells them the bigger the group they are a part of the more there personal value is increased. The average human is innately a follower, not a leader.
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:
I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models. Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded. People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win. So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns. When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.
The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples. What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt. Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.
So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them. So what does this mean for the near future? Society is about to get a divorce? No, much much worse. The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust. And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science. And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet. If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly. I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.
Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric. What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist. He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science. What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion. He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good. And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields. What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.
This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t. Socrates was accused of being an atheist. So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful? Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government. There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is. Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego. He wants to be worshiped. He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.
When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.
“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail. Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent. You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights. They are amoral systems. Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new. What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.
Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists. It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it. Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right? If you survive or succeed you are the fittest. Evolution works!
But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.