Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
“People should not be cruel, which is a lack of concern for the suffering of others. Instead, people should be emotionally disturbed by any suffering that they witness. In fact, they should go out of their way to find new instances of suffering for them to condemn in hysterical outrage. For instance, if an elephant steps on an ant pile and crushes hundreds of insects, then every lion who knows about the crushed insects should grieve in shame and beg for forgiveness, right?
So, that is why we are slowly killing the criminal that you see before you today. This criminal was convicted of cruelty and the shameless disregard for the suffering of others, plus committing a public ritual of human sacrifice without first completing the proper paperwork. Let the slow and painful death of this criminal be a sobering reminder that I have spoken out against cruelty and made it illegal, which means that it does not exist in our system. Therefore, anyone who witnesses a possible instance of cruelty must immediately report it to an officer of the law so that we can either keep cruel people from corrupting our holy empire or, if the accusation is unfounded, so we can punish those who falsely accuse others of cruelty.”
– Count Dracula
(a.k.a. Vlad “the Impaler” Tepes, the Proconsul of the Holy Roman Empire in Transylvania)
“It is really a tragedy that there are so many poor people in the British Empire, isn’t it? Those people need to learn to read, then read my King James Bible to understand what it says about God helping those who help themselves, and then finally stop bringing shame to our empire by their lack of wealth. Also, remember that you need to pay your annual taxes to the Inner Temple in London by the sacred day or else the high priest of the court will issue an order to the court soldiers to put you and your family in prison. Thank you for your loyal support!”
– King James of England
He dreamed that he would be the savior
of all the people who thought that they were not worthy of love
He would convince them, or maybe trick them
if only he could just find the right ones
then he would say
It could be good for you to take some time to be afraid
you learned that fear was not o kay you learned shame
and shame is fine for hiding tears until you’re safe
but then you can just check for threats be scared and brave
I know you might have shut down certain emotions because you learned they were not safe to display
don’t show your anger, don’t show your fear, don’t show your grief, don’t show your tears
Or we will shame you or we will hate you or we will tease you all night and all day
you’ll need to earn love you won’t deserve love you have to do certain things in exchange
But how’d it all start? Who is deserving? Did Santa say you’re better than the rest?
Is it just karma? Who is at fault? Weren’t you born an expert on social finesse?
then he would say
It could be good for you to take some time to be afraid
you learned that it was not o kay you learned shame
and shame is fine for hiding tears until you’re safe
but then you can just check for threats be scared and brave
Sample investment results (shown below):
Using cash trading of stocks: two double digit gains and two single digit gains (total profit of over 30% in 3 months)
Using leveraged trading of ETFs (over 100% profit from the same opportunities in the same 3 months)
Using select insurance policies (several hundred percent gains from the same opportunities in the same 3 months)
What is “discounting?”
People are familiar with the term “discounted,” as in “disregarded” or “dismissed as not being worth much.” In a retail business, discounting simply means reducing the price of something temporarily. When discounting an item, reducing the price (to a discounted sale price) does not lower the quality of the discount items. The discounts are just temporarily cheaper, right?
For investors, the target is buying things at a lower price than they can be sold in the near future. Temporary discounts are absolutely ideal.
There can be a few methods to measure which markets are most discounted (and how much they are discounted). In the example below, for simplicity, I review a single method of measuring discounting.
Again, my interest here is just to briefly present a few simple examples of the advantage of investing in discounts. By measuring how discounted a market is, we get objective data about the future profit potential of that market as well as an indication of how much risk there is of further discounting.
When a market is currently being discounted (disregarded) by 50% of interested investors, then there are still a lot of investors that could further discount that market (as in withdraw from buying and shift toward selling). The more enthusiasm there is for a particular market, the more risk there is of a decrease in enthusiasm.
However, if a market has already been discounted by more than 90% of the investors who are interested in that market, then there are a lot investors who may change their sentiment and begin to buy in to that market (which drives up prices). The more that a market is already discounted, then the less is the risk of further discounting. When a market is most discounted, that tends to be the time with the most potential for the prices in that market to rise far and fast, plus with the highest probability.
The data showing the logic of only buying discounts:
In summary, I used a quick glance across 12 markets to identify the most favorable sentiment levels. I selected the only two markets that both had periods of extreme discounting (twice for each market, for a total of 4 excellent discounts).
Next, I show the prices for those two markets across 3 months. I highlight the best times to buy those two markets within those 3 months. Finally, I show that the correlation between the periods of extreme discounting and the most profitable times to buy that market.
Above are 12 “sentiment” charts to measure which markets (groups of similar stocks) are most discounted. This was for a 12 month period.
Note that I have no interest in the specific companies or even in the various stock sectors. I simply quickly sorting to identify sentiment extremes. For reference, sentiment fluctuations are shown for 11 groups of stocks in the US, plus sentiment for Canada’s stock market (the Toronto Stock Exchange/TSEX).
Note that in green I highlighted the only two charts that went to single digit “sentiment ratings.” Two other charts got down to “almost interesting levels” (below 30… highlighted in orange).
The other 8 markets had sentiment levels that are “far above extreme discounting.” 3 of them had sentiment above 50% for the entire 12 months. Those are the markets that are “least discounted.” That indicates a long period of high risk for sudden, sharp, lasting declines in price (eventually). The other 5 market had sentiment above 50% for the vast majority of the 12 months and sentiment levels never fell far below 50% (elevated risk with no significant discounting).
The above screenshot was obtained from the following link, which you can click to see updated data (for current sentiment levels): http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/candleglance.html?$BPENER,$BPGDM,$BPFINA,$BPTRAN,$BPNDX,$BPSPX,$BPINDU,$BPINFO,$BPMATE,$BPTSE,$BPHEAL,$BPSTAP|D|0
Here the sentiment lows can be identified and then used to test for a correspondence to rising prices:
Do you see the red line and the blue line each have two “lows?”
Here is the price data:
Can you see when would have been the best times to purchase those markets for a quick profit?
Notice the green highlights above of lows (circled) that were followed by sharp and persisting increases in price.
In addition to the sudden gains from those circled lows, there are often price rallies lasting several weeks afterwards.
Now, let’s combine the price data with the sentiment data to assess whether the times of extreme discounting were the best times to buy:
That is the chart without any notations. In the chart, I show that the two lows in the green sentiment line correspond to the two lows in the red price line. Also, the two lows in the pink sentiment line correspond to the two lows in the blue price lines.
In other words, the best times to buy those markets were when enthusiasm for those markets was lowest (the most discounting).
How big were the gains (across 3 months of time but only a few weeks of actual trading)?
Using cash trading of stocks (available in most brokerage accounts): two double digit gains and two single digit gains (total profit of over 30% in 2 months)
Using leveraged trading of ETFs (available in many IRAs even without any new permission forms): over 60% profit from the same opportunities in the same 2 months
Using the buying and selling of select insurance policies (accessible through most IRAs after signing one extra permission form):gains of hundreds of percent from the same opportunities in the same 2 months
When using an investing method that is extremely reliable, it may be interesting to consider a few ways of profiting from those opportunities. First, the three periods of discounting could each be traded for quick gains of close to 10% each (totaling over 30%):
However, those same opportunities could be traded with “two-to-one leverage.” If starting with $100,000, then the first profit (8% times two) would bring the balance to about $116,000. The second trade (at 2:1 leverage) would increase the $116,ooo balance by about 25% to about $145,000 (less than a month after opening the first trade). The third trade (still at 2:1 leverage) would raise the $145,000 by over 10% to about $160,000 (less than 2 months after opening the first trade).
Note again, that this 60% gain in under 2 months was not available in these markets most of the year. This strategy focuses on ONLY buying markets that at extremely discounted according to a particular measure.
There are other measures of sentiment besides the ones shown here. There are also many other markets ( besides the 12 shown here) that have easily accessible sentiment data, such as bond markets, currency forex markets, and commodity markets (gold, crude oil, etc…).
So, if using this method in just those 12 markets, there would have been 10 months of no risk (like just collecting interest in a money market account). However, the same logic can be used to buy discounts in other markets, as well as to profit from markets that have extremes of positive sentiment.
Or, other trading methods could be used so that the same select few opportunities (in those 2 months of extreme discounting) could be used to make much higher profits than 60%. For reference, I will display a quick example of a gain of about 70% (which happened overnight, though I made the purchase two days prior to selling):
When three quick gains as large as 70% each are compounded in only a few weeks, the total gains can quickly become quite large. Even though this trading strategy of buying only extreme discounts is highly reliable, most investors who use this last method will use it in combination with one of the other two methods, which mot people find to be much easier to execute (though the compounded profits may be smaller).
I personally use all of the above three trading methods, often at the same time. The three methods are again cash trading of unleveraged markets, ETF trading (usually of markets leveraged 2:1 or 3:1), and trading of option contracts. Further, I do use other forecasting strategies besides the one identified here regarding buying only extreme discounts.
However, the forecasting strategy of targeting sentiment extremes is the best strategy that I know, but there are periods of time when none of the dozens of markets that I track are at such an extreme of sentiment that I would use this strategy alone. Buying discounts is the easiest strategy to explain and also relatively easy to implement.
Interested in having a highly-skilled trader manage some or all of your investment accounts? If so, contact me!
As long as one knows that expectations are merely expectations, there is actually no disappointment when an expectation is violated. There is just the recognition that the expectation did not fit reality. Or, even if there is disappointment, it is momentary and of no lasting importance.
What is actually the bigger issue is presumptions that we do not recognize as presumptuous. If we presume that something WILL BE or that it ALREADY IS, that is not the same as expecting it and watching for it to eventually develop (probably). Presumptions lead not only to disappointment, but to terror that if one unrecognized presumption is wrong, we may have others.
So, the presumptions lead to confusion, shame (about the confusion), panic (about the shame), and frustration (about the results that come from the behavior of panicking). Unmet expectations do not lead to confusion and so on. Expectations do not lead to suffering.
In fact, disappointment is not even a form of suffering. Disappointment is just the relaxing of a prior hope: “aha, oh well, no!”
However, with presumptions, especially programmed presumptions, we can “take a position against reality.” We can be so terrified of social punishments that we display loyalty to programmed ideals of “what should be” and “what should not be”… such that we speak of presumptions as if they are actually expectations.
We may participate in public school linguistic rituals of “confusing words with objective reality.” We are trained to complain if expectations are not met. “I expected my wife to cook me EGGS, so now based on that so-called expectation, I will throw a tantrum.”
The cooking of eggs was never an actual expectation. It was purely a set-up to justify a display of rage.
The confusion was not a result of whatever the wife cooked instead. The confusion was pre-existing (and was programmed through the curriculum of “ritual abuse” at the public school).
The more precisely that we know what is relevant, the better we can plan. To know if we are able to produce an outcome, we must know the target outcome and then know what is relevant to produce it.
Are you willing?
How do we develop the ability to produce a favored outcome? We experience will (as in motivation or focus or desire).
When we experience a particular outcome or issue as a priority, then we are willing to focus on it (and unwilling to focus on other distractions). We experience the priority as uniquely relevant, so then other things seem relevant only when identified as contributing to fulfilling that priority. Anything else is currently irrelevant… unless a “higher priority” emerges.
How do we get to be willing?
Either we are willing to fulfill a certain priority or not. If we are willing, then being unable is a temporary condition.
When an outcome is motivating, then we are willing to increase whatever ability we consider relevant. If we are willing, we can develop new abilities that are relevant (or ally with others who are able). If we are not willing, then any diversion or excuse can be used to distract away from an outcome that we consider irrelevant. However, being willing does not instantly make us able or ready.
So, how do we get to be willing? Perceptiveness is the source of willingness.
People can be socially intimidated in to certain actions, but that is an external discipline, not self-discipline. The most powerful motivation is a direct perception of an opportunity or risk. When a motivation is internal, then it can be shared. In other words, when will is direct, then we do not need external discipline to produce a cultivating of ability.
In the absence of resistance or distractions, a motivating outcome will be explored. In fact, in the presence of resistance or distractions, a motivating outcome will still be explored, right?
Consider that perceptiveness is so important that institutions have been formed for the purpose of carefully directing attention to notice only certain things, then directing interpretation of what is noticed, and then directing the behavioral response to the programmed interpretations. In other words, the governing of perceptiveness is attractive to some special interest groups.
Do certain groups want to reduce perceptiveness about certain issues? Are there programs of curriculum to reward people for focusing only on certain issues, then memorizing certain details and repeating them back (without reflecting on them)?
Then, someone else tells them that there is no need to be anxious about Santa. They are told that the people in whom they have the most dependence and the most trust (their parents) have been intentionally deceiving them.
How should we expect them to relate to that assertion? Will they say “perceptiveness is very valuable, so please tell me more?!?!”
Or, will they panic in outrage and then argue hysterically in defense of their familiar presumption? Will they ridicule and condemn those who display skepticism about their familiar presumption?
One of the big issues with developing perceptiveness is that the perceiving of risk may have been ritually shamed. People may be ridiculed as paranoid or hysterical.
Is perceptiveness valued? Or is it ritually interrupted? Is perceptiveness specifically targeted and attacked?
Imagine that someone lives in a country in which they are told that cancer is a living demon that can possess them and then eat them away from the inside (and kill them). Then, they are told that there is an injection that will give them a small dose of cancer so that they will build an immunity to it that will last for around 5 years.
Consider that some people hearing all of this will have a sense of complete dependence on that government. They may want desperately to maintain a particular perception (without regard for the accuracy of the perception). They may want to believe that the government cares about them personally and would never deceive them. They may want to avoid the emotions that would correspond to recognizing the reality of the massive concentration of power in that government.
In other words, they may want to confirm their pre-existing bias. They have been programmed with certain ideas about science and they refer to those ideas as “scientific.” However, their experience involves strong emotions like paranoia and hysteria.
If a government threatens severe punishment against those who do not receive mandatory vaccinations, how would that effect most people’s interest in the safety of those vaccines? Would the people rather avoid the topic of anything that causes them distress? Are they paranoid about distress? Or, do they value a clear perception of risks? (How high of a priority for them is their health?)
Some people question the effectiveness of vaccines. For simplicity here, we can focus on the opposite question of the safety of vaccines.
What does the U.S. government say about the safety of vaccines? In the 1980s, the government started a program “that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.”
That quotation is from this website: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
Imagine if the auto industry was able to lobby for a government program so that when there was a defect in the building of a car, then the taxpayers would pay for injuries to purchasers of the defective car. What effect might that have on the attention to safety of those car makers?
Or imagine that the makers of wheelchairs were protected from liability for injuries caused to people because of defective wheelchairs. What about people who build stairways? What if taxpayers paid for all injuries caused by negligent construction of stairways?
However, what we have in the case of vaccines and drug companies is not just about occasional defects. No one questions the fact that stairways are useful because it can easily be observed.
What happens though if someone questions the central teachings of a particular religion? What if a religion teaches that, in every organism on the planet, there is an organ that makes a substance in order to poison and kill the organism?
Is cholesterol a poison made by the liver to cause paranoia and hysteria in the general public? If scientists measure that a placebo (an intervention that has no biochemical relevance) promotes health better than a certain drug designed to attack the liver, would that be surprising? Why would attacking the liver promote health?
Lots of studies document the variety of injuries produced by drugs designed to injure the liver (such as causing the effects called diabetes). Should the government use taxpayer money to protect the drug companies (and physicians) from legal penalties relating to injuries sustained from the use of a substance specifically designed to injure an essential organ?
Do we think that a particular program should or should not exist? Do we argue that a particular government exists for the sole purpose of promoting our individual well-being (without regard to the special interests of the most wealthy dealers)?
We actually do not need to concern ourselves with those questions. We could consider them irrelevant.
Instead, we can notice that when someone sincerely believes in Santa Claus, some people may be more or less willing to develop perceptiveness regarding unfamiliar observations. Maybe those that we depend on and trust have intentionally deceived us through carefully-constructed programming curriculums. Or maybe they sincerely believe in Santa, yet display hysteria and paranoia in regard to anyone who questions the accuracy of their sincere presumption.
Few are open to perceptiveness. Few are open to the powerful emotions and motivations that perceptiveness will produce. Few are open to developing the relevant abilities and alliances. Few are open to getting ready for victory.
Their “defeatism” has been carefully programmed. Their hysteria and paranoia benefit the few.
We can be among those who benefit from what is emerging. Or, we can be among the sources of those benefits.
TO ACCESS PART THREE, LEAVE A COMMENT OR SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE.
A child is programmed with ideals of behavior, including how they should speak. This programming is basically universal (just a matter of modeling others, really).
Sometimes the ideals (or patterns of behavior) are recognized as just being ideals (or patterns). Other times the presentation is more like this: “Today, class we will worship a list about how people should be and next will be a list of how people should not be.”
Sometimes, there is a complex context of intimidation and bribery and shame, like with the typical deceptions used regarding Santa Claus. Obedience is rewarded. Disobedience is punished. That is universal, too, but the deception / programming of confusion is not universal.
A simpler context would be overt bribery and intimidation with no deception and no social shaming (like just physical confinement or inflicting of pain, similar to how people typically train dogs). There is no confusing guilt-tripping of “you deserve this because you are a ___ person.” With “straight-forward” conditioning, the focus instead is on behavior: certain behaviors are rewarded and others are punished.
With “the cultivating of criminals,” there is a lot of reverse psychology and programming of identifying with a persona / label, like a huge billboard that says “only losers USE DRUGS.” Which drugs? All drugs? Prescription drugs, too?
Social anxiety is cultivated. Mental illness is cultivated. Criminal activity is cultivated. Political revolutionaries are cultivated.
It is black magic/ government witchcraft / cursing the victims of the oppressive system. Political correctness is programmed. Coercion is the central religion of the global empire declared by the Prophet Noah. However, shame is the key to the efficiency of the warfare (as psychological warfare).
So, in the case of inconsistent methods of conditioning, where punishments and rewards are inconsistently delivered, that can lead to confusion and distress. This was established by the researcher Pavlov who trained dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell (whether or not food was provided along with the ringing of the bell). The dogs eventually confuse the sound of the bell with the possibility of a “reward” (food). They are programmed with what we might call an “associative disorder” (as distinct from proper associations or no associations at all, called “disassociative” disorders).
Next, back to the human child, if there is a background of distress to the programming, then the ideals are not just ideals, but develop in to dogma or idealism. The child might be jealous of others who get rewards without adhering to the child’s own programmed ideals. The envy is natural, but that can lead to grieving grievances like “Those people are not playing by my rules, so they should not ___!!!” (That is an example of hysteria.)
Instead of just noticing that familiar, learned rules are not universal rules, there is a distress of repressed frustration surging out. “I am disappointed by my own results, but quietly disappointed because I am too intimidated to be vocal about it, and so now to see those people do well while I am playing by the rules brings me to envy, then frustration, resentment, and contempt.”
To have envy and then curiosity would be adaptive. However, social programming typically shames the youth for displaying envy or curiosity (which is the biggest threat to dogma and thus must be most severely repressed). So, the youthful rule-follower complains that their own perfect actions are not satisfying them.
Their obedient perfectionism is not getting rewarded as advertised. Not only is the Santa story a deception used by the socially-mature to manipulate the gullible, but it is the only deception ever used by any culture.
Ok, I was kidding there of course. I got distracted while I was typing.
The perfectionist eventually witnesses the elite getting massive corporate subsidies and says “we need to reform the system so that it either is not a massive redistribution from the taxpaying human resources to the elite… or it is a MORE PERFECT system of inequitable redistribution based on coercion / extortion.” The point is that “they need to follow THESE rules.” Then, the different groups of perfectionists oppose each other, just like they have been programmed.
That is hysteria. The hypocritical form of that hysteria would be “the only rule is that all rules are wrong.”
Learning would be “I realize that my sacred rules are no longer relevant (if they ever were). I observe a contrast between my presumptions and my observations and I humbly refine my presumptions (or discard them) and I open myself to new presumptions with greater precision.”
Language is a tool for directing attention. One person can direct the attention of millions of people.
In many cases, people direct each other’s attention in one-to-one interactions or in groups (like in a classroom). Or, imagine that an author of a book creates a curriculum used by thousands or millions or even billions of people (across thousands of years).
One of the most famous leaders in human history is Moses. Stories attributed to Moses were repeated in the oral tradition of the Hebrews, then later written down and included in the scriptures used by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I will give a few examples later.
First, consider how important language is as a tool for social programming. Complex information can be transmitted rapidly and precisely using language.
However, we can observe many kinds of animals and notice that even without language many species still form complex social organizations, right? What are some examples of animal species with complex social organization? Examples include bee hives, wolf packs, and even the inter-species collaboration between humans and domesticated creatures like horses or sheep.
So, before we explore how language is used by humans to socially program other humans, let’s consider other important tools in governing social groups, like the fences erected to keep sheep confined or the metal rings placed in the nose of a bull. Can a ring in the nose of a bull be used to direct the attention of the bull?
A tug on that ring can certainly wake a sleeping bull. The bull can be inflicted with sudden, intense pain. If the bull voluntarily moves in the direction that the nose ring is getting pulled, then the intense pain is relieved. The direction that the bull is facing can be led by the nose (by pulling the nose ring so that the bull will turn it’s head to reduce the pressure on the nose).
Now, let’s review a few details of the popular stories of Moses. While the stories below are not the most popular ones, they are plainly documented in the Book of Numbers (in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).
A threat was issued to Moses and his companions in regard to their lack of attention to the one issuing the threat. The specific threat was a plague that would kill some of the Israelites. After about 24,000 had been killed, an Israelite named Phinehas plunged a spear through an Israelite man and a Midianite woman who were having sex. Based on that act by Phinehas, he was rewarded with entry in to the Israelite priesthood and the plague was ended.
So, back to the example of the ring in the nose of a bull, when the ring gets pulled, then the bull experiences pain and faces where it is directed to face, right? Now imagine that you are the leader at the head of a few tribes. Would it get your attention if someone threatened to unleash a plague on your neighbors in the tribes that you rule, and soon after that 24,000 of them died in a plague?
The one who claimed to be responsible for all of those deaths then issued an order for Moses to gather an army of Israelites and then go slaughter the Midianites and take their livestock as plunder. All of the Midianite males were massacred as well as all of the females except for the ones that the “shot-caller” spared (32,000 virgin girls to be distributed to the victors as war brides).
Again, those are examples of stories distributed by people who admire Moses. If we read a version of the same story written by one of the surviving Midianites, we might not be surprised if there were a few different adjectives than the ones printed in the Bible, right?
However, Moses was on the winning side. So the winners promote their version of the story, then print that version in million of Bibles (and then maybe dozens of people will actually read those verses).
Were there deaths? Sure, maybe a few thousand Israelite soldiers died sacrificing themselves for the conquest. Maybe a few Egyptian soldiers died. Maybe a few civilians were slaughtered.
Keep in mind that they were all going to die eventually, right? Plus, the Israelites had just been punished for their lack of compliance. 24,000 of them were “sacrificed” by the one that the Israelites refer to by titles like the Lord of the Celestial Armies. According to the story, more Israelites would have been killed in a continuing plague if they did not comply with the demand to invade the Midianites.
Maybe you are aware that certain creatures can be trained to think that they are tied down. A tamed horse with a rope around it’s face will apparently stay still if the horse thinks that the rope has been tied. Maybe the rope is loose, but the horse gave up trying to get a away a long time ago, so the horse presumes that the loosely draped rope still restricts them. An untamed horse would not believe it is tied down though, right?
Trained elephants are also programmed to believe that they cannot move when they could. The young animals are too weak to pull the stake out of the ground, so they try pulling but give up. Then, when the elephants grows up, it still believes that it is not strong enough to pull out the little stake in the dirt.
Even Santa Claus has been trained that someone is constantly watching his every move and so if he is not a good boy (according to the adult’s standards of good behavior), then all that he will get for Christmas is a big, colorful box filled with naive deceptions, anxiety, and guilt. Of course, what he gets is what he deserves, right?
Anyway, back to the subject of intimidating the masses with stories of genocide, how important is it whether a specific version of a specific story is exactly true? The effect on the masses is what matters, right?
For instance, if the horses stand next to the water, but they think that they are tied up there and cannot go anywhere else, then eventually they must drink some of the water, right? Or, if you throw pearls before swine, but the swine do not recognize the pearls as pearls, then they might accidentally pay attention to the pearls occasionally, right?
So as I was saying, a long time ago, I was in a classroom when the teacher said “memorize this story and then repeat it back on the test.” Those who did as instructed received social validation. Those who did not perform as directed were generally ignored.
However, there was a third group as well. Among millions of students in that particular classroom, three of them questioned the accuracy of the story. One of them even asked “why is this story even relevant to us?”
For that third group, the teacher had a special response planned. They were given special nose rings and punished for their disruptive behavior of respectfully showing curiosity in a classroom. This obviously could not be tolerated.
Was I one of the students? Or, was I the teacher? Or, is that story completely fictitious?
Next, if I was designing a holy empire to regulate the entire human population on the whole planet, would it be important to me to create a central curriculum that promoted anxiety in the youth so that they would be intimidated in to modeling their behavior after the bloody guy on the cross? After all, if you just do whatever he would have done, then consider the kind of tortures that you could receive as a consequence?
By the way, the only people who should be terrified of eternal punishment in hell are people who have violated any of the rules that we modeled after the normal innate urges of a human. In other words, be ashamed of what is your natural inclination for your entire life.
Say things like “I do not deserve to be in this hell. It is the fault of the villain(s) that I am suffering like this. It’s just not fair. Why did God make reality the wrong way like this without consulting me first and then conforming to my preferences? And why are all of these people around me so arrogant and always saying things like about how their lives are hell. No, they do not even know what hell is. My life is hell and since only one person can be the person most deserving of sympathy and special favors, I am obviously the one. So they should just shut up with all of their whining.”
Next, compensate for the guilt that we programmed you to have by donating a lot of money to our charity. Or at least pay taxes or else we will garnish your wages, foreclose your property, and then throw you in jail.
Actually if you are Marc Rich, then massive tax fraud and tax evasion is fine because any convictions were probably misinformed and all is forgiven when the high priest issues a Presidental Pardon. Let’s be real though for a minute. You are not Marc Rich. So pay you taxes because the penalties for non-compliance are much worse than a sharp tug to the nose ring.
Also, since you know that you broke the social rules more often than you got caught by anyone, you should be terrified of dying because then right after you die you will have to face Santa Claus and find out what he is going ot give you for Christmas. Will you get an already opened Pandora’s box? Will you be ashamed of opening the box because you might find out that inside is just a big pile of guilt and terror and deception?
Did I mention that Phinehas drove a spear through two people a they were having sex? Keep in mind that for that act of heroism, he was made in to a priest. Plus, the plague was ended.
For those of you who are wondering, “why did the Lord of Israel let so many of them die,” the official answer is “for the greater good.” Put that down on the test and then you can get a box of heaven when you die.
In conclusion, there is no social programming and that is a good thing because there should not be. If there ever was, then we would need to send anyone who thought there was to a correctional facility to correct their facilities. They must be delusional.
Language is never used to deceive the masses for the greater good or for any other reason. Language cannot be used deceptively because small children are too intelligent to believe whatever Santa Claus tells them in a classroom when they are young and innocent.
Horses and elephants cannot be trained to believe they are tied down when they are not. Bulls cannot have rings put in their nose to direct their attention through physical pain.
After all, that is not what Jesus would do, right? He was a carpenter, not a cattle rancher. So, he would have cut some wood to build a fence or maybe a huge cross (to nail someone to as a sacrifice for the greater good).
Competition is a reality. For instance, sometimes a bear can outlast a bull and bring it down, but will the victorious bear still have enough capacity to keep a pack of wolves away?
One lone wolf would probably never even get close to the prize. Just being courageous would not increase the physical capacity of a wolf, right?
However, what if a group of wolves cooperated to compete against a single bear (especially a bear that has just used a lot of resources to take down a bull)? How much easier would it be for a network of well-organized wolves (compared to an individual wolf) to get consistent favorable results?
Maybe the wolves will drive off the bear quickly (so the bear will only get a few “leftovers”). Or, maybe the wolves will bully the bear in to sharing some “taxes” (10%? 25%? 50%?).
Rather than risk directly attacking big, dangerous creatures like bulls or bears, the wisest wolves will network together to get a big percentage of every single killing. They will train the bears and the bulls to obediently offer a share of every killing to the pack of wolves. They may even encourage the bears and bulls to attack each other, making it even easier and safer for the wolves to be successful hunters (of bears and bulls, etc…).
Of course, the wolves may also attack vulnerable targets such as “criminals” who operate *unauthorized* extortion rackets. For instance, what if some bulls get together and plan some investments even though they have no money? Maybe those bullies can intimidate some nearby bears in to perceiving that it is in the best interest of the bears to pay taxes to cover the “government debts” that the bulls just agreed for the bears to owe.
So, what if the wolves say “that specific extortion system is not authorized by our holy empire?” In that case, the wolves can vilify the bulls for creating an evil, unjust extortion racket. The wolves can present their condemnation as justification to invade the ancestral homeland of the “criminal bullies.” When the wolves arrive, they will declare that the bulls are trespassing in the new colony owned by the wolves.
However, if the bulls want to continue to live in the colony, then they will need to do two things. First, the bulls will need to get a “ring of citizenship” inserted in to their nose to show that they are loyal citizens of the holy empire. Second, they will need trade valuable resources like food in exchange for the sacred objects of the wolves. (The only way for the bulls to avoid incarceration and seizure of assets will be to collect those sacred objects and give them to the wolves as “tax payments.”)
What will the wolves declare as a sacred object? It will be something that they have in abundance, plus something that is hard for the bulls to get except from the wolves (a monopoly).
Then, the wolves can “sell” the bulls little useless chunks of gold or silver (which cost the wolves very little to mine) in exchange for a large number of bearskins (that it can take a bull several months of risky activities to accumulate). By efficiently bullying the bulls, the wolves can make enormous profits with very little danger or risk.
Obviously, the above paragraphs were using bears, bulls, and wolves as an analogy to human activities. Some of the ideas presented above may seem a bit complex (or even confusing). You do not need to understand them to benefit from The Courage Network. You do not even need to know what the word “courage” means to us, although understanding that could help to crystallize your motivation to take courageous action and get the results only available when you take those courageous actions.
To learn more about courage, click the top link on the left. Or, you can skip directly to one of the other options further below.
(These links are not active, but when you scroll down, you can read the content for the top 6 items.)
– Why is it important
– How valuable is it
– What exactly is courage
About the Network
– Browse the results you can get
– Share your own unique expertise
– Learn the secrets of breakthrough methods
– Send a question or request
– Comment on specific content
– Subscribe to more free content
– Why is it important?
Courage is important because it can lead to both the increasing of rewards and the reducing of losses. To consistently get above average results, above average methods must be used. To stop using average methods and start using above average methods can be labeled “courage.”
– How valuable is it?
Note that a lack of respect for risk can be disastrous. Courage is respecting risk. Recognizing risks and then avoiding them is already a huge advantage, plus courage also reveals opportunities that most people do not perceive.
Courage is a specific and rare type of openness. Habits and routines are never courageous. Courage is about alertness as distinct from presumptiveness or inattentiveness. The more popular that a presumption is, the more valuable it can be to courageously question that presumption and actually measure realities.
When fear is welcome, then the first consequences will be unusual levels of alertness, caution, and bold investigation.Through bold investigations, then insights will result. From insights, highly efficient methods can be developed and perfected. Those methods allow us to get what we value and to get it easily. (To skip ahead to examples of actual results CLICK HERE.)
– What exactly is courage?
Courage is a specific type of relationship to risk. Courage is accepting the reality of risk and still taking bold action. (By “bold,” I mean without regard for social validation.)
When accepting risk and taking action, the potential risks can be presumed, quickly estimated, or precisely measured. To act when there is just a presumption about risk is only boldness, not caution. When risks could be measured, but are not, then bold action involves desperation or panic. We could still call that bold action courageous, but we could also call it reckless presumptiveness.
Only when significant risk is clearly recognized, then courage is most relevant. The one with faith is open to fear, which leads to alertness , caution, and bold action. The one ashamed of fear (suppressing the display of it and avoiding triggers of it) is exhausted, not courageous.
Anyone can use words like courage and faith and fearlessness, but that may be from a perfectionist paranoia about how other people perceive them. By discounting the importance of fear as a signal to assess risk, people will be vulnerable to naive action and the catastrophic results of naive action. Far worse than occasional acts of reckless presumptiveness is an anxious obsession with celebrating blind optimism or enthusiasm as a “magic formula” for safety or prudence. That is naive self-sabotage.
One can recognize the inherent risks of habitual, naive presumptiveness. That is the awakening of alert caution.
Since many social institutions program people to presume that certain things are safe (or beneficial), one of the most distinctive forms of courage is the willingness to question programmed presumptions (in favor of direct observation). When observations and presumptions do not match, how do people react?
The person with faith will alter their presumptions to match their observations. The person terrified about other people’s perceptions will condemn any reality that reveals the inaccuracy of their naive presumption. They will even justify their condemnations as based on “faith” or on “science.” Actual science would require discarding imprecise presumptions in favor of observations. People who claim to have faith in presumptions actually lack faith in observation. They are terrified.
In addition to condemning certain actions, they condemn certain people. They often blame some new target for undermining or betraying whatever they believed to have been present before. Often, their prior beliefs were just programmed delusions. There was no isolated betrayal, but a history of deception. However, they resist the idea that they have been constantly deceived. They are terrified of the idea that adults deceiving them (like about Santa Claus) was not an isolated case. They anxiously resist the idea that even adults can be naive. “Of course certain other adults are naive, but not anyone who agrees with ME, right?”
As the deceptions are recognized one by one, the shame of having been deceived can result in outbursts of rage over the next betrayal. Also, many in shame are anxiously looking for an honest politician to be their savior by fixing the system to make it from how it is now in to how they were programmed by the system to perceive it as being.
About the Network
– Browse the results you can get
personal: breakthroughs in health, communication, & personal development
business: safe, profitable investments, debt relief, & business marketing
> FOR MORE, CLICK HERE
– Share your own unique expertise
Do you have great results to report? If so, would you be willing to help others get those results in exchange for appropriate compensation?
It is useful to have images (including charts) to visually display results, though you can also share testimonials (vidoe, audio, or text) as well as individual case studies. You can also list the search terms that relate to your experience, as well as brief introductions to who would value your expertise, why they would, and how they can obtain your help.
> FOR MORE, CLICK HERE
– Learn the secrets of breakthrough methods
You can benefit from a method without understanding how it works. However, a competent expert can teach you simple relationships that most people find perplexing or even “impossible.”
You know that every time you use a device that runs on electricity, you are benefiting from the innovations of someone even though you might not understand anything about electrical circuits. What if you could quickly learn simple principles of electromagnetism and then use them to improve your health easily and at almost no cost to you? You don’t need to understand exotic and cryptic secrets. You can focus on secrets that are simple and practical, but that most people are too distracted or anxious to notice.
> FOR MORE, CLICK HERE
– Send a question or request
– Comment on specific content
– Subscribe to more free content
Jealousy is often the source of condemnation and contempt. People shame other people to balance the attraction that they feel. The contempt is a secondary repulsion to balance (to negate or suppress) the primary magnetism of attraction.
“Why should those people get that result instead of me? Now, for my next trick, I will hysterically condemn the success of their methods based on some factor other than the actual effectiveness of their methods!”
Notice that we pick specific targets for contempt. We do not usually focus on behavior in general. (If we did focus just on a pattern of behavior with respect for the results produced by the behavior, that would be respect for the behavior and its potential consequences, not condemnation and contempt).
So, we may focus on specific instances of a pattern of behavior in order to justify rage toward a particular target. Sometimes we pick the target first (like a particular celebrity or former romantic partner) and then find a long list of things about them to condemn. Or perhaps we are obsessed with a particular behavior (probably because someone that we want to hate has done it) and then we might generate a long list of villains to accuse of that behavior. Whether we make a list of people that did one behavior or a list of behaviors by one person, either pattern of behavior can arise in a panic of outrage.
We might criticize Joseph Smith for having several wives or the King of Saudi Arabia for having over 100 children, but we generally do not care how many children or wives someone has. We don’t ask because we don’t care. We tend to be very selective in our condemnations and shaming.
We do not start protest marches outside of movies that he directed. We do not boycott theatres that show films in which he is an actor. We care so little that we generally do not research the issue of how many women he has impregnated so far (or the details of the various cases). We usually do not even think of the issue.
But what if you find out that your brother-in-law has been having sex with lots of women besides your sister (his wife)? Do you have different standards suddenly when it involves someone you know?
Maybe you do and maybe not. Unless it has happened to you, consider that you actually do not know what you would do. You might only have some cherished ideals about what people (such as you) should do or should not do.
So, what exactly is an elitist?
An elitist is someone who does not complain about other people’s complaints. They do not say “those idiots are complaining about trivia.” They do not even notice what most people are complaining about.
They are too interested in their own interests. They are interested in what results are disappointing to them or attractive to them. They are interested in what frustrates them or provides relief.
They do not mind that many people are going on and on about “how people should be.” They respect that there are different ideas about how people should be. They respect others… which does not imply interest in everyone or loyalty to “everyone.” They just respect that people can change and that different people have different patterns.
So, they are not obsessed about “everyone” or about particular other people (even past romantic partners). They are what is generally called snobs. In other words, they openly admit that they are more interested in their own life than anyone else’s life (or “everyone’s lives”).
Of course, double standards are standard. If two people generally do the same behavior, it is possible that both will get similar reactions. However, keep in mind that most people do not care about what others do. They may say they care, but what if they primarily just care about what other people think of them, so they habitually display “outrage” over whatever issues they hope will attract social validation of them as “morally superior?”
When athletes or rock stars admit to having affairs while married, do we have different reactions to different cases? Why outrage over Tiger Woods but not over Gene Simmons?
One factor is that Gene Simmons does not display shame and regret about having thousands of sexual partners. Wilt Chamberlain did not either, but Tiger Woods and Bill Cosby were shamed for much less shocking things than whats get covered up when it involves British Royalty or Roman Catholic Bishops.
Why is that? Because the British Royal family and the Bishops are well-connected. The mainstream media protects them while making scandals out of other relatively minor incidents. Plus, we do not want to condemn the powerful too publicly. We know that it is dangerous to criticize certain people, so we focus on safely criticizing distant villains (even villains that are safely dead).
But that could never happen in the US, right? We pursue every single criminal accusation equally right?
Plus, we would never pardon a convicted sex criminal, right? What about a famous musician who was also a political activist who confessed to having sex with a 14 year-old? The maximum penalty for the crime was 10 years. He served a few months (his full sentence), and then about ten years later, President Carter pardoned him. But most people did not care.
Or there was the famous rapist named Miranda. He confessed, then was convicted and sent to prison. However, he was released from prison (and his conviction was overturned) after his lawyers raised the issue of whether he had been notified of his right to remain silent. So, how would the rape victim feel when he gets released on a technicality? Eh, no one really cares.
Why do we care so much about Tiger Woods or his wife? The reality is that we don’t care about them either.
A year after we trash-talked about them for hours, eventually we don’t care about Gene Simmons or Clint Eastwood or even Bill Cosby or famous child molester Jimmy Saville, a British celebrity and close associate of the Royal Family (and, allegedly, their top supplier of children to molest). We might feel scared of also being “victimized” so we sympathize and grieve with the victims, but that is not out of actual personal concern for the victims. It’s not like we write them letters, right? We are just concerned about our own safety. Their victimization reminds us of our vulnerability.
We just get addicted to condemnation (and arguing). It helps distract us from shame. It helps distract us from our terror of facing the reality that there are networks of people who can get away with murder and who regularly do.
We don’t really care that the government has had a bail-out program for decades to use billions of taxpayer dollars to protect pharmaceutical companies from personal injury lawsuits from vaccinations. But we might love to argue, so we can pick a few “infuriating” topics for socializing.
But what if the Governor of California has kids with two women? Is that upsetting because we are concerned that these actors who then become politicians might be paid to perform a role for us and read a script designed to promote specific results in the audience?
Please be aware that some of the pictures show nipples that you might find incredibly sexually arousing. Therefore, please go ahead and plan your criticisms of the man pictured below for exposing in public his very sexy nipples.
Do elitist snobs ever make fun of the general public and their worship of hysteria? If they do, they most certainly should not. That would be shameful and elitist and uncommon and distinctive but not even slightly hilarious.
READ ALL OF THIS AT YOUR LEISURE, respond only to what stands out. I am just grateful to have someone that doesnt check out when I check in.. thanks JR.
That was Harry’s last comment. I will present all of my replies and then his full writing.