The “salvation” of demystifying shame

First, let us consider the word salvation in regard to how it is commonly used by members of some mainstream churches. After that, I will focus on the contrasting meaning that I will use.

People may use a phrase like “I have been saved.” In some cases, they may be using that phrase in reference to a social ritual in which someone uses some water to initiate them into membership within a particular group. Or, maybe they learned a traditional practice of saying a particular sequence of words, such as “I accept you as my savior and lord.” In the latter case, they may say a few words in private (perhaps somewhat like casting a magic spell), and then after conducting that private ritual they repeatedly present a social claim that they have been “saved.”

The paradigm they seem to be using is that they accept a fundamental concept that they are deserving of future punishment or torment, yet still have been granted a pardon or a suspension of their sentence / penalty. So, overall, they are basically expressing gratitude about relief that now they are not as terrified about the future as they were previously.

If they believe in an eternal hell as the destiny of the vast majority of people, then they may claim to have been somehow rescued from that default destiny. Instead, they have a presumed future of eternal pleasure or glory or at least peace and contentment.

Now, with full respect for the value that so many people have for what I just described, I propose that such a meaning for the word salvation is about a degree of relief only (but not complete relief). As an analogy, imagine a child that is in distress and is crying, but then falls asleep. When they wake up, the distress may have subsided or may even be forgotten. However, they are returning back to a state that was their experience prior to the distress. They are not reaching a new state that was previously unfamiliar to them.

So, they are talking about relief. They’re talking about hope. When there is desperation and panic and hysteria, then hope is a powerfully attractive alternative.

however, hope is certainly not a permanent state. Hope can be followed by disappointment, then more hope then frustration then joy (and so on back-and-forth).

So, what do I mean by salvation? To me, salvation is fundamentally connected to the issue of shame. However, Salvation is not just a brief reduction of shame. Salvation is not a distraction from shame, such as through participating in a group event where one feels socially accepted or by engaging in A celebration of joyful music or by listening to a calm relaxing recording or broadcast.

Salvation is an unraveling of the conceptual framework which produces the outcome of shame. Salvation is a process as well as an experience. Further, because salvation can only follow the experience of shame, there is an understanding of shame and even a respect for it or appreciation of it. So, in a broader sense, salvation means having gone through the experience of developing shame, maintaining shame, questioning shame, and finally releasing it.

When I refer to releasing it, that can be thought of as repeatedly releasing individual instances of shame. However, there’s also the possibility of a more comprehensive relaxing or unraveling of shame in general.

Consider what shame is (at least how I am using the word). Shame is a type of terror. The terror is in reference to future social rejection (and potential punishment.)

The terror corresponds to paranoia and hysteria. Appeals to logic may have limited influence on someone deep in the experience of hysteria or trauma.

We can also note the connection between shame and resistance to a particular idea. If it seems terrifying to question the accuracy of an idea or statement, that terror is shame. If an idea is disgusting or disturbing or infuriating, then again shame could be involved.

Also, a special case is when. people have been programmed to relate to an organization (whether a government or church) as a “savior.” Then, there can be resistance not only to contrary evidence… but repulsion toward skeptics or even people who are not fanatical enough or not fanatical in the “right” way.

Political ideologies like “Socialism” or “democracy” (or “security” or “equality”) can be worshipped as holy ideals. Further, when a politician talks about “security,” they are really talking about a specific political agenda, such as banning immigration for “security” or criminalizing the unlicensed possession of guns for “security.” The obvious issue with these agendas is that two politicians can both use the word “security” to refer to completely unrelated political agendas- or even directly conflicting political agendas.

To create the perception of some organization as a heroic savior (such as the government), then there must be victims and villains from whom to protect the villains. The holy savior is never to be presented as villainous.

So, if the common dogma is that a government is protecting the masses from tyranny, then there must be some targets labeled as tyrants. If there are any tyrants ever found within the “savior” government, then they must be characterized as “exceptions.”

Further, any allegations of tyranny (or “misconduct” in general) will be quickly filtered by a fanatic. If “their side” is accused of tyranny or misconduct, there will be immediate dismissal of the idea as “slander” or “politically motivated” or “ridiculously biased.” Evidence will not be independent reviewed or critically evaluated.

likewise, if “the other side” is accused of tyranny or misconduct, there will be an immediate presumption of accuracy. So, again there will be no independent review of evidence and no critical evaluation. The common outcome is that political ideologies are a refuge from the challenge of ever independently reviewing anything. Also, political ideologies can include doctrines about science, so there is an ironic animosity to diverse opinions and independent evaluation- yet all in the name of science, which literally refers to independent verification of a claim (especially any proposal of potential causality or efficacy).

All of the same psychological and emotional factors that we see in religious fanaticism and political fanaticism can also be witnessed in people’s personal lives. People can select one or more individuals as heroes or villains, then systematically seek out any possible evidence to support their narrative while dismissively rejecting any possible contrary evidence.

So, if monogamy is considered a sacred ideal and anything else is shameful, how much will someone resist clear evidence that is contrary to their ideal? In cases of chronic abuse, how much will someone excuse or justify or defend “occasional tragedies?”

Further, how much contempt will someone have for an accused “traitor?” Who is most likely to furiously condemn others for something: someone who is doing the same type of behavior themselves, someone having it repeatedly done to them, or someone who really has no personal experience or emotional charge in relation to the topic?

Imagine that an organization called the RSSU has a long history of exterminating tens of millions of its own citizens. Then, the RSSU sends troops to invade a distant country and on the way massacres huge numbers of Polish people, but then blames it on the country that they are approaching to invade.

Next, imagine that the RSSU has two major allies for the military invasion of their target. Those allies are the KU and the ASU.

The PR team of the RSSU not only blames the Katyn Forest Massacre on the country they are preparing to invade, but also claims that their target nation has exterminated millions of their own people. How does the media in the KU and the ASU relate to these claims by the PR team of the RSSU?

The other allies might just repeat the accusations made by the PR team of the RSSU. Even if there is clear evidence that the RSSU exterminated tens of millions of its own people, that might be completely ignored (by their own allies). Why? Because they may currently be allies!

Their ally will be vigorously glorified. Their target, once selected, will be vigorously vilified.

If the ASU puts an embargo on their enemy (Cuba) that results in massive starvation, is that starvation to be called a tragedy that is the fault of Cuba… or is it to be called a great military success? If the ASU and KU impose a blockade to starve their enemies in Iraq, is the resulting starvation a tragedy to be blamed on the leaders of Iraq which justifies promptly invading, bombing, looting, and installing an occupation military force that will remain there for at least 72 years after the end of the war in 1945?

Ah, but now I am mixing facts from different times and places! However, does that simply reveal the larger pattern?

If there is clear evidence that 4-500,000 people died in enemy camps, why not blame that on the Enemy rather than on the countries blocking food imports to The enemy? Further, why not blame the Katyn forest massacre on them as well? Further, why not inflate the number of deaths to 6 million, then concoct disturbing stories to incite and traumatize the civilians of the KU and the ASU?

Would it be shameful to ally with the actual perpetrators of the Katyn forest massacre and the exterminations of tens of millions of their own citizenry? If so, then that shame equates to naïveté.

the naive not only can be blinded to actual events, but can believe religiously in fictional events as if they were real. Further, the naive will not even consider the possibility that they might be uninformed.

What is key? Through intimidation (shaming), naïveté can be cultivated. The more socially distressed the students are, the more easily they can be programmed with political ideologies and anti-scientific dogmas (which they will loyally label as “science”). The more abused emotionally that a spouse is, the more easily they can be deceived…. or at least influenced to “stay on script” publicly.

The “Stockholm syndrome” is a label for what predictably happens in a situation of lasting social inequality / stratification. The lower-status caste or class of people will eventually compete to attract the most favors and privileges. They will display loyalty to their rulers.

The more economically and emotionally dependent the masses of national socialists are, the more devoted they will be to their drug dealer. Why not get large portions of the masses addicted to a handful of psychiatric drugs (like anti-anxiety meds for their brain, anti-stress Meds for their heart, and maybe anti-nausea drugs for suppression their immune system from detoxifying the other drugs)? Why not promise to have the holy government pay for ALL of those drugs?

Wow- any addict would be devoted to the only available supplier of the drugs, right? Further, what if the drugs are FREE to the addict?!?!

That government MUST be the holy savior and CANNOT be criticized because whatever flaws the drug dealer might have, the addict is CERTAIN that the drug dealer is not just good and not just great, but is their holy savior. Further, out of devotion to their drug supplier, the addict refuses to even consider the holiness of any competing drug suppliers. Their savior is THE savior. Further, their total dependency on their drugs is not an “addiction.”

Of course, a group of addicts can get together and harshly criticize other type of addicts. “Those people way over there are addicted to their political ideology, which is something that we JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND.”

Really? Maybe “we” just cope by avoiding the possibility of understanding particular instances of fanaticism. Why? To avoid facing our own histories of fanaticism?

Maybe we do not understand fanaticism until we do. Maybe we do not understand social intimidation and shaming until we do.

So, do I condemn the RSSU for their role in the Katyn forest massacre or the killing of tens of millions of their own civilians? I do not recall making any condemnation here.

Do I condemn the RSSU for blaming their enemies for the Katyn forest massacre or for exterminating between 400,000 and 6,000,000 people? Do I condemn the KU and the ASU for repeating the propaganda of the RSSU?

If I was ashamed of having been misled by such propaganda, then I might hysterically condemn it. I might have contempt for some propagandists or for all propagandists or even for naive fanatics who seem so intimidated and traumatized that they do not thank me when I yell at them for being naive fanatics.

If I “just cannot understand” how someone could be so “blind” in their personal relationships, then I can either display curiosity or hysterical contempt for my inability to understand them (shame). How can people believe the mainstream commentaries about ww2 or 911 or anti-cholesterol hysteria? Either I understand systems of indoctrination and resulting hysterical fanaticisms or not.

If a child’s parents are psychologically dependent on the RSSU (and are also addicted to 9 different pills supplied at the expense of the RSSU), then the child might quickly learn to display loyalty to their parent’s “holy savior,” right? If one spouse is psychologically dependent on another, then “adopting their fanaticism” may be a natural adaption. In fact, the only way for people with deep fanaticisms to form a lasting relationship might be when they already share that fanaticism with someone as of when they first meet…. or perhaps they both develop it together.

What I know for sure is that the mass media operates not for its own interests, but out of charity. Their content is not biased by their pharmaceutical advertising revenues. Their content is not biased by government regulations that force them to conform to the basic message that “our government should be a BETTER holy savior, just like was intended by the holy founders of our government.”

Could the founders of our holy nation have been intentionally influencing the masses with expedient rationalizations for a new innovation in systemic inequality? Obviously, only nations that are currently our enemy would have such shameful histories. If any nation was previously our enemy (at which time they clearly had a shameful history), but are no longer our enemy but are now our holy ally, then suddenly the obvious insincerity of their villainous founders is the obvious sincerity of their glorious founders.

The RSSU is clearly either the second best government in human history or the second worst government in human history. Also, the KU is clearly the most holy monarchy in human history or the most despicable villain in the history of the ASU.

Shame is a condition that often involves being terrified of certain ideas. To cope with that terror, contrasting ideas can be glorified and hysterically justified.

One who is deeply ashamed of their own patterns of behavior can select (or invent) a traitor to target with shaming and ridicule and contempt. Further, being occasionally targeted in that way is not especially unusual.

There is no inherent shame in having been targeted for shaming or intimidation or indoctrination. Even when it seems very personal, it might not be personal at all.

There is also no inherent shame in having targeted others for shaming or intimidation or indoctrination. Everyone who has been a student in the schools of the RSSU (or similar schools) has been carefully trained to ridicule anyone who dares to display skepticism toward mainstream dogmas, like about cholesterol as the most dangerous of all the substances that your liver regularly manufactures in large volumes in order to slowly kill you with hysteria and anxiety and paranoia and naïveté.

911 was obviously an attack by the Japanese to bully the US in to imposing gun control legislation on all members of the Republican Party. Also, there is a list of precisely 9,264 things that are inherently shameful and that list is stored in a secret location at the bottom of the Vatican archives. Oops- forget what I said about the location of that location or else God will send Santa Claus to sneak in to your house through your chimney and kidnap all of your children while you are sleeping.

The most important thing for you to know is the position of the RSSU on the list of the best governments in the history of the world. The following piece of information will be on the test when you die and get to the gates of heaven and Saint Peter asks you if you know the answer to this one very important question.

Here is the answer: the RSSU was basically the same as all other governments. Also, there was no RSSU. That is just a reversal of the letters of the USSR. The USSR and the RSSU are exact opposites in every way, although the basic methods of both systems were essentially indistinguishable. Plus, the RSSU does not exist.

But if it did, Santa Claus would sneak down it’s chimney in the middle of the night and kill all of its children. Why? Because Santa Claus hates people who take advantage of the naïveté of young people by indoctrinating them with ridiculous ideas about Saint Peter being the gatekeeper at the end of your life who will either condemn you to eternal torment or eternal delight.

Also, all cholesterol really is very bad. In fact, it is horrible. It is a villain. So, take this pill to save yourself from it. This pill has been approved by the RSSU and is been funded by them.

You can trust the RSSU because everyone trusts them: the media, your parents, your doctor, your neighbors, Santa Claus, Saint Peter, and of course you. Further, your enemy accuses the RSSU of being occasionally imprecise in their comments about the horrors of cholesterol, which has single-handedly killed over 600 billion humans in the last few thousand years alone. In short, your enemy loves cholesterol. That, plus your enemy’s accusations against the RSSU, only go to prove that the RSSU obviously can be trusted in regard to the evils of cholesterol.

In conclusion, what is very important to know is that the word salvation is related to words like salve, saliva, salt, salsa, sauce, & saucy. It is also related to salad and salutations and health and whole and holy.

Also, one who has been “broken in to parts” and is then “reintegrated” will have an appreciation for integrity that might not have been possible prior to a period of personally experiencing the challenges of intimidation and hysteria and naïveté. What is one of the hallmarks of salvation? A lack of hysterical contempt for systems of shaming and indoctrination and deception.

Why respect them? Because they are dangerous (and dangerously effective). Also, it is important to be able to recognize the promotion of hysteria and paranoia as well as recognize the promotion of independent verification and intelligence.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: