The wise home builder

August 30, 2017

First, if you are a person that is curious about how much you can benefit from ancient teachings, then this article is for you. Next, here is a short summary of a famous parable.

Imagine two builders who each built a home at a sandy beach. The more experienced builder valued building on a solid foundation, so that builder cleared away the sand to get down to the bedrock that was under the sand. Eventually, A storm arrived and soon only one of the two homes was still standing. The sand under the other home was washed away, so that home cracked and then eventually collapsed. The broken pieces of the home floated away. One of the homes was stable enough to endure through the same storm that demolished A home built by a different method.

So, that is the basic story. Many people Will already be familiar with the story, although they may not know the actual lesson of the story. While the author of that story May have had real-life expertise from being a Carpenter and Builder, The real lesson was not about the best way to build a home.

Do you know the purpose of the story? A contrast is emphasized between a person who hears a teaching and does not act on it and a person who hears the same teaching and does act on it.

To benefit from a teaching, there must be innovative action. However, the innovative action in the parable of the wise builder is not as simple as following a clear guideline.  The builder that built his house on sand did not get a guideline that was then dismissively ignored. There was no universal guidelines provided for how to build a home that can withstand storms and strong winds and flooding.

So what is it that leads to innovative action? In the parable, The experienced builder is apparently alert to the potential for a dangerous storm, while the novice builder is not.

Ultimately, what is being contrasted in the parable? Yes, there is the superficial contrast between the novice builder who is naïve or foolish and the experience builder who is prudent and conservative and cautious. However, the parable makes a very direct reference to going beneath the surface of what is easily visible.

So, again what is it exactly that leads to innovative action? A new perceptiveness naturally results in new perceptions and, very importantly, in new responses to the new perceptions.

Merely being exposed to a teaching does not automatically result in new perceptiveness, new values, or innovative actions (that produce new results). Only for those who accurately understand a teaching, then they will begin to apply it, then to learn from applying it.

When most people talk about the parable of the two builders, they typically emphasize obedience or even willingness. In both the books of Luke and Matthew, right after the parable of the two builders, there is another story about the power of willingness to lead to healing.

However, just prior to the parable of the two builders is also a warning about giving too much attention to miracles, to healings, and even to claiming to be a humble, obedient follower. So, What comes before that? There is An even more famous teaching of Jesus, which is about goodwill toward others and a willingness to forgive!

“Do not condemn,” he says. The teaching of to Withdraw past condemnations and even past antagonisms, and then further to forgive others of whatever bothered us about them. Rather than complain or vilify others about the speck of sand that slightly obscures their perceptiveness, first remove the many inches of sand that have piled up on top of your own foundation.

In other words, do not vilify anyone. Do not ridicule Christians for not fitting your ideals about a perfect Christian. Further, do not resent non-Christians for not even knowing your ideals (and probably not being at all interested in what they are).

Do not give your ideals more value than your observations. Keep using the many lessons to clear away the layers of presumptions that obscure your perceptiveness.

in particular, Do not get distracted by addictions to vilifying others. Whatever you have used to justify antagonism toward them, withdraw your past justifications. Forgive them of whatever you have condemned.

If we have condemned others for not condemning the right things in the right ways, forgive that. If we have condemned others for condemning the wrong things in the wrong ways, forgive that. In fact, we could even apologize to them for vilifying them!

Beware of building your life on the vanity of trying to put others down (to make yourself seem somehow superior). Do not obsess over justifying your own past. Withdraw your condemnation of your past and then you won’t be so quick to blame, to vilify, and to justify your antagonisms.

Now, obviously there are other ancient lessons that might be very beneficial for you to explore and apply. You can’t expect to know a whole book from reading one chapter, right? You also can’t expect to benefit from reading a book as much as you would benefit from interacting with someone who really understands what is below the surface of that book.

A lot of the lessons of Jesus are about noticing what most people do habitually, then questioning those habits. As for the parable of the two builders, it was not about a home that is designed in an unusual way or that has unusual features. What is unusual about that home (relative to the other home) may be almost completely invisible, as in hidden behind the siding and even below the surface of the ground.

In the lesson before that one (about removing what has been blinding your perception), it is not enough to stop condemning others. The point is first to completely stop avoiding your own blinders (by vilifying others) and then- even more importantly- to value clearing away what obscures your own perceptiveness.

How does that clearing away happen? There is no comprehensive answer given to that. There is merely a method for promoting that clearing away, which is to value the lessons of one who can be calm in the midst of challenges that cause most people to “fall apart” and then be “swept away” (like in a flood of antagonism and distress).

What is the behavior that goes with valuing lessons in perceptiveness, poise, and innovative methods? Explore those lessons. Interact with an authentic authority. Also, verify that you are getting the full benefit of those lessons by monitoring your actual results! Do you have the same results you have always had (and the same results as a enthusiastic novice)?

Dismiss the values of the crowd. Withdraw from the hysterias and controversies and antagonisms of the crowd.

I will conclude with another ancient parable. A king had several slaves. He gave each of them an equal amount of wealth to manage. After a time, one had the same amount as before, one five times the original amount, and one ten times the original amount.

The king assigned the last one to rule over ten cities (and the next to rule over five). Further, he reclaimed the entire portion back from the one who had not even put the wealth in to a bank to collect interest. To whom did he give that portion to invest?

Jesus concluded his parable by revealing that after all of that, the king finally ordered for his enemies to be brought before him and killed. Then, Jesus entered in to the city of Jerusalem, where he warned the current leaders there that their enemies would crush them.

Why? Because those leaders resisted the authority of Jesus and instead defended their own social rank and positions.

So, whatever happened to Jesus? Was he really killed? Was he defeated?

Many books say he was defeated (then later vindicated). However, how much do you really value what is written in a book? Even if a book repeatedly said “worship this book as holier than God” (and even if billions of people repeated that), is any of that evidence of relevance (or accuracy)? Is the authority of the book from the book itself… or is all the authority that is copied down in to the book completely independent of the book?

Don’t think of the book as the foundation on which to build your life. Think of the book as a shovel that is useful for clearing away the shaky foundations on which the crowd builds their lives (perhaps lives of naïveté, vanity, hysteria, distress, shame, and even vilification to distract from their shame and distress).

Once the sand has been cleared away down to the bedrock, do you set the shovel aside? Use the shovel whenever you need that tool. Set it down whenever you do not.

Who do you know that demonstrates unconventional insights, unusual poise, and intense ferocity without antagonism or contempt? If you don’t know anyone like that, find one (and then obey them).

Which book(s) they quote, if any, do not need to be your priority. Their authority is the authority from which the most valuable books are written.

That authority is within you. Once the sand that has covered it has been cleared away, then that authority stands on its own, even in the midst of storms that cause crowds to shake, to ridicule, to tremble, to cower, to scatter, and even to shout curses at that storm (and also at that authority).

If you condemn the authority that is your innate foundation, you might have a lot of company and even a lot of encouragement. However, popularity is quite distinct from accuracy (and also from relevance).


The “salvation” of demystifying shame

August 13, 2017

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.


Sympathy and empathy- how they are quite different experiences

August 11, 2017
Here are a few paragraphs on distinguishing sympathy from empathy (and people who are “extremely empathetic” from people who are actually just “extremely sympathetic”)….

Sympathy is highly passionate / impassioned. It typically involves taking one side (who is typically glorified) against some other side (who is typically vilified). In many cases, all of that involves shame, shaming others, preventing one’s own shame from surfacing. It also can involve a lot of vanity / false pride (a rigid, anxious paranoia about one’s existing view being the best in some objective way, with attachment to social validation and unanimity).

Sympathy can unintentionally alienate others. If those others are of no importance, then alienating them or not may be trivia. However, one problem with unintentionally alienating others is that someone may not notice the cultivation of that alienation, then, in the distress of denial, say something like “but I did not INTEND to alienate her. In other words, sympathy can be quite inattentive as in negligent.

I prefer the experience of empathy. Empathy involves feeling passions without favoring one passion over another. With no ideological preference of one passion over another (or very little preference), the ability to accurately understand the source of the passion is not filtered through a self-concept of “who is the good guy and who is the bad guy” and so forth.

Intentions are not seen as glorious or vile, but just as intentions. Some are quite simple and some are complicated or even conflicted. There is no filtering to “defend” one side’s “honor” and to demonize some other side. There is no projecting of heroism or of shame.

Cruelty is seen as cruel- and one can admit to one’s one moments of past cruelty. Naivete is seen as naive- and one can admit to one’s one moments of past naivete.

Everything is recognized for what it is. Envy (which involves simple admiration) is clearly not jealousy (which involves bitterness and animosity).

Gratitude, grief, and fury can all be “impassioned.” Rage and outrage and contempt are even more impassioned (energized).

Passion itself is both an important and useful experience, but also one vulnerable to outside manipulations. Most of the holy passions of the left wing are programmed from the same sources as the holy passions of the right wing. What if the “everyday passions” of a puppy are actually a refreshing contrast to the “holy passions” of a typical 10 year old human?

What if an SJW was given a job assignment to spend twenty minutes alone with a puppy? That alone might not be life-changing, but what if they got a job at a store that sells puppies and kittens and pet birds (etc)? Within only a few weeks, they might be entirely cured of their mental instabilities!

Jiddu Krishnamurti talked about the “psychological violence” of taking sides (or strongly identifying with a religion, nation, etc). That was all about the divisiveness of sympathy.

Custom Home Builder & Remodeling – Atlanta & Macon

June 15, 2017


  Need a bid or estimate?

 Call us toll-free at (866) 865-2559.

Or, to send us a message, click HERE.

(lots of more of that one:)
a few more of that one:


several before & after pics of a historic restoration

on this page:

pics of nice kitchen @ 5781 Kentucky Downs

another angle (before the faucet was fully installed):
his site:
Elaine G.

Tony Butler Home Design and Custom Builder
3638 Vineville Ave, Macon, GA
Write a review


3 reviews

Sort by:

Most helpful

Brian Johnson

2 years ago
Tony, Mark, and his team are a great team to work with for any scale residential building project you may have. Despite some schedule setbacks and miscommunication on my project, Tony’s firm was honest and forthright with the most appropriate solutions. This led to a beautiful porch/deck at the end of my project. Integrity is rare these days and Tony’s business model represents that. I recommend to anyone looking for any scale residential construction.


Nadine Beske

3 years ago
We finally got to the point where we can afford to build a small and cozy guest house in the garden. We had some ideas and after we hired Tony Butler Home Design we came up with some more! The crew did more than expected and managed to turn the small house into rather functional space! We love the result!


didy Carlsons

3 years ago
We love the bathroom and are really enjoying it! Thanks!

My top 10 reasons why reverse psychology does not exist

June 4, 2017

I am momentarily interrupting my recent “vacation” from posting new content to share this. The first section was written by someone else, then my reply is below.

I’m not religious. I am a nihilist (by several definitions of the word anyway), and I find myself being provocative towards preachy religious folks and those with a religious-like attitude in their moral/ethical philosophy (including secular humanists) sometimes, too.

That said, I kind of dig Jesus because he said ”I am not here to bring peace, but the sword’, and ”to turn brother against brother (family against family)”. The guy by all accounts was a straight up rebel in his time. The fact that those who seek to worship him are voluntary sheep (”we are the flock”) when he said to look within rather than without (at others, the flock), is ironic, and I dislike that kind of mentality, especially the martyr-glorification- his death.

I think his life as told in those books was pretty interesting, even if it were to be pure fiction. I take it with an attitude many take towards, say, greek mythology.

So, to JR, your attitude towards greek mythology (see last like in comment above) is rather unconventional, no? You seem convinced that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a story about extraterrestrials visiting our little planet, right? Question: what translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh would you recommend to me, knowing that I have from the very start (since you met me [several years ago]) been aware that every individual interprets words slightly-to-entirely differently?

In particular, the word ”god” is an interesting word for one. People often seem to be debating about ”god” (capital g or not) as though they are using the same definition of the word, when clearly, they’re not.

JR’s reply:

All of the ancient traditions intersect. I find archeology more interesting as a starting point because of the tangible evidence. Then, given all the “myths” that archeology has confirmed in the last hundred years or so, we also see a LOT of enigmas in many structures spread across the planet.

What “myths?” Many cities were mentioned in ancient tales that had no physical evidence until recent decades, like Troy, Jericho, and something like Mogadishu in India. For whatever reasons, many people hysterically rejected the possibility of those being real cities. Now, I am not aware of any serious controversy regarding various historical connections that are now accepted within mainstream archeology.

What enigmas? All over the planet are consistent methods for building very massive walls out of very massive blocks. The most advanced of these methods are still far beyond CURRENT mainstream technology (engineering etc).

So, conventional textbooks either ignore those walls completely or mention them in passing as having been built by relatively primitive Mayans etc.

my understanding is that the ancient (and modern) mayans and Egyptians and Japanese and Maltese (etc etc etc) all say “we did not build that stuff.” What do they say? “That stuff was already here when we got here. We have no idea how it was built.”

“Conventional” archeologists may even report those details openly. However, when the British monarch (who is allegedly a “crypto-Jew” claiming to be a direct descendent of Wodin / Odin / Mercury) is commissioning textbooks for the indoctrination rituals for kids in Australia or Canada or the various colonies operated by the British crown, certain details get emphasized and others get left out.

Next, as a nerd myself, I also notice that not only the stories but the words of various cultures clearly overlap. Take the word god and the phrase (god the father)….

Sanskrit: dyaus-pitar   द्येउस् पितर
Romanic: Jupiter (Jove)
Latin: deus -pater
Greek:theos (Zeus)
Hebrew: jiphath (sp?) / jhwh/ jehovah

Also, “Dispater:”
(Proto-Indo-European Dyeus Ph₂ter or “Zeus-Pater”)).
More references:

The greek words above just mean “God,” but the others literally mean “God the father.” That refers to Jupiter (or, as it would be pronounced in Sanskrit, Dyeus-Pitar / Jay-oos-pee-tar).

In all versions of the story, there is the titan or non-human Chronos / Noah / Saturn, who has three sons. I often refer to the fact that one of those sons carries a trident.

It does not matter to me whether the locals call that statue “Neptune or Poseidon or Shiva or Tseeva or the Devil.” The stories line up. Even the statues line up.

Next, I do not know of any intelligent rebuttal to Sigmund Freud’s assertion that the timeline and biographical details line up between the Hebrew Moses and the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmoses.

As for The Epic of Gilgamesh, I do not recommend any translation of it. Here is what I recommend….

Notice that humans go through a stage of “learning to get by.” In that stage, we will memorize things like “the right way to pronounce various words” and “the right way to behave.” That stage is about duplication and consistency.

Later, we may get to a point where our past loyalties are no longer working well (or are working so well that we can relax them). At that point, we get interested less in “pleasing everyone” in general and more interested in “what works for me.” We want to develop our perceptiveness and our skills of evaluation.
For some of us, we reach that stage while in a social context of dependence and widespread fanaticism, so we may add a stage of intensely rejecting some or all fanaticisms (usually one by one) and perhaps while retreating toward seclusion / privacy.
Some people may say that there are other stages. Some people may say that the ascetic who rejects society in a gloating but terrified nihilism is the pinnacle of spiritual glory.

I assert that there cannot be any other stages and therefore are not. In particular, the idea that any people (such as great britain’s Queen Elizabeth Windsor of the saxe-Goethe dynasty) have progressed to another stage of behavior and are attempting to retard the spiritual and economic development of billions of people is absurd and insulting and retarded.

Also, sarcasm does not exist because irony, hypocrisy, and reverse psychology are impossible. Everyone knows that the only people who believe in such myths are hysterical, retarded, racist, anti-semitic, psychopaths.

The two builders: an ancient lesson in humility

March 31, 2017

I have found great value in reviewing a variety of ancient literature. I’m inviting a discussion on the value that you have found in any of the writings of the New Testament (as in specific segments). Feel free to comment on the verses that I cite or to cite others.

Before I mention a few verses, I notice that a common factor between them is humility. For me, I learned early in my life to be very competitive for social approval and validation. I learned to attempt to project levels of competence beyond my actual competence.

How does that relate to humility? A simple, natural approach to learning would be just to be open to learning. There would be no obsessive resistance to other people being aware of my actual levels of knowledge or skill. I would want appropriate challenges, not things far too boring or far too difficult. If other people had input (warnings or suggestions), I would be totally open (at least if I had some confidence in the expertise and goodwill of that person).

At some point though, I developed a kind of paranoia or anxiety about other people criticizing my abilities. The flip side of that is a kind of addiction to getting compliments (or congratulations).

In retrospect, I recall a very basic fear. I feared abandonment (and craved reassurance). To some extent, all that may be a universal concern, especially for young people.

So, I did not want be to left out. Plus, a great way of getting some people’s attention was to claim to be better than them at something.

As a child, I started to think of how could I get to be “the glory” of my parents (or my teacher)? How could I contribute to their social status?

I would learn what was considered good and what was considered bad, then attempt to conform my actions and accomplishments to those standards. Further, I would present myself as “someone who evidences the excellence of my parents” (and resist any claims that I was in any way ever a potential source of disappointment to them).

Again, I think that most everyone experiences that kind of thing to some extent. However, some of us are more obsessive and anxious about these issues than others. Further, over time, some of us shift from a focus on “bringing glory to our parents” to being in overt rebellion toward them.

That reminds me of a few bible verses right there. “Honor thy parents” is one. Another is “I did not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword…. to divide a man against his father… against his own household…. whoever loves a parent or a child more than they love me is not worthy of me.”

That is from Matthew 10:34-37. See

However, those are not among the verses that I have found so far to be the most valuable. One of those is quite famous: “rather than attempt to remove a speck from the perceptiveness of someone else, remove the log from your own perceptiveness.”

Well, let me just pause for a moment to note that on occasion I might have attempted to remove a possible speck from someone else’s perceptiveness (and yes even while my own perceptiveness was perhaps just slightly limited). Also, sometimes I politely offered to remove their speck.

But mostly I aggressively and condescendingly condemned their specks. I ridiculed and harassed people for offending me by either (1) failing to display sufficient loyalty to popular ideas or (2) failing to display sufficient contempt for popular ideas.

Maybe I should give some background to all that. In my efforts to be the treasured glory of my elders, I resisted the idea that I could ever be naive. However, if by some amazing sequence of events there was ever a reasonable doubt about my absolute mastery of any subject whatsoever, then that would be shameful.

Is it really so shameful not to be a master of all things? Not at all. However, after years of hysterically and fanatically defending mainstream hysteria and fanaticism, a common response is to then maintain the basic behavioral pattern of hysteria and fanaticism, but just in devotion to a new glory: the glory of shaming mainstream versions of hysteria and fanaticism.

Was I still a hysterical fanatic? Sure… but at least I was no longer shamefully a hysterical fanatic of the mainstream type. I graduated to being an *independent* hysterical fanatic.

The short version of that story is that being an *independent* hysterical fanatic can involve pointing out a whole lot of specks in the perceptiveness of others. It can be something of a “full-time commitment.”

However, I would occasionally notice that anti-hysteria hysteria was just not as much fun as I might have hoped. Fortunately, I was no longer obsessed with bringing glory to my parents. On the other hand, constantly heaping contempt at mainstream ideas and institutions… just was not especially rewarding.

Basically, it repulsed people. In other words, it led toward less socializing (more privacy), which I do greatly value.

However, in recent years, I just overtly value my privacy. That is much simpler than putting so much energy in to repulsing “shameful fanatics.”

I appreciate that I now live a life in which I have the discretion to withdraw toward privacy “more or less whenever.” So, for that, I am quite grateful.

The shift in my life circumstances has involved many other people. Day after day, I experiment with rediscovering and communicating my appreciation for them (and by the way one person in particular comes to mind).

Also, I am repeatedly grateful about the warnings against vanity, naïveté, hysteria, and fanaticism that I first found many decades ago in the Bible. For instance, in Mark 7:6-8, Jesus explicitly quotes Isaiah’s warnings on these subjects from the Old Testament. (See )

Over and over, warnings about contempt are made in the New Testament. Occasionally, I witness contempt on display (including displays of anti-contempt contempt on Facebook). The more that I witness contempt, the more grateful I am, including for the massive reduction in contempt that I have experienced in recent decades.

So, before I conclude, one more section of the New Testament that I respect a lot (on the subject of humility) is the parable of the two builders. One builder had good intentions and was sincere and certainly committed, but yet was naive, inexperienced, and foolish. Another builder knew that it was worth a lot of extra work to clear away the loose sand and dig down to the bedrock to build a house on that rock.

If you do not know the rest of that story, search online for “the wise builder” and then notice what happens to each of the two homes “when the storm comes.” I will move on to say more about the metaphor of clearing away what is on the surface.

Regarding all the presumptions and biases that I have been programmed to internalize, I respect them. I am humble about all the time that I have put in to “houses built on sand.”

I have defended mainstream dogmas and doctrines and hysterias and fanaticisms. That was my vanity (my concern for receiving social glory).

I have also competed to evidence how I was so gloriously collaborative (a “good” person). I have gloriously (vainly) displayed my contempt for competitiveness, although actually my contempt was itself the extreme of social competitiveness. I recognize that now.

I have certainly displayed contempt for some of the same mainstream idealism and pseudo-science that I used to vigorously defend. That was also vanity.

Is an obsession with social reassurance like building a house on sand? I get the connection.

As I divest from addictive habits of attracting reassurance that I am socially good (glorious), I get closer to the bedrock. As I stop resisting criticisms and complaints, I get to experience a hugely rewarding thing called humiliation (a.k.a humility).

On a foundation of respecting perceptiveness, I am grateful to find new layers of bias in my own patterns. I release my old hysterical “anti-bias bias.” I have biases. Some biases I respect as useful and some biased I question as potentially “optional.”

I build a completely different kind of “house.” Storms come (as in challenging developments). Some people panic and display contempt and then vigorously resist criticism or unfamiliar ideas.

I can relate to all of that. Unfamiliar ideas can be confusing.

For those who worship traditions and dogmas, unfamiliar ideas can disturb foundations built on sand. For those who passionately display their contempt for various traditions and dogmas, I can respect the intensity of their distress.

What if I dig down below vanity and learned persona and programmed pseudo-science. Will I find some solid bedrock on which to build a calm stability?

One who is already humble cannot be humiliated (or manipulated with flattery). Those who desperately grip the chains of vanity will struggle with denying their vanities until they have to good fortune to have their vanities collapse.

Ideally, may your vanities suddenly collapse in to a pile of laughter (or at least giggling). However, if your vanities in any way seem appealing to you, I totally respect that. Perhaps one morning you will wake up and some do those old familiar vanities will simply be… boring.

Intense repulsion toward vanity might be a sign of something. Hysterically displaying contempt for vanity might be a sign of something, too.

In the world of introspection, who is best suited to dig down through the sand of my biases and vanities to the bedrock of perceptiveness? Should I blame my parents or the teachers of my youth for failing to keep me free of vanity? I think it might be quite hilarious to attempt to blame them (at least now that so many of my old biases have been disillusioned). I will be sure to let you know how that turns out for me.

Beware of those who are convinced that they have no further capacity for naïveté. Beware of such extreme vanity. Respect humility.

on the nature of governments (and their statistics)

February 24, 2017

The last part of this post is the “juicy” content of mine. I am also including the interactions that led up to my “juicy” content.


JGH posted this:


JR wrote: Would it be important if the majority of firearm deaths (in the US) are suicides?


JGH:  Is it important how many people use their car exhaust to kill themselves?


MB:  Are there really 35k firearm deaths in 2014? Seems a bit on the high end.


JR: (to MB),  the CDC reports that in 2014, there were 21,334 deaths in the US by firearm suicide. FYI, I presume that the motor vehicle deaths stats are typically only for collisions / crashes.


MB: So if you subtract the folks who were going to find a way to kill themselves, leaves you with around 10k… So yeah… Alcohol, tobacco and firearms vs nabisco, Kraft, and coca cola…


JR: The number of people killed by “errors in the administration of medication by health professionals” is far higher than all of the above things combined. These are just statistics being used to advance political agendas.


JGH: Oh shit!


BE: They also include firearm deaths caused by people not allowed to own a gun, by regulation. But more regulation should work, right? 😉


JGH: Wonder how many car wrecks are from people that had a suspended license?


PW: They always use suicide to artificially inflate the numbers. Remove suicide rate and it’s another story. Remove gun access from someone who is suicidal they will use a rope, jump from a bridge, over dose. An engineered metal tool that shoots lead projectiles isn’t the problem with suicides. That’s why someone that reports as suicide gets a trip the hospital and gets lock down; They will use whatever.

So now that we’ve identified death as a concern, looking at alcohol related deaths maybe we should regulate that more as well? There are far more alcohol related deaths. Maybe reinstate the old progressive idea of total prohibition? If not, why? Isn’t mitigating death our objective or is this really just about making people not fear other people having guns?

DL: More strict gun control doesn’t work. More thorough weapons training along side a thorough mental evaluation, let’s say yearly would go a long way towards solving the problem.

FM: Why don’t they regulate alcohol? Never quite understood why that killer instinct liquid drug is not more regulated.


JR: They do regulate alcohol. They even criminalized it for a while, but there was far more cash flow for them to regulate and tax it than to criminalize it. The license to sell alcohol is over $10k per establishment.

No one cares about death statistics except for promoting political agendas. The number of deaths per year from abortion are far above all these things. But death itself is not the issue.

The issue is power. If the statistics are shocking to the public, then the government can present the stats in a campaign to regulate some new thing, like if traffic fatalities are high enough, then make a law about seatbelt use and fine people for not wearing them.

A slave owner makes rules to preserve the lives of the slaves because the slave owner benefits from the Human Resources. The governments that extract wealth from their Human Resources have the same basic concern, except with less actual interest in each individual.

To a slave owner with only 50 or 100 slaves, like Thomas Jefferson, he may know most of them by name. He wants them to be compliant and productive and orderly, so he feeds and houses them (like socialism) but also makes sure that they do not have easy access to guns or the keys to their chains.

Governments care much less about their individual Human Resources. The give each of them a number. They also train the youth to grip on to mental and emotional chains on their own (and carry them around everywhere), then send $10k or $20k per year to the government.

Did you kill another of the government’s Human Resources? That is a crime!

Did you kill a lot of enemy British soldiers in a war? Here is a medal.

Did you kill some Native American children and bring their scalps in to the government office as proof? Here is a modest incentive to bring in more scalps in the future.

Did you realize that the government put out a “hit” contract on a foreign leader, (who was probably democratically elected), then go out and assassinate the designated target? If so, there might not be a medal and a public ceremony, but there may be a very big payday. As part of the pay-off, the government might even cancel all of your tax debts or wipe out your seven felony convictions.

Ever heard of “Miranda rights?” That was a case involving a man with the last name of Miranda. He raped some woman and later told some police investigators that he did.

Eventually, he was released from prison (and his conviction was canceled) not because he was innocent, but because the investigators failed to inform him that he has the legal right to decline to confess even if he was guilty. How did the lady that he had raped feel about his conviction being overturned and him being released? I am not sure.

but let’s not talk like the government as a whole is interested in protecting each of us personally. Governments extract wealth from their Human Resources by force.

If the government can get away with criminalizing something and imprisoning a few million people for ten or twenty years, that is good for them. They can tax the public $40- $50k per year per inmate. The more that they can provide convincing justifications to extract more and more from their Human Resources, the better for their business. They want to keep their Human Resources dependent and compliant, right?

governments want the masses to be generally demoralized, but then boost morale a bit by celebrating how generous and brave the government is in regard to protecting the public from all these dangerous people who were arrested for things like unlawful possession of marijuana. The idea is that there is hope for salvation, and the government is that hope. Also, there is a general paranoia that if the government disintegrated, then how would the city water in the city of Detroit be kept clean?!?!

garage construction in Phoenix

February 20, 2017

On 2/17, I checked my ranks on Bing for phoenix garage builders and found 4 results on page 2 (the highest was #13). Today, 2/20, I have 5 results on page 2 (but the highest is 19, so my 5 are 5 out of the bottom 6 on page 2).

I added AZ to the search to make it phoenix az garage builders and now I only have 2 results on page 2, but they are 12 and 14.

The word order matters too because I have 3 on page 2 (highest is 16) for garage builders phoenix. For garage builders phoenix AZ, I have 4 (highest is 15).

For garage renovation phoenix az (a less popular search), I have 3 results on page 1, #1, #5, & #9. For garage addition phoenix az, I have 6 on page 1: 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, &10.

For garage construction phoenix az, I have 7, 8, & 9 on page 1. For phoenix az garage construction, they are 6, 7, & 8. For phoenix garage construction, they are 6, 9, & 10.

One city to the east is Scottsdale. For scottsdale garage builders on Bing, I had 4 on page 1 on 2/17.


The one in purple at the bottom was brand new on 2/17. That fell off the 1st page by 2/20 (so I now have only 3 on page 1).

On to Google, for Scottsdale garage builders, my highest result is #2. (Only 1 on page 1). For garage construction scottsdale, mine is #8. For garage builders scottsdale, mine is #3 (though that is a different page than when searching for garage builders scottsdale).

Back to Phoenix, for phoenix az garage construction & phoenix garage construction & garage construction phoenix az, mine is #4. For garage construction phoenix, mine is #3.

Also #4 for garage builders phoenix az, garage builders phoenix, phoenix garage builders. Oddly, for phoenix az garage builders on google, my highest page is way back at #12.


On “national” debts (& psychological warfare to promote agonizing)

January 23, 2017

On Jan. 21, 2017, DL wrote:

Obama added 9.3 trillion to US National debt in 8 years (10.626 to 19.961) & George Bush Jr added 4.9 trillion in 8 years


J R: Basically, they both doubled the prior debt in 8 years.

Here is a 100-year chart of PER CAPITA national debt (shown in logarithmic scale):

That 2nd chart suggests that “things recently are actually pretty close to the prior trends.” Other than world war 1 and world war 2, the blue line is pretty steady, right?
In fact, if we further update the chart to adjust for inflation, then suddenly the whole thing flattens considerably, too.

However, there are other ways to present the long-term data that do suggest cause for some alarm (or at least caution and concern). Here is a chart of US national debt relative to Gross National Product (GNP) – as well as some perhaps arbitrary analysis by the creator of that chart:

Michele Klingensmith WilsonIts still not clear to me who or what exactly we owe this money to?
Gretchen Bronson: We owe it to ourselves (as we wrote a blank check to the government to do good on our behalf).

21 hrs


J R:Oo- to answer Michele, I will disagree with Gretchen‘s above answer. Technically, as in legally, the debt is owed by the US government THROUGH the private banking syndicate of the Federal Reserve to all those who own US treasury bonds.

For instance, if Queen Elizabeth of England or a Saudi prince own $2 trillion in US treasury bonds, that is the creditor to whom the US treasury / US government owes the debt as specified in the contract.

(Further down, I say more about how that relates to US citizens. Briefly, as we all know, the US government extracts wealth primarily from a very large group of people known collectively as “US Citizens.” They are the main population that is targeted for the collection of the debts entered by the US government.)

J R (still):  More or less, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by European bankers (like the Rothschild brothers through their agent in the US, JP Morgan). It was created as a way for the US to borrow its way in to invading Europe on behalf of the lenders (including the German “Windsor” dynasty that had recently ascended to the throne of England. Incidentally, that family also included the kings of a few other countries in Europe).

That invasion took place and is now part of what we call World War One.

Gretchen Bronson Triumvirate of Evil: Rothschild, Rockefeller, & Soros
J R: The first wave of loans were 20 years in duration. By 1929 (16 years in to the 20 year loans), concerns increased that the US government was not solvent to repay the debts. Bond markets in both Europe and the US collapsed, as well as other markets (stocks, real estate, job markets).

J R:By 1933, there was a formal default (bankruptcy) as the US government was forced to criminalize possession of gold by US citizens, which meant the US citizens were forced to “sell” their gold to the US treasury in exchange for “Federal Reserve Notes.” In early 1934, those federal reserve notes were devalued by 41% overnight (actually, at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 31, 1934).

More details are here, plus some related historical documents:

Gretchen Bronson I was highlighting that as citizens we give away the ability to control national debt to the government and that we have little if any control over said debt ($19 Trillion).


J R: I invite you, Gretchen, just to think of it like this: I was hanging out with Vince Lombardi in 1983 and he and I made up that he and I personally controlled all land north of the equator between 19° latitude and 54° latitude. Then we announced that all of the people who happened to be in “OUR” territory owe us a 10% payroll tax and a 5% sales tax and a 40% income tax. Plus, by the way, anyone who dares to possess any gold in our territory (if not exempt under our rules) is subject to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $180,000.  [That is a reference to the image above, showing the 1933 criminalization of the possession of gold, with the $10,000 fine in 1933 being approximately equal in value to a fine of $180,000 in current US dollars.]

J R: Then, based on our claim of the debt owed to us by our human resources, we go over to some dudes who claim to rule over a particular band of the earth near the equator or south of the equator or whatever- not like we really care. Then we all write down some words on paper and organize some school curriculums and mainstream media programming to promote the collection of the debt claims that we just invented and imposed on our human resources.

We realize that if we give our human resources the right to vote and to control of a tiny fraction of the operations of our wealth extraction business, then that layer of democracy (on top of the ancient foundations of our extortion business) will increase compliance rates dramatically.

 3 · 19 hrs
J R: Another example would to be to imagine some crazy idea called the European Union in which some people in Greece agree with some people in Germany that the Germans now are retroactively cosigning  be liable for all of the debts that the Greeks have ever entered.
J RBut not it is not that the Greek debt is now just cosigned by a few German folks who personally sign the treaty. The idea is that a few Germans are claiming the authority to bind ALL Germans as cosigners- even people who will be born in Germany in 200 years or 20,000 years.
J R: Think of all government operations as acts of war. Among other things, Governments invent debts owed to them by their target populations and then proceed to collect those invented debts. Pretty simple.
4 · 19 hrs ·
Sean RyanDebt farming by imposing the use of debt-based currencies under compulsion of law is the single most profitable enterprise on the planet. So much so that by tolerating it we surrender control over our culture and our leadership.
J R: Sean, I question your use of a phrase like “our leadership.” Unless you put that phrase is quotes, I will presume that you are just echoing the programming of the mainstream.

J R: Currency is not the issue either. It is total trivia (at least in regard to the main issues raised so far).

Consider: If Vince Lombardi and I declared that you need to pay your debts to us with chunks of silver or gallons of cod liver oil (rather than with debt-based currency), that would do nothing to change the fundamental mechanism of the wealth extraction system, which is military coercion.

But if Vince and I went around trying to collect on those debts that we claim that all these people owe to us, people might refuse. They might question the origin of the claimed debt (allegedly owed by them to us). So that brings us to a key issue, which is not the words used in the propaganda, but the actual experience of intimidation (from perceived military superiority) which leads people to panic and then accept the ideas of the propaganda because their logical capacity has been crippled by adrenalin (intimidation).

So, indoctrination only works so well because of the [perceived or actual] vast military superiority of gangs like the free masons and the Jesuits and the USMC (no offense to veterans intended).

J R: There are carefully constructed psychological warfare programs that promote shaming and guilt because “the Human Resources are TOLERATING the fact that the world’s leading military organizations have better nuclear weapons than the general public (and flying craft far beyond what they publicize etc).” The use of a word like tolerating is absurd (except when we calmly respect the effectiveness of the indoctrination systems).
J R: You might as well say that sheep should be ashamed of tolerating the fact that wolves typically have sharper teeth and stronger jaws than sheep.
 1 · 17 hrs

J R: So, should I tolerate that the sun is older than I am? Sure. Should I tolerate that the moon has more mass than I do? Sure. Should I tolerate that Tom Brady is currently richer than I am? Sure.

Again, “tolerate” is a word that is sometimes used in psychological warfare to shame, to incite rage, to spiritually cripple. I will tolerate Sean’s use of the word tolerate. And I may be very condescending and antagonistic about it… or rather humble and casual.

Sean Ryan ….There’s no reason to be disempowered.


J R Fibonacci Hunn To me, you are the one who is disempowered. My immediate experience of power and influence is quite independent of any specific word choices, theories or doctrines (or a rejection or dismissal of such ideas). However, because of my present experience of power and freedom, I experience being totally free and “empowered” to entertain a wide variety of ideas. 😉
Sean Ryan I suppose I am confused about the message you’re trying to convey. I got the sense of a lot of futility– sheep cannot obviously change the order between themselves and wolves.

J R :  If someone has been programmed to be ashamed of the history of the US government and related enterprises (UN, UK, NATO, the tavistock institute etc), then they may have a sense of disempowerment merely at the knowledge of the continuing operations of those enterprises. I am no longer burdened by clinging “heroically” (egotistically) to such shames and contempts.

…or to the social salvation and the “holy glories” of “bringing down the evil empires.”

 1 · 14 hrs

J R Fibonacci Hunn In general, I was merely making some simplistic assertions about the nature of the US national debt and various business enterprises for the accumulation of wealth and social power, such as the Federal Reserve or Maryland or the EU or the Persian empire or the crusades or “the Gambino crime family.”

Take a label like “holy” and add it to the word crusades (to say “the HOLY crusades”), and that will change nothing of the history. Same if you say “the HOLY empire of the Medici crime family.”

The claims made by the people conducting those business enterprises are just claims. If the Apaches invade the Hopis and then say “the Hopis owe us 100,000 sheep as REPARATIONS to offset the cost of us to invading and slaughtering their warriors (and then placing our political puppets to rule the survivors),” then that is… perhaps a rather unremarkable event in the context of the last several thousand years of human history.

The recognition of divine will

December 26, 2016


When using a phrase like “divine will,” most people will immediately presume that I am thinking in terms of two isolated kinds of will, with one kind of will being divine and with the other kind of will being something other than divine. To a certain extent, that is correct (yet notably imprecise). So, to be more precise, there is a very inclusive category that I am calling divine will and there are distinct subcategories within that larger category, such as statements that people make about divine will or statements that people make about other kinds of (“less than divine”) will.

Divine will is a reference to all of what is actually happening. One of the things that can be happening is that various people will be talking about their own isolated will (“my will”). Their claims about their ego’s will or their social persona’s will may be in conflict with what is actually happening (or in conflict with other people’s statements about their personal will). Their whole commentary on “will” is based on presumptions about some fundamental reality to their own social persona or projected identity.

Beyond various statements about personal will can be the subjective experience of willingness or motivation. The experience of motivation is not a primary topic of this exploration, although it is notable to contrast any experience of actual motivation (as in actual emotion) as entirely distinct from what anyone may or may not say about their experience of motivation or will or intention or purpose.
So, when it is the divine will for someone to make statements about their intentions, then  that is what happens. Some fraction of statements about intentions may be made in distress or terror. Someone may project claims of intentions that they expect to be to their advantage to project. They may even attempt to distract from or deny other intentions that they expect it would be best to keep secret or unnoticed.

Divine will does not need to be spoken. Maybe people will say that certain actual things are “not divine will.” Maybe people will make comments about outcomes that are allegedly not present yet are somehow “divine will.” All the comments that are actually made must be divine will or else they would not be made.

Further, all instances of speaking (in regard to absolutely any topic) are divine will. Deceptive statements and misdirecting statements are divine will. Silent action (as in anything from unannounced breathing to unannounced typing) is divine will. Sincere statements are divine will, even when naive or delusional. Honest, perceptive statements are also divine will.

Simply put, the words “divine will” can just refer to a recognition of what is actually happening. If someone has been confused about something, but then reaches a new state of understanding, then say can say that they have finally perceived divine will.


Mass Memories Road Show at Umass Boston

Consider that a huge amount of social interaction is to suppress the recognition of divine will. Those in the lower-ranking positions of any social hierarchy, such as all children, may be targeted with the programming of various doctrines, value systems, and paradigms. Then, after a central committee agrees on some curriculum and programming to present, instructors can be trained and then paid to go out and present the doctrines in social rituals of indoctrination.

The children can be presented information to memorize. They are pressured to focus on the information and then compete with each other to blindly repeat that information with the greatest amount of consistency with the instructor’s delivery.


If we label the instructor as a science instructor, that does not make them competent in science. That labeling does not imply that the children will be verifying or critically examining any of the doctrines presented. Indoctrination rituals focus on memorization and blind repetition. The children are programmed with bias about what is important and how to relate to or label whatever they witness.

For instance, they may be taught of two verbal categories such as matter and energy. The materialist model is that matter is real and fundamental, while energy is one possible quality of matter that comes and goes.

Or, a child may experiment with sunlight, a magnifying glass, some dry wood, and some water. They may discover that the wood is just a temporary arrangement that is relatively stable. The wood does not burn if simply exposed to sunlight (in contrast to human skin, which can actually get burnt just from sunlight exposure).


However, if the magnifying glass is used to refocus or reorganize the energy of the sunlight- to concentrate the field of energy in a particular way- then the sunlight can radically alter the wood. The wood can ignite and then radiate as heat and light, eventually leaving some lines of rising smoke and a pile of ash.

Where did the heat of the burning wood come from? What created the energy of the flame?

The dry wood was always a condensed field of energetic potential (which was then reorganized in to a less condensed form, radiating as heat and light). Matter is just one possible state of energy.

For instance, electrons are just energetic fields. The atomic compound known as carbon is just a set of energetic fields temporarily bonded together. If a proton is added to the compound known as carbon, we can call that new compound nitrogen. But the carbon did not “go anywhere.”


There never was some fundamental presence of carbon. There was just a stable temporary compound that we can label as carbon.

The materialist model implies (or presumes without considering any other option) that there are many isolated fundamental realities. There is the reality of carbon and the reality of nitrogen, but the two realities are completely distinct. Unfortunately for devotees of that model, that model is rather absurd.

Carbon exists to the same extent that a fist exists. It is just a temporary arrangement. It can be disrupted by the removal or addition of a type of energetic field called a proton.

Carbon is only a form. It is not a fundamental thing.

In fact, matter is not fundamental. Matter, such as hard crystalline solids and liquid crystal plasma gels, is just a particular category of forms of something fundamental.


So, divine will can include the organization of the capacity for language. Through language, conceptual models can be formed which classify matter and energy as two fundamentally distinct types of reality. Or, energy can be considered a very inclusive term that includes all condensed material formations of energy, such as an ounce of uranium or a gallon of propane or a pound of firewood.

Energy is fundamental. All materials are just relatively stable fields of energy.

A pound of firewood is not a very concentrated form of energy. A gallon of propane is more concentrated (and also rather unstable or flammable or volatile). Other forms of energy are extremely stable, yet also extremely concentrated. Only a very specific kind of energetic interference will release the energy that is condensed in an ounce of a certain isotope of uranium. Different isotopes (forms of uranium) may have very different levels of volatility.

How do we know that uranium and carbon are not fundamental? Because there are different subcategories of each broad category. There are three natural isotopes of uranium, plus there is “depleted uranium” and so on.

There are also different isotopes of carbon, like carbon 12, carbon 13, and carbon 14. All of those are carbon, but each of them are distinct. They have distinct properties energetically and physically, such as mass. Only carbon-14 is radioactive (unstable).


So, carbon and uranium are categories of energetic formations. There are subcategories of various types of uranium just like there are various types of carbon.

In general, some energetic formations are quite stable, like the most abundant forms of the compound carbon (carbon-12 and carbon-13). Also, the isolated field of a proton is quite stable. Other energetic formations or fields are rather unstable, such as what are labeled as a neutrino or a positron.

Some formations are quite simple, like a chunk of coal or diamond. Other formations are amazingly complex, like an apple tree or a mushroom or a mammal or an international system of wealth redistribution.

In language, people can be programmed with the idea that their personal will is somehow isolated from or even contrary to divine will. There are a variety of experiences that someone might have and some of those can be selected to glorify and others to vilify or demonize or suppress.

In popular indoctrination rituals, children can be programmed to socially project submissiveness and conformity to social norms. If the FDA is glorified as an operation of unbiased political integrity and scientific infallibility, then the FDA can be used to pressure the masses to make certain presumptions about what is possible or impossible.


If the holy FDA announces that scurvy is a powerful demon that can possess humans, then the idea may be accepted simply based on presumed credibility (and repetition by an authority that is presumed to be credible). Really, the idea is being promoted through bribery and intimidation.


“Accept what the holy instructor presents and you will be socially rewarded with validation. Question what the holy instructor presents and you will ignored or even ridiculed or expelled, bringing shame and stress to your family. You do want our class to have the highest grade-point average and win the pizza contest, right?”


But is scurvy really a mysterious and incurable demon that possesses and then eats people? The social hysteria around the possibility of social persecution may distract most people from such an inquiry. We may be programmed that scurvy is terrifying and dangerous and incurable. If those details are “on the test,” then an effective indoctrination ritual will program the target population to fixate on only those details, obediently memorize them, then blindly repeat them.


The masses may be programmed in regard to how people should always be. For instance if people should always be honest, then it would be a serious accusation to claim that the FDA might be very slightly biased or even occasionally just a tiny bit imprecise in their published doctrines.

Through a phenomenon known as the Stockholm effect, a socially powerful group can impose its military and economic might on another group, often resulting in a display of submissiveness, loyalty, and even devotion by the oppressed group. If people should ever experience shame or social anxiety, then it would be a great violation of social expectations to socially display skepticism or curiosity in regard to the precision of the doctrines publicized by a holy tyrant such as those people doing business as the FDA.

Is it divine will for the FDA to exist? If the FDA exists, then that is divine will.

Is it divine will for the FDA to persecute those who attempt to challenge the social and legal dominance of the FDA? If that is what happens, then that is divine will.

Is it divine will for public indoctrination rituals to glorify holy rebels and then program the masses that, if they ever discover that the FDA is not entirely operating how people should always operate, they should protest and campaign and reform to make the FDA back in to how it allegedly used to be or otherwise in to how it should always be? If that is what happens, then that is divine will.


The masses are programmed to vilify certain patterns of activity or historical figures. They are also programmed to glorify certain social personas and then project those personas as their own. In other words, the masses are programmed to operate according to certain narratives or scripts or prescriptions or roles.


If people have been socially programmed that it is heroic and glorious to reform social institutions, then many will. If they have been effectively programmed to protest whatever patterns of behavior are defined as injustice, they will. If they have been effectively programmed to campaign for whatever is defined as justice (or even as “divine will”), then they will.


Should programming exist? Should rituals of social indoctrination exist? If it is divine will for something to exist, then it will exist, at least as long as it is divine will for it to exist.


The recognition of divine will is a rather simple thing. It is accepting reality as being however it is (without any bias toward how reality allegedly should be or any bias away from how reality allegedly should not be). That may be an extremely rare development, at least in certain modern cultures.

Why? Because if may be divine will that extremely effective methods of programming the masses are invented and implemented. The systematic obscuring of divine will may be one of the most obvious realities in regard to the observable results of various social institutions.


“Only a certain portion of what is should be. Only a certain portion of what should be is.”

The targeted populations are trained to focus on certain issues, to memorize and study those issues in programmed ways, then to blindly repeat various doctrines about those issues, then finally to expect social validation for their displays of loyalty and conformity to the holy doctrines of the dominant social institutions. They are given a script to memorize and a role to perform.

Note that classrooms do not have conflicting authorities. The central committee presents the instructors with the curriculum and the answer keys. The instructor simply validates answers that match the relevant answer key.

Another obvious sign that someone is deeply programmed by social indoctrination is a resistance to the fact that there are a diversity of opinions about a a diversity of topics. If there is a display of hysteria that some people apparently do not think that transgender rights is the single most important issue for all 7 billion humans on the planet, then that is a sign. Or, if there is a tantrum of ridicule to shame people who are totally ruining everything by focusing way too much on media celebrities or pro athletics or pop music, that is also a sign.


If there is a social projection of the idea that people should be a particular way and should not be a particular way, that is a sign. If there is a ridiculing of systems of indoctrination because “they should not exist,” that is a sign. If shaming others and bullying others should not exist, that is a sign. If there is a sincere hysteria about how taboos should not exist, that is the hypocrisy of a taboo against taboos.


Irony is not hypocrisy. If the pope stands on the balcony of a massive castle and says that both inequality and coercion are morally wrong and anyone who does not condemn both inequality and coercion will be executed in a holy ritual of public human sacrifice, that is ironic. It is only hypocrisy if the pope believes the script he is reading.


If an actor in a play screams that “dishonesty is wrong and people should not pretend to be other people who they are not,” that is ironic. That is a person pretending to be someone else. The entire context of a theatrical production is that it is all staged. It is all a pretense. It is all scripted. It is all fake.


However, if the actor does not know that he or she is just an actor, that is hypocrisy. If the one reading the programmed script does not recognize the script as a script, that is hypocrisy.


Divine will is a very simple thing. The recognizing of divine will may not be so simple. If the divine will is for the socially powerful to program the masses to obscure or vilify or deny divine will, then that may be exactly what is happening.


Once there was an actor playing the role of pope. The actor walked on the the fake balcony and said very passionately to the audience “people should not pretend to be someone that they are not. Theatrical productions not only should not use fake balconies, but should not exist at all. The FDA is a holy government agency that has an absolute monopoly on scientific credibility because the scientific method is a very mysterious demon that only possesses a very small group of people, all of whom are either FDA officials or have made massive bribes and/or campaign donations to those who regulate the FDA. Also, insincere parody is wrong and shameful and so only people who have been issued an FDA license for parody should be taken seriously as comedians. Unlicensed comedians must be immediately executed in public rituals of human sacrifice or else all of humanity will be harshly punished for eternity by a three judge panel composed of Santa Claus, Saint Peter, and the ancient Egyptian deity Ma’at, who also weighed the souls of the recently deceased to determine whether or not they would be allowed in to heaven (but for thousands of years before her name was later changed to Saint Peter).”
FALSE: Anubis was NOT the one who made the final judgment. The final judgment was made by the goddess Ma’at, who is known for her “scales of justice.”




Some modern temples of the ancient Goddess Ma’at (also known as Justitia, etc):








%d bloggers like this: