(Stay tuned. We’ll be right back after a brief word from our sponsors.)
[Note the sign below, which says “refs are overpaid.”]
(Stay tuned. We’ll be right back after a brief word from our sponsors.)
[Note the sign below, which says “refs are overpaid.”]
To all the Clinton critics and Trump supporters that have been startled by the recent surge of animosity on Facebook, I invite you to be gracious and even forgiving. Many of you have maintained a very respectful tone in the midst of the sweeping insults, including against millions of women and various minorities who dared to voice concerns about Clinton and/or express support for Trump.
On behalf of so many upset Democrats that might not be requesting forgiveness soon, I apologize for the flood of contempt and condescension. I also will thank all the Republicans, Independents, and even many Democrats who bravely shared their opinions (especially the ones that were the most disturbing) and who even cast a vote for… the candidate of your choice.
Some people will not be surprised to learn that my favorite candidate did not win. My favorite candidate also did not come in second. (So, do I mean Bernie Sanders? No, although that is a reasonable guess.)
Ultimately, Trump has been named the winner. I respect that. I even made a point to review several of his policy proposals and identify which ones I currently support the most.
Also, if you are among the 50% or so of eligible voters who did not vote, isn’t it wonderful to have the privilege to be able to vote… OR NOT? We do not have any duty to vote. We have the privilege of, if we wish, researching various candidates and referendum issues and then either voting or not.
As for the dozen or so people reading this who are familiar with Star Wars, I’d also like to take this opportunity to say that you are the only reason that my favorite candidate did not win. I’m not sure what that even means, but it sure feels good to say it!
By the way, I also want to note something about the 3 people on my facebook feed who were the most vocal Trump supporters for the last few months. You are either all 3 male or all 3 female.
Further, anyone who is reading this who has any special interest in whether it was 3 males or 3 females is experiencing something that I call sexism. That means, to me, bias for or against a particular sex.
Plus, I am totally fine with that. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respect you whether you are not a sexist or are a proud sexist or are a sexist who pretends not to be a sexist (and maybe even criticizes other people for being sexists).
Also, those 3 most vocal Trump supporters were all of the same racial background. On that note, anyone who is reading this who has any special interest in which racial group I categorized them in, you are experiencing what I call racism. That means, to me, bias for or against a particular group based on their ancestry (or “race”).
Again, I am totally fine with that. Even if you are biased about their religious affiliations, sexual preferences, military records, or education levels, that is fine too.
For all the young Jedis who hate critics of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump, I totally respect that. I agree that they are all deplorable, shameful, uneducated, ignorant, racist, sexist, students of the dark side with absolutely no sense of humor. However, we might be wrong about nay or all of that. Anyway, if you choose to display contempt for them, that is fine.
We have the opportunity to respect other people or not. We can respect some and not others. We can respect basically anyone or we can disrespect basically anyone.
Finally, I respect the various “minorities” who seemed to me to wait until after the election to fully display their concerns about Clinton and/or their support for Trump. I totally respect it if you were reserved about displaying your actual opinions until after the election. I also totally respect those of you who honestly did not have any repulsion toward the Clinton campaign until after the election when her supporters started to lump you in with their favorite types of villain, so then you were repeating those very famous words of Obi Wan Kenobi: “that is not the political party that I am looking for.”
In schools and other settings, we get scared by social pressure so that we think in terms of “only one right way.” Then, we may be so intimidated that we learn to suppress the display of fear (to avoid more harassment).
That set-up often corresponds to “hysterical loyalty” to “the only right way.” Eventually we may realize that there are so many different versions of “the only right way.” That can be a problem… so we may isolate in to groups of “like-minded people who are like me.”
Then, we realize that even within the most ultra-perfectionist group, like how I was when I was a vegan, all of that perfectionism is just a way to promote seclusion. People want to retreat from social harassment, so they isolate in to smaller and smaller groups that are sure they are “better” then everyone else, which justifies their remoteness. Instead of just saying, “I get overwhelmed by social conflict,” I just begin with a huge barrier that I invent and sustain.
Since way over 90% of people are not vegan, being a vegan made me “special.” Or, that gave me a convenient excuse for massively reducing the number of people that I considered “appealing” as social companions.
I was obsessed with identifying the “perfect” practices (in regard to diet or dozens of other things), then I occasionally “broke” my own rules. It was a recipe for guilt. I kept making my “recipe for perfection” more and more challenging (as in more and more impossible) and so I was consistently anxious about “being perfect constantly.” It was a state of great tension, like agonizing over perfectionism, producing anxiety or misery or even agony… like as in insomnia-level intensity of anxiety.
Maybe I could heroically cure the world of all the things that I condemned. Or, if I wanted more free time, I suppose I could reduce the list of things to hysterically condemn.
All that perfectionism and condemnation (and campaigning for heroic reform) can get a bit exhausting. So, then I got interested in adaptiveness.
But adaptiveness can take many forms. I look back on my entire history of “agonizing over perfectionism” as adaptive within the social contexts familiar to me.
When there is social pressure to blindly conform to the dictates of “the authority” with no room for critical thinking, like in a typical science classroom (in my own youth at least), what is adaptive? To be adaptive in that case could be to adopt the anti-science orientation of “I know this is true because this is what I wrote down on the science test and the science teacher gave me credit for this answer.”
If that is the best way to adjust to the social pressure of those indoctrination rituals, then that is the social display that we will learn. Some of us may know from the beginning that it is all a pretense, but still play along. Some of us may be more hysterical and think of it as very different from learning lines in drama class.
If we think of memorizing doctrines about science as being the same as learning lines in a drama class, then we do not get pompous and arrogant. Or, if the script calls for us to display arrogance and contempt for those who dare to question the dictates of the infallible FDA, then we can practice that role as well.
Do I get disturbed by people calling themselves scientists but then displaying no respect for scientific inquiry? Let me check my script….
Am I portraying the role of the hysterical “scientist” in this scene? Or, am I portraying the role of the hysterical anti-hysteria protester?
Or, am I going to practice some lines that may be new for me: “I really admire that all these people loudly condemn the things that they consider offensive and disturbing. I also really admire anyone who quietly judges others without harassing or ridiculing anyone. Basically, I respect everyone in general, whether or not they respect anyone else. However, me respecting other people means getting to know them, which leads to admiring some people more than others. Plus, even in the same person, I admire some things about them a lot while finding some other things less intriguing or appealing.”
In fact, I met a few people last weekend who eat vegan diets (mostly or entirely). I liked them. They seemed to me focused on the potential advantages (or disadvantages) to them of a vegan diet. They were not offended by “non-vegans.”
I ate a vegan diet for a while. I have even done it lately for up to 7 hours at a time (a meatless salad for one meal, then some gluten-free pasta, etc). One thing I have learned is that I prefer relating to vegan as one type of diet instead of relating to vegan as one type of person.
Also, I just decided to make up that there is no such thing (for me) as a perfectionist. That is no longer recognized as a type of person. Perfectionist is just a description for a type of behavior.
For instance, apparently some people actually think that they are better at perfectionism than I am. That is understandable though. They just must not know me very well.
I see their hysterical, divisive, condescending political posts about other people being hysterical and divisive and condescending. Good for them. Then I think to myself “hey, most people are going to have to go through a stage of being amateur social bullies before they are skilled enough to go pro.”
2. emotional stability vs emotional resilience
3. respecting emotional instabilities
4. respecting the cultivation of hysterias
5. how the mass media is like a dog humping your leg
To “respect” something means to be interested in it enough to explore it repeatedly and then update one’s presumptions based on actual observations. The word respect is related to the words inspect, spectator, specify, special, and speculate. To inspect something repeatedly is to respect it. There is an attention to what is unique or special about it.
Emotion is simply a class of experiences, including a wide spectrum of emotions like delight, terror, gratitude, rage, courage, and grief.
Emotions can be observed in humans and many other creatures. How do we identify specific emotions? Imagine someone telling a story and displaying a variety of emotions. The display of emotion is through breathing rate, body positioning, facial expressions, and vocal variations.
We can also relate various emotions to different hormones. That could be adrenaline, cortisol, and testosterone or the unique hormonal variations of a woman who is pregnant, pre-menstrual, or menopausal.
Another obvious factor in emotional response is exhaustion. A young child who “really needs a nap” can have a very different emotional range before the nap and after the nap.
The word emotion is of course related to the words motion, mode, mood, motive, motivation, as well as to remote, promote, and demote. Mood basically means a lasting emotional tendency, so even as emotions shift, the general emotional state repeatedly “settles” back to a particular mood or motivational tendency. When someone’s “emotional landscape” recalibrates to a new tendency, we can call that a “mood shift.” When someone alternates between a few different moods, we may call them “moody.”
In fact, the word mood (and thus also the word emotion) is even related to the word moon. why is the moon famous as an influence on mood and emotion?
In all creatures, different hormones are triggered by the different frequencies of visible light and of invisible radiations (infrared and ultraviolet). As the moon reflects more light (near the full moon) or less light (near the new moon), that alters the hormonal biochemistry of any bodies that are exposed to those fluctuations in reflected solar radiation.
The more emotionally responsive (as in open or unimpeded) that some organism is, the more sensitive they will be to fluctuations in the 28-day cycle of moon phases. The brains of sexually mature human females tend to be especially responsive to that 28-day cycle, which corresponds to the duration (or “period”) of the human menstrual cycle.
As a brief aside, one subject of possible controversy among theorists is how human females developed a menstrual cycle. First, it is not isolated to humans. Many primates menstruate as well as two types of bat and one other species (of rodent). Further, menstrual cycles do not always last 28 days. Some species frequently have cycles that researchers have measured to be as short as 21 days.
Further, while the length of the lunar phase is globally consistent, the actual reflected solar radiation is not. There is a difference between moonlight in clear skies at 12,000 feet elevation near the equator and the “same” moonlight on a cloudy day at sea level in polar regions. Further, with modern humans, artificial light sources can trigger various degrees of “hormonal chaos” (and the emotional variations that result from them).
So, we have already reviewed terms like moodiness and “hormonal chaos.” What about the opposite extreme: as in emotional dullness?
This brings us to the final word of the title: stability. Stability refers to a spectrum, like very stable (as in inflexible or even inert), moderately stable, moderately unstable, very unstable, and “totally collapsed” (or amorphous).
Consider the growth of a tree. A small tree has a small root system and will be easily uprooted by high winds (like in a hurricane or tornado). As it grows, a tree can get a deep, healthy root system and so it will be more stable.
However, a tree can also begin to lean (slightly or a lot). In that case, the roots may grow in a way that counters or balances the leaning (the imbalance).
In that case, that tree could be very stable (undisturbed) by winds from a certain direction, yet rather vulnerable to a strong wind from the opposite direction. If we combine a drought then a sudden flooding and erosion with high winds, that can uproot even rather stable trees.
So, stability is a rather general term. Things can stabilize, destabilize, and then destabilize. Or, something may not be capable of the adaption of destabilizing and then destabilizing. Something “inflexible” may hold steady for while under stress, but then totally break (rather than bend).
When we respect the issue of stability in relation to emotion, we can speak of emotional stability as well as emotional resilience. To use the analogy of the roots of a tree, roots can be deep as well as widespread. Shallow roots will be unstable and deep roots will be stable. Further, widespread roots will be resilient (corresponding to the ability to destabilize and then restabilize).
So, when we respect all emotions, that means that we relate to them all as instruments, as in valuable functions. We do not hysterically suppress certain ones as “fundamentally shameful” or “negative.”
However, hysteria itself can be respected as deserving great caution and care. To hysterically suppress something (an emotion or anything else) is already an extreme emotional state of hysteria. those who operate in hysteria are already what we might call “destabilized.”
Can we respect the emotional hysteria of shaming certain emotions as negative? When we respect emotion, we can respect all emotional responses… with an interest in the unique nature of each specific response.
One contrast to hysterically shaming certain emotions is hysterically glorifying certain emotions. We can also hysterically glorify all emotions without any caution (as in alertness, attentiveness, mindfulness, fear, awe, or respect). We can even hysterically vilify all emotions (as being terrifying… which is of course operating in the emotion of terror).
We can recognize emotional instability and perhaps withdraw from social contexts of destabilized or chaotic emotions. We can value opportunities to restabilize (such as social seclusion or even social uniformity).
For instance, someone who has been triggered in to distress may value a very predictable, consistent routine… which might normally be very boring or even stifling to them. If they return to a calm state, they may value abandoning the “monotony” of too much social uniformity (or seclusion).
So, when we respect emotion and stability, we respect all of the different levels of emotional stability (and emotional resilience). We find that emotional resilience is extremely valuable (as is useful or beneficial). However, very “deep” emotional stability can also be useful. Depth prevents collapse while mere resilience does not.
As for various kinds of “emotional instability,” they are each notable. Some people are trying to suppress a particular range of emotions while trying to nourish some other part of the emotional spectrum. They are not increasing depth, but are trying to spread their roots in particular ways to restabilize.
When trying to suppress some range of emotions, we may withdraw from or shame people who display those emotions openly, such as young children or people whose career involves a particular kind of emotion. Maybe we glorify the compassionate courage of firefighters who rescue kittens from out of burning houses. Maybe we ridicule the destructive courage of soldiers who confront crowds of civilians and then throw grenades in to the crowds.
However, why is it that someone would hysterically vilify or hysterically glorify any pattern of activity or experience? We can protest or praise something without any hysteria.
Hysteria is part of a shock response (an extreme distress). If armed police throw grenades in to crowds of civilians, we can predict a result of hysteria or chaos within the crowd, right?
So, consider that some individuals or groups actively seek to incite hysteria and chaos for particular other groups (or individuals). Can we respect that provoking hysteria might be considered useful or beneficial to certain special interests?
Imagine that there is a group that wants to increase the widespread use of surveillance technology. However, the public currently is biased heavily against that.
So, how can there be a surge of public support for one specific “isolated” case of surveillance technology? Create a perception of a problem so that “more surveillance” can be presented as the obvious solution! After claiming to “solve” a few “isolated” problems with “more surveillance,” then whenever there is another new problem, the “obvious” solution can be presented: MUCH more surveillance. All symptoms become evidence for the original misdiagnosis: a simple deficiency in the use of our only salvation (the latest advances in surveillance technology).
Can the public be convinced that there is too much police brutality? Then why not create a public support for increased use of video recording devices by the police “to discourage police brutality?”
Take the desired policy and then construct a perceived problem so that the desired policy can be justified as a solution. People do this unconsciously anyway, so why not do it consciously (attentively) as well?
After all the police are set up with video recorders, then other “public safety” hysterias can be created. If the public can be convinced that students are not safe in public schools, then that perception can justify metal detectors and airport TSA inspections at every entrance. Video recorders will be installed throughout the campus (also recording audio).
It is of course important to have a solution ready before inviting public hysteria. Otherwise, parents might respond to a “student safety crisis” by withdrawing students from public schools and placing them in schools where there is no safety issue.
But public authorities do not want people thinking that “the bureaucrats obviously have been negligent, so why give them more responsibility?” If the “solution” involves giving more responsibility to bureaucrats, then a public perception of widespread negligence is unfavorable. Much better would be a series of isolated, shocking, and traumatic tragedies.
The public officials can even have some members of their alliance go on TV and argue against the policy that they want to present as a solution. The public perception can be cultivated that “anyone against this obvious solution is hysterical.”
How can an unusually deplorable politician get a surge of public support? Present them as the only viable alternative to someone who is even more repulsive to public sentiments.
In other words, stir up a hysteria in which people hysterically say “anyone who is against the obvious solution is clearly retarded.” Does merely using the word “retarded” stir up controversy and hysteria? If so, then that trigger (or “psychological button”) can be firmly established by the media and then repeatedly “pushed.”
Can the masses be programmed to perceive hysteria about cholesterol or cancer or the flu or the measles? If so, that can be very favorable for those who sell things that can be marketed as “the only reasonable solution.”
Consider an issue like policies about gay marriage. The policies might be directly relevant to a small minority of people, but think of the value (to the media) of inciting hysterias to glorify and vilify different policy initiatives. For the media to retain a loyal audience, they need controversies and scandals and hysteria. Also, to keep public attention away from certain issues, just direct their attention to the latest scandals and controversies.
The idea is to polarize the public. Even with a familiar, boring issue like “balancing the federal budget” or “raising taxes on the middle class,” the media can present a massive antagonism between exactly two extreme views.
Should there be a federal law against prostitution (to prevent legal prostitution in Nevada)? Generally, most people probably do not care. So, the job of the media could be to make people care about things that are irrelevant to them (while distracting people from various things that are relevant to them).
Should members of gay married couples be allowed to serve in the military? It is probably not a high priority issue to the military. They probably have other priorities that are much more valuable investment of resources to them. However, why not create public hysteria about that issue?
Police officers need more video recorders and more grenades in order to better protect the loyal members of the public from the disloyal civilian terrorists. The court judges who monitor police brutality need better lighting on school campuses (or infrared cameras) so that they can better regulate police brutality at schools.
Our system is the most glorious ever because we recently implemented the insightful policy of _____. Further, we heroically repealed the shamefully retarded policy of ______ (which by the way was naively presented as gloriously insightful ____ years ago).
Every individual involved in the mass media cares more about you than anyone else cares about you. Do you think that your dog cares a lot about you? No, the media cares about you more.
To work for the media, the main qualification is that someone cares way more about every single viewer than viewer’s own dogs would care about those viewers. I don’t even know why people bother owning dogs these days since now the mass media is so much more caring than it was four hours ago.
In summary, my ankle was sexually assaulted by someone else’s tiny chihuahua yesterday. Apparently, I accidentally evoked some very intense motivations in the dog, probably because of my revealing clothing.
Naturally, you may be wondering whether the dog was a transexual dog, a homosexual dog, a bisexual dog, or none of the above. As for me, at first I thought the dog might be gay, but then it tried to hump the ankles of a variety of people of different sexes, proving that the dog was born as a bisexual.
Fortunately, an off-duty undercover police officer was there to video record the whole thing. Unfortunately, the lighting was not very good.
That is why I am very hysterical that we need better lighting in public schools. Technically speaking, the incident did not take place at a public school, but, if it did, would you have wanted poor lighting to justify the continuing insanity of the deplorable retards who pretend to be my political opponents? (I only say “pretend” because we are all pro wrestlers working off of the same script while pretending not to be pretending.)
See? Just saying that proves that I am honest, unlike my opponents. They deceptively incite hysteria in the masses and use terror to intimidate and shame the masses in to relating to certain emotions as fundamentally negative. Shaming people in to hysteria is shameful and wrong and they should not do that.
Again, more lighting is the only reasonable solution to this important crisis (which my hysterical opponents shamefully claim to be just a distraction from what they deceptively call the real crisis). However, we already know that they must be presumed to be wrong because they are just suffering from confirmation bias, unlike us, who are fundamentally very different from them.
“You can’t have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat! You simply have to eat your meat first before we will reward you with some pudding.” – P. Floyd (The Wall 4:59)
The below content is from a public thread on Facebook. I will put my first comment below in ALL CAPS to show where the original comment ends.
Jacob M. Wright wrote:
The word “Hell” is not in the Bible. “Gehenna” is. “Hell” is a mistranslation. “Gehenna” is the right translation. Either you’re ignorant of this, or you’ve read it and yet choose to deliberately go with the mistranslation. Now you know.
The concept of “hell”, or eternal torment in the afterlife is literally and exactly nowhere in the Old Testament. “Gehenna” however is in the OT just a few times. It is a literal place, right outside of Jerusalem, where Israel practiced gross idolatry and later became called “the Valley of Slaughter” because of its reputation of idolatry and loathsomeness. Dead bodies were thrown in Gehenna and they were eaten by worms and turned to ashes by fire.
This provides the context of Jesus usage of “Gehenna”. Jesus quotes Isaiah when talking about Gehenna when he says “where the worm doesn’t die and the fire is not quenched”. He’s referring back to the valley of Gehenna, directly quoting Isaiah 66:24, which says “…the dead bodies, the worms that eat them up will not die and the fire that consumes them will not be quenched.” This literally happened. Dead bodies were eaten up by unquenchable fire and worms fed on the dead bodies until they were consumed to nothing. Interesting thing is, go to that Valley of Slaughter today and look in it and you will not see the fire still burning nor will you see immortal worms feeding on miraculously preserved dead bodies. The bodies are gone, the worms are gone, the fire is gone. The point is that the fire would not be deterred in burning up the dead bodies to nothing, the worms would not be deterred in eating up the dead bodies to nothing. And keep in mind these are mortal dead bodies in this life, not immortal conscious souls in the afterlife.
To read eternal torment into that is either gross ignorance or deliberate deception.
Even “eternal fire” or “eternal punishment” is a mistranslation, as “eternal” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “aionios”, which does not mean “never-ending” or anything of the sort. It means “of the age to come”, or to Plato, who may have invented the word, it means something which has its source in God and the unseen realm. It has nothing to do with ongoing, never-ending time.
There is literally no verse in scripture that can prop up the ridiculous, pagan, non-Jewish concept of eternal torment.
Spread the word to try to get rid of the ignorance on this issue.
This is not some new politically correct idea that people are making up because they don’t like hard biblical truths. There is a long list of early fathers who rejected eternal torment because they understood these correct meanings of words, they didn’t believe in the immortality of the soul (a pagan Greek belief), they had a touch of sanity (a good thing to have for theology), and they recognized that the scriptures either taught conditional immortality and/or final universal reconciliation. Eternal torment was the minority belief in the early church, and amongst those who were less familiar with the original meanings of the text. It did not become the prominent belief until after 500 AD, with the help of the violent organized institutional church established under Constantine.
Hell is not a good translation of Gehenna and it never will be. Gehenna was a real place with a real history in the Jewish mind, and it must be read in that context. Once it is read in that context, the idea of eternal torment falls to pieces, as it should.
I predict now that people will come on here quoting mistranslated verses to try to prop up their tradition of eternal torment. Most of these kind of people are not studied nor do they think very hard or honestly on these kinds of issues. They just accept what they are told. Nor have they probably ever had a dearly loved one that died an unbeliever. For them, it is completely fine that a bunch of dumb humans they don’t know nor have empathy for burn alive forever. Such a thing they wouldn’t give a second thought or shed one tear over. They simply must protect the only paradigm they know.
MY FIRST REPLY:
Below is a reference to hell in the New Testament. Hell (Gehenna) is a label for a state of rage or contempt.
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.”
Here are several verses of that chapter, again with hell as the state of “burning” eternally with rage (and guilt / shame):
1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a [a]stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in [b]what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. 3 Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. 4 Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. 5 So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things.
See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body [meaning the congregation as in “the body of christ(endom)], and sets on fire the course of our [c]life, and is set on fire by [d]hell. 7 For every [e]species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human [f]race. 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing….
Also, like stories of Santa Claus, some stories are intended primarily to influence the experience and behaviors of the audience, not to be taken as literal truth. Huge amounts of the Hebrew scriptural tradition are considered by many Jews to be only parables, not history.
If a story is based on truth, so be it. Isaiah and many others warned people to focus on the “spirit” of a teaching, not on the “letter” (the literal accuracy). So, we can see gross errors in the “Christian goyim idolaters” who worship “the letter of the law.”
They say “thou shall not lie.” That is not right. It is a prohibition of perjury (false testimony).
They say “thou shall not kill.” That is not right either.
It is “thou shall not murder.” Clearly, killing was very common: “there is a time to kill and a time to heal, a time for war and for peace, a time for hate and for love.” That is from Ecclesiastes chapter 3 (Old Testament).
JH added: Yeah well we have a whole flock of people taking every word of the Bible literally.
JR continues: They take a few words of the Bible literally and ignore the rest. They may completely ignore Jesus quoting Isaiah on many important points about fixating on language and “worshiping with only the lips and not the heart.”
Is there value to ancient European (non-Hebrew) traditions about Hades, Pluto, and a goddess named Hel? Some say so….
My husband studied at Westmont he hates it when people pick out verses without context, but unfortunately he’s too busy to comment 😦 But I say we shouldn’t need to become an expert in interpreting the Bible to know God. And so many times I read something and I’m look it says this! then he tells me well you have to understand the audience and who Jesus was talking to and what he was addressing was different than it is now. And blah blah blah, so then I say well then I’m just going to make love my religion. Solves all language problems.
I appreciate your perspective, Janelle. It is not consistent with many other traditions though.
Take the three Greek words “Eros, agape, and Philia” and then translate them all as “love.” What just happened? A significant decrease in precision.
Respect is a better label for my religion (than “love”), which includes respect for logic and as well for hysteria and guilt. The religion about “unconditional love” is, how most people relate to it, actually a program for perfectionistic guilt. It is unhealthy.
It lacks healthy boundaries. It lacks self respect.
Unconditional love doesn’t mean you let people walk all over you in fact just the opposite if you have love for yourself then you won’t allow yourself to become a door mat.
Also, within the religion of respect, there are no language problems. There is language and either a respect for language or not.
Yes well English is terrible at describing love!!! Actually my husband did an awesome talk on those words and it was amazing. English falls short.
GM: Hell was invented by the catholic church as a way of keeping stupid people in line. Most people were deprived of education (not allowed to read) in order to keep them stupid. Both strategies are still used to some extent today.
JR: Prior to the Catholic Church, there were many traditions with afterlifes and underworlds and so on, including the European traditions relating to Hades, Pluto, and Hel.
GM: Yep. But usually only the one for everybody. (Greek hades was for everyone)
Egyptians believed that only people who had lived a good life (as measured by the feather of truth) would get to live for eternity in the afterlife (that predates christianity by thousands of years).
As far as I’m aware, the Catholic church was the first to determine a person’s eternal fate by the measure of their piety.
To GM, the Egyptian goddess who weighed the heart at death was Maat (as I recall). It would be fair to say that Maat was the precedent for St. Peter waiting at the gates of heaven to announce the goodness of someone and send them either to heaven or hell.
The heart was weighed against a feather to test for goodness. Maat is also depicted as holding a scale, wearing a blindfold, and carrying a sword. She is also known as justitia, portia, and “lady justice.”
Astrologers call her “Libra.”
Many “Christian idolaters” do not understand the most basic teachings in the Hebrew scripture of Genesis, such as that language is what divides “day from night, light from darkness, and heaven from earth.”
How does one year end and another begin? It is entirely a matter of language.
There is no substance to silence or darkness or stillness. These are just “linguistic conveniences” (or “poetry”).
The idea that “the darkness cannot darken a lamp” is not an obscure, mysterious reference. It is a casual, playful reference to the fact that “darkness” is not a something, but merely a label for the absence of light.
Whether intentionally or not, many Christian teachings produce “arrogant tools” who have hysterical contempt for “those stupid people over there.” Their self-contempt is projected all over.
For the one with inner contempt and self-disgust, there will be endless (as in countless) perceptions that will trigger a projection of disgust and contempt at “the disgusting thing out there that is CAUSING me shame.” They do not know the gospel of forgiveness and respect.
However, for the one who is pure, all things are pure. There is nothing unclean in itself, but if one relates to it as unclean, then it is unclean for YOU.
Do you recognize the verses I was just referencing?
The second is this:
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
Are you giving a sermon J R?? 🙂 I’m not sure who you are speaking to. I have some contempt because I spent almost my entire childhood being taught one way to see things… (presbyterian) Believe in Jesus or go to hell for your sins!!!
Janelle, I do not think you were properly taught. There is a way to “see things” that involves either experiencing the hell of eternal contempt or “believing in Jesus.” You could forgive those who may have misled you… or do something else.
To “relax” contempt may be rather intimidating for many people. Contempt can be so very familiar!
Some people “make it in to their religion” (even while preaching about love & “how those other people should love me”).
So, back to Maat, when someone is “lighthearted,” then they will not even have as much weight of guilt on their conscience as a single feather. The feather will weigh more than “their heart.”
This is not about the physical organ, but the weight of contempt as distinct from a “spirit of innocence, lightheartedness, purity, respect, etc….”
However, the one who is guilty / impure / has not forgiven themselves… will be “chopped.” (I am making reference to a TV game show that is a cooking competition… but also making reference to the sword carried by “lady justice / the goddess justitia.”)
JH: Well to be honest I have dealt a lot with my contempt for how I was raised, and I recently have come full circle.This post kinda re-ignited it lol.
Janelle, you can experience repulsion and alarm at the lack of intelligence in certain teachings. Or, perhaps those teachings were in some way intelligent, even if still repulsive to you (or me).
But caution and repulsion do not require contempt, right? When I was ashamed of my naïveté at being intimidated and misled by “mainstream Christians,” then I had contempt for them. However, now I respect that, when I was younger, I was EVEN MORE naive than I later became. In other words, I have learned some stuff since being born.
Did I ever push an “ignorant spiritual perspective” on others? Maybe. Maybe for sure. Okay, for sure.
Mostly, we are made impure by social pressure. The traditional Hebrew culture does not have a teaching of a fundamental innate “original sin.”
Many Jews consider the New Testament authors Matthew and Paul to be clear cases of “apostasy” (heresy), especially the ideas of humans as fundamentally “slaves to sin.” There are fundamental risks of hysteria and hypocrisy and contempt, but not a fundamental, natural presence.
The author Luke also is big on “slave to sin” and that is key to the “pitch” of salvation through the institutional church. Likewise, socialists see government as the only access to “political salvation.”
In fact, many analysts suggest that Christianity was a plot (perhaps by Jews) to create a culture of people who were spiritually enslaved but also ashamed of spiritual slavery, so that they would neglect to be conscious of what was otherwise very obvious.
The idea of institutional salvation begins with the church and then extends throughout the holy empire. All the local warlords (monarchs and their prime *ministers*) who have been crowned by bishops (the agents of the “king of kings” in Rome) will be the great saints who offer political and economic salvation to the masses (while oppressing them).
Throughout the world, “the holy empire of the star” has armed men wearing six-pointed stars (such as sheriff deputies) and pentagrams (city cops, US marshals, etc). Through a veil of spiritual sorcery, the masses are ritually blinded to the simple reality by the indoctrination rituals of churches and the mass media and of course schools (including “science” classrooms).
JH wrote: Interesting. Yeah it is hard to get outside of indoctrination. I mostly just question beliefs now.
TB wrote: Buddhism = your beliefs are what make you suffer. Let go of them, believe nothing. Just observe
Hysterical attachment to presumptions is risky. Presumptions themselves are not so risky.
If I innocently presume, but then I am corrected by observation, then that is simple enough. The bigger problem is the terror that leads to clinging to presumptions.
Negligence leads to disappointment and frustration. That is good though because those lead naturally to attentiveness / mindfulness.
A deeper layer is the terror (pre-occupation / fixation) that is a factor especially in certain socially-reinforced presumptions. To resolve those terrors and traumas and shames, that is when the value of the sangha is huge (sangha = being around wise, cautious people).
I consider indoctrination rituals fascinating. We can look at what the Roman Catholic Church did hundreds of years ago for the training of missionaries to go out and spread the faith. We can study Tavistock and Edward Bernays and the Rockefellers and Eugene Debbs and John Dewey.
From the innovations of the “sacra congregation de propaganda fide” (spreading of the faith), modified indoctrination rituals were created for mainstream schools. Students were socially pressured to memorize “science” and then blindly repeat the doctrines ABOUT science on a test (in order to receive social validation).
That is how anti-scientific attitudes were created in the name of science, with hysteria about an essential nutrient called cholesterol plus demonic possession by invading “living entities” such as cancer and diabetes and scurvy and asthma.
JH: Yeah I agree. Have you read Ivan Illich’s deschooling society by chance?
I do not recall that title. Schooling is essential to the current efficiency of systems of social oppression.
That was all by design. The Rockefellers were very focused on destroying the emergence of holistic medicine in the 19th century in the US because it was bad for their business. Their business was crude oil and a big seller was petrochemical pharmaceutical drugs. They needed a steady market for drug addicts, so they made some careful donations to various medical schools.
They took the business model from their allies among British royalty, whose primary business has been opium for centuries (including opium derivatives like OxyContin, morphine, and heroin). The opium wars in the 1800s were all about the British invading China to keep their heroin profits flowing. The US navy and French navy also assisted the British in demolishing the Chinese military defenses.
GM adds:Some of you might be interested in this blog I wrote last night.
TB: Gavin [that article] is absolutely fantastic. I think you’ve tackled one of the biggest issues for many people in their quest for critical thinking… and done so in a way that is understandable, relatable, and highly intelligent. I loved many phrases along the way, and find deep resonance with your thought patterns. I’ll share this, too, and I hope it spreads far and wide.
GM: Thanks, Travis. that means a lot to me
I will share that article, GM. I liked it. I am a big fan of being attentive to “embedded linguistic presumptions.”
I like the idea (my paraphrasing) that organic life is what happens when light hits inorganic matter for a long enough time. I also like the section on the brain (as it relates to lobe isolation as well as parasites).
GM: Thanks 🙂
I might tidy up the conclusion. I got a bit tired yesterday 😞
(a semi-related subthread:)
Janelle Hoxie Very interesting, good arguments! I still would like to believe that our essence lives on somehow 🙂 And then maybe you could come up with an explanation for near death experiences. There is this lady I follow Anita Moorjani, who is an inspiration to me, that went into a coma from terminal lymphoma her organs were shutting down and felt unconditional love for the first time, chose to come back and healed within weeks… completely unexplained by science.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 8:20am
Hide 13 Replies
Travis Burch I don’t know what we can know for sure, except that unconditional love is the only thing that makes any sense at all….even as the cheetah eats the antelope, it’s still there… I don’t know why
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 8:30am
Travis Burch I also like how Thich Naht Hanh talks about how when the cloud rains and nourishes the flower, the cloud isn’t gone, it lives on in the flower
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 8:31am · Edited
Travis Burch Although I’d hardly suggest with any confidence that that’s the limitation of our “abiliity” to endure beyond our being’s death… But if that’s how we live on, it’s beautiful.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 8:35am · Edited
Janelle Hoxie That is beautiful! And if we think of energy and vibration I think love would definitely have a higher vibration than hate.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 8:58am
Gavin Morrice Thanks Janelle.
I think that sense of universal connectedness and love comes from the right hemisphere in the brain….See More
My stroke of insight
Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a…
TED.COM|BY JILL BOLTE TAYLOR
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Travis Burch Yes! Think about how hate necessitates or invokes cortisol and acute or even chronic stress… which is the opposite of a low stress state… and low stress is high energy. So love is probably the highest state to store energy in a cell and a body. One might say we run fastest when we are afraid of, say, a lion chasing us, but I think we might find ourselves become even more superhuman in a situation where we needed to rescue a child, or our child. Perfect love drives out fear, and I think that’s where our greatest energy potential lies. Great thoughts Janelle!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Stephanie Peña My son had a similar experience Janelle. Before his transplant he got the flu which almost killed him. He was so sick he had to be air lifted from PHX Children’s to Colorado Children’s and we were told he probably won’t make it to CO (they didn’t even want to air lift him but I threw such a crazy fit they finally gave in). He got to a point where he was only able to take in tiny puffs of air (his last breaths) and the flight crew was trying to intubate him, but there was too much turbulence, so one of the nurses said “fuck it, lets pray” so we all did and with in 30 seconds he was completely healed (from the flu). We landed in Colorado and went to the ICU and the docs were like “why are you guys here?” It was pretty incredible healing experience all brought on by love and intention.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Travis Burch Three simultaneous posts!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Janelle Hoxie Yes, that fear state… I am doing everything I possibly can to get out of that fear state, it is torture! Love is the state I want to be in. Not that I am denying emotion, but I really believe the chemicals that go along with fear lead to sickness.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:20am
Janelle Hoxie Stephanie Peña wow! thanks for sharing that, what an intense moment that was!
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:21am
Travis Burch I believe denying raw emotion is a great path to love deficiency
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:38am
Janelle Hoxie Yeah, I’m learning how to accept suffering and emotions that arise, but not coming from a place of fear. One of the ways I healed my panic disorder is to accept the panic, I’ve had times where I was fighting it and fighting it and that seems to feed into it, but then when I just accept what it is, everything just calms back down again within minutes. I was just thinking about that last night. To accept that being human is to suffer is to transcend.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 9:43am
Travis Burch very well said, janelle!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:48am
JR: Janelle, if we compare panic to a place (like “coming from a PLACE of panic”), that implies disorderliness. I am not aware of any way to extract panic from hyperventilation / neurological hypoxia… or to extract hyperventilation from panic.
Simple fear, however, is “a place” of great efficiency. If I am startled in to alertness by an unexpected sound, that fright or fear can correspond to very high efficiency, as in “getting in the zone.” For someone not already “in the zone,” fear is a very common pathway to getting in the zone.
Distress and shame and pre-occupation / distraction / paranoia do not correspond to high efficiency or perceptiveness. Those tends to be states of low neurological efficiency.
JH: Interesting way of looking at it, are you saying you can’t take panic away from hyperventilating? I’ve been studying panic disorders for 2 yrs, the only way I could ever get a hold of it is changing my thoughts, accept that adrenaline is running through my veins but not to panic about it.
I realize fear is useful it is a primitive way to motivate you to action. I have extremely sensitive fear responses. My nervous system reacts so instantaneously!! Supposedly this is a good thing I’m not sure. But panic attacks that happen for no apparent reason made me generally fearful in life which means constant fight or flight. I’d rather live life fearlessly.
JR: Janelle, I respect fear. I am not afraid of it, which is to say that I am completely relaxed in regard to whether I experience fear or not. If there is potential danger, I want to have the advantage of alertness to accurately assess dangers and risks. Then, any risks can be addressed (whether by avoiding from some potential danger or neutralizing it etc).
As for “panic attacks,” consider that there is no “attack.” Same for asthma “attacks” and anxiety “attacks” and even heart “attacks.”
When a brain is low on oxygen, it can send signals to “breathe faster,” which is a favorable reflex in some cases. However, it is also valuable sometimes to slow down the rate of breathing. Slower, calmer breathing allows for the oxygen to get out of the bloodstream and in to the brain cells (and other cells beyond the blood stream).
This principle has been recognized for a very long time (like for thousands of years in meditation practices across many cultures), although the specific biochemical mechanism of why slowing down the breath can be so helpful was only documented in 1904. More: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/how-to-ward-off-demonic-attacks-of-panic-by-slowing-down-your-breath/
It is possible for someone to get more frazzled (as in grumpy, jumpy, etc), such as by lack of sleep. Most anyone who has raised or watched young children know the value of “noticing when they NEED a nap.”
It is also possible for someone who has been “jumpy” for years or even decades to become a “grounded person” (or a “mellow” person). When we are dealing with neurological functionality, that means electrons and oxygen and all those other very important components.
There is a video in a subthread above (as I recall) about a lady named Jill who studied strokes, and then had a stroke, then recovered fully. I also had a similar “neurological disaster” and recovered quite well.
JH: Yeah I don’t like the terminology, its not like something is attacking my body, I understand the mechanism quite well now. And do use breathing to get out of it as well. But the first trigger for me is never because I was just hyperventilating and thus the panic happened. Maybe I was shallowly breathing because of being anxious or worried or fearful.
JR: Since 1904 when the biochemical mechanism was established, there has been a lot of research on the huge “downline” of consequences to “sub-optimal” breathing (which is VERY common).
Anyone who breaths through their mouth most of the time (including while sleeping) can benefit by retraining their breathing. There are many other issues of course that can be factors.
Again, some people can easily hold their breath for three to four minutes (and repeatedly, like while exerting themselves vigorously underwater most of the time for twenty minutes straight while only coming up for a breath a few times). So, not only is breathing a method to decrease or increase panic / distress, but to measure broader neurological health.
The foundation of social indoctrination is pressure to relate to certain activities as inherently glorious and to relate to certain activities as inherently deplorable (shameful, deserving of scorn and contempt and perhaps a public ritual of human sacrifice). In other words, intimidation is central to the whole dynamic. However, if “bullying” is defined as shameful, then whatever “the good guys” do cannot be bullying. Why? Because we may have identified some folks as “fundamentally good,” like because they are “our guys.”
For instance, if there is some kind of anti-government controversy in Kuwait, but then the army of Iraq goes in to fulfill a promise made in a treaty to “provide assistance to their official ally who officially invited them to provide such assistance,” then that might be labeled by some as an “invasion” and a “violation of the border.” But if the British army goes in to “defend” Kuwait from the “invading Iraqis,” then that is a case of the British “providing assistance.” If there was no treaty in which the Kuwaitis had already invited the British to “defend” them, then of course the British will find someone in Kuwait to thank them for “providing assistance.”
Was there a “human rights violation” in Kuwait (to which the Iraqis were heroically responding)? Even if there was, how exactly did that get to be the “business” of the Iraqis (or the British)? Well, some people “just make it their business.”
So, imagine that someone in Kuwait makes up some definitions of “human rights,” then concludes that the British royals are “violating the human rights” of the British subjects. What should they do next? Should they bomb some British civilians “in order to protect the civilians from being bullied by the British royals?”
The point here is that when there is a primary commitment to reinforcing the idea that certain people are “fundamentally good” (or that certain people are “fundamentally bad”), then that “commitment bias” will organize all the commentary that follows. The commentary will predictably support the “core narrative.”
Details that support the primary commitment will be emphasized (or invented). Details that are contrary to the primary commitment will be ignored or minimized or even ridiculed.
So, “our guys” are fundamentally good. In fact, our guys are fundamentally the best guys of all guys who have ever been guys.
But then there is an “isolated case” in which it is clear that our guys were not good “that one time.” Well, we will resist that idea for a while (while pretending not to resist it) and then eventually erupt in outrage and regret, demanding justice.
Did you know that one major bank had a policy that allowed for lots of cases of corruption? HSBC (which is a British-owned Chinese bank) was caught *illegally* laundering drug money.
However, I am sure that it is an isolated case. Other banks do not do similar things of course, right? Further, HSBC is obviously not a bank that was set up for the specific purpose of laundering money from sales of opium and heroin by the British to the Chinese, right?
Keep in mind that when we “already know” that certain people are “fundamentally good,” then that means that all of the behaviors that we have been programmed and intimidated in to labeling as “fundamentally good” must be perfectly descriptive of the behaviors of that entire group of people. HSBC must be honest. I do not mean just in the future. HSBC must have always been honest. Sure, there was that one isolated case when they repeatedly broke their own rules, but that was an isolated case.
They even formed a committee to investigate whether or not anyone in HSBC had ever been involved in any wrong-doing and of course the conclusion was “not even a little.” Okay, fine, maybe a century or two later we can admit that HSBC was set up from the beginning as a business enterprise to help the British conduct sales of opium to the Chinese, but I am sure that they have totally reformed such awful practices, right? It’s not like the British royals are still involved in the international trafficking of heroin or cocaine, right?
Okay, fine, maybe they have not “reformed” such practices (and maybe they have no intention of changing the foundation of their business model). However, as someone blindly loyal to the social indoctrination about honesty and good intentions, WE *must* reform our local government here in Iraq so that our government is more like “how our government should have always been” (according to the doctrines that our governments spread in order to distract us from the fundamental practices of their business model).
I mean, of course our government has always been the best ever, because I know that our guys are good guys and our flag is a good flag and our national anthem is basically the best national anthem in the entire history of national anthems. For instance, our government (unlike ALL of the others) is against propaganda and indoctrination and intimidation and extortion.
Plus, those are just a few examples. I could give a VERY long list of examples of things that (our government has told us that) our government is “against.”
I was talking to an undercover cop the other day about how deception is wrong. The cop totally agreed with me. I mean, that was before I knew that they were a cop pretending not to be a cop, but keep in mind that our guys are fundamentally good guys, right?
Our government (here in Kuwait… or wherever we are) would obviously not program us to relate to slavery as shameful in order to shame us in to not noticing our own slavery, right? We are NOT slaves!
However, we are pumped with social hysterias. Poetically, it might be more accurate to compare us to zombies than to compare us to slaves. Maybe we are slightly hypnotized or brainwashed or “spiritually asleep.” Probably not, but of course it is technically possible.
So, we may have been just slightly programmed to identify ourselves with slaves (like in a sympathetic way). However, that does not make us slaves. That just glorifies the idea of being a slave who is unjustly victimized and deserves sympathy and probably some external salvation (like the Kuwaiti armies gloriously going to Britain to liberate the people of Britain from slavery).
Plus the evil Iraqis were trying to support the British royals in their unfair concentration of wealth. So, when the Iraqi troops arrived, that was obviously an invasion since they are fundamentally bad. So, then the Kuwaitis basically had to come in to Britain to assist the people of Britain in resisting the invading Iraqis. When the Kuwaiti troops arrived, they were liberating the British from the tyranny and injustice of the British royals, who are slightly more wealthy than the average British citizen although the British royals have never had to work an 8-hour day in their entire life.
As for the accusations that the Kuwaitis were only liberating the British in order to sell them oil and opiates (like morphine, oxycontin, and heroin), I do admit that the accusations might be true. However, those accusations are also clearly ridiculous since we already know that all of these Kuwaiti guys are fundamentally good. Why would the Kuwaitis go all the way to Britain to liberate them and then just sell them opiates? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Why would the Kuwaitis set up a bank to assist in the sale of oil and opiates to the British? That is silly.
Sure, there was that one time, I think it was like 1829, when the Kuwaitis sent their navy to make sure that the British were unable to criminalize the importation of opium by the Kuwaitis. But that was obviously just one isolated case, plus they even sent an apology letter (along with a big shipment of opium AS A GIFT).
When the Apache tribe invaded Kuwait in 1674, the Kuwaitis did not have a single leader in whom they would give the power to sell the entire nation of Kuwait in to slavery to the Apaches. However, the Apaches are fundamentally good guys who love democracy, so they found a Kuwaiti who they were confident they could control and then they set up elections so that the people of Kuwait could empower someone with the ability to sign a treaty with the Apaches
to basically sell Kuwait to the Apaches.
I know that sounds a little shady, but keep in mind that the Apaches are fundamentally good guys because something about democracy. Also, consider this important point: something about justice or injustice or whatever.
Liberation by military force is what the good guys do. Invasions are only done by bad people.
For instance, when the British asked the US to invade Germany in “the first World War,” that was an act of liberating the British. Even though there were no British people actually in Germany, that was still an act of liberation because the US was promoting the INTERESTS of the British in regard to control of the German territory and resources and population.
See, that is totally different. Plus, honesty and democracy and justice are fundamentally good and that is why our guys are the best guys ever at being guys. Also, keep in mind something about bravery and heroically killing people who obviously deserved to die.
It is shameful to just kill civilians out of like greed and stuff. That is why our guys are fundamentally good and are basically the best liberators ever.
Also, it is important to reform our system to reverse the slightly corrupt things that have happened in the last 64,000 years. For instance, our money is fake, which it should not be, because it should be real.
Sure, you may have also been programmed to label some money as “fake,” but if a court system imposes debts on people and then demands payment in a certain form, then that can create real demand for that payment form. Also, our good guys are good guys, and since propaganda is shameful, our guys never use propaganda to trick you in to thinking that only certain kinds of money are real.
So if you take a confederate dollar, it is real money, but has no court system of extortion to create public demand for that sacred object (or that once-sacred object). It is now basically worthless in terms of purchasing power (except as a rare collector’s item to be kept in museums as a piece of historical trivia). However, it is a real instance of money, even though there is no court system of extortion creating widespread public demand for that kind of sacred object.
If the court warlords demand payment in silver, that increases demand for silver. Same if they demand diamonds. Same if they demand confederate dollars.
However, the holy extortion specialists no longer demand confederate dollars for the debts that they invent “out of thin air.” So, there is NO LONGER any widespread, steady public demand for that sacred object (although a long time ago in a particular section of planet earth, those sacred objects were the objects that were the best sacred objects ever in the history of sacred objects).
So maybe the rulers have brainwashed a lot of folks that we could poetically call zombies or even slaves, then hysterically argue about which labels are the most sacred. I will leave such arguing to those who insist that they should not be zombies because that is shameful. Plus, we already know that the good guys that are in charge of our holy government would never do something so unholy as to indoctrinate us as to which doctrines are sacred and which doctrines are not even doctrines because they are just fundamentally true.
I don’t think anyone’s primary reason for doing anything is to hurt an other or others, corporations either. They want success fo themselves, protection for their family, or other things along those lines. Unfortunately the way they go about it, an other or others may get hurt, and possibly they know, and continue. Sometimes perhaps they don’t know or care ever. Point? Anyone can be understood, if they want to be, i hope! Lol
For the same simple reason of (perceived) military superiority, the British monarchy arranged for their own navy plus the navy of France and of the United States to attack China in the early 19th century. Why? Because they could.
why else? Because the Chinese government was trying to stop the British government from selling opium to the people of China.
When the Israelite army led by Moses massacred the neighboring midianites, they captured 16,000 young virgin girls as slaves. Why not just kill them too? Because they were productive (for bearing children).
plus there are the elephants that run through field and kill thousands of innocent insects…..
The ego is a conceptual model of “who I am ( as distinct from how I am not).” It is a coping mechanism for social pressure. It is based on socially imposed categories about “how people should be.” That is why hypocrisy is so popular… People literally filter their own observations to maintain a particular narrative about themselves.
Plus, if I am operating from a narrative of powerless victim, then I am going to go around and construct a narrative of how there are however many villains.
The “victim” will find a way vilify someone else. They need to preserve their identity as the victim.
“I focus my wishes on the future, not the past. I am grateful to have lived in Tibet for so long, then to have been received as a refugee in to Nepal and India, and right now to be here with you. Do you wish to be here right now with all of us in this auditorium? It is very safe socially and we have air conditioning too!”
Q: “Sir, don’t you support the people who want to fight the Chinese and drive them out of Tibet?”
A: “Well, Tibet is a very nice place with many resources. I can sympathize with all the people who want to live there and with the people who want to govern that region.
Also, I think that California is a very nice place.”
Laugh with us. We are just refugees. We are not dead. I am not even 80 years old yet! This is probably my last trip to the US… And I am so glad to have spent this afternoon with all of you. I just wish you would have come to my talk yesterday in California so we did not have to drive all the way to Tucson. No, I am only joking.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Your original post was in regard to “hurting people just to hurt them.” The nuns were assaulted and the attacks were apparently so brutal that some did not survive. The monks were forced to watch because the soldiers apparently were trying to traumatized and “break” the monks, many of whom also did not survive the torture rituals.
J R Fibonacci Hunn The soldiers were ordered to perform the torture (under threat from their supervisors). However, there are cases in which torturers simply “toy with” their victims and whether the victims live or die is rather unimportant to the torturer… Like my cat just “toying” with a lizard “for fun.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn That was around 1978. An interesting detail is that the death of the dog gave me a socially acceptable reason to grieve (an outlet for ALL of my disappointment). However, my mom was apparently pretty annoyed by my emotions, so she bought me another dog the next day.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Saying “it is alright” can promote calm in a child, which is often attractive to the adult. There is also the message to “be quiet” that can be conveyed through the words “that is pretty minor and you are such a big boy. Only little babies would cry about minor stuff like that. You are a big boy, right?”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Take the example of Vlad the impaler (aka Count Dracula, the local warlord in Transylvania operating under the supervision of the Vatican). Why did he torture and kill so many people and then leave them to rot on the poles in public? It was to intimidate and terrify. It is the same reason that the US bombed civilians in japan.
These folks are not especially sincere or benign. Neither were most of the folks who came before them. I like to tease libertarians who rant about Thomas Jefferson and gun rights. I say that TJ supported the right of everyone to carry weapons, except for his slaves. He supported the right of his slaves to be whipped… And am I supposed to condemn him for that? What is so odd about that?
The below quotation is either an imprecise translation from German, or an imprecise statement, or both. In fact, it is at best only partly true as well as fundamentally wrong.
The fundamental source of demand for government-approved currencies are the debts invented by a government. A government invents various debts and then dictates what form of payment will be accepted to pay the debts (tax debts and fines and fees and so on).
The more debts (costs) that a government imposes on their source of wealth, the more demand there will be for the government approved Currency. For example, if a government raised sales tax rate from 5% to 15%, that would produce no change in the amount of currency in circulation and a massive increase in demand for that fixed amount of currency.
Likewise, if a government had a payroll tax that swallowed 15% of all wages and salaries paid within their jurisdiction, then reduced that payroll tax rate to only 5%, that would immediately produce an increase in the take-home pay of all employees (and reduce the costs of the business as well, since businesses draw from their cash reserves to pay payroll taxes).
there would be no change in the actual total amount of currency in circulation, yet a significant increase in the cash reserves of every business and every employee within the jurisdiction of that government. In other words, the coerced demand for currency would decline. When demand for something Falls, the purchasing Power of that thing falls. When purchasing power for a currency falls, prices rise. (Prices are just exchange rates.)
So, if we review the history of the United States, we can find periods in which there was a gold standard for currency, a bimetallic standard of both gold and silver, and a silver standard. Whenever a government implements a metallic standard or backing for a currency, that by default create an increase in the natural demand for that substance.
For instance, in the 1950s, the US treasury was minting pennies with a certain percentage of copper in the coin. Later, the government reduced the amount of copper in that coin.
that policy change had virtually no effect on the purchasing power of the penny, which was not DERIVED from the amount of copper in the coin. The purchasing power of the penny was derived from the debts invented by the government and imposed on the public (which could be discharged in government currency, such as nickels and dimes and pennies).
However, total market demand for copper did decline (slightly) when the US government reduced the percentage of copper used in a penny. The government stopped buying so much copper to mint in to pennies (plus they eventually reduced the total volume of pennies in circulation relative to dimes and quarters).
Whether a coin contains copper or gold or silver, the face value SET by the government determines purchasing power, not the metal in the coin. If a paper currency contains paper fibers, it is the magic shapes of ink on the paper that alter purchasing power.
What is the basis of those magic shapes of ink on THAT paper having social influence? I cannot just add a few zeroes to a $1 bill and make it a $100 bill, right?
The military capacity of the government is the foundation. The reason that people pay taxes is because of the threat of government soldiers (deputies, cops, etc) coming to arrest or evict or garnish based on non-payment of debts invented by governments.
Why does a confederate dollar bill no longer accepted at the grocery store (or even a farmer’s market)? because there is no military regime forcing people to pay taxes in that currency.
BP wrote: I am not sure I see your point. Government policies affect the behavior of its citizens, but it also creates black markets. Wealth is only increased by production. And every rule and regulation have unintended consequences. Again, government cannot run an economy as efficiently as a free market (making decisions everyday based on wants and needs, supply and demand).
Governments influence demand, just like every enterprise influences demand. Governments happen to use coercion and propaganda to influence demand, from mandatory purchases to subsidized or favored markets to penalized markets or criminalized markets.
That is the entire point of government, right? The powerful will form governments to influence the economic activity of the humans nearby….
As for wealth being increased by production, sure. However, when the Israelites invaded the Midianites and massacred almost all of them (except for the 24,000 virgin girls they captured), what did the Israelites do with the wealth of the Midianites? Did they destroy it (like setting their fields and homes on fire)? Or, did they POSSESS that wealth?
Governments do not increase wealth, they redistribute it… and sometimes destroy it. The Israelites might have just killed one million head of livestock that the Midianite herders had accumulated. However, they seemed to favor the outcome of killing the Midianites instead and then capturing all of those livestock (plus the 24,000 virgin girls that they enslaved, plus a few thousands shekels of gold that they gathered from the Midianite nation).
Governments redistribute inventory. They destroy inventory (like when the officials of the state of Pennsylvania dumped out thousands of gallons of perfectly good milk because it was a crime to sell unpasteurized milk). Why didn’t the officials just pasteurize the milk and THEN sell it? They are not producers or sellers. They are a military operation of governing the human resources!
Governments also raise demand for various things and suppress demand for other things (like by criminalizing them or threatening to destroy all supply of that thing). When governments set prices on things (like unnaturally low prices for a grain), they are not seeking “an efficient method for resolving economic competitors.” They are imposing prices! They are putting small farmers out of business to favor the interests of the giant corporations of industrial agriculture.
In 2008, when there were major gasoline shortages in the northeast due to storms, the governments that imposed penalties on “profiteering” interfered with market forces. They removed the incentive for the private market to bring fuel to the areas. They greatly increased the severity of the crisis in those areas. Of course!
Of course they also put people on TV to make statements about how they were helping to resolve the crisis smoothly. That is just the normal lying of PR spokespeople. They are actors reading a script written by a fiction author.
As for efficiency, I do not know if a pirate ship is “more efficient” than a government naval battleship. The reality is that inequality and alliances exist.
Small kids are not as powerful as big kids. However, it is the relative lack of power that can lead to alliances and even governing institutions.
As for black markets, when I look at wolves or bees, I see only black markets. What is remarkable and strange about governments is that they create “white markets.”
Like Thomas Jefferson writing some inspiring words about liberty and universal human rights, then going home and f***ing his slave mistresses at gunpoint. Beware of what government-regulated professionals tell you about the governments that regulate them.
BP replied: But we do not need government. You appear to be contorting to justify government actions. You have not said one thing that changes my mind on the evil of government.
JR responded: Whether you label government evil or justified is irrelevant to me. Governments are just a group of people advancing their economic interests predictably.
I don’t care if you say that when hyenas bully a lion and steal a fresh carcass from him, that is evil and unjustified and “not needed.” The whole framework of “moral shaming” is just an exercise in the propaganda ideals that governing institutions have programmed in the masses. It is reactive denial.
Is the conspiracy to deceive children about Santa Claus effective? That is my first question. Whether you have been programmed to vilify it or glorify it could be trivia to me.
The Santa deception is once again purely economic. It advances the interests of those who indoctrinate the targeted population.
It governs the attention and behavior of the targeted population effectively. It is VERY efficient (relative to things s like only issuing bribes of compensation or threats of spanking- the Santa deception creates a huge reward pay-off plus a threat of humiliation… if Santa only fills the stocking with chunks of coal). That is why in the “open market” of parents disciplining children, the parents consistently resort to the fraud of Santa Claus (or of Saint Peter / Osiris waiting to weigh your soul at the gates of heaven).
Or, if it is not a fraud, that is still irrelevant from the perspective of predicting what the parents will do. Once they start talking to the children about how Osiris is a psychic voyeur who can keep score of how pure the thoughts of the children are, then that is a distinct economic activity from the parents thinking of Osiris privately or ending their prayers by invoking the name of the god Amun.
Once they start speaking to the children and deliberately influencing the attention of the children, then they are engaged in governing.
When they say that there is a shameful kind of behavior called lying, they are attempting to influence and dominate the children.
Anyone fluent in the Hebrew language can see the actual regulation was a prohibition against perjury under oath. The Levite caste rules over The other 11 genetic lines of the Israelites and conducts court rituals in which witnesses are called to the temple and commanded to bear witness in regard to particular matters of controversy.
There are specific penalties for “bearing false witness.” At first, these regulations were only applied by the Levites to their nation of the 12 tribes of Israelites. However, as of the time of Noah and the great flood, there was a seventh commandment added to the prior six given to Adam. The seventh commandment was to impose courts of justice (social domination) over all of humanity, whether those people were genetic Israelites or not. It was the declaration of a global government that claimed universal authority.
Also, when they say that murder is prohibited, that is not the same as prohibiting killing. Perjury and murder are invented legal categories which the Levites used to regulate and punish select individuals who had been accused of a criminalized behavior.
Of course, killing itself was not prohibited. It was merely regulated and ritualized.
When the Levites conducted a public ritual of human sacrifice, of course they killed the criminal convict. When the Israelites invaded and massacred the Midianites, that was an instance of government-endorsed killing.
Also, when children are brainwashed with moral anxieties about lying and killing, that is still an economic activity. The rulers are ruling the ruled.
When the high priest grants a pardon to Lt. Col. Oliver North for committing perjury, that is still legally valid within the rules of the system of social domination. The rulers issue a military threat to the masses that the rulers are claiming the right to penalize perjury. However, whether or not the ruling class exercises that right in a particular case is a matter of their own discretion and priorities.
So, I am not contorting to justify the behavior of governing nor contorting to vilify the behavior of governing. I am telling you that it seems quite predictable to me that hyenas will “extort tax debts” from a solitary lion who is unable to adequately fend off the hyenas. Further, all of the activities of humans governing humans are economic and predictable. In general, many governments even publish very clear declarations of the methods that they intend to use to extort wealth from and otherwise govern their targeted populations.
When the church of Scientology was able to get the IRS to back down, their “non-violent” warfare was also economic and predictable.
I presume that when the FBI’s most wanted fugitive, Marc Rich, wanted to get a pardon for his tax crimes, he strategically took action. Did his ex-wife Denise have sex with Bill Clinton and then document those activities for use as blackmail? Did Mr. Rich make massive donations to the Clinton foundation before the pardon or after the pardon or both?
Those are generally matters of trivia. Marc Rich was legally pardoned. That is the important detail practically.
The “Church” of Scientology got the IRS to back down. How they did it might be intriguing or not.
When the US department of Justice went after the diamond cartel DeBeers, either the leaders of DeBeers complied with the threats or politely told the DOJ agents that “it is in the best interests of you, your career, and your family that you lose the paperwork on this case and focus on other cases.”
Either that response was effective or not. (It was.)
So, do I justify governments? I respect the social influence of the US government… as well as organizations that routinely get the US government to back down, such as DeBeers. I also respect hurricanes and volcanoes.
I could justify my own actions and inactions. Or I might not.
But if I am not threatened by someone harassing me and trying to bully or intimidate me with threats of imprisonment or fines or torture or execution, then why would I take the time to justify anything at all? To an employer or a client, I discuss which actions are most justified, inviting their input.
When relevant, then I may consider justifications. Otherwise, I do not agonize over justification like I did when operating according to the programming of my youth.
Yet I still respect that programming. Sometimes it still may be very relevant and useful. I am not ashamed that I have been programmed to vilify certain things and glorify others.
I am not ashamed that I have been deceived through programming to prejudice me with confirmation bias. I have been programmed with biases so that I hysterically defend “familiar doctrines” and hysterically reject “potential threats to my crumbling justifications for my worship of familiar doctrines.”
BP wrote: “I think a real estate, banking and monetary collapse is around the corner.”
JR replied: Starting in 2003, I published analysis of the global and national transitions that I have observed and forecast. Economics (supply and demand) always rules finance (price trends, lending trends, borrowing trends).
I also consider fuel markets to be a big target for propaganda and “perception management.” An actual crisis in supplies of fuel is not essential. A perceived crisis is just as useful to people managing empires.
BP wrote: Yet they create bubbles and prolong recessions
JR replied: There will always be periods of accumulating debts and periods of fleeing from debt. That pattern is more basic than government.
BP wrote: But the free market is a better predictor of when to take on debt and when to save. The market better determines the price of money. Governments create moral hazard.
To me, governments are predictable developments within natural open markets. Of course governments tend to promote delusional borrowing. That is key to their purpose.
Then, when a natural deflating of credit market happens, the purchasing power of currency SOARS.
The delusional discounting of the value of money that the government has helped promote can end VERY suddenly.
Which creates a “cash crunch” (a release of the delusional discounting of cash as “everyone” panics and chases cash, selling inflated assets for cash, avoiding new borrowing, etc).
BP wrote: Since many politicians are puppets of bankers, the system is rigged to make both the politicians and bankers wealthier.
JR answered: All governments are instruments of the powerful. The powerful form governments as economic tools.
However, if the whole point of the military enterprise was to “liberate” all of that wealth from the Midianities, then it would make no sense to simply abandon the livestock or set it free. So, the Israelites captured all of that livestock, plus all of that gold, plus the 24,000 virgin girls that they then distributed throughout the military and to the ruling caste of Levite priests.Why form a military of 12,000 Israelite soldiers? Because they can pursue large-scale operations of piracy, pillaging, and enslavement.
When the Soviets had invaded Poland and then Germany responded by coming to the aid of Austria to meet the advancing soviet tanks, the German action was “spun” as an act of aggression. That justified the second US invasion of Europe.
The USSR would invade somewhere that the US wanted to invade, so then the US would respond to “defend the innocent from the Soviet invaders.” Soon, the Soviets and Americans had colonized and split Korea, sections of Africa, Afghanistan, and so on.
If the Soviets set up a military base in one of their colonies, maybe they said “we are just going to keep these troops here briefly and then we will withdraw them as soon as the Iraqis can manage the situation on their own.” Or was that Japan? Or was that Chile? Or was that Panama? Or was that Nigeria or Libya or Syria or Ethiopia?
The partnership between the US and the USSR as “enemies” was a huge success. For whom? For oil companies. For international bankers. (Who own the oil cartel.)
What Catholic militias and mafias do I mean? I could mean the Soveriegn Military Order of the Knights of Malta.
What organization is so powerful that it is part of the UN and has passports, but yet has no physical territory?
Mussolini: was he the one in charge or was he just a puppet? He is shown here wearing the medal of the Knights of Malta, indicating his submission to their collective operations, right?