## Posts Tagged ‘contempt’

### Do we have contempt for those with contempt for us?

August 30, 2014
• We can notice that some churches promote conflict and others promote cooperation. Can we accept both as valid? Can people form cooperative teams then enter conflicts with other teams?

What about promoting contempt? In the mass media and public schools, are any behaviors targeted with contempt? Terrorism? Pedophilia rings? Churches and governments that operate pedophilia rings and protect the participants?

In the US, we have laws that punish people who trade weapons illegally, launder money, and engage in the trade of illegal drugs. However, in the famous case of Lt. Colonel Oliver North and Caspar Weinbeger (and 4 other defendants), there is also a rule for the protection even of convicted criminals.

Because of the involvement of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in the smuggling and laundering operations, either of those two Presidents would have interrupted the legal proceedings against their allies / co-conspirators / business partners. Incidentally, it was Bush who actually did so, because he was the first one with an appropriate opportunity, but that is a trivial detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/…/general/onthisday/big/1224.html

Clinton’s most “corrupt-looking” pardon (in my opinion) did not involve the drug smuggling part of the Iran-Contra affair, but the illegal oil deals made by Marc Rich:

• “In 1983, billionaire financier Marc Rich was indicted for tax evasion and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud. The commodities trader was also in trouble for running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis, therefore violating a US TRADE embargo with Iran. During his prosecution, Rich fled to Switzerland and was surprisingly pardoned by former President Bill Clinton, who claimed Rich’s charitable donations in the Middle East helped bring peace to the area.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html

### Do wolves lose sleep over the idealism of sheep?

December 19, 2013
• A 1979 Faroese stamp by Czesław Słania. Sheep are the heraldic animal of the Faroes (“Sheep Islands”). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JR:
A lamb can grow in to a ram, and a ram can present a threat to a wolf. So, the wisest wolves would avoid well-defended herds of sheep.

U.S. PSYOP leaflet disseminated in Iraq. It shows a caricature of Al-Qa`eda terrorist al-Zarqawi caught in a rat trap. The caption reads “This is your future, Zarqawi” (هذا مستقبلك يا زرقاوي). Taken from http://www.psywar.org/ with permission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Or, in the case of a court system, the soldiers of the court system (the deputy officers) may systematically target the weak and even disarm the “rams.” They could even use psychological warfare and reverse psychology to cultivate contempt and rebellion in the sheep. They could promote a musical genre to the lower classes that glorifies crime, at the same time as terrorizing the mainstream middle class with sensationalized TV news of lower class criminals targeting the middle class.
• So, much investment has gone in to programming people like you and I in regard to our perceptions and actions. Could there be immense interest in compromising the health, intelligence, wealth and power of the vast majority of the population? That is quite possible (if not self-evident).

• ARR:  hmmmmm well, scratches head…. the [working class] might not want to continue those low paid lives of drudgery if they could think their way out of it. Of course energetic sedation [like through bad dietary advice] makes them not as energy efficient as workers, but they are clearly willing to pay that price…look at factory farmed cattle, and chickens…very short lives, but super producers while they are at it. Of course they found a way to cash in on humans too when they break down. It’s called Big Pharma.

A commercial meat chicken production house in Florida, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• J R Fibonacci Hunn: Yes, and the worker bees terrify the queen, right? If only the worker bees fed on the royal jelly, they would develop in to a queen. The queen of the hive has the same genetics as a worker, but just a different diet!

Now, imagine that I am a herder of goats and I found a new way to get value from my goats. Is that offensive to you?

Imagine that I do not just buy and sell them for profit, nor do I just use them to trim my lawn, but imagine that I milk them. Disgusting?

ARR:  there is a way to get milk from a goat that is not abusive, however if you are saying the elite are to us as we are to a goat, I have to disagree. They are a bunch of inbred lizards who are actually terrified of us because they know what we are capable of when we are fully self actualized…we are quite dangerous to them, and they know it. Keeping us from learning our true power and abilities is their ONLY chance, and they have already lost that. Their time is almost up.

English: “Female pigs used for breeding (called ‘breeding sows’ by industry) are confined most of their lives in ‘gestation crates’ which are so small that they cannot even turn around. The pigs’ basic needs are denied, and they experience severe physical and psychological disorders.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J R Fibonacci Hunn: Abusive is a label that can be used by humans, because we have the capacity to use language. We can also milk goats, breed them, slaughter them, and so on.
• For now, you may wish to keep studying the “abusive militancy” of the dietary ideologists (like “militant vegans”). The abusive militant ideologists can attempt to shame you with comments that you support the confining of innocent goats, as well as milking them for your own personal benefit, rather than for the benefit of future generations of holy goats.

Goats are sacred to them, or so they may say when it is convenient for them to say so. These militants have contempt for you. They may accuse you of abusing goats, intentionally slaughtering goats to eat, and generally being in allegiance with “the evil people,” if not directly labeling you as an evil person.

Goats cannot use language. Goats cannot be trained in contempt. They lack the intelligence to be trained in contempt, which requires programming with language. However, you have been programmed with language to create paranoid idealism (through political propaganda about how governments should be and so on), so you have been trained in where to focus your contempt.

Wolf sneaking up to the sheepfold (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Your idealism is the shackle which you worship. The contempt itself is natural and not an issue. Just notice it. Without the idealism, the contempt would not arise. The root of the issue is the political propaganda through which you have programmed with the same forms of idealism as the rest of the masses (with slight variations in priority across the individual cases).

So, perhaps you are the one who is terrified and it may be entirely fitting that you experience not only terror, but humiliation and humility. Perhaps after you experience a sudden wave of humility, you will also be relaxed and respectful.

Until then, you will be disturbed by the militant vegans because they reflect a contempt that is already just under the surface for you. A disturbance or contempt that is already part of your primary way of relating to reality is triggered by the militant vegans.

Sheep (Photo credit: James Good)

You fear them. You should. However, you could also respect them. Do you?

You also fear those who have programmed the militant vegans (who are only innocent fools operating in panic and distress and contempt, much like you). You should fear those who have influenced the militant vegans. However, you could also respect them. Do you?

### Disgust, contempt, jealousy, & desire

October 17, 2013

[ Jealousy ] (Photo credit: αвву (definiytely NOT HERE ANYMORE, ya know?))

English: Gravitational potential is a scalar potential energy per unit mass at each point in space associated with the force fields. : \phi = -( \frac{GM}{r}) . In this case, M = 100 000 kg, G = -6.67E-11 http://weelookang.blogspot.com/2010/08/ejs-open-source-gravitational-field.html (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Contempt is an extreme form of repulsion, like disgust or panic. If something is very disgusting to us, then even a brief reference to the subject could cause a panic or tantrum, leading to the expression of contempt.

Why would we have such a strong repulsion to something- even just as a topic of conversation? The strength of the repulsion is proportionate to the strength of the attraction.

If I actually am very attracted to something, but I fear that attraction, like if that extreme attraction is jarring or startling or disturbing or terrifying, then the extreme attraction may lead to an equally extreme repulsion. My mechanism for coping with the disturbance of the extreme attraction may be to create a balance with extreme repulsion.

It is like when there is a very heavy object placed at the top of a steep hill. The weight of the object and the angle of the steep hill provide a large quantity of potential energy. There is a lot of force and power available in that arrangement. So, to keep that object from moving, it can take a very strong structure to resist the potential energy of gravity, right?

Likewise, if we want to confine a large amount of water in to a dam, then we would need to have a dam that is strong enough to work as a lasting barrier to that amount of water. If we double or triple the amount of water to be stored, then we may need to increase the height of the dam or the width or both. We may need to reinforce the dam.

A strong attraction is what creates the demand for a strong repulsion or a strong resistance. Contempt is what we call a strong repulsion and it always corresponds to a strong attraction.

Beauty Parade — November 1953 … Amid unemployment and inequality, is the American Dream at risk? (October 26, 2011) …item 2.. Scranton’s Public Workers’ Pay Cut to Minimum Wage (July 7, 2012) … (Photo credit: marsmet522)

The attraction may be the opposite of the target of contempt, or it may not. In other words, if I say that I have contempt for hot summers, maybe that means I really like cool winters very much, right? However, do people ever have contempt for hot summers?

Typically, contempt may actually be an extreme form of jealousy. What is jealousy? It is an obvious mixture of strong attraction and strong repulsion.

So, I may be extremely attracted to something, but then suppress that desire and express the desire through intense jealousy, which is not actually acting on the desire or attraction. I desire something strongly, then experience intense jealousy because of a “conflict” within me of both attraction and repulsion. (Typically the repulsion is simply fear, like if I am attracted to a particular person but I fear rejection by them or I fear being the target of criticism or injury if I act directly on the desire.)

“Jealousy and Flirtation” depicts a woman jealous of the attention given to another woman by a man. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If the attraction is not as immediate as in the case of jealousy (in which the primary energy of attraction is obvious), then I may manifest contempt toward whatever is attractive to me. I manifest contempt as a way to maintain a safe distance (even if I am curious or even obsessed- but from a distance).

For instance, many people may express extreme contempt for something (like government corruption), and yet eventually they get fascinated by the subject and begin to explore it occasionally and then voraciously, becoming obsessed. Even law enforcement personnel can be assigned to become an expert on a subject that disturbs them. If they are so disturbed by something that they have contempt for it, then they may not be very skilled as an investigator or analyst. They would be too disturbed by the subject to be calmly objective.

Attraction and repulsion in electricity (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, I could show contempt for something, but eventually the underlying attraction could create enough familiarity that the contempt shifts toward jealousy. If the repulsion of the jealousy also eventually diminishes, then all that would be left would be the originating impulse of the desire.

Keep in mind that a desire to avoid something is still a desire. A desire to prevent something is a desire. A desire to attack something or condemn something is of course still a desire. Every form of desire (impulse, magnetism, attraction) is desire.

English: Pendulum converts potential energy to kinetic energy and back. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many people say that only attraction is a form of desire. However, repulsion can also be considered a form of desire- or at least of magnetism, motivation, potential energy.

What is the difference between saying that the big rock at the top of a hill is attracted to the valley or repulsed from the peak? The difference is only a difference of perspective, of labels. The amount of the energy of attraction is always the same amount of energy as repulsion, for attraction and repulsion are relative terms (ways to label or relate to something). The intensity of energy is not changed by using the labels of attraction and repulsion.

Disgust (Photo credit: Jeremy Brooks)

It is like the score in a sporting event with two teams competing. If we say the team in the lead is ahead by 10 points, that is the same as saying that the team which is behind has 10 points less than the other team. The difference in the score is the same size difference no matter whether we talk about how big the lead is or how big the deficit is. The deficit and the lead both refer to the same thing, but in different words.

disgusting (Photo credit: orphanjones)

Contempt, jealousy, disgust, and desire all refer to energy. Intense energy can be labeled in a variety of ways, but no matter what labels are used, the actual energetic impulse is still the same. Even to use the word contempt is to manifest a repulsive or suppressive energy.

Both contempt and jealousy reveal desire. In the most basic sense, both contempt and jealousy are forms of desire- even if only a desire to avoid, prevent, criticize, withdraw, suppress, resist, or repel.

### Gratitude or Contempt? A brief comment on governments and currencies

April 7, 2013

Tasty Food Abundance in Healthy Europe (Photo credit: epSos.de)

As a brief point of background, I am not a farmer or fisherman. So, in other words, when I get hungry, I get food from other people- and mostly from stores.

English: Icon of U.S. currency. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Also, I use currency to conduct my business (to earn money) and then to spend to access food and so forth- like to use the internet, too. That currency is backed by the full faith and credit (and violence) of the government of the United States of America and their court systems of coercion and extortion (taxes)- and by nothing else.

However, that backing is enough. The latest US currency is in it’s 100th year of circulation, right?

6 Confederate States of America currency notes three $10 notes 3$20 notes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Consider that if the courts in the US stopped demanding tax payments in that US currency, then demand for the currency would plummet. As in the case of when the organized violence of the US Confederacy ceased to function, there was a collapse in the purchasing power of the currency (the Confederate Dollar) that their court systems demanded in payment for their tax extortion system of invented liabilities.

Anyway, I “need” the system to provide me food and electricity and internet service and so on (including currency). I did not build this house or this chair or this lamp or this keyboard.

So, I can thank “the system” for my wealth and my life and my internet connection. Or, I can condemn the system which provides me food and shelter and electricity and facebook.

Internet Access Here Sign (Photo credit: Steve Rhode)

My main choices are gratitude or contempt. That is basically it.

I can also choose to alter behaviors like my dietary practices. I could get food from farmers or gardeners instead of from a store- and sometimes I do- but not usually.

English: Logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2006) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But that also depends on the basic spiritual alternatives of gratitude or contempt. Shall I have so much contempt for the FDA (or USA or UN or CBS) that I invest huge amounts of time saying that I do not like their policies? If I am reacting to mainstream media provocations, then I probably would.  However, that would take time away from researching health and growing food and making more money, right?

English: Twenty dollar bill, currency issued by the Confederate States of America, engraved. Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I already gave a lot of sincere time and devotion to a religion of contempt and, frankly, what I learned from that is that gratitude is more functional than contempt. If you can learn from my mistakes, go ahead and choose gratitude over contempt. If you insist on learning from your own mistakes, then choose contempt over gratitude.

Rather than have contempt for the FDA or Monsanto or the government of the lobbyists, for the lobbyist and by the lobbyists, we could be grateful for even the smallest availability of high quality food- even if you have to be very diligent to find it. Your gratitude will lead you to networking with people (like me) who may even share some of our resources with you (like scientific insight as well as contacts to small, traditional farmers, etc…).

Or, you can invest in contempt. Expect to eventually serve jailtime for that or worse. Expect to have severely restricted dietary alternatives in jail. Expect to earn no money in jail. Expect to be evicted from wherever you have been living and have all your possessions auctioned to pay off your debts to your landlord (or to the bank that foreclosed on your home while you were in jail contemplating your next patriotically rebellious act of arrogant contempt).

Will eat for food (Photo credit: altemark)

Or, consider that contempt can be extremely expensive. Maybe it is just not worth the investment.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ve been in jail for arrogantly defying courts. So, if you are sincere in wanting to arrogantly defy courts, go ahead. I can’t condemn for being as naive as I have also been.

Plus, maybe I will start a bail bonds company to make money off of defiant, arrogant folks like you. Maybe I will lobby for CBS to promote defiance and arrogance and contempt.

Maybe I will even say that gratitude is for sissies and Republicans and ugly people. You do not want to be an ugly Republican sissy, do you? Then do not be grateful!

People with scowling looks of contempt are obviously the sexiest, right? People who are grateful are repulsive, right?

Ehdokas Merja Vanhanen (Keskusta) (Photo credit: Eurooppalainen Suomi ry)

Don’t be so grateful, PLEASE, because it is giving me a headache just to be around your quiet attentiveness. If you can’t find something negative to say, then please shut your dirty little lips before I throw heavy things at you.

Grateful people are what is wrong with the world today. They make me puke. I am so jealous of them that I have contempt for them.

Wait- did I just think that out loud? I’m sorry. I take that back. I am not jealous of you. I just hate you because you are wrong and evil and disgusting and… way more grateful than I am.

Grace and Gratitude (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

### Contempt: the pinnacle of all mental illness or ill will or sin

October 16, 2012

Contempt: the pinnacle of all mental illness or ill will or sin

What is the connection between rage, madness, mental illness, contempt, and ill will? First, what is contempt?

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying Santa Claus. Date approximate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Contempt is projected shame. When I am afraid to admit that I did not do something that I say “I should have done,” then there is nothing I can do to change the fact that I did not do whatever I did not do. If I condemn myself with some kind of idea that “I should have done something else,” there is no relief from that idea except for the release of that idea.

When I believe that I should have done something else but then do not want to experience the distress of facing my own self-condemnation, I may respond to any perceived threat by projecting that “should be different” accusation on to others in contempt. It is similar to blaming someone for a result that I experienced, except that blame may be “deserved,” as in “you did not tightly close the door behind you and now look what has happened!”

Contempt, like shame, cannot be easily balanced by future action. The labeling of something as “that should have never happened” is too intense to be balanced by any future action. The labeling itself either will persist or will be questioned and relax.

“Those people systematically use coercion against innocent civilians! It’s an outrage! We cannot stand by and let that happen. We need to seize the associates of those people and hold them hostage and threaten to kill them if those other people do not stop terrorizing innocent civilians.”

It’s ironic, huh? I’m not even condemning or shaming contempt, by the way, but I am noting the dangerous addictiveness of it. It is certainly something to be wary of.

I was already exploring subjects like this (see my recent blogs) when someone recently asked me about a famous fellow named Jiddu Krishnamurti. I am familiar with him and yes I do “believe in” the kind of things that he promoted: introspection and personal responsibility as being subjects that are potentially economical (practically valuable, worthy of time and resources).

I also am clear how ridiculously strange it is that a movie like Zeitgeist would take quotes and clips of him talking about inner revolutions in language, psychology, and spirituality and then use that content to promote contempt and hysteria against “the system” or against any society or social tradition. Jiddu Krishnamurti called many social traditions silly, like I might say about literalists worshiping Santa Claus, but that kind of dismissal is not full of contempt and political rage. For a person who clearly spoke out against ill will and contempt and political rage and other mental illness such as shame to be used in the promoting of those same patterns is quite ironic, quite tragic, and yet also quite comic.

He was not saying that Santa must be defeated but that “hey by now we realize that there is no Santa except as a playful myth or game for influencing the behavior of naive children, so lets just move on rather than agonize about Santa and how to save the world from Santa or save the world for Santa.” His passionate dismissal of literalism is to contrast an alternative to literalism, not to start a new Holy Roman Imperial military inquisition crusade to politically and economically destroy the literalists. He had compassion for all people -even those that we might call fanatic literalists – while also having a clear appreciation of the risk of the addictive error or sin of literalism as a practice.

Annie Besant arrives in Charing Cross Station, London with Jiddu Krishnamurti, his younger brother Nityananda, and George Arundale, prominent Theosophist and tutor to the boys. (Picture and caption appear on page 84 of Krishanmurti: The Years of Awakening by Mary Lutyens) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

He staunchly rebuked fanaticism and contempt. They go together. Contempt is something of personal fanaticism to vilify some perceived threat. Those who are not in a panic of desperately and hysterically clinging to some idolatrous sacred principle will never manifest a personal contempt. The contempt is like a fruit which shows the type of tree, or a symptom that indicates the spiritual momentum or karma of a desperate, panicked, hysterical clinging to some form of innocent sincere but entirely inaccurate fanatical literalism.

Confusion indicates a false presumption. To confuse one thing for something else, but not yet know the source of the interpretative mistake is confusion.

Frustration indicates the same: a mistaken literalism, a hysterical attachment to a particular interpretation or label. Blame and jealousy and contempt are all totally predictable forms of spiritual distress or hysterical sin that arise from an innocent idolatry of fanatical literalism.

What kind of statement indicates confusion? “I think that something is WRONG here.”

Only when “something is wrong” (the indicator of a confusion- typically a frustrating confusion), is there any relevance to project one’s own frightened guilt on to the villain to blame for “making my totally accurate presumptions suddenly no longer consistent with reality.” Well, maybe those presumptions are not totally accurate after all. Maybe my linguistic labeling should not be given priority over reality. Maybe “what should not be” about reality is not reality ruining reality, but just reality revealing an inaccurate expectation or presumption.

In contrast, those who are clear what god is and how god is related to language and all the other branches of god are free of all false beliefs and free of the psychological fruits of those false beliefs for they have the clarity of direct personal revelation which is faith.

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic (Photo credit: jakebouma)

Faith does not need other people’s approval. Faith is not frustrated if other people are not interested or not responsive. Faith is not desperately trying to get in to an eternal heaven that is presumed to be elsewhere.

Faith is the fruit of the kingdom of heaven AKA kingdom of god, which are just English translations of ancient metaphors that precede the written recording of the Talmudand Torah and Gitas. One who is clear about the simplicity of the doctrines cannot be confused by imprecise translations or literalists who resist the idea that word are symbols that can be used quite differently over a few hundred or few thousand years.

Biblical Accuracy (Photo credit: swanksalot)

I was somewhat shocked when I learned what the Hebrew word Israel originally means. I was not shocked to learn that the Hebrew word for divinity (what we translate in to English as god or lord or savior) is the same as the Sanskrit Brahman, as in the inclusive reality which is beyond time (eternal) and locality (omnipresent) and identity (so it is almighty without any conflicting power to threaten it, as in omnipotent).

That many worship a personal savior like Santa Claus is fine. Many Hindus do not know what Brahman means and so anyone who talks to them might conclude that they are all literalist fanatics who all worship a trinity of three gods: the creator father, the sustainer holy spirit, and the destroyer son, plus they have all these different saints and holidays like worshiping Santa Claus and St Patrick and Saint Valentine and yet they claim to be monotheistic. You ask the average Hindu to explain and clearly they are just following some ancient rituals without comprehending the metaphors.

It is like trying to learn Christianity from the average Christian who has never studied the Talmud and has no comprehension of Isaiah or Abraham and thus have ridiculous fanaticism about Jesus instead of demonstrating the faith of Jesus and discipline of Jesus and spirit of Jesus. It is all totally predictable. What else could we reasonably expect?

If we experience it over and over and over, then maybe it is a pattern to learn from, rather than just a threat to the desperation and mental ill will that goes with literal fanaticism. Contempt is ill will. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke about it passionately, but as a warning against it, just like Isaiah and Moses and so many others warned about it passionately.

### Ideals, Idealism, and Responsibility

July 22, 2012

Ideals, Idealism, and Responsibility
Ideals are completely natural. For example, consider when someone uses a cell phone and then they say something like “Ideally, my cell phone would have excellent reception no matter where I am.” That is stating an ideal.
An ideal is just an idea of a possible attractive outcome or circumstance. “Ideally, I would have fully charged my cell phone’s battery last night, but I did not charge it at all.”
So, ideals are natural and useful. If I conclude that it would be ideal to have a fully charged battery every morning, I can then take actions that corespond to that outcome (that ideal).
That is not idealism. That is just recognizing some ideas and some priorities and some preferences and some ideals.

frustration. (Photo credit: nicole.pierce.photography ♥)

So what is idealism? Idealism is a particular way of relating to ideals.
Imagine that I expect my battery charger for my cell phone to last forever. If it stops working, then what do I do? Do I get embarrassed and then blame someone for causing my embarrassment?
I might say: “Can’t these people just make a cell phone battery that lasts forever? Why do I even need to use a charger? Seriously, why didn’t you pack my other charger? WHY?!”

Closeup of a female speaking outside on a cell phone. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The frightened embarrassment can lead to frustration, which can lead to blaming and that can lead to resentment and contempt. We can blame the scientists for not inventing a battery that never loses it’s charge. We can blame the government or the neighbor or the foreignors or the devil.
If all of them fulfilled my ideals for me, then I would not be responsible for fulfilling them myself, right? I can resent them for blocking me, for failing me, for not doing what they should and for doing what they should not.
That resenting is based on idealism, not on the ideals themselves. Resenting is not responsibility. Resenting is not being responsible for recognizing my ideals (or priorities) and then exploring methods that fulfill the ideals.
We all can understand that it can be frustrating when life does not go how we might think it would be ideal. Some people might respond to that frustration by saying “just think positive and be grateful for what you do have. Maybe it is for the best that you just accept that your ideals do not fit with what has been happening. Just abandon your ideals. Just pretend to be happy while you are resigned and cynical and hopeless.”
Okay, people may not say all of that, but people often say some of those things. All of those things are still idealism. Anything except being responsible for fulfilling ideals is not being responsible for fulfilling on ideals.
There is a special form of idealism that many people experience: the ideal of having no ideals. That is a natural ideal like any other ideal. I may recognize that ideals are somehow connected to frustration and contempt, and then I recognize that, ideally, I would minimize or avoid frustration and contempt, so why not just remove all ideals?
Of course, that form of idealism may be the most frustrating of all. However, the intensity of the frustration can lead to the recognition of the function of ideals. Ideals organize our activity. Ideals organize our activities, which produce our results. So, we could say that ideals inform our results.

Icon and Hope of a new generation (Photo credit: Liamfm . (Stop the Genocide In Syria))

If someone recognizes the ideal of minimizing or avoiding frustration and contempt, one experiment in fulfilling on that ideal is the idea of suppressing or reversing all ideals (or at least all other ideals except for the ideal of having no frustration or contempt). That may not ever work, but people may keep trying it and then keep hoping for it to start working- thinking positively (“malignant optimism”) and so on.
But having ideals is not the source of frustration and resentment and contempt. The source of frustration and resentment and contempt is the activity of relating to ideals as if they should aready be fulfilled- relating to them idealistically rather than realistically.
Some ideals are realized, if only temporarily. Some may never get fulfilled. Some may only get fulfilled through exploration of innovative methods.

Resentment (Photo credit: _Yogu)

“But I should not have to change methods. The methods that are most familiar to me used to work just fine for me. It’s that one political party that is to blame for my old familiar method no longer working for me!”
That is a perfectly natural conclusion to make, right, which may be why it is so popular? However, sometimes it is simply easier to change one’s own methods than to change the activities of hundreds or millions of ther people. Even if one changes the activities of hundreds or millions of other people, it may be best to occasionally change one’s own methods, like getting a new cell phone occasionally, like once every ten years.
Idealism is basically the ideal that “I should not have to be responsible for producing the results that I value.” It is a perfectly natural ideal, right? What could be more convenient than if your parents did everything for you for your whole life, or if your government did everything for you, or if your employer did everything for you, or if your customers did not pay so much attention to your competitors? What if your life was already exactly a perfect fit for your ideals? What if your ideals were already a perfect fit for your life? Wouldn’t that be ideal?
Maybe…. Maybe it is natural to have the ideal that someone else (a group or an individual) should be solely responsible for producing the results you value. Maybe it is natural to expect other people to already know exactly what you value most and also to know when your values change. It may be natural, but is it ideal?

Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883). Osho on Karl Marx and Communism. (Photo credit: artist in doing nothing)

What if the person or people who have been resposible for your life are eventually no longer available? What if they die? What if their cell phone battery dies? What if their cell phone reception suddenly falters?
Consider a new ideal. Consider that idealism is required to produce the recogniton of the ideal of responsiblity. The ideal of responsibility does not exclude other people’s responsibility, but it includes me as the primary author of responsibility for the results produced by the methods active in my life (as my life). If I am responsible for my life, then perhaps I can contribute to the lives of others responsibly as well.
Idealism mght include an idea like “I should contribute to others.” That is not required. Ideally, my life already is contributing to the lives of other people.
My influence on other people may include perpetuating experiences of frustration and resentment and contempt. Or, I may inspire them. Or, I may challenge them. Or, I may inspire them and then challenge them.

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948), political and spiritual leader of India. Location unknown. Français : Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), Guide politique et spirituel de l’Inde. Lieu inconnu. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mahatma Gandhi is reported to have said “Be the change that you want to see in the world.” I do not know whether he also said “You and the world are overlapping, not two isolated objects. When you change, the whole world is changing too because you are part of the whole world. When you notice a change in any part of the world, that is already you changing within it. It is impossible for you not to change the world. You are already changing the world. Also, you are the world changing. When you change, that is the world changing through you. When you perceive an ideal, that is the world perceiving an ideal through you. When you experience frustration, that is the world experiencing frustration through you. When you resent anything, that is the world resenting through you. When you have contempt for anything, that is the world having contempt through you. When you are responsible, that is the world being responsible through you.”

### shaming shame

July 10, 2012

Shaming comes in many forms: anti-selfishness shaming, anti-pride shaming, anti-ego shaming, anti-fear shaming, anti-grief shaming, anti-vulnerabiliy shaming, anti-violence shaming, anti-passivity shaming, anti-hostility shaming, anti-homosexuality shaming, anti-homophobia shaming,  anti-Republican shaming, anti-Democrat shaming,  anti-negativity shaming, anti-evil shaming, anti-crime shaming, anti-poverty shaming, anti-shame shaming and so on.

<Published on: May 2, 2012>

All of those targets of shaming are just possible targets of the mode of relating calling shaming, which is basically a type of fear or distress or hysteria. Anything could be the target of shaming, and the targets vary with age or developmental maturity as well as within cultures and subcultures. Popular targets of shame could include:  anything socially unusual (especially if it is physically visible, like disfigurement or the inability to walk), nudity (especially of physically mature females), feces, snot, blood, farting, accents and speech impediments, place of origin, skin color, obesity, diet, religious affiliation, political affiliation, sexuality, death, emotions, thoughts, species, star systems, geographic locations, colors, temperatures, numbers, shapes, poverty, wealth, “the love of money,” etc….

For instance, in music the harmonic relationship called a “flat fifth” is considered too disturbing (dissonant) for certain audiences and thus was considered shameful to use, at least in the midst of sensitive or immature audiences. In 18th century Europe, that musical interval was widely known as the devil’s interval (or Satan‘s interval). The sound was considered repulsive, “oppressive”, “scary”, and “evil.”

### See Tritone – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Likewise, other targets of superstition (or alert) in western cultures are the number 13, which is considered “bad luck,” and the number 666, which is a number invested with tremendous power and associated with shame in some cultures, as is the swastika (at least the clockwise Nazi variation). Here are a few shapes, some of which people in various cultures have been taught to associate with shame (terror, hysteria, etc):

A written character of the Chinese language representing the number 10,000.

http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/13/132.html

English: Swastika in NATOsymbol Deutsch: Swastika im NATOsymbol (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Shaming is also called things like the spirit of divisiveness and antagonism and contentiousness and hatred, or the diabolical spirit of the devil. In Christian terminology, the English word shame is not often used in the New Testament translations, but Jesus repeatedly references the behavioral process of shaming:

” I am saying to you, that everyone who will be angry against his brother without cause is condemned before the judge, and everyone who will say to his brother, ‘I spit on you’, is condemned before the assembly, and whoever will say ‘You fool.’ is condemned to the Gehenna of fire [the hell of distress or rage or animosity or resentment].” Matthew 5:22

http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.htm

Note that I consider that above common translation in to English as potentially erroneous. Momentary anger is natural and normal. However, blame, resentment, jealousy and contempt are dangerous. Anger itself is not impure. “To the one who  is pure, all things are pure,” right? However, contempt is distinct from a momentary anger resulting from disappointment and fright. Consider the parent angry with their child for walking toward a busy intersection with automobiles. That moment of anger (“HEY!”) is loving, with fright present as well. That is not the sinful contempt or “shaming” that Jesus was actually referencing in Matthew 5:22.

Not only is Jesus warning people away from the activity of shaming, but he is also threatening them with punishment (shame) in the form of condemnation by the assembly, the jury, the congregation, and one’s peers. Jesus repeatedly shames the Pharisees as orthodox hypocrites whose worship is vanity (pretentious idolatry) and he also shames those who are gathered to execute someone who has been accused of the death-penalty crime of prostitution:

They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm

“Do not condemn.” http://bible.cc/luke/6-37.htm

Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

The English word shame appears only 3 times in the New Testament (at least in the following English translations). The first quote contains the word shame twice:

27For God has chosen the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and he has chosen the weak of the world to shame the mighty.”http://erv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/1.htm

“I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues?”http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-5.htm

Note that those uses of the word shame are in regard to rebukes, not contempt or personal animosity and a divisiveness of spirit.

If there is shame regarding a particular pattern, such as the imperialist tyranny symbolized by the Nazi Swastika to Westerners, then the shame would prevent the recognition of one’s own involvement in a system of imperialist tyranny or even from recognizing the presence of the such an imperialist tyranny. Note the rage typical of “reactionary patriots” as they trace back the reality of tyranny through the history of their own home nation: current tyranny, recent tyranny, distant past tyranny, original tyranny, etc….

In the US, those ashamed of tyranny tend to represent tyranny as being something in the distant past (prior to the American Revolution and conducted only by those evil British loyalists or perhaps those rebellious slave-owning Confederates, not to be confused with the slave-owning founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, considered to be the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence). Further, those most hysterically ashamed of tyranny consider it something that must be constantly guarded against as a possible future, which tends to be an extremely exhausting use of energy and attention.

For those who have the maturity to perceive, new dimensions of reality may be revealed. For those who argue in terror and shame that they already “know it all,” they may eventually learn otherwise.

St George Swastika (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Swastika It symbolizes Harmony, Lord Ganesh has it on his right hand. Differs from other uses of swastika by the four dots inside each of the four arms. Also, it is always drawn with the four inner arms at 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees on the compass, unlike other inscriptions where the inner arms are in the form of an ‘X’. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

###### Related articles
The Hindu Swastika Symbol. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Double swastika from the wall of the XII c. church in Kruszwica. Polski: Podwójna swastyka na ścianie kolegiaty z XII w. w Kruszwicy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://www.castlesandmanorhouses.com/castles/bran

Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia , more commonly known as Dracula, was a three-time voivode of Wallachia, ruling mainly from 1456 to 1462.

Historically, Vlad is best known for his resistance against the Ottoman Empire and its expansion] and for the cruel punishments he imposed on his enemies. In the English-speaking world, Vlad III is most commonly known for inspiring the association of the name of the vampire in Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula.

Vlad’s Russian surname Dracula, the name he was referred to in several surviving documents, means “Son of the dragon”, and points to his father, Vlad Dracul, who received that epithet from his subjects because he had joined the Order of the Dragon. Dracul, from the Latin word Draco, meaning “dragon”, is derived from the Greek word Δράκων (Drakon), though in modern Romanian Dracon means “devil”. His other epithet Tepes or Impaler originated in his killing opponents by impalement. In Turkish, he was known as “Kazıklı Voyvoda” which means “Impaler Prince”.

On September 26, 1459, Pope Pius II called for a new crusade against the Ottomans and on January 14, 1460, at the Congress of Mantua, His Holiness proclaimed the official crusade that was to last for three years. His crusade failed and the only European leader that showed enthusiasm for it was Vlad Tepes, whom the Pope held in high regard.

In the West, Vlad III Tepes has been characterized as a tyrant who took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing his enemies. Estimates of the number of his victims ranges from 40,000 to 100,000.

Above: mutilated bodies left on public display as a warning near the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

http://www.jalaybi.com/2009/05/25/bloody-intersection/

Lynching in the US (Indiana) on August 7, 1930.

http://www.nathanielturner.com/strangefruit.htm

### crisis, respect, and contempt

July 4, 2012

You may have noticed a crisis of respect emerging. Many people lately may speak of a financial crisis or economic crisis. However, perhaps there has been a crisis in a lack of respect for the instability of certain economic patterns and trends. People who respected certain instabilities have not been surprised by economic developments while many people who did not respect those instabilities have been surprised and disappointed in the results of their choices.

Maybe there has been too much respect for idealistic presumptions and not enough respect for realistic measurements. Maybe there has been not enough respect for competent financial analysts and too much respect for the commission-earning salespeople that entice the naive in to hysterical gambling on real estate with high-risk mortgages that have led to a huge increase in bankruptcies in recent years.

Certainly, there has been a financial crisis for many people and many business as well as the governments of many

Cover of Contempt [Blu-ray]

countries. However, some people have been cautious and conservative, leading them to benefit from the same changes that have produced a crisis for so many.

So, a financial crisis has developed, but in some places more than others. In Alaska, high fuel prices have led to a unprecedented surplus and profit. In Arizona, high fuel prices led instead to a reversal to the prior trend of suburban sprawl.

In any particular place, some people have had above average results for that place and some people have had below average results. Could it be that the social crisis is producing a shift in what people respect most?

You may have noticed a lack of respect for many things: a lack of respect for other people, a lack of respect for the power of courts and militaries (organized use of weapons), a lack of respect for the influence of language, and even a lack of respect for science and technology.

Some groups are losing respect faster than others: mainstream churches have decreasing participation, mainstream media is losing market share as the internet balloons in popularity, and mainstream politicians are losing respect very fast in some places. The masses are increasingly skeptical of how well governments in places like Greece and Japan will be able to keep their promises.

Further, many mainstream politicians have a habit of publicly criticizing other mainstream politicians, especially during “primary” elections. If the politicians do not respect each other, is it any mystery that so many people would tire of the cycle of optimistic campaign promises and finger-pointing to explain the lack of fulfillment of the promises? Likewise, if mainstream religious leaders do not even respect each other, will they attract the respect of anyone but the most loyal believers?

We are in the midst of a crisis of respect. Many people have invested their hope in huge bureaucracies to be responsible for them, like the socialized health care programs of the Soviet Union. When that union dissolved, the hopes and dreams of many patriotic Soviets also dissolved.

In my life, I have interacted with many religious leaders of many denominations. Not only do many religious leaders lack

W.C. Fields (Photo credit: twm1340)

respect for other religions, but also for politicians. When religious leaders join the choir of contempt toward politicians and governments, again, that may be a factor in people withdrawing their respect for those political leaders.

Note that I am not condemning condemnation. It is quite functional to rebuke a beloved child who is endangering itself naively, right? However, rebuking naivete is very distinct from people presenting themselves as religious leaders and yet inciting contempt among their congregation toward specific people and groups.

Is it the functional priority of religious leaders to incite contempt for people elsewhere? Did the most faithful religious leaders in the USSR incite contempt for the Nazis while the most faithful religious leaders in Germany incited contempt for the Soviets?

Inciting contempt is one thing that can happen. Media celebrities may incite contempt, including the media celebrities that are politicians. However, if a religious leader is faithful, would they incite contempt or rebuke contempt?

We are in the midst of a crisis of contempt. We are facing not just a lack of respect, but the presence of contempt.

What is there to do about it? One thing to do is to respect the addictive power of contempt.

Contempt arises from a mistaken presumption. If I have a false presumption about life and then life does not arise as I presumed that it would, contempt is possible.

In contrast, if I have no presumptions about life, then life will surprise me consistently, but I would never experience contempt just for being surprised. Contempt is a response to being ashamed. When I am making presumptions and then one of the presumptions is corrected by life, I may be not just surprised, but also embarrassed or ashamed at having made a false presumption and having the inaccuracy of the presumption exposed by life.

I may resist recognizing that I have made a false presumption. I may struggle against life to make it fit my presumption- or at least hide any aspects of my life that do not fit my presumptions. I may blame other people for being responsible for life being inconsistent with my presumptions. I may be afraid and invite attention and assistance, even by blaming and whining and raging.

Who can face my contempt and still show me respect, even if rebuking me? Who can I trust? Who can I trust to be a faithful religious leader?

Who will recognize the crisis of contempt as also a crisis of a lack of respect, even a lack of maturity? Who will lead a revolution away from contempt and toward respect? If not us, then who?

English: A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

### respect for the religious politics of contempt

June 23, 2012

Respect implies attention and awareness. Respect is not the same as worship.

Respect is also quite distinct from contempt, which is rooted in fear and distress. Respect does not preclude complaint or even protest, but respectful complaining is distinct from contemptuous protesting.

We can say things like “respect tradition” or “respect the law” or “respect authority.” Let’s take a moment to respect our ancestry and the origin of the physical organism of a human (before we get in to “religious politics”).

English: Deciduous mandibular central incisors in a baby (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A primitive human in a remote setting may be raised from newborn to adult and in that entire time may only meet several dozen people. Like with any other mammal, the mother of a newborn human will typically be the one to nurse the newborn and otherwise interact most with the baby.

With some mammals, the mother typically goes in to seclusion to give birth and then takes actions to provide for the safety and nourishment of the newborns with no outside assistance. However, with humans, pregnancy can leave a woman extremely vulnerable, so it is common during and after pregnancy for a human woman to be assisted and supported by other people, such as her husband, her parents, her extended biological family, and even her community of “familiar” associates.

In modern civilizations, there may be a much larger network of individuals who contribute to any mother’s ability to nourish their offspring. There may be small groups or huge industries with specialized expertise at housing, warming, feeding, clothing, and organizing many people, including the mothers of newborns and those newborns.

Using an amazing development called human language, even primitive adults may organize in to small groups that accompany each other in gathering food, perhaps sharing in the bounty. For instance, they may organize together to hunt animals that would be dangerous or impractical for an individual to hunt. One participant with special experience and intelligence may successfully instruct the other participants to perform a variety of tasks, with each task contributing to the effectiveness of the entire process.

So, individuals are born in to an existing society. The society may have already developed a culture of typical behavior patterns including certain complex patterns of interpersonal behavior called spoken language. Through language, humans may organize to cooperate in furthering the well-being of themselves and their associates. Further, two or more groups of humans cooperating through the use of language may encounter each other and may even merge together or compete with each other.

Of course, competition is not limited to groups of humans. With many mammals, it is not unusual for one pregnancy to produce several offspring at once. If the mother does not have enough milk (or enough teats) for all of the offspring to thrive, then there may quickly be a sorting of the offspring from the healthiest and most physically strong (typically the firstborn) to the least competitive: the runts of the litter.

For modern humans, such competition is not typical from birth. Human infants are generally incapable of much physical competition. Further, most human pregnancies result in only one offspring.

However, the ability of a newborn human to cry is taken as an important sign of health. The reason is simple enough. Realistically, one of the first ways that a human infant will compete with other humans for the attention of their mother is by crying. The crying may not be to compete against any twins or triplets born at the same time, but to compete with other human demands and requests for the attention of the mother.

So, to the extent that a growing infant depends on the mother, the infant may compete for her attention and nurturing (nursing). The nurturing supplied by the mother may be quite adequate such that there is no demand for competitiveness to develop in the infant. Or, the nurturing supplied by the mother may not satisfy the physiological demand by the infant, producing a relatively high frequency of crying and other adaptions. More intense crying goes with more severe nutritional issues.

Nutrition 103 (Photo credit: Andrew Simpson)

While many modern women may not be aware of this because of the rarity within modern civilization, it has been reported that in many primitive cultures, it is not typical for a well-nourished newborn to wake up several times per night to nurse. Why? One factor is that a well-nourished mother produces milk that is nourishing enough for a newborn to sleep soundly throughout an entire night. The major difference between a calm, happy, alert baby and a sleepless, distressed, hungry baby may be the quality of nourishment from the breast milk of a well-nourished mother. That makes sense, right? Well, it is almost true, but not quite.

In researching this topic, I found that for a healthy sleep, the quality of the breathing is several times more important than nourishment. Note that people who do not sleep on their backs with heads raised tend to breath through their mouths and snore. They also tend to experience nightmares and wake suddenly at night to find their mouth dry. Why is their mouth dry? Because they have been breathing through their mouth all night. This “starves” the brain of oxygen. Nightmares (and the vibration of intense snoring) are nature’s signal to shut the mouth (to properly elevate the head before falling asleep).

http://www.westonaprice.org/notes-from-yesteryear/100-years-before-weston-price

So, consider the typical facial expression associated with idiocy/drowsiness/dopiness/dope abuse: a mouth hanging open, slack jaw, eyebrows slightly raised. Do not sleep like that! Let your sleep be restful (restorative), not “restless” (further depleting you in to a metabolic condition of “chronic fatigue”).

Human brain (Photo credit: EUSKALANATO)

So, let’s return to the subject of culture. Obviously, there are cultures which are so prosperous that huge populations can be supported, even if the health of those populations is far below that of the typical primitive. The large populations have the advantage of advanced language development leading to intricate divisions of labor and an “economy of scale.”

Within the life of any modern individual human, there is typically a huge network of other humans involved in the everyday life of each one: such as networks that gather and distribute food, water, and even electricity. Even with a remote rural ranch on the outskirts of civilization, there may be many materials created by other humans (housing, vehicles, tires, batteries, solar panels, wells, shovels, tubing, glass windows, propane appliances, propane tanks, etc…).

There may develop a culture of contempt: not just a lack of respect for the vast network of biology and humanity supports each individual organism, but an ironic rage toward the human portion of the network. The rage tends to be ironic (as it was in my own case) because of the intense “pro-ecology” subculture. What is ironic about that? Systems of human economy are not outside of ecological systems. Systems of human economy are the most recent innovation within the ecological system on this planet. To condemn human economies as unecological is like condemning the letter z for being unalphabetical.

So, shall we then have contempt for cultures of contempt? That would only be another irony. We can respect the emphasis of each culture of linguistic behavior (“thinking”): the culture of infantile ignorance (which is the essential stage of reflexive development prior to any others), then the culture of adolescent rebellion, experimentation, arrogance, and contempt (like withdrawing from society through travel abroad or “dropping out” so as to develop an appreciation of rudimentary principles of ecological interdependence), and finally (?) a culture of respect and dignity, recognizing all systems of human economy as systems of ecological interdependence.

Do human groups compete against each other? Yes, and they compete with intricate cooperation through armies and political parties and court systems and other businesses.
Note that from an ecological perspective, all governing operations are fundamentally commercial- rooted in currency systems of involuntary tax extortion rackets. This is not a condemnation, but a recognition.

Further, all religious institutions and rituals are also fundamentally economic. In fact, there is no human activity that is outside of the realms of ecology and economy. Every linguistic pattern is a development in neuro-chemistry. Neuro-chemistry is fundamentally ecological.

Each religious practice develops in the context of specific conditions for which it is adaptive. All of them involve language. In cultures which do not have any religious practices originating directly from native speakers of that language, there may be other institutions fulfilling the functions typical of “religion.”

In the extended British Empire which has spread the English language so widely across this planet, governments serve the primary functions typical of primitive religion. Government officers, not tribal elders, give official power or authorization to marriages, to birth, to death, and so on. Government officers perform rituals of human sacrifices (executions), with any unauthorized practices of ritual human sacrifice being regulated and, in some cases, punished by government bureaucrats.

Religion was the first advance in human ecology to create bureaucracy. Language was more fundamental than religion. Modern civilized bureaucracies have advanced technologically so far that some of them are prosperous enough to ignore the cultural variations of language groups and religious denominations.

Consider how unusual it is within human history that there is so little concern for the activities of an individual. Individuals within huge civilizations are not valued as they would be in a small tribe or village facing intense issues of scarcity and inter-group competition. Individuals who are unable to contribute might either be abandoned or sacrificed (killed). Consider that throughout all forms of life- not just humans- while a father might sometimes sacrifice his own life for his only child, a mother might not sacrifice all of her healthiest children in order to save the one least reproductively viable offspring.

While some religious hierarchies might teach the lower class to sacrifice themselves like that, that is against the instinctive rules of evolution. Note that those religions tend to train celibate males as the vehicles or agents of their systems of indoctrination, inquisition, torture and crusade (“holy” wars by “holy” empires). Note also that the economic supporters of those institutions may not practice behavior that complies with the training given at mass (the ritual gatherings), through mass media indoctrination, or public education of mass propaganda rituals.

However, in many developed civilizations, there is currently incredible prosperity and tremendous practical respect for the individual, with extensive accommodations for individuals who are not fluent in the dominant language, as well as extensive accommodations for individuals unable to support themselves economically, such as children, retirees, and the severely disabled and mentally “handicapped” (“developmentally unable”). Modern civilization prides itself on it’s prosperity and generosity. Perhaps that is a psychological compensation or distraction for the patterns of behavior promoted by the global elite (the 1% of humanity earning $34,000 per year or more) in their organizing of the economic activities of the other 99%, who produces so much of the exclusive luxury of the elite (food, clothing, electronics, etc). We may be most concerned about what we see in our midst: the treatment of the local minority populations. Why? They are physically close to us and their loyalty is much more economically relevant than that of distant peasants thousands of miles away. In developed cultures, the elite direct the attention of the middle classes toward being charitable toward the lower classes. The most able of the dependent lower classes are then recruited for the activities of military imperialism in developing nations (mostly) that allow for the developed culture to prosper through the economic “development” of those foreign regions (industrial resources, agriculture, textile manufacturing, etc). The media can be instructed to stir up controversy and conflict about outsourcing of “our” manufacturing jobs. The ecologist and economist can agree completely on the above patterns of actual behavior. Of course, publicizing such obvious and clear distinctions is not economically advantageous to the sustainability of the system of inequity. These “inflammatory” patterns of language must be either openly censored or at least loudly ridiculed and quietly silenced. Mythology and propaganda about how the systems fights economic inequality (or at least should) must be instilled in the middle classes. The elaborate systems of involuntary wealth redistribution prosper through organized coercion. The more effective the propaganda, the less value there would be for costly expenditures of direct coercion against the domestic populations for criminalized behaviors such as the consumption of alcohol or marijuana, or the performance of homosexual acts, or whatever other behaviors can be vilified through the various instruments of public influence. Typically, the elite may be the most frequent practitioners of the criminalized behaviors, but because of their personal connections, as long as they are valuable, loyal participants in the systems of secret influence, they would either not be prosecuted or would be given official pardons after conviction. In other cases, fringe members of the elite who are not sufficiently loyal can be scandalized through mass media accusations that may or may not have any connection to actual historical events. The modern mass media is the primary instrument of organizing the behavior of the masses. Due to technological advances in printing, radio, TV, and recently the internet, the value of in-person indoctrination through religious ritual has diminished considerably. Celibate male missionaries and priests are still popular in expanding the empire of the militant Holy Roman bureaucracies in to the third world. However, within the developed world, the primary agents of ritual indoctrination for over 100 years have been public school teachers. Note that while the popular mythology is of course in favor of public schooling, it is still compulsory in most if not all of the developed world (with non-compliance punishable by criminal prosecution, fines, and incarceration). The success of the system speaks for itself. Large population increases have manifested within the developed world as well as immense population expansions within the more distant parts of the Holy Roman empire, especially the Asian branch of British influence (Indo-China). However, the sustainability of the system may be in question. Was there a time in the last few centuries when there were no conspiracy theories about an elite plot to reduce some or all human populations? Are those conspiracies only theoretical or quite obvious? For several hundred years, certain groups with notable concentrations of economic influence may have contrived conflicts of various size for the specific purposes of advancing their economic interests and simultaneously reducing the population of able-bodied lower class males who might grow in to revolutionaries and criminals and so on. Did Machiavelli invent politics? Thousands of years before him, did Sun Tzu invent deceptive methods of governing human behavior (“politics”)? Well, many religious traditions are much older than that. You can consider for yourself whether commentaries about being good for Santa Claus and eternal torment in hell for the disobedient are deceptive mythologies or sacred principles to argue over and to be defended to the death through suicide bombing of unresponsive foreign infidels who arrogantly resist liberation by the mercenaries of the Holy Empire of ritual militant bureaucracy. Respect the holy mercenaries of organized coercion. When their propagandists publicize inflammatory controversies to incite protest and rebellion, thus justifying the next advance of tyranny, respect that as well. If you are reading this, you are probably the beneficiary recipient of an immense technological prosperity of economically developed civilization. You probably only have the luxury of reading this and having the intelligence to comprehend it if you are among the top 1% of the global elite who receive at least$34,000 per year in revenues.

You have been trained to practice contempt. Do you dare to rebel against rebellion by respecting the interests and methods of the enormous concentrations of economic affluence that lead the advance of civilization?

Respect the power of contempt. They do.

Cultivating contempt may be the single most important method of the modern propagandist. To be able to arouse contempt and then direct it toward certain accused enemies or accused traitors is the essence of “religious politics.”

“Here is who you must fear: ________ (AKA the Devil). Here is who you must allow to protect you from the one you must fear: ________ (AKA the Savior, The Hero, the Holy Candidate, the Super-friends League of Justice etc). Here is how we are going to protect you from the one you must fear: _________.”

Contempt is not rooted in anger so much as fear, from which frustration, blame, anger, and contempt arise as more and more dense concentrations of fear. Contempt is a very extreme form of fear, including self-contempt.
When a global empire is preparing to supplant an existing system of militant bureaucracy, demoralizing the masses is an essential step of the process. The faith of the masses must be converted to shame. The existing system must be demonized, vilified, and even criminalized by “a higher law” (such as international laws, courts, treaties, and conventions, all declaring the language of “basic human rights,” as defined by the leading propagandists of the Holy empire of organized governing, such as the League of Nations or United Nations or Council for Global Peace or whatever names the propagandists may use).

I’m certain that one of the most basic human rights promoted by any decent propagandist must be the right of all humans to be completely liberated from the dangers of fraudulent deceptions involving the use of language. Fortunately, the upright, authorized agents of the Holy empire of the global police state will be happy to assist you in promoting all of your fundamental human rights, and indeed they require a small contribution under penalty of law, the precise amount of which you will be promptly informed and then of course compelled to provide.

Of course, a certain amount of rebellion must be cultivated, directed, and then publicized with all of the fake contempt that is relevant, if any. The masses must be trained in the proper targets for their contempt.

Within the lower classes, a snitch is a primary target of contempt. Within the middle class, a white-collar criminal (like for tax evasion or fraud) is a primary target of contempt. Within the upper bureaucracies of the Holy Empire, disloyalty is a primary target of contempt.

New Agers must be trained to have contempt for competition. Pregnant mothers (except of the ruling class) must be trained to have contempt for primitive cultures, especially their respect for developmental physiology.

### what is the devil?

January 6, 2012
• Image via Wikipedia

Origin:
before 900;
Middle English devel, Old English dēofol  < Late Latin dia-bolus  < Greek diá-bolos
to assault someone’s character, slander, accuse,
(to vilify, to shame, to relate to from a spirit of contempt)
Of the various categories of human action, one can label some bad or evil or any one of many labels that may be more or less extreme in their connotations. You may even think that the acts themselves are inherently evil or good or diabolical or bad or pure or heroic, which is exactly what you have been trained to do. However, occasionally people may disagree or even change their perception as to whether a particular event was heroic or evil or what.
I know what the root of the word devil is, as in dia-bolos (shown above). I know what it means (shown above).
It is a reference to labeling something bad as if that thing is inherently bad, rather than recognizing the labeling as one valid way of relating to something. It is a very, very simple linguistic issue- elementary, fundamental, self-evident, but perhaps only rarely recognized.

So, when politicians demonize other politicians (the “enemy”), that may be intentional propaganda or it may be sincere rage. In the case of the US, villification of the alleged threat posed by the Native Americans has been followed by vilification of the British, the French, the Spanish, the Cubans, the Japanese, the Germans, the Soviets, and various other former allies throughout the world. Basically, as George Orwell pointed out in his book 1984, all of our greatest enemies were our prior allies (and perhaps will be again soon). By “ours,” George Orwell of course implied “whoever and wherever you are.”
In the case of Saddam Hussein, the propagandists of the US presented justifications of pre-emptive strikes by condemning his use of chemical weapons against civilian populations in the 1980s. The US supplied those weapons and did not seem to condemn the use of them at the time, nor any of the many uses of chemical weapons by the US against civilians, such as the 3 million Vietnamese civilians allegedly killed by the US military in about 10 years, many through Agent Orange and other chemical weapons.
So, is it demonizing to suddenly condemn something, especially while one is hypocritically doing the same thing? Yes, that would be demonizing.
Let’s look at the root of the word vilify:
15th century, Latin: vilificare
to make worthless to make vile, to speak evil of, to speak ill of, to slander, to defame
In other words, vilifying or demonizing is to cultivate ill will or contempt. We might even call it to curse, as in a type of black magic.
What does the root of the word vile mean? “Common.”
So, propaganda may be used to justify certain actions by condemning other actions. If the action condemned and the action justified are essentially the same action, that is still propaganda.
In many traditional forms of spiritual practice, there are warnings about the spirit of contempt or the spirit of the devil. In some cases, people may even be trained to have contempt for contempt or to condemn condemnation or to vilify vilification. However, to be ware of or be aware of vilification is actually the core teaching.
In the Christian New Testament, is the teaching to vilify vilification or to remove the blind rage from one’s own perspective before trying to remove the blind rage from someone else’s point of view? Is the teaching to throw stones of blind rage at those who throw stones… or to question the blind rage that might lead to throwing stones?
While it may be popular to condemn the US government for propaganda, especially within certain subcultures of the US, which government in the last several thousand years has not consistently used propaganda? Given that the US has been the dominant imperialist operation on this planet for many decades, the US has certainly used propaganda much more than certain smaller operations.
However, propaganda indoctrinating people to reactively and reflexively condemn all propaganda may be the single most universal ingredient of all propaganda campaigns for thousands of years. Propaganda is evil.
Why is propaganda evil? Well, that is what the propagandists trained us to think, isn’t it?
Why is vilification vilified? Well, if everyone knew the secret of what vilification is (and how easy it is to practice it in language), then concocted vilifications might not work nearly as well to govern the perceptions and actions of the masses.
Propaganda must first be labeled evil for propaganda to be so openly and widely used. Propaganda must be vilified. Vilification must be demonized. Demonizing must be condemned.
That may be the best way to keep a near monopoly on the power of demonizing and vilifying. That may be essential to the justifying of the operation of governments. If there are no enemies (near and far) requiring protectors and saviors, then why would people want to eagerly pay taxes to the ruling protection racketeers? Fear!
Realistically, whenever there is an absence of a bureaucracy protecting the masses from organized violence through the use of organized violence, a new bureaucracy forms in filling that void. Dense populations of humans naturally produce social structures of stratification.
The denser the population, the more stratified the structure is.
The more stratified the structure, the more that justification of that stratification through propaganda is relevant.
To serve that propaganda function, many dense populations of humans create enemies. Leaders of dense populations are those who unite dense populations by identifying enemies, even concocted enemies. Even the “global” enemy of global warming is used to justify new bureaucratic concentrations of authority.
Other “global enemies” include epidemics or intergalactic threats like pole shifts or asteroids. Of course, one of the most popular global enemies is war, especially nuclear war.
All of the organizations that have nuclear weapons seem to be very focused on keeping their club exclusive by discouraging any other organizations from developing nuclear weapons. Why do the organizations with nuclear weapons agree so consistently that nuclear weapons are so dangerous that any group that tries to develop nuclear weapons should be discouraged even if that means by using nuclear weapons against them? Well, perhaps because that kind of propaganda works very well to justify a wide variety of bureaucratic practices and produce compliance from the masses.
Propagandists never announce that there is a new war being sold to perpetuate warfare and war profiteering and the perpetuating of governments of organized coercion. Propagandists instead announce that there is another new war to end all wars.
How many thousands of years have propagandists been justifying wars in the name of peace and national security? I am not certain. I would guess that propagandists have been rationalizing “peace-keeping” wars of organized coercion for about as long as propagandists have been vilifying propaganda.
Given that taxation could be considered a war of organized coercion against the domestic population, I would assert that propagandists must have been useful to governments almost as long as mercenaries. In fact, if a competent propagandist hires enough mercenaries to perform operations of organized violence, that might be the origin of all political systems and governments. When an operation of organized violence is so effective that it excludes competing operations of organized violence and forms a functional monopoly, that is called a government.
I am not aware of a single operation of government that does not extensively use language for propaganda to justify the existence of that operation. Mythology about the heroism of the founders of a government is one of the universals of propaganda, besides the obvious anti-propaganda propaganda.