Posts Tagged ‘courage’

​Courage: what is it and how is it valuable?

June 24, 2015

​Courage: what is it?

Courage is related to fear, right? It’s not ignoring fear though.

Ignoring fear is foolishness, no matter how popular or common that is. If you are driving and other people start honking their horns, they are promoting extra alertness or caution. Wouldn’t it be foolish to dismiss a bunch of honking because “those people are probably just afraid, which is never wise?”

Fear (or fright) is a sudden shift of attention to a possible risk. In other words, the purpose of fright is to produce caution. Lack of caution (carelessness, negligence, complacence) is certainly not courage.

People who reactively condemn the display of fear or distress are reacting in distress. People only condemn what disturbs them (what terrifies them).

People who are hysterically terrified of social criticism can attempt to pretend not to experience fear, but it is fear that leads them to withdraw in to exclusive clusters (like an anti-fear church). I respect the potential value of withdrawing in fear and shame. It is wise to quickly withdraw from potential distractions and complications out of fear (out of commitment to other priorities). It is certainly valuable to precisely assess possible threats. It is also understandable to lean toward caution or conservatism.

I also respect that, in deep shame, some people may attempt to confuse courage with withdrawing in shame to an exclusive cluster of like-minded people (“safe” people who are also paranoid about displaying fear, so the whole group can all repress the display of fear). When the display of fear is socially shamed, such as in certain churches, then even simply displaying fear can inquire a surge of courage (and even going outside of one’s familiar social circles). By avoiding fear, many people who call themselves “spiritually-advanced” are also avoiding courage (and caution, too).

Courage is also not just taking action after precisely measuring danger. Just because someone measures risk, that does not suddenly guarantee that any action taken after the measuring of risk is automatically courage.

So what is courage? It could involve doing something that is rarely done, like something that gets no social rewards or approval (or even something that can lead to loss of privileges or punishment).

Is it rare to condemn others who disagree with you? To me, that is extremely common. What could be rare is to respect those who have other perceptions.

Courage involves a respect for perceptiveness in general. In particular, courage is about precisely perceiving risk and opportunity.

It is foolish to act without awareness of risk and opportunity. It is even more foolish to know better opportunities and lower risks, yet act anyway in spite of that knowledge. That is self-sabotage (self-destruction).

However, because of social anxiety, it is quite common to act in disregard of risk and opportunity. People may want to avoid the experience of being perceived as unusual. An extreme paranoia about risking social criticism can lead to people taking actions simply because they are popular or familiar, in contrast to taking actions because the actions have been assessed as reliably producing relevant results.

Since I called the paranoia “extreme,” one might presume that I mean rare extremes of paranoia. However, I consider extreme paranoia quite common.

The courage to recognize common paranoias as paranoid

How does extreme paranoia get to be so common? I think that public schools are a primary contributor to extremes of social paranoia.

Imagine that a child goes in to a classroom with lots of other kids and the teacher says “I am going to present some ideas to you and you will memorize them so you can be rewarded for repeating them just as I presented them to you.” Then the teacher may say “what is important to you is to stop your body from making any substances that poison all of you, such as this one:”


How many students ask about why the teacher is saying that  “C24H40O5 poisons all of you?” They are all busy trying to memorize answers for their upcoming test. If they think that they may be tested on how many atoms of hydrogen are in that molecule, then they will focus on the number of hydrogen atoms.

They are memorizing the teacher’s assertions about science. They are not learning science (at least not by memorizing something that would be trivia to them if not for the bait of being rewarded if they do well on a test).
Since children are naturally competitive, they seek the teacher’s attention (especially approval). What happens when the teacher asks “what is the chemical formula of the substance that every liver on the planet makes to poison the organism that makes it?”Just as they have all been trained, the students raise their hands eagerly, hoping to attract the attention and approval of the authority figure. Then one gets called on by the teacher and promptly says “C24H40O5!” The teacher says “yes, very good.” Several other students seem disappointed that the other one got the teacher’s approval and mumble “I knew that, too!”

Again, what just happened is not the teaching of science. Science (as I understand the term) is not the practice of memorizing unexamined assertions.

Of course, students are being programmed with reflexive hysteria about a particular substance, but even that detail is secondary to the general pattern of unquestioning acceptance of the assertions of the authority. The authority makes a claim. The students (usually) focus on memorizing the claim (without considering for even one moment the accuracy or precision of the claim). Then, there is a social validation of the students who most effectively repeat on a test a bunch of the claims in the curriculum. The general pattern is social anxiety in competition for the approval of the authority (which is scarce / conditional).

But what about students who do not show sufficient enthusiasm for blindly repeating the teacher’s claims? What about students who question the relevance of the lessons? What about students who even question the accuracy of the claims made by the teacher?

Of students who fail to be enthusiastic about blindly repeating the teacher’s claims, there are a few types. All of them can be disciplinary issues for the smooth managing of a classroom.

The students who are perhaps too smart to be caught up in the drama can be put in to gifted programs (or can skip a grade) so that they can be amongst students and content that is more challenging for them. Students who are just too wild (anxious) for the typical classroom can be drugged (subdued pharmaceutically). Students who are too slow to compete with their peers can be put in to special classes with a different levels of competitiveness.

Students who respond relatively well to the common levels of test anxiety promoted in their classroom can stay in that classroom. Their natural curiosity can be diverted by the curriculum and they can be taught that science is blindly repeating unexamined assertions (among other trivia).

The ones who do quite well (in terms of excelling at blindly repeating memorized claims) can go on to be Teachers, Professors, CPAs, or Medical Doctors. Their social anxiety might be even more extreme than for most people. Why? Because their incomes (careers) rely on the idea that their skill at memorizing and blindly repeating claims is generally equivalent to merit.Of course, if a governing institution hires people based on certain factors, then those factors are relevant to getting hired. However, for any other purpose being getting hired by a government, those same factors may be quite irrelevant.

Governments thrive on compliance, especially to tax laws and other methods of redistribution from the masses to the government elite. So, governments measure compliance and reward it.

When there is a social context of rewarding compliance, that can lead to shaming anyone’s lack of enthusiasm for mastering the art of compliance. That can lead to a vilification of non-compliance (as in a vilification of courage).

However, non-compliance with tax laws, for instance, may be foolish rather than courageous. Courage is not acting in spite of risk.

Courage is first about recognizing opportunities that the masses are too distracted (by their extreme paranoia) to notice. Many will even dismiss an unfamiliar opportunity just because it is embarassingly unfamiliar to them. In fact, if the opportunity involves a method that is contrary to a method they have been using, they may be terrified of the idea that they may have been naive in their blind compliance with popular practices (typically, those marketed to them through mainstream media and schools).

If some MD has been prescribing statin medication for a few decades with the sincere presumption that the statin drugs are beneficial, it can be quite shocking to read the actual medical research on the subject. The idea with statin drugs is that they attack the functioning of the liver, which impairs production by the liver of certain substances which are presumed poisonous. What if those demonized “poisons” are not actually poisonous? Wouldn’t that be a challenging emotional experience for that person to even consider? Why not just react with dismissive, antagonistic hysteria? In other words, why not come up with an excuse to flee from the subject of the scientific accuracy of their sacred presumptions?

It would take courage to admit to prior errors (especially prior naivete). It could take courage to question the scientific credibility of any of the sacred presumptions of “mainstream science” (even just to question it in private).

Note that by “mainstream science” here, I do not mean what scientists do. I mean what teachers and the media program the masses to believe about what scientists do.

Note that the above references to C24H40O were intentionally misleading. That was cholic acid. Pictured directly above is cholesterol (C27H46O) which many scientists claim is a substance made by every healthy liver on the planet as part of a healthy organism. Also, these “so-called scientists” claim that they have observed that when tissue deteriorates, cholesterol is sent to the area to promote repair of tissue. So, they have measured that cholesterol levels are correlated to certain states of poor health. However, the claim that cholesterol ever causes tissue damage is a completely distinct idea. Even if it ever causes damage, does it always?

The value of courage

So, first it is valuable to recognize opportunities that the masses may be too distracted or paranoid to consider. Further, there is a similar issue with risk. The masses may be driven by mainstream programming in to such enthusiastic manias that they believe things to be safe simply because the government did not call them dangerous.

What if some people relied on science itself rather than government claims about science? What if people assessed what is relevant to them independently of mainstream programming?What if people assessed risks directly (rather than just repeating mainstream slogans about risk)? Some things that people may have been programmed to consider risky (such as “poisons” made by their liver) may not be as risky as they presumed (because they were rewarded for providing that answer on a test in school). Further, some things that people may have been programmed to consider safe may actually be risky.

What if people assessed relevance, risk, and opportunity directly (such as using their own logic applied to their own observations and measurements)? Many things that they were programmed to relate to as great opportunities might not be. Some things that they were programmed to relate to as risky could be safe and reliable and beneficial. Other things that were never referenced in mainstream curriculum could be the most relevant opportunities of all.

What is the value of courage? One value is to intelligently assess the actual relevance of anything that mainstream programming presents as relevant, plus be responsible for what one identifies as relevant (as a priority). Another value is to assess the risks of mainstream complacency (in general and in particular cases) and then minimize or avoid those risks. One more value is to assess opportunities precisely (whether the mainstream ignores or adores those topics).

Briefly, courage allows us to develop precision in our assessments of opportunity and risk, then reduce or eliminate risks and maximize opportunities. Even more briefly, courage allows us to let go of the crippling chains of social paranoia that we have been trained to cling to hysterically.Knowledge alone does not set anyone free. Note that many may people flee from knowledge in shame.

Courage is relevant. Courage exercises freedom and develops it.

If you were open to experiencing a new level of courage, what would you do? If you were willing to experience a huge and sudden relief from social anxiety, how willing could you be?

Naive Fools, Courageous Clowns, and Sincerely Hysterical Cowards

December 11, 2014

All humans begin completely naive. They believe what they are told- like about Santa Claus or US history or the idea of a living parasitic demon called cancer that can possess people and kill them.

As for the idea that there is a way to completely “cure” all naïveté, that may also be naive. Presumptions (and expectations) are part of cognitive functioning. Yes, they can lead to disappointment and so on- and eventually will- but that is only a problem for someone who is so unstable (such as economically unstable) that all expression of disappointment is deemed to be “life-threatening.”

We begin as naive fools. Then, some of us may notice that and so then try to fool other naive people in to believing that they are not ever naive (and maybe even never were).

In fact, we can get quite terrified that others may notice that we are naive, because then they might take advantage of us. We throw tantrums about other people’s naïveté. We could call those tantrums “hysteria” (Or even terror or shame or distress or panic or cowardice)… in contrast with the relaxed naïveté of the newborn or infant.

Finally, there is a stage of courage about the simple fact of naïveté. We can be attentive, but we can never cure humanity of naïveté, and any individual that can recognize patterns can on occasion be tricked (fooled, presumptively mistaken). We can be imprecise- but that is distinct from being so hysterically terrified that we construct sincere pretenses in order to attempt to deny any naïveté (or to distract from our own by pointing at someone else’s).

Note that it is also hysterical to say “I should have never been naive so how can I prevent all naivete in the future? It may be possible to withdraw from possible dangers toward safety- like turning off the TV or moving away from “the old gang.”

With courage, we can admit the simple reality of naïveté and admit our fears about being taken advantage of (plus our preferences for safety and prosperity and so on). While arrogant cowards are chanting their slogans about “saving the world from fear,” the courageous know that the cowards are simply avoiding their own shame about their own naïveté. They are distracting themselves from logic with their mantras of idealism.

With courage, we can be attentive to the contrasting possibilities of naïveté and prudence. We can be responsible for focusing on prudence and being cautious of naïveté.

Courage vs naivete and cowardice

December 7, 2014

Regarding courage, let’s clarify a contrast first. We all start naive (ignorant: not knowing that we do not know, like the “common criminals” crucified next to Jesus, etc). Next, we *all* develop what I will call “cowardice” (to add a little extra drama). Cowardice is functional at a certain stage.

In cowardice, we may pretend that we have never been naive. We may also pretend that we are brave (or whatever else is expected to “look good”).
We may display confidence not because of any competence, but in order “to avoid looking bad and to look good.” We conform to silly idealisms that are popular in institutions (which could include “the Landmark community / cult”). Carl Freestone’s uncle (with last name Skousen- and not Mark Skousen) wrote a booklet in which he referenced “the crystalization of evil” (which is a phrase that he apparently borrowed from Werner Erhard, who was the “architect” behind Landmark). In any institution, “evil” will develop: sabotaging the institution unconsciously by rigidly preserving traditions at the expense of effectiveness, innovation, and relevance.

So, we inadvertently bring down the institution while justifying that we are saving it (from the future). Why? We are still naive!

We go from being naive fools who are ignorant and “innocent” (say, before age 7), to eventually being guilt-stricken cowards panicking in our pretenses that attempt to hide the panic and hysteria and shame.

We fantasize about BS like “I will escape from regret first and then eventually (*someday maybe*) my life will be utopian and heavenly, BUT NOT YET!”

That is “sinful.” That is “missing the mark” or “out of focus” or delusional. Also, it is very common and may even be encouraged in certain institutions
(such a company called “Landmark Worldwide”).

How? Landmark itself is related to (by many “fanatics” as “the only savior.” Ironically, Landmark programs bring SOME attention to the issue of fantasizing ineffectively- including fantasizing about the worship of a “someday maybe” fantasy, but Landmark only addresses those issues within the context of the limited “games” of that institution.

Landmark does provide an opportunity to repent of naivete and cowardice (and regret)- to admit them and embrace them. However, they only present the opportunity in a very specific kind of way. For one thing, there is no institutional savior required for someone (such as Isaiah or Jesus Christ) to go from naivete through tribulations (temptation, etc) and eventually to develop faith and the experience of salvation.

So what is courage? It is not simply doing something that others consider dangerous. That might be attractive to an adolescent male who wants to impress girls or other peers. The can earn medals and parades and big tombstones as heroic patriotic soldiers, but takings actions in conformity to peer pressure is seeking glory. That is not quite courage yet.

Adolescent boys (and young men) can be very naive, which means they do things without regard for danger. That is not courageous!

Courage implies a precise assessment of risks and priorities, then an awareness that the assessment is just an assessment, and then *either* action or inaction. There is comprehension of the potential risks and interest in recognizing those risks (such as the risk of the experience of regret) and then responsibly “dancing” with the risks that are part of life.

What is courage?

November 21, 2014

What is courage?

If a group of people are driven by a great panic to face a small fear, that may just be desperation, not really courage. Consider a group of naive soldiers who, before a battle, are told that they are invisible or immune to injury. They are not precisely assessing risk and then taking action.

Instead, they are concerned about social perceptions of them as a good soldier. Their social insecurity is exploited and they are naively sent in to immense danger.

What if they are also told that if they are loyal soldiers then they will be rewarded after they die with great benefits from Santa Claus? Again, if they act in anticipation of unproven rewards, that is greedy (and naive), not truly courageous.


Seeking glory (social fame) can certainly be attractive, but how realistic is it? Are people so ashamed that they seek a moment of relief before they die… for knowing that they have done something that others will celebrate as heroic (to compensate for their past which they still reject as horrible and shameful)?

To review, they have a foundation of shame about their past, then they imagine that some action is so heroic that it will completely compensate for their own rejection of their life, so then they take that action. As they go, they are in agony, but with a desperate hope. If they fail, they are still in the same agony, but with no hope to distract themselves from the underlying agony. If they succeed, there is a moment of expectation that the agony will disappear (if only for an instant) because even though they still reject their past as shameful, they “finally” did something “good.” They still reject their life as worthless, but with a desperate hope that “this sacred action will make it from what it is fundamentally- worthless- in to a new thing.. a life worth living.”

Why not slow down now and experience some self-respect rather than chasing vanity in a hysteria of desperation and shame? “I need to do this so that I will earn the love that I so desperately want, but do not deserve yet!”

Of all, the poorly-armed soldiers who naively charge in to battle believing that they are invisible and on their way to heaven, how many will survive? Any? Of any who do survive, how many of the survivors will be paraded in front of their tribe to be awarded a medal of honor and of glory and of fame?


We can understand why military leaders might religiously tell young soldiers stories about Santa Claus and invisibility and heavenly glory. We can also understand why, during the recruiting process, the military leaders do not give the patriotic youth a tour of the disabled veterans home. Touring a cemetery would be much less disturbing than touring a paramedic station at the edge of a combat zone, right?


So courage can involve an awareness of risk plus an estimate of opportunity. The risk and opportunity could be something that someone else merely tells you about. Maybe they are sincere. Maybe they are not only sincere, but even somewhat accurate. However, what if instead of just telling you about their assessments (or repeating the statements scripted by some marketing specialists), they encouraged you to directly make some observations and assessments yourself?

Also, courage may involve taking a new action or even to discontinue an old pattern of behavior (or both). Generally speaking, if mass marketing from commercial interests were already encouraging you to do something, then it would not take any courage to do it. In fact, it takes courage to be skeptical about the unexamined presumptions of a herd mentality. It takes courage to question presumptions.

It takes courage to admit to a past driven by programmed presumptions and then take a position of extra skepticism toward any idea that has been mass publicized by special interest groups such as governments, churches, and school systems. It takes courage to admit to a past driven by fear and then relax. It takes courage to completely rebel- not just in the mass-programmed ways of a revolutionary- but even rebelling against the program of a patriotic revolutionary who saves the world in order to earn a ticket out of hell in to heaven.

There is no greater act of rebellion than a quiet, calm self-respect. Therefore, self-respect must be the ultimate enemy of any empire that depends on a foundation of naivete, fanatical hysterias, threats of personal shame, and intimidation. (By the way, all empires are empires of intimidation.)


A courageous caution: A progession through innocence, the chronic distress of social anxiety, and then a courageous caution

September 18, 2014

As we learn language, we explore a variety of ways to use language. The following ideas can be expressed in a variety of languages:
I am

I am life

I am my experience of life

I am only my own experience of life

My life is only my own experience of life

I am my life

(an objectification)

My life is my experience of how other people relate to me

My life is fluctuating and mortal

My life depends on the care and approval of my mother / caregiver
(the narutal infantile dynamic)
My life depends on the approval of _____ (my teacher, my friends, my employer, my spouse, my church, Santa Claus, St. Peter)
It is important to identify what attracts “their” approval (and what attracts disapproval).

I must study how people should be (how I should be) and become only that.

I must know exactly how I should be and then experiment with different methods to become how I should be (and to hide or eliminate how I should not be).

I may eventually notice something remarkable about all of the various people that I have been trying to study and to impress. They also may be fixated on attracting social approval.

A common theme of how people should be is that they should be courageous. More specifically, they should courageously do the things that they should do and courageously be the way that they should be (to attract social approval).

Ironically, sheltering a fixation on social approval will never allow for courage. Things can be labeled courageous by other people, but that all the social approval in the world does not provide the actual direct experience of being courageous.

Like in the story of the Wizard of Oz, a piece of paper does not give someone courage. Ink on paper can record social approval. “Here is my permission that you be courageous, in case you were anxiously waiting for it.”

Courage exists beyond the realm of social approval. Courage is not an act of intentional rebellion against “something that should not be how it is.”

Courage is experiencing fear and then acting anyway- even with great caution (attentiveness). Courage involves allowing fear to be witnessed by others. The fixation on hiding one’s own experience of fear from others is perhaps the most crippling form of social anxiety.

What if the perception by others of any fear of mine is not a primary priority to me? What if I can be merely curious about accusations of fear- as well as be anything else from defensive to dismissive?

Courage is when I am not fixated on being a particular way (as in being perceived by others as being a particular way). However, to be attentive as to how others perceive me may be relevant on occasion.

Any chronic distress that I may have experienced in the past was just an enduring period of temporary social anxiety. I was simply terrified about certain things. I was paranoid about certain things. I was ashamed about certain things.

I have been alive all along, including during episodes of chronic distress or panic. When I condemned others in a panic, I was alive. When I resented others in a panic, I was alive.

When I argued in a panic, I was alive. When I justified my behaviors in a panic, I was alive. When I fantasized about a future utopia in which everything would eventually be how it should already be, I was alive and panicking.

My panic was to temporarily shield myself from the intensity of certain experiences. I said things like “this is how people should be…. and certainly not like that.”

I lacked the maturity and courage to face certain experiences that might have been too disturbing or disruptive or embarrassing. All along, I have been alive.

I am life. Now, I accept the logical possibility that peraps life should be how it is, which includes the entire realm of panic and of language. In a panic, language can be used to identify what should be and what should not be.

For instance, if I worship the ideal that people should never panic, then I would never interpret my own patterns of behavior as panic. In particular, I was only arguing because I was right. I was not panicking or afraid or in distress. However, I have noticed many other people who were arguing out of a desperate panic to preserve the idea that they are right (unlike me).

They were fixated on social approval. They should not be so different from how I say that they should be.

They are ruining my perfect life. My life is totally heavenly except for my victimizers who are not being how they should be and thus are making my perfect life in to hell.

Further, there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it because I worship an Almighty God that is constantly paranoid about the potential interference and disapproval of the devil. God of course would help me since I am being how I should be… except that those other people are interfering by being how they should not be.

For example, one of these evil people once made fun of my logic by asking me “why?” in regard to one of my sacred presumptions about how things should be. Naturally, I gave them a very excellent answer, to which they only responded with the same word again: “why?”

I offered further explanation, getting a bit frustrated by now at how annoying they should not have been. Once again, the child asked me “why?” What is it with the toddlers these days?

courage: from greed all the way to gratitude

May 8, 2014

the path of courage:
from greed all the way to gratitude

What if there is nothing wrong with greed?

First, for me, there is nothing “wrong” with greed, except that it consistently produces results that lead to disappointment. It is just a mode

of experience- or even a developmental stage in the process of maturing or learning.

Through courage, one may shift from the extreme of chronic greed to the opposite extreme, which is chronic gratitude. That will be the broader

outcome of this material: to challenge you to take “the path of courage” and shift from greed to gratitude.

Are you courageous enough to explore greed?

Why did I pick greed as the starting point of our exploration? Do I think that you personally are unusually greedy? Do I think that you lack

courage or gratitude?

Well, what if I do? If you are anxious enough to be concerned with whatever reason that someone might have for sharing this material with you,

then you are already on the edge of an opportunity to experience courage.

If you imagine that whatever I mean by greed is meant to slander you or to justify punishing you in some way in the future, then courage is

precisely what I invite you to explore as highly relevant to you today. I even started by saying that there is nothing wrong with greed. Did you

forget that already?

And are you courageous enough to explore gratitude?

If you think of greed as “something wrong,” then the first challenge for you on the path of courage will be to relax any of your old

presumptions about the limits of what the word “greed” COULD mean. Your opportunity will be to explore the subject of greed from a foundation of

courage and gratitude (including gratitude for the pattern of experience that I am calling “greed”).

If you are not willing to courageously explore the subject of greed with an openness to being grateful for all patterns of experience (including

greed), then I invite you to come back to this material at any later time that you are willing to be courageous and grateful in that regard.

However, if you are open to experiencing courage now, then I invite you to proceed.


So why did I really pick greed as the the starting point of our exploration?

For one thing, greed is a frequent subject of criticism in recent times. People may notice a lot of complaining about greed. People may even

actively complain or even argue about the greed of particular targets of criticism. In fact, you may even be criticized for being “too greedy”

or “too selfish.”

The pattern of selfishness is often confused with greed. They are similar. However, they are distinct.

How selfishness differs from greed

Selfishness is a label that can be applied to any child or even any newborn. For instance, when there is not yet a concern for the social

standards applied by others, the normal reflexive instincts may be labeled “selfish.” A concern for social standards is also known as

“conscience” or “guilt.” (We will adress that subject in more detail later.)

So, a child who is cold and then wraps itself in a blanket is not being “greedy,” even if it is labeled selfish. If there are several children

and several blankets, we could say that it would be greedy for a single child to keep all of the blankets away from the other children. However,

for a newborn to desire warmth and then get under a blanket is normal and functional.

In other words, acting out of self-interest is normal and functional. Selfishness includes acting out of self-interest, though selfishness may

be considered to have many subcategories and to include extreme forms like “greed.” Greed can involve the desire not only to prosper, but to do

so without regard for the methods used and the eventual long-term consequences of using each method.

*A more useful definition of greed

(Note that, for my own convenience, I use the term “God” below. You could insert the word “reality” or “the universe” and make the same point.)

An anxious rejection of reality in which one yearns for reality to conform to some ideal that is worshiped as “better” than God’s present

creation. Greed is both a form of fear (in that it is anxious) and also a form of grief. (It is a form of grief in that it rejects God’s

creation- and God- in favor of the “less disappointing” ideal that is worshiped instead. “Since God has disappointed me, which God obviously

should not have been so arrogant to do, then I will focus on some other ideal as “better” than God’s present creation. Further, to complete the

irony, I will claim that my fixating on some “superior” ideal as I reject God’s creation is being faithful to God, as if it is based on God’s

own rejection of God’s own creation.”)

*What is new about this definiton of greed

Note that the particular focus of the “greed” may be of no great importance. Various forms of wealth (or success”) may be considered just

convenient distractions: “I want a horse- and I want that one,” “I want to raise chickens in my backyard,” “I want to go on that vacation,” “I

want to attain enlightenment.” Greed is not about the desire itself or the focus of the desire, but the emotional framework around the desire.

As an example, we can think of “gluttony” as merely a form of greed in that there is an obsession in regard to diet or eating. An anxious

“greed” to reach a certain weight (whether for someone on a weight loss diet or for a body-builder) is distinct from a goal. The component of

anxiety is key.

*Greed as a way to avoid disappointment/grief

The one experiencing greed tends to be eager to place blame (in the event of additional disappointment). Note that I say additional

disappointment because I am referencing greed as a pattern used basically to avoid experiencing a past disappointment.

It is a form of anxiety or paranoia: “I do NOT want to be disappointed ever again. I know the one thing which will be my salvation and

permanently fix everything and protect me from ever experiencing disappointment. Hey, that reminds me: let’s talk about going on a vacation! Or,

we could argue about how we think the government should be. Then, finally, we can complain about how the corporate media is… gasp… serving

corporate interests, right?”

<<< *What produces greed? Keep in mind that the pattern of greed is typical when selfishness (desire) is publicly condemned. People tend to hide their selfishness when it is condemned amd shamed. If a child is disappointed and instinctively begins to express their disappointment, then one way to suppress their display of disappointment is to traumatize the child by punishing, shaming, condemning, or even just interrupting the display of disappointment: “you should be more grateful. You should be less disappointed. You should be quiet and less selfish. Do you want me to give you a REAL reason to cry? You are too greedy. You should be more like God wants you to be in the future (instead of how God created you to be as of now).” *How does greed manifest? When the repressive trauma is internalized, then the display of grief is chronically suppressed (including the behavior of crying or weeping). The fear of the display of grief (as in the expectation of punishment for the display of grief) is what I call “guilt.”(Guilt will be the focus of With the foundation of guilt (the fear of the display of grief), then targets of hope and enthusiasm may be “chronically” sought as a mechanism to avoid or distract from past grief. That addictive, “thrilling” pursuit of “success” (like wealth, fitness, ego gratification, spiritual arrogance, etc) is in the mode of action that I am calling greed. Again, note that the actual target of the desire is not the issue, but the emotional quality of the attention to that target. * We could also define greed as any “excessive” attention to wealth and physical security. However, if we cannot define “excessive,” then that definition is not very useful. Likewise, lust- when speaking of it as a cardinal sin- can be defined not just as “excessive” attention to sexuality, but more specfiically as the obsessive attention to sexuality to the detriment to one’s overall self-interest, such as to avoid the VALUE of grieving over some past disappointment. Gluttony also can be recognized as distinct from some amount of eating that any critic might label as “excessive.” So, gluttony would include spending so much money (or time) on the issue of food that other priorities are sacrificed. >>>>

*Simple fear and the 3 chronic fear “complexes”

When I am startled by an unexpected sensation, such as a noise, then my attention may suddenly focus on the surprising experience. If the shift

to alertness involves at least a noticable amount of the stress hormones (such as cortisol and adrenalin), then I may label that as being

frightened or alarmed or afraid. That is simple fear.

Chronic fear means a lasting experience of fear. The target of the fear may shift suddenly or even be unrecognized, but the background emotional

state of fear will be obvious.

One whose experience is dominated by fear may manifest 3 modes: paranoia, shame, guilt

paranoia/worry: fear of fear
shame: fear of rage
guilt: fear of grief

*On viewing greed as a natural product of guilt

If an ideal is held (in terror) of how reality should be, that can lead to a complex series of effects. With the background of the worship of

any particular ideal as the most sacred part of reality, then it is inevitable that there will be a noticing of a contrast between that

worshiped ideal and reality, which is experienced as the great threat to the fundamentalist idolatry.

Any noticing of a contrast between the ideal and reality can result in the rejecting of that aspecting of reality, condeming it, and even

finding some villain to blame for being responsible for producing some pattern that the critic is afraid of accepting as valid and present and

real. The idolater claims sincerely (desperately, defensively) how reality should be, then condemns reality (God’s Creation!) for not being how

it should be, then identifies some new power allegedly responsible for the crime of exposing the contrast between God’s Creation and the idolater’s worshiped ideal.

That CAN lead eventually to not just argumentativeness and antagonism, but to guilt. What if the idolater perceives themself as having a holy

duty to correct God’s Creation and bring it back in to alignment with the ideal? When the idolater’s rejects God’s Creation and goes against the

demonstrated Will of God in order to attempt to please God, that ironic attempt naturally leads to a sense of failure (disappointment).

If there is a panic to interfere with the experience of disappointment (to prevent or interrupt the display of grief), then that panic typically

takes the form of obsessing over some imagined “salvation.” That is what I mean by “greed.”

Fear, anger, courage, and contentment

August 24, 2013

“I am angry because someone betrayed me and it really hurt!”

A great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico ...

A great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico is catching a bait of a tuna. Please note, we did not try to catch a shark. We did try to bring sharks closer to the cages. No shark was hurt. The picture is a digital copy of my old film picture. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The hurt that you refer to is just a label. In the past, maybe I expected something and then complained when I did not get it, but was I physically hurt by that? Or, was I just scared and humiliated?

In another past, maybe I was afraid about something and I may have anticipated physical hurt (a spanking, severe abuse by a group of bullies, etc). However, the muscular contraction of the fear may be the only actually current pain. They may be no other pain besides the pain of maintaining the muscular tension.

Or, the muscular contraction may be pinching off an old nerve signal of “hurt.” The chemical signal may still be there waiting for the blocked pathway to open so that the electrical signal of the nerves can reach the brain. In that case, relaxing may actually hurt- whether for an instant or an hour- or maybe there is an injured ankle and if I stop blocking the nerve signal but keep using the ankle, then I will keep getting the signal that is trying to tell my brain “your ankle may be injured, so pay attention!”

Maybe my “heart has been aching” (as in a muscular contraction in the chest). Maybe the ache is actually just from maintaining the muscular tension though, not really from some old event (“trauma”). Maybe it takes energy to PRODUCE the pain and even INCREASE the pain, nurturing it or worshiping it with resentment or agonizing or whatever. Maybe simply not giving “it” attention at all will automatically lead to it disappearing.

This reminds of a question like “how do I stop walking?” You stop walking by not walking. You imagine standing with so much attention that suddenly you notice yourself standing. Focusing on walking will never stop walking.

Likewise, how do we stop agonizing? Agonizing is a behavior. We stop by not doing it. We stop by not focusing on it. We stop by doing absolutely anything else.

However, it can be useful sometimes to notice the frightened, desperate pattern of agonizing. We might even analyze it and play with it, like brushing through hair can untangle the hair.

But there is a difference between exploring the process of agonizing itself and exploring some particular trigger of fear. If focusing on something that consistently frightens me is somehow desirable, than I could invest energy in maintaining some old fear, avoiding courage, pretending that I cannot do what perhaps I simply am afraid of trying, because if I try, I might fail. I might need to learn or ask for help. Even worse, I might succeed.

126 Infantry/Armor/Cavalry Coat of Arms

126 Infantry/Armor/Cavalry Coat of Arms (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What do people fear more than anything else? Courage is a reasonable answer. Courage can be very dangerous, by the way.

Other popular answers are that people fear their own power. That is basically the same answer. Again, people’s fearing of their own power may be WISE… because the exercise of power can be risky. However, there may occasionally be times when exercising power courageously is worth the risk. In fact, there may often be times when exercising power, even when one is not very skilled in using it elegantly, is relevant. And so I give the answer courage.

Picture taken at Georgia Aquarium, pictured is...

Picture taken at Georgia Aquarium, pictured is one of the two resident male whale sharks (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Everyone has power. It may be wise to fear using it, again like when faced with a tyrant or bully or raging ex-wife or a shark.

Yes, I could attack the shark. It just might be better not to dive in and attack a shark. It might be better to attack it wisely. Be afraid of it. Then pick up the speargun. Aim it and fire. Yes, it may not hit the shark and if it does not hit solidly, the spear may not even stop the shark. How many sharks are there? How many spears?

Maybe you can pray that the shark (or sharks) swim away and leave you and your family safe. but many times, life is not like that anyway. There is no isolated threat, like a bunch of sharks or a single bully.

Life is a series of challenges and risks. If your small child is naive and wants to pet the sharks, you may interrupt the child’s eagerness with an angry “no!”

The vast majority of civilized people are so terrified that they do not want anyone to know that they are terrified. They are “tamed.” That is just a fact. In mobs, the repressed hysteria of “civilized people” can get extremely violent and dangerous to innocent bystanders- rather like a bunch of bloodthirsty sharks.

Profiles in Courage book cover

Profiles in Courage book cover (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Society has systems for taming the herds of “sheeple.” Terror is very important in that process.

Also important can be indoctrinating the masses with who to blame (and for what). What enemy should we blindly condemn and target with our repressed rage? The answers are on TV, in public school indoctrination programs, and in churches.

One thing we cannot get through anger is contentment (inner peace). We must challenge the guardian of hell (whether that is Satan or Cerberus, a mythological dog with 3 heads), which is the archetype of our own deepest fear.

We must be courageous. We may not be very good at it yet. So what?

Français : Courage

Français : Courage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, contentment requires courage. It requires humility. I question the naive arrogance of my hatreds and resentments and hurts and betrayals (mom lied about Santa, etc etc etc). That questioning is courageous.
Rage is terrified, not courageous. Rage is typically prone to foolishness (with naive sincerity of course).

Spiritual bravery, panic, and social pressure to conform (re gay marriage, diet, etc)

April 7, 2013

Here is another conversation relating to recent blogs. This is from a private chat on facebook with someone who is aware that, when I find a conversation with her extremely interesting for sharing with others, then that I will share it. She only asked that I  not use her picture and I chose not to use her name.

Dear JR,

I just had a few quiet moments long enough to read your previous commentary on investments using one’s own money vs. borrowed money, the risk involved, and the panic involved when risk is proven to be high. [JR’s note: I said that it when gambling with someone else’s money instead of one’s own money, it does not change the odds, the risk, the fact that it is still high-risk gambling- even when gambling on real estate speculation with borrowed money.]

What you say makes complete sense when you break it down the way you did, using the examples you did (specifically the perspectives of your examples). Like the cancer example… Seems ridiculous to trust mainstream doctors with a fatal diagnosis and treatment plan regarding a disease they admit to knowing nothing about [or at least that they insist on calling incurable- I did not say “know NOTHING” 😉 ].


Ritalin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But most people do not think that way due to the panic involved and the desperation they feel with the diagnosis. It is also the intense, innate need to have some sort of scapegoat “just in case” things don’t work out in your favor.

The guilt [or fear, worrying, agonizing?] involved in opting out of “trendy” or mainstream investment strategies or medical treatment strategies when considering the possibility that alternative strategies may also fail can be crippling. Failing is difficult to handle as it is but can be made easier to cope with when the masses are failing for the same reasons/poor choices. We can all be miserable or in financial ruin or sick together.

And this leads to your point of view on panic vs. peace and BRAVERY when making decisions. You are urging people to put their own effort into researching and looking at data from an open-minded perspective. Being proactive instead of reactive can help remedy that extra “barrier” of panic and desperation faced when REacting to “bad news” and allow you to use peaceful logic in your assessments.

Bravery (the hardest part, in my opinion) expands your option list with alternate choices…. Choices considered radical …. Choices often ridiculed by the main stream. Often a “radical” choice is the right one and you have to be brave enough to take your well being into your own hands by making that choice WHILE withstanding societal pressures. This, in my opinion, is extremely difficult to do…. You pretty much have to be confident and secure standing with a few other “fanatics” making choices that are viewed by the masses (which includes highly educated and trained professionals) as ridiculous and IRRESPONSIBLE while contending with your own, personal, internal guilt of “what happens if I am wrong” (which can be intense when the success or failure of your entire family is hanging in the balance). For some (like you), it is ridiculous and ignorant and irresponsible to fall into “herd logic” when your own well being is at stake. Do thorough research, remove extreme emotional reactions, remain logical and practical, and humbly open your mind to everything. For most, just considering this causes a well of panic to rise and then the fight/flight response kicks in, and we generally choose to flee from logic and just let someone else (main stream) make the decisions for us. Seems easier than tackling and beating the panic and facing the understanding that you have no one to blame but yourself if you fail.

As far as what you mean when you say many will have “new” value for family and spirituality…can you expand?

I feel like I am missing a big warning here… What am I missing?

Do you mean that families will go back to basics? Depend on each other (not government) for survival?

JR replies:

Agonizing over what to do is crippling, yes. It is better to be crippled (paralyzed) then to keep making high-risk choices. Soon, after one has agonized enough to interrupt the momentum of blindness to high-risk behavior, then one can relax from the pre-existing panic of blind conformity and begin to explore cautiously- or perhaps with reliance on someone considered unusually trustworthy. (I’m not telling you all this just for my entertainment or just to disturb you- [not JUST that], but to invite conversations for actions guided by a commitment to responsibility.)

Spirituality for me is the study of language as well as of attention itself. Those who are spiritually advanced are immune to propaganda and hysteria. They are not blind herds panicking in contempt and shame.

Next, is there really “social pressure” that you eat a certain diet? Or, is there just internal pressure within you from being afraid that other people might realize that their opinion and their paranoia are less important to you than your own health? They can talk, but is that pressure? [Compared to the verbal threats of a bunch of armed thugs at your door (“cops”), the talk of an unarmed person is not much of a threat really, right?]

Will they threaten to never come over to your home for dinner unless you play their favorite music (Metallica of course) in the background and offer them soda and ice cream and vodka and donuts and obviously let them smoke cigarettes (or marijuana or heroine) inside your living room every time they come over? That is not really pressure. That is their terror. They are terrified.

If you are planning to ask them for a $10,000, then feed them what they like and so on- or take them out to eat. They do not pressure you. They present programming to you to test you, to attempt to influence you, even to herd you in to conformity, but to the one who is at peace spiritually, all that happens is a recognition of their shame and terror.

If you change your private investments (if you have any), so be it. If you sell a home and start to rent (or buy a less expensive home), so be it. If you file chapter 13 bankruptcy or whatever else, so be it. If no one is suing you to prevent you from selling your old mutual fund, then there is no real pressure on you to continue to own it. There are many things that you are free to do and that most people would never know about anyway.


Fda (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Eye fillet of grass-fed beef.

Eye fillet of grass-fed beef. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But public education and commercial advertisements on TV certainly are a form of social pressuring. There is also the reality of whatever is in stock at Albertson’s (a grocery store) and whatever is not in stock. But Albertson’s does not pressure you to buy cookies instead of grass-fed beef, or to buy low quality eggs instead of organic free range eggs from a farmer’s market. Albertson’s invites you to come to their store and shop there. They provide a shopping cart. That is not “social pressure,” but social opportunity!


Albertsons (Photo credit: Editor B)

So, regarding culture and economics, I mean that there will be two contrary trends. The masses who rely on centralism and socialism will be impoverished by the results of blindly following the herd (like in FDA dietary choices and hysterical real estate speculation) and then disappointed by the inability of socialist Ponzi schemes to keep their promises (like when the USSR collapsed, leaving lots of people very disappointed who were expecting the USSR to support them). As all of that accelerates, more and more folks will also form small networks of responsibility- extended families, churches, secession movements, etc.

Seat of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Gr...

Seat of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Grand Kremlin Palace in the Moscow Kremlin, February 1982 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But if you study something like how Pol Pot took over Cambodia, you will see that the rise of communism can be rather like an organized crime group invading and stealing everything in the name of “justice and equality” and so on. To the prior government, Pol Pot was a rebel, right?

So there are a variety if stages of “non-conformity” or rebellion. One can eat well and even raise food. One can use legal tax sheltering methods (and asset sheltering methods) and invest wisely- which is extremely rare right now. Of course many desperate people will turn to crime to survive, (from dealing drugs to prostitution to straight forward burglary and mugging) though turning to violent crimes like that is basically the early stages of rioting and civil war and… none of that produces any food.

Food is the key to long-term warfare. American critics of communism tend to assume that the communists did not distribute food to the masses because of incompetence. That is a naive presumption. Communists (among others) cut off distribution of food to the masses as a political weapon. The criminalizing of raw milk in the US can be viewed as hysterical idiocy by the government or as an act of war to reduce the health of the fringe of people who are taking responsibility for eating in alignment with biochemistry.

janet jackson

Note that “bad news” is for programming and demoralizing the masses, just like political controversies and celebrity controversies are for distraction and provoking outrage and arguing. Gay marriage, for instance, is not important to communists- no more than the controversy of Janet Jackson’s nipple at a super bowl halftime show. They just use scandals to further their goals. Maybe some scandals are not even planned and cultivated, but many are.

If people are ashamed of the president or outraged or cheering for him, then that means they are paying attention to the president. Think of the German public’s support of Hitler or Mussolini. History books imply that those men were in charge. What if they were puppets of hidden groups… of funders and lobbyists and organized crime syndicates who profit off of war and recruit people to start wars?

Pol Pot was trained by free masons in Europe. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was supported by England and Wall Street bankers like JP Morgan. The plundering of the masses (aka communist revolution) is big business. Wars paid for by taxes are also massive redistributions of wealth to the military insiders at the expense of the middle class (and of course resulting in the slaughter of thousands or millions of civilians in the “hot zone”).

Prison where Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge tortu...

Prison where Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge tortured and killed thousands of Cambodians. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bravery is only hard for those afraid to admit their fear and their lack of military and economic power. For those who do not panic hysterically in shame at the thought of fear, fear is imply a refocusing of attention and leads naturally to bravery.

Your relative with the new baby has a health issue and everyone is afraid for her and acts with precision and speed and bravery, but do not even call it brave. They are not trying to appear brave for social approval. They are just brave and social approval is only an issue for those operating in a pretense to cover their terror.

Also, it is not “brave” to eat raw eggs. If you research it enough, you will naturally be convinced that it is far more nutritious than eating them cooked, plus you will naturally target high quality eggs instead of the cheapest. When eating raw eggs, the taste of the eggs is not neutralized by cooking, so you can really notice the difference between low quality eggs and high quality eggs.

Recognizing naïveté does not seem brave to the one doing it. 

I say I am curious and committed and others say crazy or brave or whatever. I do not really notice most of what they say, but someone really almost vomited just at the sight of me eating a raw egg. To them it was sincerely disgusting.

So, there are many offers of external salvation- vote for the right candidate etc- that are set up before the herds are triggered in to a panic. When promoting communist -style policies like “the patriot act”, the masses must be terrified by a threat- such as the threat of communism- in order for them to run eagerly in support of communist measures- blind to logic and the propaganda etc….

The pro-gold hysteria of “tea party” patriots is the same kind of terrified hysteria that drove herds of people in to manic speculation in real estate or stocks. “How do we protect ourselves from invasion? Silver and gold- not guns and not research and eating well- just silver and gold… and platinum… and diamonds… but that is all… oh, and the Bible.”

The British wanted to form the nation of Israel to advance their empire, so they needed someone like Hitler to offer a “final solution” (that was the political slogan) that would then be presented as “justifying” the British policy of invading Palestine and colonizing it. The “Balfour” declaration in 1917 set the stage for the Brits (and Vatican) to concoct a new invasion of Palestine/ Jerusalem.

The US supports Israel with money and nuclear weapon technology but does not support Iran with money and nuclear weapon technology because we are part of the imperial invasion to take over that region’s natural resources (in alliance with Israel and in a holy war against Iran/Islam). We now have two new colonies in the region: Iraq and Afghanistan.

General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, 1997 – 2001, says the right after 9/11, he was given a classified document, which illustrated plans “to take out seven countries in five years”, indicating that 9/11 was planed as the catalyst for war.  (source)

Notice that when the US made Japan in to a colony in the 1940s, the US military never left and now no one talks about “bringing the troops home.” The US is an imperialist military superpower (a global police state, the new world order).

US troops are in South Korea, Germany, and dozens of other countries with permanent US military bases. Why? We say we are protecting the world from communism or terrorism or imperialism or whatever we say. [But is that kind of answer really logical?]

By the way, I do not recommend talking to the average person about these things. I do not even really know how you are reacting but you seem reasonably open. Conversations on subjects like diet (or even on gay marriage) allow for a measuring of someone’s balance of panic, hysteria, logic, bravery and so on.

nipple bikini


Gratitude, Fear, and Courage: Arch-Enemies or Allies?

March 20, 2013
Gratitude, Fear, and Courage: Arch-Enemies or Allies?
Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First, you should not ever be grateful. For one thing, being grateful can make other people feel envy, and, if there is one thing that you do not want to happen, it is for other people to envy you. After all, they may do like Cain did to his brother Abel and just sneak up on you one day and gently convince you that eating grains (especially the highly-processed oils from certain seed grains) are at least as valuable and precious as the fat of a very healthy lamb… even if eating those grains often leads to irritability, neurological inflammation, frustration, yeast infections, bloating from all of the gas of that fungus (yeast is a type of fungus), abdominal pain from the bloating, emotional over-reaction, lasting resentments, mental illness, envy, animosity, rage, and then of course conducting ritual human sacrifices through public political assassinations, right?
Now, that was a bit complex, so let’s simplify a bit. The point of all that above is that one option in life is to be in a constant state of fear, of anxiety, of hysteria. Do I really think that you should be paranoid about being too grateful? Well, maybe I do not really care at the moment whether or not you are paranoid about anything or not. Maybe it is not a problem to me if you are paranoid and yet not a problem to me if you are not paranoid (like not in a state of ongoing dread, worry, or “dis-ease“). 
Maybe you are relaxed and at ease and in peace. Or, maybe you are practicing the activity of agonizing to sustain a hysterical panic about which problems to have and which possible solutions to chase after desperately in order to escape from being too paranoid or too fat or too skinny or not paranoid enough… or whatever little neurotic, psychotic addiction you have identified as the most important to you as of right now. 
Franklin D. Roosevelt after giving one of his ...

Franklin D. Roosevelt after giving one of his fireside chats. The predecessor to the Weekly Address. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you like to believe that gratitude is dangerous, that is fine with me. Sometimes, it could be favorable to keep your gratitude private. Maybe you should even hide from yourself what you value most. Or, maybe fearing gratitude is evil and must be eradicated from the planet by going door to door and killing everyone who might in the future ever fear gratitude.
Gratitude is one possible experience. So is fear. If people fear expressing gratitude publicly, then it may be adaptive to actually suppress the conscious recognition of gratitude. The facial gestures of gratitude can be repressed. The tears of gratitude can be tightly prevented.
Also, you might fear being the recipient of an expression of gratitude. Public displays of gratitude could make grain-eaters like Cain very envious. You may favor being publicly dismissive of public displays of gratitude. You may favor appearing humble or even incompetent. Maybe you will go so far in the service of appearing incompetent that you will even take the actions of someone incompetent and thus sabotage your results.
Why? Well, be aware that it can be dangerous to be recognized as successful and prosperous and healthy. Your insane, grain-eating brother might concoct some justification to physically attack you, like because you ate a dead animal (and probably even killed it), so in order to prove that violence is morally wrong, your brother vilifies you and then tortures you with a whip and then kills you by nailing you to a cross and leaving you there for a few days until you die (because everyone knows that it takes a healthy person at least 24 hours to die from crucifixion, so anyone that was crucified late on Friday and then, after passing out, is removed from the cross that same evening would of course recover the ability to walk within, for instance, 3 days).
Masaccio, Crucifixion

Masaccio, Crucifixion (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, keep your gratitude very secret. Keep your wealth very secret. If other people are grateful of you, make sure it is all kept very secret. 
Secrecy can be very adaptive, right? You may even want to occasionally concoct distractions to help prevent attention to certain ridiculous fantasies that are absolutely not possible and thus anyone who suggests otherwise must be severely punished in order to make sure that everyone knows that all conspiracy theories are just ridiculous conspiracy theories (except if the US President shares a theory about a conspiracy involving the Iraqi Taliban blowing up 4 world trade center buildings, in which case the conspiracy is not a mythological fantasy, but a sacred dogma of the independent senate commission on scientific religion- not to be confused with the other senate commission that is influenced by political lobbying bribes and so on, but the other one… the totally independent one).
Adam & Eve

Adam & Eve (Photo credit: jimforest)

Now, if you ever feel startled or alerted or alarmed or scared or afraid, keep that secret. You must fear displaying fear to the public because the only thing that the US President has to fear is fear itself. Actually, because I am not the US President, but the one who guides things from behind the scenes like the director of a movie while the audience is attentive only to the actors who are not actors as they conform to the script which is not a script, I do not fear you experiencing fear itself. Really, consider that if I am producing a horror movie about a terrifying war on terror, it is fine with me if you experience fear- even desirable- yet you may want to suppress the facial gestures so that no one else knows that you are afraid of anything, including afraid of gratitude.
Fear is your enemy. Therefore, you must fear it.
Gratitude is also your enemy. In particular, do not ever be grateful for fear, because that can lead to courage, and every US President knows that the only thing that we have to fear is courage itself. However, if you ever do accidentally experience courage, be sure to keep it a secret!
English: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to...

English: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to the press the same day the White House released the long form of his birth certificate to dispel conspiracy theories surrounding his place of birth (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In conclusion, always eat a lot of grains because things like obesity, diabetes, and celiac disease are myths that the communist anti-communists have spread in order to make your neurological function extremely efficient and sharp and bright. You should never eat the fat of a healthy, first-born lamb because fat contains a lot of fat and if there is one thing that you do not want inside your body, it is any of the things that your body naturally makes, such as fat or blood or bones or cells or chemistry. 
In particular, do not gnaw on bones like dogs do because that can lead to the minerals in the bones attacking your stomach, causing it to have a lot of minerals in it which can lead to those minerals being distributed to other parts of your body, such as your bones. That is very bad. Having strong bones that are dense with the ideal proportions of minerals can lead directly to things like paranoia, dis-ease, and states of persistent mental anxiety, such as the quite rational fear of being killed by your envious, grain-eating brother, who probably is suffering from a deficiency in psychiatric pharmaceutical medications, which is very sad. So, if your brother is in denial about his deficiency, just get a court order or whatever and we can force him to avoid danger by fearing anything unusual.
Cain killing Abel

Cain killing Abel (Photo credit: jimforest)

If you ever shift your attention to something new and surprising and unfamiliar, like a startling sound that you did not specifically expect, please do not do that. Then, you must apologize. 
Do not be ever grateful for fear. Fear is not your ally. Fear is your arch-enemy (and so is any brain or nervous system that is capable of producing the hormonal state of fear through adrenalin and cortisol and so on).
To be honest, if you seriously ever are grateful for fear or even merely pretend to be, then I personally will promise that in the future I might not threaten you with punishments in order to teach you that fear should not exist. Reverse psychology, on the other hand, should exist, yet unfortunately it simply does not, if only because it cannot.
Temple of Horus: possibly reconstruction section

Temple of Horus: possibly reconstruction section (Photo credit: Penn State Libraries Pictures Collection)

Nazi Priests Salute Hitler

Nazi Priests Salute Hitler (Photo credit: fewsaved)


Now, let us prey. Heavenly Father, you alone are holy. We praise your Almighty, Eternal, Catholic Empire as we invoke this God spell according to the court-room ritual of the secret order of the Masonic Babylonian Talmud of the Rich Reich of His Royal Magi, King Rex the Righteous, asking these things in the precious name of the Society of Jesus, Amen-Ra!

on fear, courage, condemnation, and discernment

December 8, 2012
When I notice something unfamiliar, I may experience curiosity… or fright!  Whenever I fear something (familiar or unfamiliar), I may eventually say “that should not be,” which is a frightened judgment (based on the prior feeling of fear). 
I can even fear the loss of something, like in the case of jealousy… with a fear of the loss of a relationship, which is a specific kind or worry or anxiety. “What should I do,” I may ask- to prevent what I do not want, to protect my interests/promote my desires.
Scared child

Scared child (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A distinct way of relating (besides fearing something and then condemning it out of fear) is to champion something, which could be out of fear as well. I may want to build a dike or levy for protection from flooding (fear of loss due to flooding). I may champion that cause.
Another way of relating is curiosity. I can be curious about developments and patterns and then attempt to discern relationships and trends and make predictions (forecasts).
Now, about the case of certain trends in Arizona or in the US, many may say “I was surprised by them! I still do not like them. I fear the trend that I notice. Further, I blame a particular group (or even a single individual).”
Others may say about the same trends: “I noticed them earlier than most. I studied them. I have some speculations about what is going on and why. I even have some forecasts about what is predictable or at least probable. Here are some alternative actions and the risks and opportunities that I have identified.”
The first way of relating involves judgments. The second way of relating involves discernment. There may be some ongoing refinement for precision in the case of discernment, but there is no terrified condemnation required.
I can say a lot about many trends in Arizona, the US and elsewhere. For now, what I will say is that IF you did not understand them when they happened, THEN you would not have been able to confidently predict them. They would have surprised you. You might have even been disappointed or disturbed or disoriented by some recent developments. So, you might be on the verge of… curiosity (and learning).



Curiosity (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

It is interesting how people respond to different statements that I make. People may show no interest or a lot. The interest may be shown through ridicule or enthusiastic conversation. Others may be very interested, but slow to show any particular interest.
Yes, certain economic and political trends are changing. No, not every forum or relationship is not a fit for the specific purpose of addressing what is changing and how and why. We can honor the opportunity to show our interests and then to recognize the ways that we show interest (condemnation, ridicule, curiosity, and so on). Okay!


– Bear dancing on the bones of the bulls


%d bloggers like this: