I did an interview with KSCO radio on Oct 8th and they finally sent me the mp3 and it's yours to download and listen to.
Here is the link.
http://MindControl101.com/audio/ksco_interview.mp3
Enjoy
Mind Control - Radio Interview No Cost Download
I did an interview with KSCO radio on Oct 8th and they finally sent me the mp3 and it's yours to download and listen to.
Here is the link.
http://MindControl101.com/audio/ksco_interview.mp3
Enjoy
Mind Control - In the name of EVIL.....
(Picture above stolen from this site, intended as free advertising).
Halloween is the day to ponder the problem of evil. And those who worship it.
A quick Facebook chat with the Norwegian translator of Anton La Vey’s Satanic Bible started Lord Bassington-Bassington thinking about Satanists. And by Satanists he means real Satanists, of the type one finds around the Church of Satan, not the reverse-Christians who tried to burn down substantial parts of Norway’s cultural treasures back in the 1990s.
The founder of modern Satanism and The Church of Satan, Anton La Vey, was one of the most interesting religious thinkers of the past century, and people who are sufficiently inspired by his teachings to call themselves Satanists are often misunderstood. Which is hardly surprising; naming a philosophy after a symbol of evil and then expecting to seen as a reasonable person would be like developing a system of teaching called Pederasty and then being surprised when local schools try to bar you from their premises.
As a result, His Lordship has always been a bit bemused (and a bit confused) by Satanists. They claim to be evil, but surprisingly often turn out to be the nicest people you’ll ever meet. They claim to be motivated by selfishness, but are often highly idealistic, whether they’re involved in animal rights work or various (usually quite unprofitable) cultural and artistic endeavours.
The question is this: Does this, pretending to be evil, greedy and selfish, while being nice, generous and idealistic, represent a form of Satanic hypocrisy? And if it is a form of hypocrisy, is it better, or worse, than when Christians pretend to work for good but turn out to be child-molesters?
Philosophers, please come to the rescue!
But whether one accepts that Satanists are evil in any real sense of the word, let's take some lessons in evil from them. So i honor of Halloween, the Chronicles are pleased to reprint this instructive course by Danish Satanists Ole Wolf and Amina Lap, with kind permission from Mr. Wolf and Mrs. Lap.
(click on the picture for bigger resolution. And if you can read Danish, it’s even funnier in the original language.)
Mind Control - Secretive Christian Group
http://www.alternet.org/story/148413/
The Family, also known as the Fellowship, is a cohort of powerful lawmakers seeking to create a "God-led government" at home and abroad. Chief among the journalists who brought the Family to light is Jeff Sharlet, author of the new book, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy. (The title of the book refers to the Washington townhouse that serves as the gathering place and sometime residence of Family members.)
While Sharlet has been digging into the secretive Family for years, it wasn’t until last year’s trio of sex scandals that a glaring spotlight was cast on the group. The adulterous affairs of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Mississippi, revealed their common membership in the secretive group.
The Family was founded in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, who believed that Christianity made a 2,000-year-old mistake by focusing on the poor. Vereide believed God told him to minister to the powerful; the modern-day "kings" chosen to enact divine will. Since then, these “key men” -- powerful politicians, well-placed executives and influential global leaders -- meet for Bible studies and "prayer cells." Members of the family try to cultivate powerful leaders around the world -- many of them despots -- to enact their Christian agenda globally.
The Family has always operated in secret; for more than 70 years, the group has influenced policy and business deals in the U.S. and abroad almost entirely without the public’s notice.
Family members have advocated for the violently anti-gay legislation currently before Uganda’s legislature; David Bahati, MP who introduced the bill to Uganda’s parliament, has been a longtime darling of the Family and a guest at the group’s only public event, the National Prayer Breakfast. Their involvement in the Uganda anti-gay bill isn’t an outlier: in the past, the Family has done business favors and supported dictatorships in Indonesia, Somalia and Haiti, among other nations under authoritarian rule. Meanwhile, Family forces connected to the U.S. military seek to spread fundamentalist Christianity. An organization of 15,000 officers is dedicated to what is described as “reclaiming territory for Christ in the military.”
While elected leaders in the U.S. ostensibly represent a democracy, with ideals of transparency and the separation of church and state, the Family urges its members to choose secrecy and consolidated power. Journalist Jeff Sharlet has managed to break through the Family's secrecy, writing two books that dig deep inside the shady organization. AlterNet spoke to him by phone.
Anna Clark: Do you believe members of the Family sincerely believe they are doing God's work, or is that language consciously used by them as a cover?
Jeff Sharlet: Not all of them, but most of them do sincerely believe it. One guy—whose name I can't put on record, but who was very intimately involved—I went to sit down with him because he wanted to know what I was working on. I told him that I'm not attacking religion at all. He told me ‘I don't care. It's about money.' There are a lot of people there just using it, definitely.
But the more disturbing thing is that move you get with someone like Sen. Inhofe. He travels the world and talks to these oil-rich dictators, telling them he loves them, they melt his heart, their brothers in Christ. He becomes their champion back in America. Well, the oil industry likes that, they like that he's speaking out on sanctions on the industry in Nigeria. Inhofe gets a lifetime achievement award from the petroleum industry, and the industry donates heavily to his re-election campaign. Inhofe doesn't experience that as cynicism or corruption. He experiences it as that he's doing God's work.
[Members of the Family] are in it for the cash, but they're in it for God too. Are they cynical or sincere? The answer is: yes. Both. Simultaneously.
AC: Does the Family have any other counterparts in U.S. politics – groups of people that, religiously based or not, are contracting the scope of democracy?
JS: Yes, absolutely. I'm not saying that these guys are the secret puppet-masters that control the world. All I'm doing with this story is adding one more power base to our pantheon.
But the real key thing about the Family is the secrecy. Now, I disagree with Pat Robinson and James Dobson completely, 100 percent. I know they do secret things, but they are out there in the public square. They engage in democracy. Sure, it's for an undemocratic vision, but that's legitimate. But [the Family's] unusual and uncommon influence is that for so long they denied their own existence. That's starting to change, though, because of all this publicity.
AC: It's amazing that the strategy really works. The founder articulated that it would be more powerful and efficient if the Family denied its own existence, and he was right!
Ronald Reagan once said at the National Prayer Breakfast, the Family's only public event, he said to the journalists in the room about the Family: ‘I could tell you more about it, but I can't. It's working precisely because it's private.' And then he said this: “I've had my moments with the press, but I have to commend them for their discretion.”
You're a journalist, you know that any time a politician compliments you on your discretion, it's a problem! But a lot of these journalists see that as a sign that they're in, they're in the inner circle. They say they're "cultivating sources." No, you're not, you hack! You're auditioning for a talking heads spot, that's what you're doing. … A lot of these journalists practice knee-jerk centrism. This idea that the center must hold – not that it will hold, but that it must hold. It's when journalists see themselves as guardians of that balance that you get in a very dangerous place.
AC: While the Family came most forcefully into the public consciousness in the wake of last year's scandals of three of its members, you write in C Street of the importance of resisting the urge to gloat about moral hypocrisy. Can you talk about why such finger-pointing is a flawed response?
JS: Because that liberal glee at right-wingers acting on desire comes from the same prudish, small, little, hard-hearted place. It's the same counting of sins that right-wingers themselves do. Maybe it's a bait-and-switch – people think they will buy this book and hear about all the naughty things Republicans do. And they will—but those things are about money and violence overseas.
Look at the story of [South Carolina Gov.] Mark Sanford in particular. He's something of a tragic figure, right? He's in this terrible, terrible marriage. Here was this guy evidently late in life going through this important stage where he realized that we love who we love and we desire who we desire, and that these things aren't based on status or calculation.
So for Sanford, the awfulness wasn't that he went to Argentina; the awfulness was that he came back. And C Street brought him back. C Street said "you must work on your marriage as an obedience to God."
When these Republicans have their sex scandals, we should all say "great." Here is an opportunity for these conservative politicians to realize that love and lust and desire are complex, that they are not about obedience. Which is not to say that you should go cheat on your wife or your husband – just that we want these guys to reach their emotional maturity. When liberals gloat over it, they just play the same game, and round and round we go. It's the same kind of erasure of desire.
AC: Given what the real stakes are, why do you think the public is inclined to slip into the superficial criticisms of C Street?
JS: Well, let me clarify, I don't think talking about sex is superficial. Here is where I differ from a lot of people. There are people who are gloating about [the scandals], and then there are people saying, why are we talking about sex when we should be talking about serious things? I think sex is a pretty serious thing. We need to understand that when people talk about sex, they're talking about many things.
When my first book came out, I got a fair amount of press, but reporters didn't really get it, and people weren't really interested in it. The secrecy was really complex. But then the sex scandals and affairs come up, that's a kind of secrecy the public understands. Suddenly the sex and secrets become a metaphor. The public can easily see that politicians may be keeping things from us. They may not have our best interests at heart. People understand it because most of us have done, or have had done to us, something like it. That's what makes it a great news story. You're a journalist, you know that people don't want a new story; they want stories they know. And I'm not making fun of people – people want a story they already know because they're thinking about things, working it out in their own mind.
So I don't think it's superficial to talk about sex. You begin the conversation with sex … and I suppose if you're very lucky, you end it with sex. But in between, we must move on to serious things. We must see that the same justification that C Street uses to cover up the sex scandals of Ensign and Sanford and [Rep. Chip] Pickering is the exact same move for what their doing with their involvement in Uganda, and Nigeria, before that, Papa Doc in Haiti. It's the same erasure of desire.
AC: You write that the threat of the Family isn't theocracy, but 'the conflation of democracy with authoritarianism.' Logically, how does the Family reconcile these two seemingly oppositional ideas?
JS: They do it through the soft sell. They do it through the appeal to unity. Unity and harmony sound good. The subtitle I originally wanted for my book was "The Fundamentalist Abduction of Democracy." That idea, that conflation of democracy and authoritarianism, is very learned. Authoritarianism is kind of a bad word. But then you take one step over to paternalism. Well, that's still a bad word, but now you're talking about fathers. You get into the evangelical expressions of Father-God, and now you're talking about love, and love as an expression of authority.
People love hearing powerful white men telling them they're just a nobody, they didn't do anything, instead of telling them, ‘I'm a leader, I like being in charge. I have ideas about what we can do. I have what Martin Luther King called the drum major instinct.
That's where leaders come from. Leaders engage the prophetic voice. How does the Family conflate democracy with authoritarianism? They basically take Christianity and strip it of its prophetic voice. Cornel West writes a lot about this is in his theological work. The prophetic voice is a kind of democratic speech; it's about speaking truth to power. It's asserting that things as they are, are not as they should be. The prophetic voice means conflict, it means argument. It means we have different ideas. People don't like conflict, and that's where authoritarianism comes in – it's called harmony. The Family in its early days thought that after World War II, we would become a one-party state and they thought that was a great idea. Democracy is sharp edges, but that's how they reconcile it – that's their word, "reconciliation." It's cutting off the sharp edges and saying, "come over here where there's common ground and we all agree."
AC: It seems like the same people who would chafe at hearing a politician advocate authoritarianism don't recognize it when it doesn't show up in words, but in actions.
JS: Yeah, exactly. If it doesn't come articulated, people don't get it. [Members of the Family] do tend to be nice people, and I'm not just saying that. Most of them are very charitable on a personal level. It's the bigger picture they miss.
The fundamentalist abduction of democracy is the way they've abused the word reconciliation. It's the way of valuing common ground at all costs, even if some people will be left out, or erased, or forgotten, because they can't be reconciled to that story.
The reality is both this book and the last book is about fundamentalism, but in a way, it's speaking to and against liberalism as well. Liberalism bears a lot of responsibility for loving this myth of harmony more than they love democracy.
AC: Your book makes it clear that this fundamentalism conflated with politics isn't going to be vanquished by simply not electing one or another legislator; it's too pervasive for that. What, then, is the impact you hope this book will have on the November election?
Oh, how dare you ask that question! … My publishers want me to say that this is a rallying call. But the thing is, C Streeters aren't in danger. Jim DeMint in South Carolina is facing Alvin Greene – I think he'll do just fine. There are very few competitive races right now.
But on the other hand, I am going down to Lancaster County in Pennsylvania. Rep. Joe Pitts has been part of this organization since 1980. He keeps saying he doesn't have a connection to the Family, but that's not true; there's a long paper trail. So he's a dishonest man. Now, this is a conservative area and he's been around for a long time. Based on his votes, they aren't going to throw him out [of office]. He could've supported all his issues and been supported. But the reason the race is this close for the first time in a long time is because he was shady about it. I'm going down to talk at the Democratic banquet there for Lois Herr. I wouldn't normally do that, but this guy has got to go. He doesn't understand the Constitution, he never read the First Amendment, he lied to his constituents, and most dangerously, he's involved in overseas work.
The real danger of fundamentalism, to be honest, is the long shadow of the right wing overseas. That's why I spend so much time on the Uganda chapter [of C Street]. The real danger of C Street is not here, but there. Toufic Agha, who I write about in the Lebanon chapter of the book, he's been getting death threats for talking to, quote, “that Jew Jeff Sharlet.” That's the danger.
In the end, though, I didn't write this book as a campaign book. I wrote it because there's a story. If you restrict all your conflict and all your debate on this electoral ritual, you'll sacrifice the real conversations about authority and where it comes from – top up or top down.
Anna Clark's writing has appeared in The American Prospect, Utne Reader, Hobart, and Writers' Journal, among other publications. She is the editor of the literary and social justice Web site, Isak.
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148413/
The Family, also known as the Fellowship, is a cohort of powerful lawmakers seeking to create a "God-led government" at home and abroad. Chief among the journalists who brought the Family to light is Jeff Sharlet, author of the new book, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy. (The title of the book refers to the Washington townhouse that serves as the gathering place and sometime residence of Family members.)
While Sharlet has been digging into the secretive Family for years, it wasn’t until last year’s trio of sex scandals that a glaring spotlight was cast on the group. The adulterous affairs of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Mississippi, revealed their common membership in the secretive group.
The Family was founded in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, who believed that Christianity made a 2,000-year-old mistake by focusing on the poor. Vereide believed God told him to minister to the powerful; the modern-day "kings" chosen to enact divine will. Since then, these “key men” -- powerful politicians, well-placed executives and influential global leaders -- meet for Bible studies and "prayer cells." Members of the family try to cultivate powerful leaders around the world -- many of them despots -- to enact their Christian agenda globally.
The Family has always operated in secret; for more than 70 years, the group has influenced policy and business deals in the U.S. and abroad almost entirely without the public’s notice.
Family members have advocated for the violently anti-gay legislation currently before Uganda’s legislature; David Bahati, MP who introduced the bill to Uganda’s parliament, has been a longtime darling of the Family and a guest at the group’s only public event, the National Prayer Breakfast. Their involvement in the Uganda anti-gay bill isn’t an outlier: in the past, the Family has done business favors and supported dictatorships in Indonesia, Somalia and Haiti, among other nations under authoritarian rule. Meanwhile, Family forces connected to the U.S. military seek to spread fundamentalist Christianity. An organization of 15,000 officers is dedicated to what is described as “reclaiming territory for Christ in the military.”
While elected leaders in the U.S. ostensibly represent a democracy, with ideals of transparency and the separation of church and state, the Family urges its members to choose secrecy and consolidated power. Journalist Jeff Sharlet has managed to break through the Family's secrecy, writing two books that dig deep inside the shady organization. AlterNet spoke to him by phone.
Anna Clark: Do you believe members of the Family sincerely believe they are doing God's work, or is that language consciously used by them as a cover?
Jeff Sharlet: Not all of them, but most of them do sincerely believe it. One guy—whose name I can't put on record, but who was very intimately involved—I went to sit down with him because he wanted to know what I was working on. I told him that I'm not attacking religion at all. He told me ‘I don't care. It's about money.' There are a lot of people there just using it, definitely.
But the more disturbing thing is that move you get with someone like Sen. Inhofe. He travels the world and talks to these oil-rich dictators, telling them he loves them, they melt his heart, their brothers in Christ. He becomes their champion back in America. Well, the oil industry likes that, they like that he's speaking out on sanctions on the industry in Nigeria. Inhofe gets a lifetime achievement award from the petroleum industry, and the industry donates heavily to his re-election campaign. Inhofe doesn't experience that as cynicism or corruption. He experiences it as that he's doing God's work.
[Members of the Family] are in it for the cash, but they're in it for God too. Are they cynical or sincere? The answer is: yes. Both. Simultaneously.
AC: Does the Family have any other counterparts in U.S. politics – groups of people that, religiously based or not, are contracting the scope of democracy?
JS: Yes, absolutely. I'm not saying that these guys are the secret puppet-masters that control the world. All I'm doing with this story is adding one more power base to our pantheon.
But the real key thing about the Family is the secrecy. Now, I disagree with Pat Robinson and James Dobson completely, 100 percent. I know they do secret things, but they are out there in the public square. They engage in democracy. Sure, it's for an undemocratic vision, but that's legitimate. But [the Family's] unusual and uncommon influence is that for so long they denied their own existence. That's starting to change, though, because of all this publicity.
AC: It's amazing that the strategy really works. The founder articulated that it would be more powerful and efficient if the Family denied its own existence, and he was right!
Ronald Reagan once said at the National Prayer Breakfast, the Family's only public event, he said to the journalists in the room about the Family: ‘I could tell you more about it, but I can't. It's working precisely because it's private.' And then he said this: “I've had my moments with the press, but I have to commend them for their discretion.”
You're a journalist, you know that any time a politician compliments you on your discretion, it's a problem! But a lot of these journalists see that as a sign that they're in, they're in the inner circle. They say they're "cultivating sources." No, you're not, you hack! You're auditioning for a talking heads spot, that's what you're doing. … A lot of these journalists practice knee-jerk centrism. This idea that the center must hold – not that it will hold, but that it must hold. It's when journalists see themselves as guardians of that balance that you get in a very dangerous place.
AC: While the Family came most forcefully into the public consciousness in the wake of last year's scandals of three of its members, you write in C Street of the importance of resisting the urge to gloat about moral hypocrisy. Can you talk about why such finger-pointing is a flawed response?
JS: Because that liberal glee at right-wingers acting on desire comes from the same prudish, small, little, hard-hearted place. It's the same counting of sins that right-wingers themselves do. Maybe it's a bait-and-switch – people think they will buy this book and hear about all the naughty things Republicans do. And they will—but those things are about money and violence overseas.
Look at the story of [South Carolina Gov.] Mark Sanford in particular. He's something of a tragic figure, right? He's in this terrible, terrible marriage. Here was this guy evidently late in life going through this important stage where he realized that we love who we love and we desire who we desire, and that these things aren't based on status or calculation.
So for Sanford, the awfulness wasn't that he went to Argentina; the awfulness was that he came back. And C Street brought him back. C Street said "you must work on your marriage as an obedience to God."
When these Republicans have their sex scandals, we should all say "great." Here is an opportunity for these conservative politicians to realize that love and lust and desire are complex, that they are not about obedience. Which is not to say that you should go cheat on your wife or your husband – just that we want these guys to reach their emotional maturity. When liberals gloat over it, they just play the same game, and round and round we go. It's the same kind of erasure of desire.
AC: Given what the real stakes are, why do you think the public is inclined to slip into the superficial criticisms of C Street?
JS: Well, let me clarify, I don't think talking about sex is superficial. Here is where I differ from a lot of people. There are people who are gloating about [the scandals], and then there are people saying, why are we talking about sex when we should be talking about serious things? I think sex is a pretty serious thing. We need to understand that when people talk about sex, they're talking about many things.
When my first book came out, I got a fair amount of press, but reporters didn't really get it, and people weren't really interested in it. The secrecy was really complex. But then the sex scandals and affairs come up, that's a kind of secrecy the public understands. Suddenly the sex and secrets become a metaphor. The public can easily see that politicians may be keeping things from us. They may not have our best interests at heart. People understand it because most of us have done, or have had done to us, something like it. That's what makes it a great news story. You're a journalist, you know that people don't want a new story; they want stories they know. And I'm not making fun of people – people want a story they already know because they're thinking about things, working it out in their own mind.
So I don't think it's superficial to talk about sex. You begin the conversation with sex … and I suppose if you're very lucky, you end it with sex. But in between, we must move on to serious things. We must see that the same justification that C Street uses to cover up the sex scandals of Ensign and Sanford and [Rep. Chip] Pickering is the exact same move for what their doing with their involvement in Uganda, and Nigeria, before that, Papa Doc in Haiti. It's the same erasure of desire.
AC: You write that the threat of the Family isn't theocracy, but 'the conflation of democracy with authoritarianism.' Logically, how does the Family reconcile these two seemingly oppositional ideas?
JS: They do it through the soft sell. They do it through the appeal to unity. Unity and harmony sound good. The subtitle I originally wanted for my book was "The Fundamentalist Abduction of Democracy." That idea, that conflation of democracy and authoritarianism, is very learned. Authoritarianism is kind of a bad word. But then you take one step over to paternalism. Well, that's still a bad word, but now you're talking about fathers. You get into the evangelical expressions of Father-God, and now you're talking about love, and love as an expression of authority.
People love hearing powerful white men telling them they're just a nobody, they didn't do anything, instead of telling them, ‘I'm a leader, I like being in charge. I have ideas about what we can do. I have what Martin Luther King called the drum major instinct.
That's where leaders come from. Leaders engage the prophetic voice. How does the Family conflate democracy with authoritarianism? They basically take Christianity and strip it of its prophetic voice. Cornel West writes a lot about this is in his theological work. The prophetic voice is a kind of democratic speech; it's about speaking truth to power. It's asserting that things as they are, are not as they should be. The prophetic voice means conflict, it means argument. It means we have different ideas. People don't like conflict, and that's where authoritarianism comes in – it's called harmony. The Family in its early days thought that after World War II, we would become a one-party state and they thought that was a great idea. Democracy is sharp edges, but that's how they reconcile it – that's their word, "reconciliation." It's cutting off the sharp edges and saying, "come over here where there's common ground and we all agree."
AC: It seems like the same people who would chafe at hearing a politician advocate authoritarianism don't recognize it when it doesn't show up in words, but in actions.
JS: Yeah, exactly. If it doesn't come articulated, people don't get it. [Members of the Family] do tend to be nice people, and I'm not just saying that. Most of them are very charitable on a personal level. It's the bigger picture they miss.
The fundamentalist abduction of democracy is the way they've abused the word reconciliation. It's the way of valuing common ground at all costs, even if some people will be left out, or erased, or forgotten, because they can't be reconciled to that story.
The reality is both this book and the last book is about fundamentalism, but in a way, it's speaking to and against liberalism as well. Liberalism bears a lot of responsibility for loving this myth of harmony more than they love democracy.
AC: Your book makes it clear that this fundamentalism conflated with politics isn't going to be vanquished by simply not electing one or another legislator; it's too pervasive for that. What, then, is the impact you hope this book will have on the November election?
Oh, how dare you ask that question! … My publishers want me to say that this is a rallying call. But the thing is, C Streeters aren't in danger. Jim DeMint in South Carolina is facing Alvin Greene – I think he'll do just fine. There are very few competitive races right now.
But on the other hand, I am going down to Lancaster County in Pennsylvania. Rep. Joe Pitts has been part of this organization since 1980. He keeps saying he doesn't have a connection to the Family, but that's not true; there's a long paper trail. So he's a dishonest man. Now, this is a conservative area and he's been around for a long time. Based on his votes, they aren't going to throw him out [of office]. He could've supported all his issues and been supported. But the reason the race is this close for the first time in a long time is because he was shady about it. I'm going down to talk at the Democratic banquet there for Lois Herr. I wouldn't normally do that, but this guy has got to go. He doesn't understand the Constitution, he never read the First Amendment, he lied to his constituents, and most dangerously, he's involved in overseas work.
The real danger of fundamentalism, to be honest, is the long shadow of the right wing overseas. That's why I spend so much time on the Uganda chapter [of C Street]. The real danger of C Street is not here, but there. Toufic Agha, who I write about in the Lebanon chapter of the book, he's been getting death threats for talking to, quote, “that Jew Jeff Sharlet.” That's the danger.
In the end, though, I didn't write this book as a campaign book. I wrote it because there's a story. If you restrict all your conflict and all your debate on this electoral ritual, you'll sacrifice the real conversations about authority and where it comes from – top up or top down.
Anna Clark's writing has appeared in The American Prospect, Utne Reader, Hobart, and Writers' Journal, among other publications. She is the editor of the literary and social justice Web site, Isak.
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148413/
Mind Control - Scientific Mind Reading
Here is something thought provoking.
Leave your comments at the bottom of the post.
Leave your comments at the bottom of the post.
Learn to do what the psychics do ...
even if you are NOT psychic!
Click Here to find out
how it's done!
even if you are NOT psychic!
Click Here to find out
how it's done!
Mind Control - The Thinking Process of a Mythbuster
This is an awesome lecture by Discovery Channel Mythbuster Adam Savage. Adam talks about how he solves problems when he has a project to work on.
When I listened to it I compare it to my process and ... there are wonderful similarities... and very instructional and informative.
Click here to view the original web page
http://fora.tv/2010/05/22/Adam_Savage_Presents_Problem_Solving_How_I_Do_It#fullprogram
When I listened to it I compare it to my process and ... there are wonderful similarities... and very instructional and informative.
Click here to view the original web page
http://fora.tv/2010/05/22/Adam_Savage_Presents_Problem_Solving_How_I_Do_It#fullprogram
Mind Control Maneuvers... what is yours?
There are literally hundreds of mind control approaches and maneuvers – but how can you know when to use them? Some techniques will probably be impressive in some situations, but not others. Only when you have good understanding of what makes a particular technique work will you cover the cost of really skillful use of it. One of the first steps of each thoughts control attempt is always to create some type of mental disorientation.
This doesn’t ought to be a profound type of disorientation, just a short moment of subtle confusion is sufficient. At this stage, a person is very unstable and it is easy to move them into any kind of direction you want to move them into. And usually, the next step is to move them into the past, or what psychologists refer to: regression. We all have been kids once, and kids have a tendency to be more willing to follow suggestions than adults, at least generally speaking, except for when they practice resistance.
There are many strategies to trigger regressive psychological states, the most fundamental ones would be to just have them remember particular childhood events and let them describe these events and how they reckoned throughout that time in detail. The next step then is to become the transferred parent figure. Basically, you use words and gestures to trigger them to subconsciously associate parental authority with your persona.
Keep in thoughts that children always strive for their parents approval and will go to great lengths to gain that. The exact same is true for this scenario, even though you are not their actual mother or father, and they are not real kids – but you can use your approval as a form of emotional currency. You are able to use these thoughts control strategies in all kinds of situations, be it your private or professional life.
You are able to use these with lovers, sex partners, spouses, pals, coworkers, bosses, employees, clients and clients, or just random strangers. Whenever you would like individuals to wish to do something, to alter their behavior or thoughts, thoughts control can help you to achieve just that.
It is much more powerful than trying to talk people into change or convince them of something, because with thoughts control, the impulse to behave, believe or feel differently comes out that belongs to them mind, rather than from another person – at least that is how they perceive it. They are not consciously aware that you secretly implanted the seed of that thought, feeling or action into their mind. Discover more astounding and beneficial data on does hypnosis work for weight loss and Hypnosis Techniques
Mind Control - Handbook for the Female Slave
Product Description
This book is a guide prepared for a slave to enable her to express her love for her Master through her actions. In this case, her actions include ways of standing, sitting and speaking (ways of being) as well as ways of preparing things to please her Master in a consensual "Master/slave" relationship. The book covers formal Leather protocols as well as a range of personal rituals, such as formal dinner service. As much as anthing else, this is a book of etiquette and service within the Leather-BDSM culture.
Editorial Reviews
More than a book of Protocols, this book looks into the BDSM Leather subculture as a whole. --Robert Steele
This book is a guide enabling a slave to express love for her Master through actions. --Bill Anderson
Protocols demonstrates devotion to a Master express through the slave's service. --Blake Stephens
About the Author
Dr. Rubel is an educational socioligist and researcher by training. Immediately after college he taught high school English in South-Central Los Angeles. Returning to graduate school, he earned an EdM and PhD in the area of crime prevention in public schools. After serving a stint as a Visiting Fellow at the U.S. Department of Justice, he formed a non-profit that specialized in crime prevention in public schools. He ran that firm for 17 years. In his mid-40s, Rubel decided to change careers utterly and joined a stock brokerage and future brokerage firm. Within six months, he was named CEO. He ran the company for another four years. Now, retired to pursude his passion as an erotic and fetish art photographer, he resides in Austin Texas. Rubel has been involved in the BDSM scene for a number of years, throwing himself into the literature of the field as though it was an academic study. He frequently attends BDSM weekend conferences.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
What This Book Is This book is my personal Manual of Protocol for my slave. This book guides her behavior, whether or not she is in my presence. Often, those fairly new to BDSM have a vague sense that M/s relationships are somehow better than D/s relationships and in a universe different from Top/bottom play. That is not so, it’s just that they are different. As Master Skip Chasey points out, Top/bottom play is about the physical body, Dominant/submissive play is about the mental body and Master/slave relationships are about the spiritual body. Master Steve Sampson cuts it slightly differently: “Top and bottom play is about the sexual self; dominance and submission is about energy and Master/ slave relationships are about the spiritual.” As obedience and service are at the core of the Master/slave dynamic, protocols become the means by which the slave aligns himself or herself with Master’s choices for personal service. In that light, each Master has to create protocols that enable his or her slave to express obedience through tailored service. “Slave training” is all about teaching the slave to perform that service. Now, there is a great deal of fantasy built up about Master/slave relations, particularly about slave training. Often, these fantasies have something to do with, “Do what I say, or I’ll punish you.” That line of thought is foreign to me. My slave is a person. A vibrant and intelligent person. My slave probably has a higher IQ than I do and has substantial advanced training in skill areas that support our relationship. With her slaveheart, my slave’s primary purpose is to serve me. My role, as Master, is to train her in ways of providing that service. It’s a long process, the result of which is that those who knew her before she entered the Lifestyle and still know her today find her vastly changed. I have never punished her for a lapse in Protocol. When a glitch occurs, I point it out, and we discuss it. My method of training — true, long-term modification of her behavior — rests on reinforcing positive behaviors and downplaying the glitches. I approach training in this way because if I were to keep picking on the glitches, she would become hypercritical of her own actions and become anxious when around me. So, why are these my opening paragraphs? Because this is a book written from my heart about a real, live, ongoing, dynamic Master/slave relationship.
Customer Reviews
This is a book about the Leather subculture
To my knowledge, there is no other book out there like this one. After a healthy orientation to the world of Leather, the book divides into two main parts: how the slave is to behave in public Leather events and how the slave is to prepare the evening for a formal High Leather Protocol dinner. It is written in the first person, directly guiding the slave through these activities.
I found this book interesting because often, particularly in new Master/slave relations, the slave is unsure what to do to serve the Master and the Master is unsure how he wants to be served. This book seems designed to help in those situations.
I also sense that the author is a little eccentric. Well, this relationship is certainly an unusual one. You will do well to think of this book as a Leather Etiquette book. If you're not familiar with the Leather culture, this will surely be an eye-opener.
Protocols: Handbook for the female slave
This practical handbook is not only for the service slave, but for the Master and Mistress as well. Both benefit by getting the specific directions necessary to take their Dominance/submission to the next level. This is a buffet of experiences. Pick the ones that suit you and your family. Modify, revamp and use this enlightening treatise into one family's structure to create your own. The handbook is transformational, and I highly recommend it to novices as well as those seasoned in the art of power exchange.
A good read, but not a template.
First off the book does a wonderful job of explaining various different aspects and dynamics of the lifestyle, which for readers new to the lifestyle will find very helpful. The contents draw in great detail the protocols expected of a slave under what I would call a financially stable, and secure business man. The books also lends a lot of useful ideas for those seeking to establish boundaries and topics for their own set of protocols. The formal settings and aspects help to re-establish many forgotten standards. However I do find only one flaw. For many middle class readers hoping to use the book as a reference for the basis of their own protocols, the feeling may be lacking. The back drop of the book is from the unique relationship between the author and his slave. His dynamics may vary from yours. But the book does offer many wonderful aspects and is certainly worth the reading.
This book is a guide prepared for a slave to enable her to express her love for her Master through her actions. In this case, her actions include ways of standing, sitting and speaking (ways of being) as well as ways of preparing things to please her Master in a consensual "Master/slave" relationship. The book covers formal Leather protocols as well as a range of personal rituals, such as formal dinner service. As much as anthing else, this is a book of etiquette and service within the Leather-BDSM culture.
Editorial Reviews
More than a book of Protocols, this book looks into the BDSM Leather subculture as a whole. --Robert Steele
This book is a guide enabling a slave to express love for her Master through actions. --Bill Anderson
Protocols demonstrates devotion to a Master express through the slave's service. --Blake Stephens
About the Author
Dr. Rubel is an educational socioligist and researcher by training. Immediately after college he taught high school English in South-Central Los Angeles. Returning to graduate school, he earned an EdM and PhD in the area of crime prevention in public schools. After serving a stint as a Visiting Fellow at the U.S. Department of Justice, he formed a non-profit that specialized in crime prevention in public schools. He ran that firm for 17 years. In his mid-40s, Rubel decided to change careers utterly and joined a stock brokerage and future brokerage firm. Within six months, he was named CEO. He ran the company for another four years. Now, retired to pursude his passion as an erotic and fetish art photographer, he resides in Austin Texas. Rubel has been involved in the BDSM scene for a number of years, throwing himself into the literature of the field as though it was an academic study. He frequently attends BDSM weekend conferences.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
What This Book Is This book is my personal Manual of Protocol for my slave. This book guides her behavior, whether or not she is in my presence. Often, those fairly new to BDSM have a vague sense that M/s relationships are somehow better than D/s relationships and in a universe different from Top/bottom play. That is not so, it’s just that they are different. As Master Skip Chasey points out, Top/bottom play is about the physical body, Dominant/submissive play is about the mental body and Master/slave relationships are about the spiritual body. Master Steve Sampson cuts it slightly differently: “Top and bottom play is about the sexual self; dominance and submission is about energy and Master/ slave relationships are about the spiritual.” As obedience and service are at the core of the Master/slave dynamic, protocols become the means by which the slave aligns himself or herself with Master’s choices for personal service. In that light, each Master has to create protocols that enable his or her slave to express obedience through tailored service. “Slave training” is all about teaching the slave to perform that service. Now, there is a great deal of fantasy built up about Master/slave relations, particularly about slave training. Often, these fantasies have something to do with, “Do what I say, or I’ll punish you.” That line of thought is foreign to me. My slave is a person. A vibrant and intelligent person. My slave probably has a higher IQ than I do and has substantial advanced training in skill areas that support our relationship. With her slaveheart, my slave’s primary purpose is to serve me. My role, as Master, is to train her in ways of providing that service. It’s a long process, the result of which is that those who knew her before she entered the Lifestyle and still know her today find her vastly changed. I have never punished her for a lapse in Protocol. When a glitch occurs, I point it out, and we discuss it. My method of training — true, long-term modification of her behavior — rests on reinforcing positive behaviors and downplaying the glitches. I approach training in this way because if I were to keep picking on the glitches, she would become hypercritical of her own actions and become anxious when around me. So, why are these my opening paragraphs? Because this is a book written from my heart about a real, live, ongoing, dynamic Master/slave relationship.
Customer Reviews
This is a book about the Leather subculture
To my knowledge, there is no other book out there like this one. After a healthy orientation to the world of Leather, the book divides into two main parts: how the slave is to behave in public Leather events and how the slave is to prepare the evening for a formal High Leather Protocol dinner. It is written in the first person, directly guiding the slave through these activities.
I found this book interesting because often, particularly in new Master/slave relations, the slave is unsure what to do to serve the Master and the Master is unsure how he wants to be served. This book seems designed to help in those situations.
I also sense that the author is a little eccentric. Well, this relationship is certainly an unusual one. You will do well to think of this book as a Leather Etiquette book. If you're not familiar with the Leather culture, this will surely be an eye-opener.
Protocols: Handbook for the female slave
This practical handbook is not only for the service slave, but for the Master and Mistress as well. Both benefit by getting the specific directions necessary to take their Dominance/submission to the next level. This is a buffet of experiences. Pick the ones that suit you and your family. Modify, revamp and use this enlightening treatise into one family's structure to create your own. The handbook is transformational, and I highly recommend it to novices as well as those seasoned in the art of power exchange.
A good read, but not a template.
First off the book does a wonderful job of explaining various different aspects and dynamics of the lifestyle, which for readers new to the lifestyle will find very helpful. The contents draw in great detail the protocols expected of a slave under what I would call a financially stable, and secure business man. The books also lends a lot of useful ideas for those seeking to establish boundaries and topics for their own set of protocols. The formal settings and aspects help to re-establish many forgotten standards. However I do find only one flaw. For many middle class readers hoping to use the book as a reference for the basis of their own protocols, the feeling may be lacking. The back drop of the book is from the unique relationship between the author and his slave. His dynamics may vary from yours. But the book does offer many wonderful aspects and is certainly worth the reading.
This is an important book for what it reveals about the nature of interrogation. Interrogation, as it is practiced' is not about finding the truth but about creating a set of new beliefs in the prisoner. As the author, Sargent, points out this may be entirely unintentional on the part of the questioner. However the techniques they use to overcome their subject's resistance act to put him/her in a state of heightened suggestibility. The examiner by his/her questions supplies to the subject the substance of new beliefs. The stress that they put the subject under cause distinct and predictable physiological effects that result in the subject losing his/her previous sets of beliefs.Sargent illustrates this by reference to techniques used in religious conversions and Soviet and Chinese brain washing and re-education. Sargent shows that the same techniques of overwhelming the subject with stress and then offering a way out have been sued for thousands of years in this regard. He describes Soviet era questioning, the evangelism of John Wesley, Chinese re-education camps and shows that they all have the same effect of converting the subject to a new way of belief that is desired by the examiner. The subjects of Soviet show trials did not confess because they feared more pain. They confessed because they genuinely believed in Th charges against them
This puts the current discussion of torture and Guantanomo in perspective. The techniques from there that have been described in the press are not designed to elicit information under the fear of pain. They are designed to convert the prisoners to a new set of beliefs that are compatible with American interests. As Sargent shows, since the fact that the prisoners are people with strong beliefs means that they will, after conversion, hold beliefs of equal strength in the new cause. They will cooperate with the American cause because they will then believe in it with all of their hearts.
Mind Control - Is everything "okay" or just SATANIC?
From the conspiro-blog Vigilante Citizen they ask the questions "Why are these pop stars flashing the OK sign? Could it be another trigger signal for Illuminati programmed slaves? Just remember kids that when you flash the Okay sign you are really agreeing to accept your place in the New World Order. (Seriously, this is really more BS from a hyper active imagination.
The “a-ok” hand sign commonly signifies approbation or appreciation. Like many other signs, it has a deeper, darker meaning in occult circles. Widely unnoticed, the hand sign is flashed by many major artists of the music industry. What does it really signify? We’ll look at the occult meaning of a-ok and recent artists who have used it.
We all know about the “devil’s horn” hand sign popularized by rock groups. Not many however realize that the “a-ok” sign, flashed as if it was a gang sign (well it is used by gangs but that’s not the topic here), has another meaning than simply “this is OK“. Due to the context of its usage, and often combined with other occult symbols, the a-ok seems to be is a sign of occult initiation in the music industry. They say a “picture is worth a thousand words” so I’ll let the pictures do the talking .
What Does the “A-Ok” Sign Mean?
Hand signs have different meanings when found in different cultures. In America and most of Europe, the a-ok is used to signify approbation, satisfaction or excellence. In other countries, it is often considered obscene or a reference to the a-hole. It however carries a deeper meaning when one looks into occult symbolism.
“Westerner’s know it as the “okay” (or “OK”) sign. It’s done with the fingers and thumb of right or left hands (usually the right). Simply touch the index finger to the thumb, creating a circle. The other three fingers then spiral off and there you have it—the well-known symbol for OK. Universally, this sign means alright, acceptable, good, right-on, you bet!, A-OK, satisfactory…But to occultists, the OK sign takes on darker significance. First, we have the circle, indicating the sun deity and the Mason’s never-ending quest for more light. To Freemasonry, the circle also represents the female genitalia, or yoni. In the Hindu religion, the OK sign is a revered mudra (sacred gesture) meaning “infinity” or perfection. It is associated with the female genitalia — thumb and forefinger pressed together at the tips with the other three fingers extended.In the practice of tantric yoga (sex rituals), the OK sign is a token of ecstasy, spiritual and physical. In ancient Sumeria and Persia, charms and amulets have been discovered of fingers and hands in the modern OK position, joined along with horns implying fertility. The three fingers extended outward are symbolic of ecstatic union with the Goddess, the third member of the pagan trinity.In Satanism, when making this sign the three fingers not used to make the circle are considered symbolic of the unholy trinity — horned God, Goddess, and offspring (antichrist). Some go so far as to adopt the view that the bent three fingers are shaped as three number six’s, or 666. Thus, we have 666, the sun deity (Lucifer), the Goddess (Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots), and the beast (antichrist, 666), all in one unitary hand sign. Oh what a web of evil wicked men can weave around something seemingly so ordinary and mundane.In the Illuminist philosophy, the OK sign becomes a sign indicating approval of the Divine King, their coming Lord of Light, whom we as Christians know as antichrist. To them it means, “He approves our undertaking.” This meaning is roughly equivalent to the words in Latin atop the all-seeing eye of Osiris on our U.S. one dollar bill—Annuit Coeptus”- Texe Marrs, Codex Magica
Is Texe Marrs on to something here?
- A-OK FLASHED BY PAUL MCCARTNEY. THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THE A-OK SIGN WITH LENNON’S “DEVIL’S HORN” HINTS TO ITS HIDDEN MEANING.
Whatever is the meaning behind the a-ok sign, it is certainly widely used by stars of the music industry who have been associated with occult symbolism. Placed in the context of those music videos, the signal is rarely used as a sign of approbation but it is rather flashed in the same matter as a gang sign…a sign of initiation. Here are some examples from today’s biggest stars, in alphabetical order…Could this all be a coincidence?
Beyonce
- FROM VIDEO PHONE VIDEO FEATURING LADY GAGA
Justin Timberlake
- FEATURING WHO?
Kid Cudi
- FROM SHAKIRA FEATURING KID CUDI DID IT AGAIN (REMIX) VIDEO
- FROM PURSUIT OF HAPINESS VIDEO – CUDI AND DRAKE FLASHING A-OK SIGN
- THERE IS NO A-OK SIGN IN THAT IMAGE. THIS IS HOWEVER A GOOD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS REFERENCE TO MIND CONTROL IN CUDI’S ALBUM COVER
Lady Gaga
She does it so often, I had to resort to a…MONTAGE!
- THIS PICTURE WAS RECENTLY TAKEN DURING A PERFORMANCE FROM HER “MONSTER BALL” TOUR. NOTICE THE BACK OF HER BACKUP DANCER’S VEST: THE ILLUMINATI ALL-SEEING EYE.
Lil Wayne
- FROM JAY SEAN’S DOWN VIDEO, WHICH CONTAINS MANY OTHER OCCULT SYMBOLS
Madonna
- FROM FROZEN, A DEEPLY OCCULT (KABBALISTIC) SONG
Ne-Yo
Who (or what) is he talking about in the song Closer?
Turn the lights off in this place
And she shines just like a star
And I swear I know her face
I just don’t know who you are
Turn the music up in here
I still hear her loud and clear
Like she’s right there in my ear
Telling me that she wants to own me
To control me
Come closer
And I just can’t pull my self away
Under her spell I can’t break
I just can’t stop
And i just can’t bring myself no way
But I don’t want to escape
I just can’t stop
He also wrote Rihanna’s Russian Roulette, which was analyzed in a previous article.
//
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);Paramore
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);Paramore
T-Pain
- mind_control-aok
- T-PAIN’S ALBUM COVER OF THR33 RINGZ. WHAT ARE ‘RINGZ’? THE NUMBER 6?
Shakira
- IN HER GIVE IT UP TO ME VIDEO, SHAKIRA POSES AS THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, AN ILLUMINIST/MASONIC SCULPTURE. THERE IS AN EMPHASIS ON THE SUN GODDESS ASPECT OF IT, WITH RAYS BEAMING OUT OF THE SUN CROWN. OH, AND SHE’S ALSO FLASHING THAT A-OK SIGN.
To Conclude
It is possible that some of the images were mere coincidences. But can all of them be? I’ve chosen instances where the a-ok sign was clearly and consciously flashed by the artists for the cameras and is thus shown for a reason. Given the importance of hand signals in occult secret societies and considering the presence of other occult symbols in the videos of those stars, there is a good possibility of the use of that sign for its occult meaning. Is it a sign of the initiates in the “Illuminati” industry? Kinda gives another meaning to “Are you OK?”, doesn’t it?
Thanks to everybody who sent me a-ok images!
Mind Control - How to control bullies
http://www.physorg.com/news204468198.html
When it comes to childhood bullying, four key factors help with coping, study says
September 23rd, 2010 in Medicine & Health / Psychology & Psychiatry
When it comes to childhood bullying, four key factors help with coping, study says
A new study from researchers at Macquarie University has identified four coping factors that can help children overcome victimisation and lessen the impact of bullying on their future happiness. The report concludes that helping children developing these characteristics can reduce depression, anxiety and behavioural problems when victimised by their peers.
Most children will experience some form of bullying as they grow up. A study published by Cross and Colleagues (2009) suggests that as many as one in four children will be harassed by their peers at some stage. However, not all children suffer the same long term effects, and some recover better than others. Dr. Puneet Singh and Associate Professor Kay Bussey from Macquarie University’s Department of Psychology have identified four factors that help children cope with victimisation.
“Unfortunately, many children will get victimized during school and this can continue into adulthood,” says Dr. Singh, “so it all comes back to your personal ability to deal with it.” Their research suggests that children who have more confidence in their ability to be proactive and seek support or resolve conflicts are less likely to experience anxiety. Those with a greater ability not to blame themselves, to focus on their positive attributes, and not take victimisation personally were found to be less anxious and depressed. Finally, students who felt confident not to strike back or seek revenge exhibited fewer behavioral problems.
“They should take action, get support, and not seek revenge. Children who don’t strike back but forgive are less likely to have behavioral difficulties,” says Dr. Singh. She stresses the importance of helping children to develop confidence in their own abilities to feel more in control of a situation. “Look out for signs,” she says, and urges parents and teachers to encourage development of the identified coping factors. “It is not only what children do in response to being victimized, but also how they think about themselves that helps them overcome long-term difficulties.”
How the Illuminati Secretly Identify Themselves in Hollywood Pictures
I think I've posted this video before. I found it on a conspiro-blog. The producer of the video is trying to convince you that all this symbolism links together to reveal hidden message: that you are being manipulated by a more powerful force and that these hidden forces are putting these messages in films as a way of winking and snickering at each other.
Personally, I think that because film is a VISUAL art form they have to resort of symbols that are already in the collective awareness. Conspiracy my ass.
Your comments are welcome.
Personally, I think that because film is a VISUAL art form they have to resort of symbols that are already in the collective awareness. Conspiracy my ass.
Your comments are welcome.
~Dantalion Jones
Mind Control - Funny Video On Cult Recruiting
Please, Leave your comments below.
Better yet, share this with your friend. What have you got lose? You'll either go mad from the revelation or be on your knees begging for another dark age!
Mind Control - Keep Your Self-Esteem To Yourself
Walk into any bookstore nowadays, and what do you see? Concerning 0.5 an acre of "inspirational" works: self-facilitate manuals, guides to life, motivational books and books-on-tape-the literature of uplift.
Who are the "authors" of those molehills that build up a mountain? Doodlers with a knack for sugar-coating, for assuring us this is often the best of all attainable worlds, that man is the pinnacle of God's creation and that each and every one is endowed with touch of the divine, not to mention a generous serving to of genius just waiting to be tapped.
Each age gets the philosophy it deserves. Ours is one that may be summed up in an advertising jingle: Feel good regarding yourself.
Concerning a hundred and twenty years ago, Ambrose Bierce, known nowadays mainly for his Devil's Dictionary and because the hero portrayed wholly inaccurately by Gregory Peck in The Old Gringo, wrote an everyday newspaper column in The San Francisco Examiner. America within the Nineties was, in some respects, abundant like it is today: on the point of a brand new millennium, it had been struggling with the concept of freedom-wildly optimistic on the one hand, terribly insecure on the other.
Bierce, who had a low opinion of humanity in general, had his own read of freedom. He thought most Americans unfit for it.
"I don't believe in the best sensible to the greatest number," he wrote. "I feel in the greatest smart to the most effective men. And I'd sacrifice 100 incapable men to elevate one extremely nice man."
(I like him already!)
Each age conjointly gets the cynics it deserves. Ours has Andy Rooney, the Lovable Grouch ("Have you ever ever listened to cell-phone conversations?...")
The United States nowadays is the Land of Importunity, obsessed with the Self. It's an area inhospitable to genuine cynics.
The true cynic refuses to put too nice a value on anything, his own person included. He isn't at home in this republic, which flies the flag of Self-Esteem. He could be a stranger to the society of family values, forced geniality, compulsory inoffensiveness.
The Cynic's Creed goes one thing like this:
1) Place your faith in man. You can be certain that, sooner or later, he'll let you down. A corollary to the current is:
2) Do not believe anyone, or something, you hear while not sufficient evidence. Rely upon facts, not emotions. And furthermore:
3) Avoid experts in the least costs. Keep in mind that nobody knows a lot of about anything.
4) Face facts, however disheartening. Try to appear life squarely in the face. As Bierce wrote, strive to "see things as they are, not as they should be."
5) Respect your limitations. Consider the chance that you might not be the apple of some god's eye. Humbly admit that, contrary to well-liked sentiment, you can not do, or be, anything you want. Even a milking-cow knows it cannot climb the Matterhorn.
6) Make it so that the only thing that will truly surprise you is kind and caring person.
7) Finally, do not worry concerning your self-esteem. You are as insignificant as anyone else.
All of that said, I do think you will do better in life if you PRIVATELY think of yourself as some form of mortal god-being that was forced to live in an insignificant human body. Why? Because it puts your cynicism into a nicely packed perspective. That way you have good reason to believe you're better than everyone else and even more reason NOT to tell anyone why.
I've written two so-called Mind Control "self-help" books that don't hide my cynicism they are:
and 
Mind Control - Are you smarter than a Christian?
Here is an interesting article thanks to Salon.com. It reveals the whats and the whys of Christian ignorance. This is of course a generalization. Most of the Christians I know are much smarter than the norm. The article illustrates the quality of Christian religious indoctrination (a.k.a. mind control).
Please, leave me a comment below.
Got a question about God? Ask an atheist. When the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently surveyed Americans on "core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions," it was atheists and agnostics who scored the highest -- right above Jews and Mormons, and leaving evangelical Protestants and Catholics in the dust.
The results of the survey, which asked respondents questions like what the Quran is and which religion Joseph Smith practiced, shed light not merely on which groups have the greatest breadth of knowledge about other religions, but how well -- or how little -- each group knows its own faith. A whopping 45 percent of Catholics surveyed incorrectly answered a question about the nature of the Eucharist (Psssssst … it's called transubstantiation, and it's one of the church's big ones, tenet-wise) and over half of all Protestants couldn't identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Reformation. (And if you're curious to see if you're more informed than a Christian, a modified version of the test is at the Pew's website.)
As someone who identifies as Catholic and still practices her faith -- albeit with plenty of criticism of a highly flawed institution and even more questions about God and religion in general -- I was both disappointed and unsurprised by the piss-poor performance of Christians. While most respondents across the board crushed the questions regarding the Bible, the fact that only about half knew that the Golden Rule is not one of the Ten Commandments is pretty weak. It's straight out of the Onion story about the area man who's a "Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be."
Please, leave me a comment below.
~ Dantalion Jones
Got a question about God? Ask an atheist. When the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently surveyed Americans on "core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions," it was atheists and agnostics who scored the highest -- right above Jews and Mormons, and leaving evangelical Protestants and Catholics in the dust.The results of the survey, which asked respondents questions like what the Quran is and which religion Joseph Smith practiced, shed light not merely on which groups have the greatest breadth of knowledge about other religions, but how well -- or how little -- each group knows its own faith. A whopping 45 percent of Catholics surveyed incorrectly answered a question about the nature of the Eucharist (Psssssst … it's called transubstantiation, and it's one of the church's big ones, tenet-wise) and over half of all Protestants couldn't identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Reformation. (And if you're curious to see if you're more informed than a Christian, a modified version of the test is at the Pew's website.)
As someone who identifies as Catholic and still practices her faith -- albeit with plenty of criticism of a highly flawed institution and even more questions about God and religion in general -- I was both disappointed and unsurprised by the piss-poor performance of Christians. While most respondents across the board crushed the questions regarding the Bible, the fact that only about half knew that the Golden Rule is not one of the Ten Commandments is pretty weak. It's straight out of the Onion story about the area man who's a "Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be."
But equally unsurprising and disappointing about the Pew survey was the spate of self-congratulation that promptly arose in its wake among the contentedly godless. As Hemant Mehta summed it up in the Chicago Tribune, "Many atheists left religion in the first place because we learned too much about our faith. Atheists pay attention when we hear religious groups make ridiculous statements." And the Pew Center's findings do bear out that the amount of education a person has completed "is the single best predictor of religious knowledge." See, if you just knew more, you'd be smart like us!
Faith isn't knowledge, that's why it's called faith. It leaps into the unprovable, and by the way, the non-existence of God is just as much a belief as anything any organized religion in the world could cook up. But it doesn't make Team Son of God look like a pack of geniuses when, making the case for misinformation in the Washington Post, Michael Otterson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints writes, "Knowing that Genesis is the first book of the Bible or that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem has nothing to do with the quality of my life's religious experience ... One can have faith in God and live accordingly without producing proof of a theological degree or demonstrating academic-like mastery of biblical history."
But if you don't know the basics about other belief systems, how can you be confident in your own? And if you don't even know much about your own, how do you hope to understand what you believe? A faith that isn't earned though inquiry, skepticism and ever-deepening understanding isn't much of a faith at all. It sure isn't one that's going to win you lots of credibility when you're opening your next Museum of Intelligent Design. Ignorance and spirituality needn't go hand in hand. In fact, it's historically disastrous when they do. And those of us who believe in God could learn a lot from those who don't. Or, as a smart man once put it, "He who walks in the darkness doesn't know where he is going." His name? An atheist could probably tell you: It was Jesus.
Faith isn't knowledge, that's why it's called faith. It leaps into the unprovable, and by the way, the non-existence of God is just as much a belief as anything any organized religion in the world could cook up. But it doesn't make Team Son of God look like a pack of geniuses when, making the case for misinformation in the Washington Post, Michael Otterson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints writes, "Knowing that Genesis is the first book of the Bible or that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem has nothing to do with the quality of my life's religious experience ... One can have faith in God and live accordingly without producing proof of a theological degree or demonstrating academic-like mastery of biblical history."
But if you don't know the basics about other belief systems, how can you be confident in your own? And if you don't even know much about your own, how do you hope to understand what you believe? A faith that isn't earned though inquiry, skepticism and ever-deepening understanding isn't much of a faith at all. It sure isn't one that's going to win you lots of credibility when you're opening your next Museum of Intelligent Design. Ignorance and spirituality needn't go hand in hand. In fact, it's historically disastrous when they do. And those of us who believe in God could learn a lot from those who don't. Or, as a smart man once put it, "He who walks in the darkness doesn't know where he is going." His name? An atheist could probably tell you: It was Jesus.
Mind Control - Could A Magnet Force You To Be Left-Handed?
Magnetic mind control?It's possible.Scientists from UC Berkeley now claim they've discovered a way to switch a person's preference from their right-hand to their left by overriding the brain's decision process using – yes, magnets. Through transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, the Berkeley team has found a way to disable the competition between the two hands that occurs in your cortex each time you perform a small task. Though your dominant hand rules larger tasks, we're all on a sliding scale of ambidextrous ability, performing menial tasks (ringing a doorbell, opening a door) with either hand. But with TMS, your brain can be conditioned to pick left each time.
A group of right-handed subjects volunteered for the magnetic conditioning, which interrupts neurons in control of motor skills in order to lessen the chance of the dominant hand being chosen to perform simple tasks. Instead of their right, test subjects preferred their left hands after a dose of TMS, which lead the project's researchers to believe in the possibility that TMS could continue to influence the brain's decision-making process, down to what kind of fruit to eat or which movie to see.
Pop culture conditioning aside – can't you just picture the TV execs drooling? – the TMS breakthrough could prove an asset to the medical community considering what it could mean for those struggling to function with their non-dominant hands after injury or illness.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/could-a-magnet-force-you-to-be-left-handed/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
