The most dangerous superstition

[Observer1964]

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z42/sscottalex/TheMostDangerousSuperstition.jpg

The Most Dangerous Superstition,

"The Myth of Authority"

There is a harsh contrast between what we are taught is the purpose of “authority” (to create a peaceful, civilized society) and the real-world results of “authority” in action. Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people “breaking the law,” but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the “laws” of various “governments.” The evils that have been committed in spite of “authority” are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of “authority.”

Nevertheless, children are still taught that peace and justice come from authoritarian control and that, despite the flagrant evils committed by authoritarian regimes around the world throughout history, they are still morally obligated to respect and obey the current “government” of their own country, They are taught that “doing as you’re told” is synonymous with being a good person, and that “playing by the rules” is synonymous with doing the right thing. On the contrary, being a moral person requires taking on the personal responsibility of judging right from wrong and following one’s own conscience, the opposite of respecting and obeying “authority.”

The reason it is so important that people understand this fact is that the primary danger posed by the myth of “authority” is to be found not in the minds of the controllers in “government” but in the minds of those being controlled, One nasty individual who loves to dominate others is a trivial threat to humanity unless a lot of other people view such domination as legitimate because it is achieved via the “laws” of “government.” The twisted mind of Adolf Hitler, by itself, posed little or no threat to humanity. It was the millions of people who viewed Hitler as “authority,” and thus felt obligated to obey his commands and carry out his orders, who actually caused the damage done by the Third Reich. In other words, the problem is not that evil people believe in “authority”; the problem is that basically good people believe in “authority,” and as a result, end up advocating and even committing acts of aggression, injustice and oppression, even murder.


http://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf


The Most Dangerous Superstition,

"The Myth of Authority"

-- There's no such thing as a legitimate ruling class. Humanity wasn't meant to be a domesticated species owned by a ruling class. The people who vote VOLUNTARILY put into power the people who ROB millions and millions of their own kind and then wage war on the other side of the world killing people for profit! Humanity itself was actually supposed to be the top where every human being owns themself and is in charge of their own life. The belief in government literally takes good people and converts their energy and their production into power for the nastiest people in the world who go around murdering and robbing people by the millions and soon to be BILLIONS! People go along with the game that gets them enslaved just because they don't understand that the game is a GIGANTIC LIE! It's just an illusion. The global education system is based upon the ability to control people's minds and limit their ability to think critically by using the Prussian Indoctrination System. Even people with Ph.D's are like highly intelligent robots who are ONLY able to think within a confined set of options. This is why so-called "science" in the academic or university realm has not yet come up with a way to solve the global pollution problem. Even TV shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are part of the REPETITIVE propaganda distribution system. They try to make the news funny but it is STILL the propaganda dogma that they are constantly shoving down our throats!

Understand what Government REALLY is beneath the rhetoric and the propaganda that we are taught in school and that they don't really care about "their" laws or about actual justice and just put on a facade of due process with flowery nice-sounding things but underneath it is just brute force domination and will lie, cheat, and steal to keep their human livestock enslaved.

mLwtZdLedFc

[elearah]

There is a recurrent theme of undermining or taking over the compasses. It is done via the redefinition of words among other things. Authority is one, not the only one.

Some people have dedicated their time to something, those people acquire knowledge that leads to wisdom in a certain area. Those people are authorities in that area. They are good as compasses for those who want to walk part of the same path.

Then you have people who didn´t walk the walk but were imposed by force and replace the real authorities, expecting to receive special benefits. Those are not authorities, those are thieves and hijackers.

I think that one of the things we might want to do if we want to straighten things up is to start calling things by its real name, instead of playing the game of the hijackers.

Because if we say that authority is a superstition, we shred into pieces the compass. How about getting the thieves by the collar and kicking them out of power instead?

[Shezbeth]

Some people have dedicated their time to something, those people acquire knowledge that leads to wisdom in a certain area. Those people are authorities in that area. They are good as compasses for those who want to walk part of the same path.

Then you have people who didn´t walk the walk but were imposed by force and replace the real authorities, expecting to receive special benefits. Those are not authorities, those are thieves and hijackers.

Very well put. The differing circumstances you describe allude to legitimate authority (the former example) and authoritarianism and/or illegitimate authorization (the latter).

The thing is, there is no such thing as illegitimate authority, as true authority is self-evident. It is responsibility, it is creative propensity (largely in response to adversity or untoward circumstance), it is finesse, it is Kung Fu, it is the wherewithall to decisively act when the situation demands.

If there is illegitimacy it is due to authorization, not from 'illegitimate authority'. When a person aspires to and achieves authority - lets say as a painter - there comes a point at which the individual would have to intentionally do a poor job, otherwise any contract taken will produce excellence; this is the mark of authority.

An authorized individual cannot produce excellence of their own accord. They may be able to duplicate behaviors they have observed which produce excellence, but this is just copycat mentality. When faced with adversity from which a solution must be created they are ill equipped and impotent. This does not mean they are negligent or incapable of establishing authority, simply that they haven't 'ATM'.

An authoritarian is one who insists/relies upon the hierarchy of authorization in whatever is apparent (and there are nigh infinite expressions of this worldwide) as opposed to the hierarchy of legitimate authority. These are individuals who insist on rank, status, establishment (of whatever variety, again nigh infinite ...), even if such things are not conclusive, binding, or even conducive.

[elearah]

Very well put. The differing circumstances you describe allude to legitimate authority (the former example) and authoritarianism and/or illegitimate authorization (the latter).

The thing is, there is no such thing as illegitimate authority, as true authority is self-evident. It is responsibility, it is creative propensity (largely in response to adversity or untoward circumstance), it is finesse, it is Kung Fu, it is the wherewithall to decisively act when the situation demands.

If there is illegitimacy it is due to authorization, not from 'illegitimate authority'. When a person aspires to and achieves authority - lets say as a painter - there comes a point at which the individual would have to intentionally do a poor job, otherwise any contract taken will produce excellence; this is the mark of authority.

An authorized individual cannot produce excellence of their own accord. They may be able to duplicate behaviors they have observed which produce excellence, but this is just copycat mentality. When faced with adversity from which a solution must be created they are ill equipped and impotent. This does not mean they are negligent or incapable of establishing authority, simply that they haven't 'ATM'.

An authoritarian is one who insists/relies upon the hierarchy of authorization in whatever is apparent (and there are nigh infinite expressions of this worldwide) as opposed to the hierarchy of legitimate authority. These are individuals who insist on rank, status, establishment (of whatever variety, again nigh infinite ...), even if such things are not conclusive, binding, or even conducive.

So we have authority and authorized. And, coming back to the OP, what´s a dangerous myth is that authorized individuals have any kind of authority (?).

It might sound like a silly game for some, but I have this strong feeling that we need to take back the words that are important to their real meaning. Because hijacking the words they hijack the agreements over reality. At this time, one word that is being horribly hijacked is science, and the consequences are--among other things--that a group of hijackers decide what is suitable for research or not, chastising the unwanted research as non-scientific and sending us to the dark ages in terms of medicine treatments.

[Observer1964]

The Perils of Obedience

"The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act." –Stanley Milgram, 1974

If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.

Introduction to the Milgram Experiment

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Method Used in the Milgram Experiment

The participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.

Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."

Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.

As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.

Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:


"Please continue."
"The experiment requires that you continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice, you must go on."


Results of the Milgram Experiment

The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.

Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.

Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.

Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:

The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent
expert.
The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority" (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is heavily influenced by both external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.
http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

xOYLCy5PVgM

[Observer1964]

An Experiment in the Psychology of Imprisonment

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram (who is best-known for his famous obedience experiment, was interested in expanding upon Milgram's research. He wanted to further investigate the the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

The question the researchers asked was how would the participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment. "Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place—would their goodness triumph?" Zimbardo explained in one interview.

The Participants

The researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Standford University's psychology building, and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The participants were selected from a larger group of 70 volunteers because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues and had no major medical conditions. The volunteers agreed to participate for a one- to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

The Setting and Procedures

The simulated prison included three six by nine foot prison cells. Each cell held three prisoners and included three cots. Other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the prison guards and warden. One very small space was designated as the solitary confinement room, and yet another small room served as the prison yard.

The 24 volunteers were then randomly assigned to either the prisoner group or the guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24-hours a day for the duration of the study. Guards, on the other hand, were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, guards were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift. Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

While the Stanford Prison Experiment was originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety.

While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were generally hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners, while the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience such severe negative emotions, including crying and acute anxiety, that they had to be released from the study early.

Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the prison guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment.

"Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class," Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect.

What Do the Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment Mean?

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally act in their everyday lives or in other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control, became passive and depressed.

Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited as an example of unethical research. The experiment could not be replicated by researchers today because it fails to meet the standards established by numerous ethical codes, including the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association. Zimbardo acknowledges the ethical problems with the study, suggesting that "although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough."

Other critics suggest that the study lacks generalizability due to a variety of factors. The unrepresentative sample of participants (mostly white and middle class males) makes it difficult to apply the results to a wider population.

The study is also criticized for its lack of ecological validity. While the researchers did their best to recreate a prison setting, it is simply not possible to perfectly mimic all of the environmental and situational variables of prison life.

Despite some of the criticism, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains an important study in our understanding of how the situation can influence human behavior. The study recently garnered attention after reports of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq became known. Many people, including Zimbardo himself, suggest that the abuses at Abu Ghraib might be real-world examples of the same results observed in Zimbardo's experiment.
http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm

sZwfNs1pqG0

[NancyV]

I've often thought and talked about the human propensity to obey someone who acts like or is said to be an authority figure. Mostly I've thought about it because I do not accept anyone as having authority over me. I never obeyed my parents, teachers, employers....anyone....unless what they wanted was something I agreed with. There was no threat or any type of coercion that worked to force me to do something I thought was stupid or bad.

So I wondered why so many other people almost always obeyed anyone who acted like they had a right to tell them what to do. I noticed that it was a large majority of people who obeyed authority figures. When asking them WHY they did something someone like a doctor or teacher or employer told them to do they almost seemed confused by the question. I wondered if they were brought up to believe they had to obey authority, so they were conditioned. Then I thought maybe it was genetic, but it must skip a generation here and there if that's so. Perhaps fear is a big part of people obeying what they think are authorities. Somehow I missed out on the fear gene, which has gotten me into some trouble at times. Maybe people fear not being liked, being alone because they don't get with the program. It really helps to be a loner and not care if you don't fit in with groups.

I seemed to be the only rebel in my family but I now have a 5 year old grandaughter who is probably at LEAST as rebellious as I was. She won't listen to anyone and she only does what she wants to do. God....I hope I wasn't THAT awful!!! LOL... Even to this day I will not do what doesn't feel right to me and I don't give even a tiny hoot what anyone else says. This has really frustrated almost every doctor I've gone to in my life because I rarely do anything a doctor tells me to do. I figure they're really good when something is broken but I don't need anyone for minor stuff, and it's almost all minor stuff.

There are some people I've met who are like me and my husband is very much like I am. When you are powerful and unable to be controlled you are also usually good at controlling others. That is a great temptation for some. I suppose I've tried to control a couple of my husbands (which only worked with 1 of them) but I much prefer someone who cannot be controlled. I really don't WANT to control anyone else because then I am somewhat responsible for them. Of course you must exert some control over your children and I did feel responsible for them when they were growing up.

Power, the power to control, most often corrupts people. I've know many people in positions of so called power, either small power or larger power positions, and MOST of them abused their so called power. Only a few were ethical and did not manipulate in undesirable ways. That is one reason I never wanted to or liked being in a position of authority.

It isn't much different in the astral dimensions. The prevalent games are for power/energy and control, at least in my experiences. I am not surprised that the earth is similar considering that it still goes on until one gets further beyond the lower dimensions. My guess is that it's just a part of the duality. It's an ongoing battle between separated parts of the whole and it doesn't seem to be unique to the human and non human species. Animal species also vie for control and power over others just as some discarnate beings do also.