The Breakdown of Human Morals and Ethics and the Rise of the Psychopaths

[Selkie]

I am posting this mainly as an observation, and I would like to hear what others think about it: I have noticed that the rise in the prevalence of the psychopath in our world seems to coincide directly with the breakdown of Christian ethics.

Now, I know that some will say that it is Christian ethics that makes us vulnerable to psychopaths in the first place, but that is not how it used to be. When Christian ethics were strong, the world was a better place: not nearly as many psychopaths in high places or running the show, and much more attention to the common good. It is only lately, since Christian ethics have become senescent and Christianity has started to break down, that the psychopaths, in every walk and level of life, have started to rise. And it started to become this way in the 60's...with the CIA-manufactured pagan-like "youth movement" and the rise of the pagan-like drug culture (also CIA manufactured).

So what if Christian ethics were suppressing the expression of psychopathy? And what if the general rise of what can be called "the ethics of psychopathy" is a direct result of the weakening of Christian ethics, the "ethics of psychopathy" generally being an ethic of "me first", and Christian ethics generally being an ethic of "the common good"?

I hope I have expressed this well enough. If anyone wants clarification, don't be afraid to ask :)

[Baby Steps]

In the following video David Icke states that psychopathy and Demonic posession are one and the same thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrADlTxgYVQ

[CamillaSweden]

I have seen many psychopats even among christian people, but i don´t see them as real christians, because they
are behaving in the oposite way. But many leaders there with psychopat behaviour.

[Selkie]

I have seen many psychopats even among christian people, but i don´t see them as real christians, because they
are behaving in the oposite way. But many leaders there with psychopat behaviour.
What I mean is not that there cannot be psychopaths among Christians, or whether or not they are real Christians, but whether Christian ethics suppressed psychopathy in general, like in the realm of government, how businesses, corporations and banks were run, etc.

[Selkie]

In other words, I am wondering if Christian ethics acted like a kind of herd immunity against psychopathy, which has been likened to a virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Btw, I know that John Lash says that Christianity is the result of an Archontic virus, but what if its is just the opposite?

[Kryztian]

Silkie:

I would like a clarification on the "breakdown of Christian Ethics". Christianity is a 2000 year old phenomena and in the last 500 years has splintered into so many different sects each with their own practice and ethical system.

1) Are you talking about the ethics of the Christian Churches or the Christian people? Through the institution of the church people have done ethical great and not so great things. They've built hospitals and cared for those in need. They've also helped to facilitate war and injustice. They've opened peoples hearts and minds and filled them with love and they've also taught prejudice, discrimination and hatred.

Then there are the ethics that Christian people practice in their homes and lives which also have a certain duality.

2) Where in this 2000 year history do you see this ethical system breaking down?

3) What are the main ethical principals that have changed to signify this breakdown?

Thanks.

Chris

[Selkie]

Silkie:

I would like a clarification on the "breakdown of Christian Ethics". Christianity is a 2000 year old phenomena and in the last 500 years has splintered into so many different sects each with their own practice and ethical system.

1) Are you talking about the ethics of the Christian Churches or the Christian people? Through the institution of the church people have done ethical great and not so great things. They've built hospitals and cared for those in need. They've also helped to facilitate war and injustice. They've opened peoples hearts and minds and filled them with love and they've also taught prejudice, discrimination and hatred.

Then there are the ethics that Christian people practice in their homes and lives which also have a certain duality.

2) Where in this 2000 year history do you see this ethical system breaking down?

3) What are the main ethical principals that have changed to signify this breakdown?

Thanks.

Chris

I am thinking of Christian ethics in general...love thy neighbor, do unto others, concern for the common good...that kind of thing; the very general grasp of Christian ethics that everyone who wants the world to be a good place practices every day without even thinking about it, and that all sects seem to espouse, no matter what their other doctrine might say.

Of course, no one is going to live these ethics perfectly. No one lives anything perfectly, so of course there is duality. But I am talking about the general effect that Christian ethics would have on the general state of the society, wars and abuses notwithstanding.

addition As I said in the OP, I see it starting to seriously break down in the mid-60's, with the CIA manufactured "youth movement" and drug culture. And by the breakdown of Christian ethics, I mean the rise of "me first" ethics, and "greed is good" ethics...which is basically the ethics of psychopathy.

[Heartsong]

I think there has always been a duality between the morality that religions promote and the actual practices of human beings. The more I read of history the more I'm convinced that these times we're in are no different than any other times. What we have now is faster communications and media that headlines the more gruesome of our human endeavors.

Remember also that ones reality and what one is aware of changes as we age. For instance, I never notice types of cars until it's time to buy a new one. Given your age, the focus of the sixties was home, school, and Mom and Dad. Perhaps you don't remember the assassination of Kennedy or King, the race riots, or the Viet Nam war. As we age our focus is outwardly directed and we see the environment, the wars, the financial downfall as predominate.

Christian ethics are a standard that few meet. The attempt is honorable and the world would be in better shape if more attained it. And, by the way, Christian ethics are found in most all religions.

[grannyfranny100]

I have a different view. As more and more people started wearing glasses, it was easy to wonder if people's eyesight was getting worse. To the contrary, more people with poor sight were getting help. As more people are awakening, we are becoming aware of how invasive psychopathy is.

The following documentary is quite telling about psychopathy within some religious groups. What is the price of a soul? At a time when televangelists can fill a stadium, religion has in many ways put a price tag on salvation. Selling God is a fascinating survey of evangelical Christianity from Biblical times to the rise of megachurches.
KbZjoA9WrvM

[Ted]

Weakening ethics and morals also weakens society, making it more vulnerable to coercion. The attack on the family unit and the corruption of education are also part of the agenda. Strong ethics and morals come from the way in which people are raised. Kids learn by example, and if all their time is spent in school, daycare and then in front of a TV, the end result is a reflection of all that input.
What happened to the days when a handshake was as good as a contract, and people kept their word as a matter of strong principal? How many people these days do things because it is their moral obligation to do so? Those values have been culled from society as being old fashioned and unrealistic. The underlying theme being that old school was regressive and repressive. How can one be a progressive and still hold on to what was important in the past? Do we really like where society has progressed to.

[Selkie]

I think there has always been a duality between the morality that religions promote and the actual practices of human beings. The more I read of history the more I'm convinced that these times we're in are no different than any other times. What we have now is faster communications and media that headlines the more gruesome of our human endeavors.

Oh, yes, that's right, mass shootings were common before the 60's, just like they are now. And decades ago, CEO's were always looting corporations and the shareholders, like they are now. And yup, pension funds were looted, like now. And everyone in every small town always locked their doors at night, like now. And serial killers...lets not forget the serial killers. There were lots of them before the 60's...just like there are now. And before the 60's, bankers were called "banksters", like they are now. And of course, the news industry never played up the bad news to sell papers back then. And 3-year-olds were being given psychiatric meds back then, just like they are now. And the police were armed to the gills and treated the populace like an occupying army back then, just like they do now. Yup, things were like they are now, so much so that someone coming back from a trip to Mars for 50 years would still feel at home here. Or maybe not.

I do not deny that there has always been some of that, in one form of another, but the sheer scope and scale of it has gone way, way up.


...Given your age, the focus of the sixties was home, school, and Mom and Dad. Perhaps you don't remember the assassination of Kennedy or King, the race riots, or the Viet Nam war.
I remember those events very well, and they are perfect examples of what I am talking about. All those events were CIA-originated or CIA-driven, and the CIA, as everyone should know, pretty much seems to be an organization of psychopaths. As I said, the changes toward a more pathological society seemed to start in the 60's, maybe not coincidentally seeming to start with the Kennedy Assassination. In the 60's, all of a sudden the U.S. was seized by social unrest, and its been like that ever since. Before that, there was some social unrest...there always has been some, and there always will be...but with the advent of the mid-60's it was like something changed. David McGowan, in Programmed to Kill the Politics of Serial Murder, says that the CIA brought the Phoenix Program home from Vietnam, where its murderous thugs were butchering and terrorizing the Vietnamese, and let it loose on Americans, also with the aim of terrorizing us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

http://www.amazon.com/Programmed-Kill-Politics-Serial-Murder/dp/0595326404

The Phoenix program was pure psychopathy, the product of psychopathic minds.


...The attempt is honorable and the world would be in better shape if more attained it.

Uh...that's basically what I said in the OP. But its not the average person who doesn't practice those ethics. The average person still pretty much practices Christian ethics. It seems to be the leaders and people in positions of authority who have changed, and taken on psychopathic ethics: CEOs, bankers...especially investment bankers...politicians, the police. Those people. Now you don't get to the top of the financial or social food-chain by being a nice guy, but it did seem to be like there was more restraint in place. Just about everyone seems to agree that the world has become a more violent and ruthless place than it has been in a very long time, in spite of the fact that there have always been wars and abuses and corrupt leaders.


...And, by the way, Christian ethics are found in most all religions.

Yes, I know, but for Westerners in general, they come to us by way of the Christians.

[Selkie]

Btw, I am not a crypto-Christian. Just to let everyone know.

[Selkie]

Weakening ethics and morals also weakens society, making it more vulnerable to coercion. The attack on the family unit and the corruption of education are also part of the agenda. Strong ethics and morals come from the way in which people are raised. Kids learn by example, and if all their time is spent in school, daycare and then in front of a TV, the end result is a reflection of all that input.
What happened to the days when a handshake was as good as a contract, and people kept their word as a matter of strong principal? How many people these days do things because it is their moral obligation to do so? Those values have been culled from society as being old fashioned and unrealistic. The underlying theme being that old school was regressive and repressive. How can one be a progressive and still hold on to what was important in the past? Do we really like where society has progressed to.

Thanks very much for this. Its exactly what I was talking about. Things have changed. Now, a handshake is not enough...you can have a iron-clad written contract, and it may mean nothing because some people feel like they do not have to keep their word, or honor their contracts. The danger facing pension funds is a very good example of that kind of thing.

I, for one, do not like where society has "progressed" to. It is not really progress at all, as your post makes perfectly clear. The Wild West, for example, was not progressive...it was just lawless. It will not do to confuse lawlessness with progress. Our society is becoming lawless at the same time it is taking on the features of a police state. Those at the top and in authority are becoming more and more psychopathic and lawless at the same time they are treating the peaceable average person as a criminal.

[Joe Akulis]

What I mean is not that there cannot be psychopaths among Christians, or whether or not they are real Christians, but whether Christian ethics suppressed psychopathy in general, like in the realm of government, how businesses, corporations and banks were run, etc.

A general, rosy statement like this makes me think someone might want to take time to read about the real America. Come back after reading Wade's essay on the American Empire, and see if you still agree that governments and businesses have been conducting themselves ethically for the past 500 years.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm


P.S. Here's another: "you can have a iron-clad written contract, and it may mean nothing because some people feel like they do not have to keep their word, or honor their contracts."

Someone needs to read about how America has honored every contract/treaty ever entered into with Native Americans.

[grannyfranny100]

Weakening ethics and morals also weakens society, making it more vulnerable to coercion. The attack on the family unit and the corruption of education are also part of the agenda. Strong ethics and morals come from the way in which people are raised. Kids learn by example, and if all their time is spent in school, daycare and then in front of a TV, the end result is a reflection of all that input.
What happened to the days when a handshake was as good as a contract, and people kept their word as a matter of strong principal? How many people these days do things because it is their moral obligation to do so? Those values have been culled from society as being old fashioned and unrealistic. The underlying theme being that old school was regressive and repressive. How can one be a progressive and still hold on to what was important in the past? Do we really like where society has progressed to

Ted, in the olden days (my childhood), the scale of communities were smaller. People knew each other, kids had lots of relatives nearby, ethics and morals were easier when people knew if you broke your handshake deal.

After WWII, soldiers did not necessarily return to their small communities; they went where the jobs were and families were scattered around the country rather than down the street. It was a time of material prosperity and their children, the baby boomers, developed a give me, give attitude. The society was more complex and situational ethics developed. People could rationalize their behavior without others knowing. People gave up on churches and their lack of relevancy to the changes in society.

Some people developed a psychopathic attitude in keeping with leaders at work and politics. Others struggled with their desire for worthy values. Many churches developed psychopathic marketing scams to increase membership and revenues. Watch the video I posted earlier.

Eventually, people gathered online at forums like this. Most are very concerned about ethics and morals but they do not limit their perspective to "Christian" only ethics and morals. When the YWCA did not offer yoga classes because it was evil and learning about Eastern culture was taboo, the search began for a more global perspective on morals and ethics.

With more college educated adults, it is no longer a time of preachers dictating behavioral norms. People explore their own inner life and declare themselves spiritual rather than religious because they find religions inadequate and filled with psychopaths as much as any other aspect of society. This is a time of transition.

[araucaria]

Here is a post I drafted over the weekend that seems germane to the discussion here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?78630-John-Lash-s-Kalika-war-party&p=971804&viewfull=1#post971804

[Selkie]

[...]
What I mean is not that there cannot be psychopaths among Christians, or whether or not they are real Christians, but whether Christian ethics suppressed psychopathy in general, like in the realm of government, how businesses, corporations and banks were run, etc.

A general, rosy statement like this makes me think someone might want to take time to read about the real America. Come back after reading Wade's essay on the American Empire, and see if you still agree that governments and businesses have been conducting themselves ethically for the past 500 years.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm


P.S. Here's another: "you can have a iron-clad written contract, and it may mean nothing because some people feel like they do not have to keep their word, or honor their contracts."

Someone needs to read about how America has honored every contract/treaty ever entered into with Native Americans.

Governments are always violent, and duplicitous. That is not in dispute. What I am saying is that there was more RESTRAINT. The key word is RESTRAINT. The nature of psychopaths is that they have no restraint. They have no conscience and therefor they have no brakes or checks on their behavior...they have no restraint. The government simply did not used to be so unrestrained. Neither did the corporations and the banks. What loosened the restraints? To me, it seems to be a concerted effort, beginning in the 60's, to overturn Christian values. As imperfectly as they were lived, Christian values were lived well enough by enough people to make life for most people relatively safe and secure.

addition In the case of the Native Americans, they were not Christian, and so maybe the government felt like it did not need to even pretend to practice Christian values in its dealing with them.

[Selkie]

Here is a post I drafted over the weekend that seems germane to the discussion here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?78630-John-Lash-s-Kalika-war-party&p=971804&viewfull=1#post971804

Yes, it is...its is very germane, and thanks!

[Hervé]

From a different perspective due to a different perception:


If you sense the world is not the same place it was 20 or 30 years ago, that there seems to be a heavier and more evil presence in general, you are not imagining it.

There is indeed a heavier presence here on earth. It is for the purpose of the very last stage of "The Plan". In this last stage, the supernatural is being combined with the physical which will culminate in a spiritual global world order.

Carolyn Hamlett, Underground Bases & Nephilim are Real - Insider (http://www.henrymakow.com/carolyn_hamlett.html)

As for "The Plan," see this thread: The Blog of The Ruiner - Inside the Illuminati Mind (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?81805-The-Blog-of-The-Ruiner-Inside-the-Illuminati-Mind/page15)

[Ted]

Well put Granny. There are no secrets in a small town, which forces people to be more responsible for their own behavior. There used to be a sense of pride along with the attitude of "The Buck Stops Here". People took responsibility for their choices and obligations, and didn't shirk it off.
The moral compass of these people was definitely set in church. Like many things in life, the church is not all bad and not all good. On the good side are the lessons of love, compassion, honesty and the rest of the "Christian" virtues. These virtues are certainly not the sole possession of Christianity, but are referred to as such since that's where a majority of the population here were exposed to them.
Without some kind of regular reminder, folks tend not to rise to a higher ethical and moral standard. Instead they do what is expedient and most beneficial to themselves.
Ethics and morals are not as much a part of our societal awareness as they once were. It's easy to backslide without some sort of accountability. People used to consider it part of their social responsibility to point out lapses in conduct of their fellow citizens. Now it's pretty much anything goes. If I criticize anyone these days I'm considered an intolerant bigot, even if the criticism is legitimate. Nobody is allowed to have a different moral opinion than what is acceptable to Hollywood and the mainstream media.
In other words, the lack of moral dissent has produced moral descent.

Cheers,

Ted

[Akasha]

Actually christianity is on the rise, at least according to the christians (http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/perspectives/colson020722.aspx), so i guess that explains it.

[Selkie]

Actually christianity is on the rise, at least according to the christians (http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/perspectives/colson020722.aspx), so i guess that explains it.
I did not say that all Christian ethics are ethics that make for a better world. So far, they seem to be more interested in displaying the worst of Christian values, and that is sad. It all depends on whether they practice the values that make for a better world.

But in the end, maybe it is a good thing that Christianity is on the rise again. If they put their worst foot forward, maybe it is because they think that their values are being attacked. But then, they are being attacked...they aren't just being paranoid about that. But if enough of them demand that leaders learn some restraint again, then that would be great. In this theater-of-the-absurd, anti-social, atomized nightmare that the world has become, its people with pro-social ethics that we need. So far, "love thy neighbor", "do unto others" sounds pretty good.

p.s. Btw, loving thy neighbor doesn't mean you can't defend yourself and trounce him if he acts like a complete jerk, or he trounce you for the same reason.

[betoobig]

Chrystianity was born corrupted and started killing the non believers (people and sacred places). They still promote war, sacryfice, child abuse. IMO they don´t have ethics but guide lines (bloody ones)
I said Chrystianity not Chryst
Much LOVe
Juan

[Akasha]

.....Btw, loving thy neighbor doesn't mean you can't defend yourself and trounce him if he acts like a complete jerk.....

Errrrrr, actually it does:


Luke 6.29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. (KJV)


Not a doctrine I personally subscribe to :muscle:.

BTW when is Greg Laurie gonna come out?

[Robin]

When and where do you differentiate the ethics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion)of Christianity and other world religions? All major religions are different permutations of a similar set of morals and ethics, but extremists of each religion have twisted them to make it seem like their religion is the best ethical standard. One does not need a religion to be an ethical person. I know many secularists, including and perhaps especially atheists, who are the most ethical people I have ever met. In most cases more so than Christians, because they are often more open-minded about things. They follow Christian ethics without the dogma.

Religions are there to separate people. I find it very audacious indeed for Christians (or other religionists) to proclaim their code of ethics as any better than other religions. They all follow different permutations of the Golden Rule, but rarely do people ever actually live by it.

[Selkie]

Chrystianity was born corrupted and started killing the non believers (people and sacred places). They still promote war, sacryfice, child abuse. IMO they don´t have ethics but guide lines (bloody ones)
I said Chrystianity not Chryst
Much LOVe
Juan
Don't forget that the pagans were slave-keepers. They were not gentle tree-huggers. They were savage, with savage rituals. They were erudite and cultured and believed in an earth goddess, but they were savage, and killed slaves and other people for pleasure, as everyone knows.

Even under the best circumstances, when you are a slave, your life, your body and your children are actually owned by someone else. The pagans were also sexually licentious, and yet they infibulated their slaves

https://www.bme.com/media/story/833351/?cat=ritual

Pagan society was also rife with all kinds of other abuses, like whipping and pederasty, as well as human sacrifice.

So when the slaves took up Christianity and revolted, is it any wonder that they killed unbelievers? If you were a slave, and you had been infibulated and/or had been whipped, wouldn't you want to kill the person who did it to you?

So I think that the excesses of the early Christians can be laid directly at the door of the pagans and their abuses. The excesses of the later Christians, I think, can be laid to the dictum "Never Again". In other words, the Christians hunted down anyone who smacked of paganism simply because they did not want them to "re-boot". And maybe that is why Christianity is on the rise again. Maybe the Christians sense the re-boot of a dangerous system...a system based on slavery. A system (paganism) that is, in its basic behavior, at least semi-psychopathic.

¤=[Post Update]=¤




.....Btw, loving thy neighbor doesn't mean you can't defend yourself and trounce him if he acts like a complete jerk.....

Errrrrr, actually it does:


Luke 6.29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. (KJV)


Not a doctrine I personally subscribe to :muscle:.

BTW when is Greg Laurie gonna come out?

Well, then, that has to be adjusted, because its unrealistic, and its not a doctrine (or ethic, however you want to look at it) that I subscribe to, either. Like I said, not all Christian ethics are ethics that make for a better world.

[Selkie]

...All major religions are different permutations of a similar set of morals and ethics...

Yes, of course they are. What I said was that for Westerners, those morals/ethics come to us by way of the Christians.



...One does not need a religion to be an ethical person...

Well, now-a-days that is true. But what if that is because most of us have internalized those ethics?


...Religions are there to separate people.

I don't think this is necessarily true. While it is true that religions MAY separate people, it does not stand to reason that it is religion's intent, its raison d'etre. It seems to me that the what religion is for is to preserve values and give stability to people's lives in a changing world.


...I find it very audacious indeed for Christians (or other religionists) to proclaim their code of ethics as any better than other religions.

Well, of course it is audacious, but all religions do the same thing. On the other hand, if there are aspects of Christianity that are better than some of the aspects of some other religions, there is nothing wrong with saying so. It is ok to sift the wheat from the chaff in the discussion of any religion because all religions have their good points and their bad points.


...They all follow different permutations of the Golden Rule, but rarely do people ever actually live by it.

Actually, the whole point is that they do live it most of the time. Imperfectly, of course, but the world would be a much more dangerous place than it already is if most of the people, most of the time, did not practice what I have called Christian ethics.

p.s. Please don't forget that I am exploring a phenomenon...the rise of psychopathic behavior which is based on a "me-first", "greed-is-good", anti-social value system. Please don't let your dislike of religion blind you to the fact that it has some valuable things for us, and that we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Joe Akulis]

So, let's go back to the original observation for a sec.

"I have noticed that the rise in the prevalence of the psychopath in our world seems to coincide directly with the breakdown of Christian ethics."

My response to this would be that most of your observations have likely been focused on that period of time when the alleged "rise" seems to be occurring, to your eyes.

Anyone who digs a little deeper into our history over the past 2000 years would have a harder time holding onto that observation. But I don't want to offend by wrecking the thread that you started, so I better shaddap. :-)

[Selkie]

So, let's go back to the original observation for a sec.

"I have noticed that the rise in the prevalence of the psychopath in our world seems to coincide directly with the breakdown of Christian ethics."

My response to this would be that most of your observations have likely been focused on that period of time when the alleged "rise" seems to be occurring, to your eyes.

Anyone who digs a little deeper into our history over the past 2000 years would have a harder time holding onto that observation. But I don't want to offend by wrecking the thread that you started, so I better shaddap. :-)

You don't have to shaddap! In fact, I would be very disappointed if you did :)

That said, I think you are wrong. Ever since the secret government took over in 1963, our society has been becoming more and more psychopathic, run by psychopaths, with anti-social, psychopathic values.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?76536-Back-to-the-Dealey-Plaza&p=895155&viewfull=1#post895155

[Joe Akulis]

So, the observation is limited to the US, then, sounds like. So, you're asserting that you feel things in the US have gone downhill, ethically, since the sixties?

Do we really need to flip the pages back and take a closer look at how America acquired all this land, from sea to shining sea?

Here's a quick example from The American Empire:
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm

"In March 1814, a force of 2,000 whites and 500 Cherokee and Creek cornered the Red Stick army at what is today called Horseshoe Bend, on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama. Jackson had never led a battle before and his strategy amounted to firing cannons at their fortifications. The action would have probably ended in failure if not for Cherokee braves who swam the river and attacked the Red Sticks from the rear. Their efforts divided the Creek defense, and the whites then laid siege to the fortifications. In that fierce battle, eight hundred of the thousand Red Sticks died. The aftermath was as brutal as they come. The whites were not content with mere scalps. They skinned Red Stick bodies to make bridle reins, belts, and other fashionable items. Jackson ordered cutting off the noses of dead Red Sticks to get an accurate body count. He later ensured that body parts were distributed to the “ladies of Tennessee” as souvenirs.[202]

Davy Crockett, who fought at Horseshoe Bend, as did Sam Houston, wrote that the troops ate potatoes that had been basted in the fat of Red Stick warriors in another battle during the same campaign. Those battles made Jackson an American hero. "


Sounds like some good Christianly-inspired ethical restraint to me...

The thing I'm hoping to point out is, we've been pretty despicable all along, it's just the average citizen trying to stay out of trouble and live a comfortable life will never know about the uglier side of our history, which is replete with just as much ethical shortfall as today.

[Selkie]

So, the observation is limited to the US, then, sounds like. So, you're asserting that you feel things in the US have gone downhill, ethically, since the sixties?

Do we really need to flip the pages back and take a closer look at how America acquired all this land, from sea to shining sea?
Yes, I think that that will be necessary, because otherwise we are all only making assumptions, each to our own, about exactly what you mean.

addition And besides, I think you are dying to tell me.

[Violet]

Are you willing to broaden that question, taking it to religion in general?

In intellectual Europe, having religious beliefs, is quite unpopular. In the light of that, the (remaining) tolerance with regard to available religions is notable; you are free to believe what you like - "even though I think it's slavish, dumb and naïve" (that's the unpopular part) - and the constitution has been maintained as such that this right is protected. Furthermore, when certain religious groups are threatened, politics will interfere to ensure that people are not harmed because of their religion and anti-racism foundations speak up regularly when observing irregularities.

Due to globalisation, dispersion of ethnic roots, mixing of cultures (mostly oil and water), and (free-of-religion-) education, actually all religions have received heavy blows.

Not sure about a direct link to psychopathy. Taking into account changes in legislation over the years, as well in medication and food manipulation, air quality and so on...All not so negligible.

[Joe Akulis]

Some more tidbits from Wade's essay:

"While the English secured the lands of Virginia and vicinity, religious fanatics conquered New England. The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were Calvinist Christians, and their dour, fearful philosophy contained a catalog of sinful behaviors that boggle today’s minds, such as kissing one’s child on the Sabbath or laughing. Calvinist fanaticism would lead to one of the West’s last witch trials and executions, in 1692 in Salem. American mythology has held that Calvinists came to the New World for religious freedom, but the facts do not support that notion. The Mayflower's Pilgrims came from the Netherlands, where they had already escaped their persecution in England. They sought economic opportunity, not religious freedom. They were sailing to the English colony at Virginia in 1620, or perhaps the mouth of the Hudson River, but bad weather and poor navigation landed them in present-day Massachusetts. They came ashore on land that had already been depopulated by European disease, and the Wampanoag tribe fed them and taught the English city dwellers how to farm and survive in the New World.

There really was an original Thanksgiving, when the Pilgrims and their native benefactors feasted and played games with each other, but the settlers eventually annihilated the tribe that welcomed them. England's bloody record in New England is probably worse than its record in Virginia.[106] In 1637, the English slaughtered an entire sleeping village of several hundred people of the Pequot tribe and sold the few survivors into slavery. One leader of the massacre, John Underhill, later justified the attack by citing King David’s genocidal Old Testament activities. The complete extermination of the village alarmed the Mohegan and Narragansett allies who accompanied the attack, and Underhill wrote that they complained about the English manner of fighting, because, “it is too furious, and slays too many men.”[107]"


"The typical English pattern of invasion and genocide was using the slightest imagined affront as justification for exterminating entire tribes and eagerly taking their land afterward. In the northeastern USA, numerous towns have the word “field” as part of their name, such as the many Springfields that exist, one of which I once lived in. The “field” came from the fact that the town was established by stealing a native village (often obtained by annihilating its inhabitants), and the “field” was where the natives raised their crops.

Notable Puritan leaders such as Cotton Mather rejoiced in the butchery and genocide. Mather openly approved of Underhill’s annihilation of that Pequot village, writing that those women and children were “dismissed from a world that was burdened with them.”[112] Mather wrote of that slaughter, “It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day.”[113] Mather called the natives who fed and hosted the Puritans “ravenous howling wolves.” The insatiably greedy Puritans and the other English settlers eventually seized more and more land that was Wampanoag, leading to what is called King Philip’s War in 1675. Philip was the son of Massasoit, who was the chief that welcomed and fed the original Puritan invaders. The war ended with the annihilation of the Wampanoag, and Philip’s head was mounted on a pole at Plymouth for 24 years. Thus ended the tribe that welcomed the Puritans."


Seems kind of ethical and non-psychotic.

[Joe Akulis]

More from "The American Empire":

"Manifest Destiny may have been an attempt to reduce “cognitive dissonance,” which is a psychological condition in which beliefs conflict with experience, leading to “dissonance.” The healthy response is to question or modify one’s beliefs. The pathological response takes two forms. One is to increase the “positive cognitions,” which means to stress information that supports the belief being challenged by experience. The other is to decrease the “negative cognitions,” which means to ignore, suppress, and forget the experiences that contradict the belief in question.

It took extreme effort to paint early American nation building in a positive light. American nationalism began growing in the 1820s, and the events that could lead to negative cognitions were abundantly clear. Accordingly, they were largely minimized, such as “historians” omitting history’s greatest complete genocide from Columbus’s story, or Washington’s fraudulent strategy. A creative bag of tricks was used to decrease the negative cognitions, including making the Indians subhuman. Then Weems, Irving and many others created fictional positive cognitions. Manifest Destiny was another case of fabricating positive cognitions, by invoking the Creator’s sanction. The basic tenet of Manifest Destiny was that Americans were “destined” to rule from sea to shining sea, and anybody in the way was in God’s way."



"James K. Polk took office in 1845 and immediately began planning a vigorous American expansion, to make America’s Manifest Destiny come to fruition. There were even discussions at Polk’s inaugural about buying California from Mexico. Mexico considered Texas a renegade territory, and when the USA absorbed Texas, Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the USA and Polk’s cronies began immediately plotting to seize western lands from Mexico.

For hundreds of years, all references to New Spain’s province of “Tejas” delineated its western boundary as the Nueces River, which Mexican maps confirmed. The Texas land grabbers, however, claimed that Texas extended another 150 miles westward, to the Rio Grande River, in violation of the region’s history. Mexico was understandably upset with Texas's claims, not only becoming part of the USA, but also arbitrarily extending its boundaries another 150 miles into Mexico. General Zachary Taylor, whose claim to fame was, as usual, killing Indians, did not even like the idea of annexing Texas, but was ordered to lead an army to the Rio Grande and start something. The U.S. Army purposely created a “border” incident to justify launching an invasion. Hitler did a similar thing to Poland, to start World War II. Before word even got back to Polk of Taylor’s successful baiting of Mexico into the trap, Polk was campaigning to his cabinet to declare war on Mexico. When news came of the expected incident, Polk immediately declared war. U.S. Congressman Abraham Lincoln, among others, heatedly contested the war declaration, calling it nothing more than a naked land grab. A young officer serving under Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, helped lead the American army into Mexico, where the army marauded at will. Grant later wrote in his memoirs that he regarded the Mexican-American war as “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” Disinterested historians have generally agreed with Grant’s assessment."


"Before Polk, Indian removal ideology held that natives could be always pushed westward as the empire expanded, but Polk’s rapid successes leapfrogged the continent. The natives could not be pushed further westward…or could they? The Indians of the California coastline, from San Francisco to the tip of Baja California, had suffered almost complete genocide at the hands of Spanish priests and soldiers by 1846. All of Southern California’s coastal tribes were extinct long ago; the only coastal natives that survived California’s mission era were those that fled inland. When the 49-ers arrived, there were only about 150,000 surviving California natives, from a pre-Columbian population of at least 300,000 and perhaps double that. The man who initiated the genocide of California’s natives is up for sainthood today, and I went to a school named after him, and that most important part of his legacy was never told me as a child. Indian removal westward was not practical in California, so the first governor of California, which joined the Union in 1850, called for an open season on California’s natives. There was a lucrative head bounty on the natives of California, and in the 1850s and 1860s the slaughter of the remaining California natives may have been the most intense genocidal effort of the entire history of the white man in North America, which also escaped my California history textbooks. When the 49-ers slaughtered entire villages every weekend for fun and profit, the surviving children were often sold into slavery in Sacramento and San Francisco. Indian girls brought twice the price of Indian boys, because they also served as concubines for the “settlers.” Similar dynamics took place in Oregon Country."

[Ted]

I'm a little confused by the volume of "American Empire" material in this thread.
I thought we were discussing the general decline of ethics and morals over the last 50 years or so. Are today's morals the result of English settlers killing a lot of Indians? Maybe someone could explain it to me.

[Joe Akulis]

I'm a little confused by the volume of "American Empire" material in this thread.
I thought we were discussing the general decline of ethics and morals over the last 50 years or so. Are today's morals the result of English settlers killing a lot of Indians? Maybe someone could explain it to me.

The point I was trying to make is that it could be argued that there is no "decline". We can find just as much evidence to point out the lack of it in just about any point in our history over the last 2000 years and further.

[Hanson]

When Christian ethics were strong, the world was a better place: not nearly as many psychopaths in high places or running the show, and much more attention to the common good. It is only lately, since Christian ethics have become senescent and Christianity has started to break down, that the psychopaths, in every walk and level of life, have started to rise. And it started to become this way in the 60's...with the CIA-manufactured pagan-like "youth movement" and the rise of the pagan-like drug culture (also CIA manufactured).
Do we know the numbers of psychopaths in high places throughout history? Do we even know how many are in high places today? No, we don't. Do we have a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths? No, we don't. There's your first problem. There's no need to introduce Christian ethics into the mix, since they can't be accurately identified or measured either.

[Hervé]

[...]
Do we know the numbers of psychopaths in high places throughout history? Do we even know how many are in high places today? No, we don't. Do we have a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths? No, we don't. [...]

Time to use your search function:

Snakes in Suits: Weeding out corporate Psychopaths (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?35730-Snakes-in-Suits-Weeding-out-corporate-Psychopaths)

Brainscans and prisoners: Outing the sociopaths and the domino effect (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66489-Brainscans-and-prisoners-Outing-the-sociopaths-and-the-domino-effect)

[Ted]

The point I was trying to make is that it could be argued that there is no "decline". We can find just as much evidence to point out the lack of it in just about any point in our history over the last 2000 years and further.Yes, but it still misses the point. We're talking about a rather short period of time.
There have always been good and evil people throughout our history, the nature of duality demands it. Through our own perceptions we're trying to quantify it here a bit.
Having children to raise makes one more aware of the nefarious influences in our society. We see it on the TV, in the schools, in the movies, and in the people we associate with. We want to raise our children with the same values we have, which are rarely reflected anymore in the popular culture.
I remember being seriously questioned by other parents when we didn't allow our children to go see R rated movies with their kids. When I was their age no parent would even think of letting their child see anything but G rated movies.
This is the type of degradation I'm talking about. My parents knew that I had plenty of time when I got older to handle "adult" situations. Kids don't need that garbage in their lives. They don't know how to deal with it intellectually or emotionally. Kids need a wholesome intellectual diet in order to develop properly.
There is a concerted effort to reduce or eradicate traditional (or Christian if you like) ethical and moral standards, and replace them with "politically correct" standards.
If they were higher standards than I already have, then OK, I'm good with it. But they're not. They're more the kind of let's-all-take-off-our-clothes-and-copulate-in-the-street type of morals. Some people might like that, but I don't, and I don't think it makes for a healthy society.
It's great for the power brokers because it weakens everyone who buys into it. How can someone stand up against wrong with moral conviction if they have none? They want everyone else to adopt the same morality as they have.
No thanks.

Ted

[Kryztian]

I am thinking of Christian ethics in general...love thy neighbor, do unto others, concern for the common good...that kind of thing; the very general grasp of Christian ethics that everyone who wants the world to be a good place practices every day without even thinking about it, and that all sects seem to espouse, no matter what their other doctrine might say.


Even though I am a Roman Catholic and my name is Christian, I just see those as good spiritual values that you find of some people who could be Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, agnostic, etc.




see it starting to seriously break down in the mid-60's, with the CIA manufactured "youth movement" and drug culture. And by the breakdown of Christian ethics, I mean the rise of "me first" ethics, and "greed is good" ethics...which is basically the ethics of psychopathy.

Yeah, there have always been people who work behind the scene to breakdown our ethics, our compassion and our integrity, but hey, we are human beings, and we usually do find a path back to our humanity.

[Bubu]

The rise of sociopath is due to some group corrupting human values. IMO

[Selkie]

So, the observation is limited to the US, then, sounds like. So, you're asserting that you feel things in the US have gone downhill, ethically, since the sixties?

Do we really need to flip the pages back and take a closer look at how America acquired all this land, from sea to shining sea?

Here's a quick example from The American Empire:
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm

"In March 1814, a force of 2,000 whites and 500 Cherokee and Creek cornered the Red Stick army at what is today called Horseshoe Bend, on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama. Jackson had never led a battle before and his strategy amounted to firing cannons at their fortifications. The action would have probably ended in failure if not for Cherokee braves who swam the river and attacked the Red Sticks from the rear. Their efforts divided the Creek defense, and the whites then laid siege to the fortifications. In that fierce battle, eight hundred of the thousand Red Sticks died. The aftermath was as brutal as they come. The whites were not content with mere scalps. They skinned Red Stick bodies to make bridle reins, belts, and other fashionable items. Jackson ordered cutting off the noses of dead Red Sticks to get an accurate body count. He later ensured that body parts were distributed to the “ladies of Tennessee” as souvenirs.[202]

Davy Crockett, who fought at Horseshoe Bend, as did Sam Houston, wrote that the troops ate potatoes that had been basted in the fat of Red Stick warriors in another battle during the same campaign. Those battles made Jackson an American hero. "


Sounds like some good Christianly-inspired ethical restraint to me...
(my emphasis)

My point is that all of that may not be Christian-inspired at all, but a manifestation of primitive pagan psychopathic-like tendencies. Savagery is older than Christianity, and any group can display regressive, pagan, psychopathic-like behavior. The Hindus have done it. The Buddhists have done it. Everyone has done it, and I think that that behavior comes from a sub-stratum, or stage, of human development that we are struggling to get past.


...The thing I'm hoping to point out is, we've been pretty despicable all along, it's just the average citizen trying to stay out of trouble and live a comfortable life will never know about the uglier side of our history...

You just made my point for me, and it astounds me that you take to task people who live just the way you would have them live...peacefully...just because they are ignorant. I mean, you say that we have always been despicable, and yet, when people live un-despicably... that is, when they stay out of trouble...you don't like that, either!

So yes, we've always been despicable. And even savage. It is something that most people do not like about the human species. But most religions...or at least the mainstream ones...are attempts by the human species to get a grip on the problem, no matter how imperfectly they do it. And I'll tell you something else, it is those very same "...average citizen trying to stay out of trouble..." that makes the world a safer place. What does it matter if they do not know about the uglier side of our history? How would that make things better? As long as people live peaceably, I don't care if they are as ignorant as fence posts about the history of the world. Should I trouble an old, deaf granny, who lives peaceably, with the sordid history of the world? Or a young couple who live quietly and raise their children to be good to others...to me, such people are already doing their part. Just by living the way they live, they are making the world a better, more peaceful place. I mean, what? Should we "wake them up"? To what purpose?, so that they can help make the world a better place? They are already doing exactly that, just by living peacefully and raising pro-social children.

The knowledge of the evil of the world is a burden that not everyone was meant to carry. Those of us who are meant to carry it are the ones who "wake up", and it is not for me to violate someone's innocence just because I am disgruntled at having awoken.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


The rise of sociopath is due to some group corrupting human values. IMO
Yes, my point exactly. And thanks :)

[Ted]

My point is that all of that may not be Christian-inspired at all, but a manifestation of primitive pagan psychopathic-like tendencies. Savagery is older than Christianity, and any group can display regressive, pagan, psychopathic-like behavior. The Hindus have done it. The Buddhists have done it. Everyone has done it, and I think that that behavior comes from a sub-stratum, or stage, of human development that we are struggling to get past. The motive and the justification are often two different things. Killing has been justified by religious principals for all of recorded history. The motive is usually hatred or greed.
Religion doesn't work in the west anymore so we say we are fighting for democracy and freedom instead, but we all know it's BS.
In my mind there is no justification for starting a war.

[Carmody]

Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

- G. I. Gurdjieff

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:

1) Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people.

2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income.)

6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.

8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~


I don't mind speaking about elemental transmutation, as in this case it is real, it has a verifiable history, it even has a patent trail up an into modern times.

It takes the money in the human... the greed, the perception of need...the idea of wanting and control, the idea of control by desire, by perception.... and utterly trashes it.

It ends the scarcity/fear control tactic that comes from the depths of the money in the mind of the human. It ends that mechanism. It works on ending the hindbrain fear lock. One tied to the fundamentals of monkey/hominid clan unconscious rules and motions, that have been twisted into this money/scarcity/leader/pack/order thing...the thing we call money and finance. It ends the primary methodology of hidden oligarchy.

Of all the ways that humanity can be freed from the devices and methods that lock it down into control, as a matrix.... this is at the top. So I agree, there is more than just alchemy ...but this discussion is important and it is real.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83001-Joseph-Farrell-Dark-Journalist-Akhenaten-Prophecy-Mystery-Schools-Giza-Death-Star
~~~~~~~

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66489-Brainscans-and-prisoners-Outing-the-sociopaths-and-the-domino-effect&highlight=sociopaths

[Selkie]

The point I was trying to make is that it could be argued that there is no "decline". We can find just as much evidence to point out the lack of it in just about any point in our history over the last 2000 years and further.Yes, but it still misses the point. We're talking about a rather short period of time.
There have always been good and evil people throughout our history, the nature of duality demands it. Through our own perceptions we're trying to quantify it here a bit.
Having children to raise makes one more aware of the nefarious influences in our society. We see it on the TV, in the schools, in the movies, and in the people we associate with. We want to raise our children with the same values we have, which are rarely reflected anymore in the popular culture.
I remember being seriously questioned by other parents when we didn't allow our children to go see R rated movies with their kids. When I was their age no parent would even think of letting their child see anything but G rated movies.
This is the type of degradation I'm talking about. My parents knew that I had plenty of time when I got older to handle "adult" situations. Kids don't need that garbage in their lives. They don't know how to deal with it intellectually or emotionally. Kids need a wholesome intellectual diet in order to develop properly.
There is a concerted effort to reduce or eradicate traditional (or Christian if you like) ethical and moral standards, and replace them with "politically correct" standards.
If they were higher standards than I already have, then OK, I'm good with it. But they're not. They're more the kind of let's-all-take-off-our-clothes-and-copulate-in-the-street type of morals. Some people might like that, but I don't, and I don't think it makes for a healthy society.
It's great for the power brokers because it weakens everyone who buys into it. How can someone stand up against wrong with moral conviction if they have none? They want everyone else to adopt the same morality as they have.
No thanks.

Ted

(my emphasis)

Brilliant, and very well said. Thank you so much!

There does seem to be a concerted effort to erode pro-social, traditional values, and to my eye, that effort seemed to start in the mid-60's with the Kennedy Assassination and the coup by the secret government.

[Selkie]

The motive and the justification are often two different things. Killing has been justified by religious principals for all of recorded history. The motive is usually hatred or greed.
That's right, and what it shows is that people who want to kill others will find a rationale. Sometimes that rationale is religious. Sometimes it is patriotic. Sometimes it is ethnic. Etcetera.

[Selkie]

...I just see those as good spiritual values that you find of some people who could be Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, agnostic, etc.


Yes, of course, and so do I. What I said is that (referring to the U.S.) those values come to us by way of the Christians. I am sorry, but that is just a fact, since the ordinary, everyday people...farmers, merchants and the like...who came here from the old world were Christian. We know now that there are other religions that espouse the same values, but although few people seem to realize it, that knowledge is fairly new. I mean, by and large, talking about average people, before the 60's most average people knew nothing about Buddhism and were only dimly aware of it. And by the pagans, I will assume that you mean the neo-pagans (excepting John Lash and his KWP, with their murderous intent), who are really more like Christians than they are like those pagans of old, with their slavery and human sacrifices.


...but hey, we are human beings, and we usually do find a path back to our humanity.

Indeed we are, and indeed we do :)

[Joe Akulis]

What does it matter if they do not know about the uglier side of our history? How would that make things better? As long as people live peaceably, I don't care if they are as ignorant as fence posts about the history of the world.

So, this lofty, moral and ethical way of life that you lament the decay of... If all those morals and ethics cannot inspire the slightest care about any kind of atrocity that occurs to your neighbors, then I'm not sure it's a kind of ethics that I would like to bring back. Sorry if that makes me the bad guy on this thread.

[Selkie]

Btw, not too long before he was murdered, John F Kennedy seems to have undergone illumination. He woke up. It seems to have happened because of two things: the death of a baby son and at least one session of LSD with Mary Meyer. And look what they did. They murdered him. They could not afford to have an awakened, peace-promoting President when all their plans depend upon war and mayhem.

[Selkie]

What does it matter if they do not know about the uglier side of our history? How would that make things better? As long as people live peaceably, I don't care if they are as ignorant as fence posts about the history of the world.

So, this lofty, moral and ethical way of life that you lament the decay of... If all those morals and ethics cannot inspire the slightest care about any kind of atrocity that occurs to your neighbors, then I'm not sure it's a kind of ethics that I would like to bring back. Sorry if that makes me the bad guy on this thread.
You are not the bad guy here. There are no bad guys here, yet. Everyone has been really polite, considering that it is a very contentious subject. And I am glad that you are making the points you are making.

There is cogitation about morals, and then there is living a moral life. I am content if people live morally without cogitating about it. If you want to throw away the good at the expense of some kind of moral perfection, that is up to you, but I hope you don't do that, though :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

[Pam]

Silki, thanks for a most interesting topic. I wonder if part of it is that the mere nature of being a psychopath eventually puts more and more of them in higher places. If I were a psychopath, I would have a lot of advantages. I would be very willing to lie, coverup, harm and fabricate so that I could get into the position of authority I desired. Your average person is not willing, nor would they have the audacity to do those things. As more and more psychopaths find themselves in high places in the government and the corporate world they would create an atmosphere conducive to attracting more. For instance, if I am in charge and am willing to do all kinds of unethical things to make a profit, I am only going to attract others that are willing to do the same. Your average person will draw the line somewhere, for ethical reasons or for fear of consequence.

[Bubu]

what I see is a subliminal message telling us that christian value is needed to prevent rise of sociopath. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we need to do is spread awareness among our fellows as to the real cause of moral decline so as we can solve the problem not spread religion which is actually one of the tool use by the said group to corrupt our values/ increase the number of sociopaths among us

[Selkie]

what I see is a subliminal message telling us that christian value is needed to prevent rise of sociopath.

(my emphasis)

Then you misperceiving, and so is anyone else who sees the same thing because there is no evidence for what you say you see.

I said that I am not a Christian, or even a crypto-Christian. I am not against same-sex marriage, or gays, or anything like that.

What I said is that there seems to be a rise of psychopathic behavior that coincides with the breakdown of what we call Christian morals in this country. I also pointed out that although other religions espouse those self same values, they come to us in the U.S. by way of the Christians, but that is credit where credit is due. I also said that not all Christian values make for a better world, and indicated that those values (or ethics, whatever you want to call them) ought to be discarded in favor of more realistic ones, just like some of the values of all religions need revising if we are to live in peace. I went to great pains to point out that all religions are a mix of good and bad.

So you are simply wrong.

Not only that, if I had an agenda to promote Christian values, I would tell you so. I would not try to seduce and manipulate you to over to my side, as if I were some sort of psychopath.

[Selkie]

...What we need to do is spread awareness among our fellows as to the real cause of moral decline so as we can solve the problem not spread religion which is actually one of the tool use by the said group to corrupt our values/ increase the number of sociopaths among us

Awareness is a kind of luxury. Not everyone can afford it.

[Selkie]

You know, people have been so well-trained to knee-jerk hate on Christianity that they cannot even see that it has some good points**. If they had trained us to hate on Buddhism the same way, everyone would be up in arms, and its not like the Buddhists have not committed atrocities, too

http://www.globalresearch.ca/buddhism-in-myanmar-extremism-galore/5396471

and that is just recent history.

** Being able to see the good points of a religion is not tantamount to subliminally promoting it.

[Selkie]

Silki, thanks for a most interesting topic. I wonder if part of it is that the mere nature of being a psychopath eventually puts more and more of them in higher places. If I were a psychopath, I would have a lot of advantages. I would be very willing to lie, coverup, harm and fabricate so that I could get into the position of authority I desired. Your average person is not willing, nor would they have the audacity to do those things. As more and more psychopaths find themselves in high places in the government and the corporate world they would create an atmosphere conducive to attracting more. For instance, if I am in charge and am willing to do all kinds of unethical things to make a profit, I am only going to attract others that are willing to do the same. Your average person will draw the line somewhere, for ethical reasons or for fear of consequence.

(emphasis mine)

They may have a short-term advantage, but they always crash and burn because psychopaths do not take consequences into account, and they don't plan for the future. The grand psychopathic plan that has been unfolding before our eyes for decades...and getting worse by the day...cannot win. I have total faith in my fellow man...awakened, un-awakened, of any faith, or none...it makes no difference.

[Joe Akulis]

If I haven't worn out my welcome, I would like to suggest that it is not a knee jerk reaction to Chrisitanity that you will feel at Avalon, so much as a knee jerk reaction to the Romanized version of it that was forced upon the masses. As we have come to learn more and more about what humans are, and what consciousness is, and lots of other cool things, (largely due to contributions from awesome members right here at this site, and lots of other places, and books, and such), what we have begun to do is question parts of the Romanized version of Christianity that were given to us, and what parts were left out or even suppressed.

Here's a thread Bill Ryan started where we all chatted about the original Christian for a while.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?61859-The-real-Jesus-the-real-Mary-Gnosis-the-Archons-and-the-world-s-first-major-smear-campaign

[Selkie]

If I haven't worn out my welcome...
You are as welcome here as anyone else :)


I would like to suggest that it is not a knee jerk reaction to Chrisitanity that you will feel at Avalon, so much as a knee jerk reaction to the Romanized version of it that was forced upon the masses.

(my emphasis)

Well, maybe it would help it folks stopped responding to something in their heads and responded to what I actually said. People have been so well trained to hate on the Christians...Romanized version or otherwise...that just say the word "Christian" and their hackles rise and they can't listen or see straight. And that is just stupid, because it serves the agenda of the psychopaths.


...what we have begun to do is question parts of the Romanized version of Christianity that were given to us, and what parts were left out or even suppressed.

This is good, and very necessary. All religions are fair game to be deconstructed, the crap and lies thrown out :muscle: and the good stuff kept :handshake:

[Ted]

You know, people have been so well-trained to knee-jerk hate on Christianity that they cannot even see that it has some good pointsTo be truly aware, one has to be an independent thinker about all things. Painting all members of any group with the same brush is called prejudice. Thinking that Christianity is evil is ignorance.
I look for good advice, and take it where I find it. I also try to determine the motivation that drives good people, and I take notice of it. Oftentimes it is a result of their faith.
Has anyone wondered why it is so much easier to morally backslide than it is to be virtuous? It's because it takes a lot of vigilance and hard work to live up to high standards. Spiritual evolution is all about rising above the animal nature of the body consciousness. That animal nature is somewhat psychopathic as it only thinks about gratification of its passions. This creates a conflict between the soul and the body. The body want's to eat the rest of the chocolate cake and the soul is saying no (the compromise is usually one more piece).
The PTB know all this, and would much rather you give into your animal nature and ignore your soul altogether. Then they can dangle little bobbles, which your body so much desires, in front of you and make you dance to their own tune.
If you're not listening to that inner voice, you'll find yourself dancing like there's no tomorrow.

Cheers,

Ted

[WhiteLove]

OP, your post is totally relevant, there are assumptions made that are kind of true but in reality has some more color to it, some more "twist". That does not make the topic less important though, I would say that your post in general stays relevant and can easily count for those assumptions that I would say are maybe not that simple to make. In fact I like that you bring front the positive aspects of Christian Ethics, our society has too little of that, there is too much struggle out there...

I'm a Christian, Christ love is for me something that makes perfect sense, I love it, I like it, I want it to guide me, I want to grow in it and I want it to be my friend. I have very beautiful memories of being with Christians because of the events that are arranged have a deepness and emotion to it that I really like, it becomes so real. As a person in today's society over time if you have not been with Christians for a long time you might start missing those moments when you can be with others that are also open of the fact that they care about the deeper aspects of life and want a community going around that searching. But that extends also beyond Christian events, to for instance this community, I would say this community here at Avalon has much of the same vibe, maybe that is to some degree also due to the fact that many here are open and although maybe not always openly Christian can understand and accept some of the Christian ideas about what is important in life.

I am a deep Christian since many many years, but that is to me something very simple, I don't feel bound by any particular "rules", for me the Christian life is a lot about being aware of the "negative" side of the ego as something to gradually learn to overcome, not by force but by gravitating towards the unconditional love of Christ and hence let go of the "bad ego" being. I do agre e that psychopaths are rooted in "bad ego", there is simply no doubt at all about that and it is of course a parasitic impact on the well being of others and on the well being of the self. But even psychopaths are loved, that's the amazing thing about Christ love, it has no limits.

Psychopaths are dangerous, we should be aware of that danger, but I feel that we must also look forward beyond those types of people and trust that in truth everyone will integrate back, nobody should be left behind. Christ love is that force that prays for the psychopath and when the psychopath wants to harm your friend, you go between and let your bad ego take that suffering instead. Dying for your friend because of the love for your friend, that is what Christ love is and that is the message that Christ gave by dying on the cross - that life is in this kind of love. It is a paradox, we are kind of always alive, but can be really alive once we accept true unconditional love.

To sum it up, I think that we should learn to love and as difficult as it might seem we should learn to love psychopaths also, but use the protection of Christ and our own spiritual intelligence in this process so that what can be a positive catalyst for both, don't turn into the opposite, that's the danger here. As we learn to live in Christ love, we learn about unconditional love and we learn about what life can be. It is a learning process.

[araucaria]

Here is another post I made on the John Lash Kalika party thread and which also belongs here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?78630-John-Lash-s-Kalika-war-party&p=972144&viewfull=1#post972144

[Loveisall21]

I think there are many factors in the decline in human values. Certainly the ramping up of the new world agenda in the 60's was a factor. But I also will dare to say that the ramping up was and still is a response to a ramping up of evolving consciousness. Those behind that new world archonic agenda know that they can not stop the rising of consciousness so instead they knew their greatest line of defense (because they are on the defense even though it may not seem that way) was to confuse us, divide us, pollute us, traumatize us, desensitize us. And they have done a good job of it.

But maybe that is their job. Because yes the atrocities, mans inhumanity to man has been in our history for so long. What does it take to wake humanity up? Maybe it takes so much chaos before enough people start seeking peace to create a turning point . So much chaos right on our doorsteps before enough people start looking for where true peace begins and ends. And that is within.

I personally see the chaos, the decline of morals from I guess what it was more like before the 60's as just how it had to be because I think it is bringing a great many people (unfortunately not all) to a maturation and to a balance. I think that a lot of what was going on in the good ol days was a lot of repression and hypocrisy and deception behind closed doors. There was also a lot of segregation. Where people stayed with what they thought were their own kind either because they preferred it that way or because they had to. But with the civil rights movement also from the 60's (which was part of this evolving consciousness) that started changing. And the growing pains continue as humans still struggle to get to the place of maturity and wisdom where we know we are all one no matter how different our meat suits look.

And also the anti war movement, again evolving consciousness from the sixties which I see in large part due to all the psychedelics that were going down. Many people were realizing the insanity of war where as before in those " good ol days" men went off to war for god and country largely not questioning the rightness or wrongness of it. Humanity is moving to a place of balance. If you want to see the chaos, the indecency, the violence, the jadedness well its right there. Turn on the news, go to a major city you will find it no problem. But if you seek all the opposites of that you will see plenty of good. The good in the world, in people is like a sleeping giant. But the giant is stirring and no matter how much the ptb be try to seduce and incite the worst in us the giant will finally be fully roused and then their game is over and then the promise of the civil rights movement, the anti war movement will be fully realized and humanity will find the balance that comes with freedom and clarity. But really, why look behind us at what some may imagine as better days or even ahead for that matter. We have only ever the present moment to create in us what we wish to see in the world. That's the only way it gets out there. That is our work.

[UrbanAnthro]

I think about the 'rise of the psychopaths' in contrast to the loss of (1) 'citizen' and 'public service' ethics, (2) emergence and increased public presence of satanists, and their significant success at increasing their population, and (3) the virulent spread of 'Wetiko.' I don't think this is only or possibly about the lessening of 'Christian values,' but of the reduction of the power of basic human moral conduct in society and in turn, the possible destruction of the American state (or dream) as we have known it. We are, most probably, on the verge of losing civilization and the heart of goodness and decency.

I really like your emphasis on the increased 'lack of restraint' by people in office and the private sector. To me, this is due to numbers 1 through 3 above.

[Bubu]

You know, people have been so well-trained to knee-jerk hate on Christianity that they cannot even see that it has some good points**. If they had trained us to hate on Buddhism the same way, everyone would be up in arms, and its not like the Buddhists have not committed atrocities, too

http://www.globalresearch.ca/buddhism-in-myanmar-extremism-galore/5396471

and that is just recent history.

** Being able to see the good points of a religion is not tantamount to subliminally promoting it.

I agree there are good points in religion but its just a bait to hook the unsuspecting fish, sum total is negative.
Telling outright or convincing is no comparison to subliminal brainwashing that is why this system is widely use by the cabal.
you may or may not be promoting it consciously. Its irrelevant to me I am only sharing my opinion this is how we all learn in part.

[Selkie]

...you may or may not be promoting it consciously.

As I said before, I am not promoting Christianity, consciously or otherwise.

You said:


what I see is a subliminal message...

To which I responded:


I said that I am not a Christian, or even a crypto-Christian. I am not against same-sex marriage, or gays, or anything like that.

What I said is that there seems to be a rise of psychopathic behavior that coincides with the breakdown of what we call Christian morals in this country. I also pointed out that although other religions espouse those self same values, they come to us in the U.S. by way of the Christians, but that is credit where credit is due. I also said that not all Christian values make for a better world, and indicated that those values (or ethics, whatever you want to call them) ought to be discarded in favor of more realistic ones, just like some of the values of all religions need revising if we are to live in peace. I went to great pains to point out that all religions are a mix of good and bad.

When someone perceives something in spite of the fact that there is no objective evidence for it, that is called projection. Unless you are a mind-reader, and know what is in my mind better than I do.

So go ahead, keep seeing Christian boogey men where there are none. Your baseless accusations say much more about you than they do about me.

[Selkie]

I think about the 'rise of the psychopaths' in contrast to the loss of (1) 'citizen' and 'public service' ethics, (2) emergence and increased public presence of satanists, and their significant success at increasing their population, and (3) the virulent spread of 'Wetiko.' I don't think this is only or possibly about the lessening of 'Christian values,' but of the reduction of the power of basic human moral conduct in society and in turn, the possible destruction of the American state (or dream) as we have known it. We are on the verge of losing civilization and the heart of goodness and decency if we don't act in a critical way.

I really like your emphasis on the increased 'lack of restraint' by people in office and the private sector. To me, this is due to numbers 1 through 3 above.

(my emphasis)

Thank you so much for this syntax, which I have highlighted. That is why I made the OP as an observation instead of as a statement. Observations can be mutually explored while statements are debated. I want to explore this theme, but some think I want to debate. I don't want to debate, I want to explore, and this just the right syntax for the values I am trying to describe. I just couldn't find the words for it.

Thanks so much! :)

[Selkie]

You know, people have been so well-trained to knee-jerk hate on Christianity that they cannot even see that it has some good pointsTo be truly aware, one has to be an independent thinker about all things. Painting all members of any group with the same brush is called prejudice. Thinking that Christianity is evil is ignorance.
I look for good advice, and take it where I find it. I also try to determine the motivation that drives good people, and I take notice of it. Oftentimes it is a result of their faith.
Has anyone wondered why it is so much easier to morally backslide than it is to be virtuous? It's because it takes a lot of vigilance and hard work to live up to high standards. Spiritual evolution is all about rising above the animal nature of the body consciousness. That animal nature is somewhat psychopathic as it only thinks about gratification of its passions. This creates a conflict between the soul and the body. The body want's to eat the rest of the chocolate cake and the soul is saying no (the compromise is usually one more piece).
The PTB know all this, and would much rather you give into your animal nature and ignore your soul altogether. Then they can dangle little bobbles, which your body so much desires, in front of you and make you dance to their own tune.
If you're not listening to that inner voice, you'll find yourself dancing like there's no tomorrow.

Cheers,

Ted

(my emphasis)

Bravo. And I am not a Christian. I am not even religious.

Not only that, but who is promoting this indiscriminate hatred of religion, promoting it to the point that people hate on it, without even realizing what they are doing? Hmmm? Perhaps the very psychopaths that have it in for us?

[Ted]

Not only that, but who is promoting this indiscriminate hatred of religion, promoting it to the point that people hate on it, without even realizing what they are doing? Hmmm? Perhaps the very psychopaths that have it in for us?I don't belong to any religion either. Nevertheless, I have studied religion in depth and find a lot of wisdom and sage council in the various theologies.
When the church lost is authority over the population, it probably became more of a liability than an asset. I guess, "Love thy neighbor" was never meant to be taken seriously. Why else would the church be demonized by the same folks who used it so successfully for centuries? There is just no gratitude in the upper echelons.

[ulli]

The religious leaders' authority should have disintegrated as soon as masses of people learnt to read and write and could access and interpret the various holy writings for themselves.
Rituals are unnecessary and even dangerous in that they exploit people's need for habitual behavior which is actually putting them into deeper sleep.

Although I am not saying that all routines are bad...just the ritualistic behaviors.

The real positive contribution of religious wisdom can only be accessed with study and contemplation, and in my view even more so when done in private.

[Joe Akulis]

Not only that, but who is promoting this indiscriminate hatred of religion, promoting it to the point that people hate on it, without even realizing what they are doing? Hmmm? Perhaps the very psychopaths that have it in for us?I don't belong to any religion either. Nevertheless, I have studied religion in depth and find a lot of wisdom and sage council in the various theologies.
When the church lost is authority over the population, it probably became more of a liability than an asset. I guess, "Love thy neighbor" was never meant to be taken seriously. Why else would the church be demonized by the same folks who used it so successfully for centuries? There is just no gratitude in the upper echelons.

Well, perhaps it would be helpful to step back and try to lay out some examples of those who used the church so successfully for centuries and how they used it.

But keep in mind, Silkie is talking about "religion" being demonized, not "the church". Once you change those terms, it makes me think the subject is the catholic church, and not the whole rainbow of religions, like Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and many more. You may be focusing too much on one flavor of religion, whereas Silkie was trying to assess a general attitude towards them all. Just an observation.

My thinking is, if all religions could be said to have been "used", then my guess for the reason why they may not need to be "used" any more is because the power structures have changed.

In the middle ages, the Roman Catholic church owned 1/4 of all the land in Europe. And back then, land ownership was one of the main factors in the acquisition of wealth. I wonder if other religious organizations had similar structures in other parts of the world?

Today, it is corporations that run the show, and land ownership is not very necessary anymore in the quest for wealth, (today it's more about who gets their hands on energy, and who has to pay those people for it) so the need for other vehicles such as religions to help maintain a grasp on power has become like a hermit crab shell that has been outgrown by the robber barons in favor of a bigger one.

[Ted]

But keep in mind, Silkie is talking about "religion" being demonized, not "the church". Once you change those terms, it makes me think the subject is the catholic church, and not the whole rainbow of religions, like Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and many more. You may be focusing too much on one flavor of religion, whereas Silkie was trying to assess a general attitude towards them all. Just an observation.To me, the term religion has more theological connotations, while "church" represents the structure built up around the teaching. This can apply to any religion or denomination. It's just semantics. Thanks for your thoughts.

Ted

[Hervé]

It seems like the uniqueness of the American social experiment/engineering is that, once they got rid of the hereditary land robbers (English, Spanish, French, Prussian, etc., you know, the ones who kept stealing lands from each others...), they didn't have any real "enemies" to unite their population in working together...

Accordingly, here comes this early observation (keeping in mind that most were fleeing religious persecutions):

US Downfall Traced to Defeat of Christianity
(http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/US-Downfall-Traced-to-Loss-of-Christianity.html)

"America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Alexis de Toqueville by Richard Evans June 24, 2015
(henrymakow.com)

Is America using immoral tactics to fight unjust wars? I found part of the answer in a remarkable interview with a former US drone operator, Brandon Bryant, on BBC's HARDtalk:

_U2kPuQ9TxE
I thought it would be the usual 'gung ho' pep talk about America's great weapons, but the young man impressed me with his honesty, courage and conviction. Brandon says drone warfare represented the most cowardly warfare ever devised. Although he took part in over 1600 kills, he felt sick about it because he could not be sure whether some were even enemy combatants.

He condemned the Presidential order to assassinate US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed by drone in 2011with another American who was purportedly editor of al-Qaeda's English-language web magazine, Inspire. Bryant felt these assassinations constituted a blatant violation of the US Constitution - which says that US citizens must have a fair trial by their peers even when the charge is treason. Obama simply ordered al-Awiaki and sidekick murdered by drone ten thousands miles away.

Bryant argued, "We're supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, and we do not live up to our own standards".


HOW DID AMERICA LOSE ITS MORAL GROUNDING?


http://henrymakow.com/upload_images/alexis-de-tocqueville-4-sized.jpg


To answer this question, we have to travel back to the 19th century when Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success.

He published his observations in his classic two-volume work, Democracy in America (1838). He was especially impressed by America's religious character. Here are some startling excerpts from Tocqueville's great work:
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.
[...]


Full article: http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/US-Downfall-Traced-to-Loss-of-Christianity.html

***************************************************************

... it seems like the concept is permeating the atmosphere... or else Henry is reading this thread :)

[Selkie]

...Well, perhaps it would be helpful to step back and try to lay out some examples of those who used the church so successfully for centuries and how they used it.

So are you going to actually do that, or do you want us to make assumptions again?


...But keep in mind, Silkie is talking about "religion" being demonized, not "the church". Once you change those terms, it makes me think the subject is the catholic church, and not the whole rainbow of religions, like Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and many more.

I started the OP with an observation about Christian ethics because I was thinking about the United States, but when I say religion I mean religion...all religion...not the church, or any church. The psychopaths haven't taken aim at Buddhism or Sikhism or other, smaller religions yet, but they will eventually, because they are hostile to all religion. They are hostile to anything that makes people feel safe and secure and that gives them a sense of community.


...My thinking is, if all religions could be said to have been "used", then my guess for the reason why they may not need to be "used" any more is because the power structures have changed.

Today, it is corporations that run the show, so the need for other vehicles such as religions to help maintain a grasp on power has become like a hermit crab shell that has been outgrown by the robber barons in favor of a bigger one.

(my emphasis)

What? You think that the psychopaths are abandoning or have abandoned the upper echelons of religion :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL: I'm sorry...that is really just too funny.

But you make an interesting point because I think a distinction has to be made between the beliefs of the faithful and the power structures of religion. The basic beliefs of religions are the result of realizations by sages, and the faithful...men and women simply living their faith as best they can...are motivated by ordinary human needs, like the need for affiliation, a sense of security, somewhere to turn in times of trouble, etc.

The power structure is motivated by, well, power, and the desire to exercise it. The power structures parasitize the realizations of sages and lives of the faithful.

[Selkie]

But keep in mind, Silkie is talking about "religion" being demonized, not "the church". Once you change those terms, it makes me think the subject is the catholic church, and not the whole rainbow of religions, like Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and many more. You may be focusing too much on one flavor of religion, whereas Silkie was trying to assess a general attitude towards them all. Just an observation.To me, the term religion has more theological connotations, while "church" represents the structure built up around the teaching. This can apply to any religion or denomination. It's just semantics. Thanks for your thoughts.

Ted
I agree. But please don't dismiss semantics. It is very important to define terms.

Btw, I made my post replying to Mr. Akulis before I saw this post of yours.

[Hanson]

Do we know the numbers of psychopaths in high places throughout history? Do we even know how many are in high places today? No, we don't. Do we have a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths? No, we don't.

Time to use your search function:

Snakes in Suits: Weeding out corporate Psychopaths (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?35730-Snakes-in-Suits-Weeding-out-corporate-Psychopaths)

Brainscans and prisoners: Outing the sociopaths and the domino effect (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66489-Brainscans-and-prisoners-Outing-the-sociopaths-and-the-domino-effect)
Good threads, but my points still stand. If there was a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths, it would be very useful to apply it to every member of Avalon and post the results publicly. That would be putting our "money" (our actions) where our mouths are, so to speak.

Not that that will ever happen. But it should. We should be the change we wish to see in the world.

[Selkie]

Do we know the numbers of psychopaths in high places throughout history? Do we even know how many are in high places today? No, we don't. Do we have a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths? No, we don't.

Time to use your search function:

Snakes in Suits: Weeding out corporate Psychopaths (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?35730-Snakes-in-Suits-Weeding-out-corporate-Psychopaths)

Brainscans and prisoners: Outing the sociopaths and the domino effect (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66489-Brainscans-and-prisoners-Outing-the-sociopaths-and-the-domino-effect)
Good threads, but my points still stand. If there was a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths, it would be very useful to apply it to every member of Avalon and post the results publicly. That would be putting our "money" (our actions) where our mouths are, so to speak.

Not that that will ever happen. But it should. We should be the change we wish to see in the world.

I think it will come.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66489-Brainscans-and-prisoners-Outing-the-sociopaths-and-the-domino-effect&p=772136&viewfull=1#post772136

Right now, though, in most instances, all we have to go on is behavior, so that is what we must use.

Btw, I do not think that a brain scan, alone, can reveal if someone is a psychopath, but bran scans plus behavior, taken together, would probably be quite accurate.

[Joe Akulis]

"Not only that, but who is promoting this indiscriminate hatred of religion, promoting it to the point that people hate on it, without even realizing what they are doing? Hmmm? Perhaps the very psychopaths that have it in for us?"

"What? You think that the psychopaths are abandoning or have abandoned the upper echelons of religion I'm sorry...that is really just too funny."

Sounds like you answered your own question there. The church leaders are the psychopaths that have it in for us. See? We're making progress. :-)

[Selkie]

It seems like the uniqueness of the American social experiment/engineering is that, once they got rid of the hereditary land robbers (English, Spanish, French, Prussian, etc., you know, the ones who kept stealing lands from each others...), they didn't have any real "enemies" to unite their population in working together...

Accordingly, here comes this early observation (keeping in mind that most were fleeing religious persecutions):

US Downfall Traced to Defeat of Christianity
(http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/US-Downfall-Traced-to-Loss-of-Christianity.html)

"America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Alexis de Toqueville by Richard Evans June 24, 2015
(henrymakow.com)

Is America using immoral tactics to fight unjust wars? I found part of the answer in a remarkable interview with a former US drone operator, Brandon Bryant, on BBC's HARDtalk:

_U2kPuQ9TxE
I thought it would be the usual 'gung ho' pep talk about America's great weapons, but the young man impressed me with his honesty, courage and conviction. Brandon says drone warfare represented the most cowardly warfare ever devised. Although he took part in over 1600 kills, he felt sick about it because he could not be sure whether some were even enemy combatants.

He condemned the Presidential order to assassinate US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed by drone in 2011with another American who was purportedly editor of al-Qaeda's English-language web magazine, Inspire. Bryant felt these assassinations constituted a blatant violation of the US Constitution - which says that US citizens must have a fair trial by their peers even when the charge is treason. Obama simply ordered al-Awiaki and sidekick murdered by drone ten thousands miles away.

Bryant argued, "We're supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, and we do not live up to our own standards".


HOW DID AMERICA LOSE ITS MORAL GROUNDING?


http://henrymakow.com/upload_images/alexis-de-tocqueville-4-sized.jpg


To answer this question, we have to travel back to the 19th century when Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success.

He published his observations in his classic two-volume work, Democracy in America (1838). He was especially impressed by America's religious character. Here are some startling excerpts from Tocqueville's great work:
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.
[...]


Full article: http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/US-Downfall-Traced-to-Loss-of-Christianity.html

***************************************************************

... it seems like the concept is permeating the atmosphere... or else Henry is reading this thread :)

If "Christianity" represents the common good and "Satanist" represents individual liberty, then oddly enough, the psychopaths are somehow simultaneously able to erode the common good and individual liberty, both at the same time. How about that for a kick in the pants to the human species?

[Joe Akulis]

Kinda curious about De Toqueville. He wrote all this awesome stuff about how awesome America's morals were, and his famous work was published in 1835.

In chapter 1 of that famous work, he said this of the Native Americans:
"The Indian knew how to live without wants, to suffer without complaint, and to die singing."

I find that kind of hypocrisy upsetting to my stomach. In 1831 we began the internment and wintertime march of the remaining civilized Native American tribes to lands west of the Mississippi. The march was nicknamed the Trail of Tears. Must be De Toqueville didn't tour that part of the country when he was pondering and philosophizing about America.

Here's the words of someone who was there though:

John Burnett was an American soldier who participated in the Trail of Tears, and later wrote,

“School children today do not know that we are living on lands that were taken from a helpless race at the bayonet point to satisfy the white man’s greed…
I fought through the Civil War and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever knew."

The Trail of Tears... Didn't the Nazi's do something similar in the 1940's?

Look, I'm not trying to make people upset with these posts. All I hope to do is cause people to stop and consider that some things may be getting whitewashed and shouldn't be. I apologize to anyone who is upset with my inability to stay quiet and just agree all the time...

[Selkie]

"Not only that, but who is promoting this indiscriminate hatred of religion, promoting it to the point that people hate on it, without even realizing what they are doing? Hmmm? Perhaps the very psychopaths that have it in for us?"

"What? You think that the psychopaths are abandoning or have abandoned the upper echelons of religion I'm sorry...that is really just too funny."

...Sounds like you answered your own question there.

(my emphasis)

That is not true. What I answered was your post

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83116-The-Breakdown-of-Christian-Ehtics-and-the-Rise-of-the-Psychopaths&p=972357&viewfull=1#post972357

And so I answered you, and not my own question at all, as anyone could see for themselves if you had bothered to use searchable quotes.

[Selkie]

Kinda curious about De Toqueville. He wrote all this awesome stuff about how awesome America's morals were, and his famous work was published in 1835.

In chapter 1 of that famous work, he said this of the Native Americans:
"The Indian knew how to live without wants, to suffer without complaint, and to die singing."

I find that kind of hypocrisy upsetting to my stomach. In 1831 we began the internment and wintertime march of the remaining civilized Native American tribes to lands west of the Mississippi. The march was nicknamed the Trail of Tears. Must be De Toqueville didn't tour that part of the country when he was pondering and philosophizing about America.

Here's the words of someone who was there though:

John Burnett was an American soldier who participated in the Trail of Tears, and later wrote,

“School children today do not know that we are living on lands that were taken from a helpless race at the bayonet point to satisfy the white man’s greed…
I fought through the Civil War and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever knew."

The Trail of Tears... Didn't the Nazi's do something similar in the 1940's?

Look, I'm not trying to make people upset with these posts. All I hope to do is cause people to stop and consider that some things may be getting whitewashed and shouldn't be. I apologize to anyone who is upset with my inability to stay quiet and just agree all the time...

No one wants you to stay quiet about something that is important to you, but please stop trying to hijack this thread into a discussion of the plight of the Native Americans. If you want to discuss that issue, please start a new thread, where the subject can be given the attention it deserves.

[Joe Akulis]

My focus is on the way people living in America have been able to gloss over all manner of atrocity in order to maintain our claim to moral and ethical superiority.

The effect it causes is when someone wakes up a little and starts to feel like things are turning sour, they believe it's a new phenomenon and not just the same old business as usual for hundreds of years. And I don't think that is accurate.

But you're right, I've made too much of a nuisance of myself, and it's not the first time. I'll move along, and hope that I can still call everyone a friend, despite my loud mouth.

See you on the next engaging thread!

[Hervé]

[...]
Good threads, but my points still stand. If there was a quick and accurate way to identify psychopaths, it would be very useful to apply it to every member of Avalon and post the results publicly. That would be putting our "money" (our actions) where our mouths are, so to speak.

Not that that will ever happen. But it should. We should be the change we wish to see in the world.

I thought I posted this (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?32477-The-Greatest-Scam-on-Earth&p=569769&viewfull=1#post569769) (<--- click) on one of those threads but it doesn't look like it.

Now, let's think a bit... and put oneself in some psychopath's shoes... would one widely and pervasively promote a surefire test that directly points at one being a psychopath? Or would one hide it and disappear it from public view and use?

On the other hand, I am quite certain modern equivalents of such tests are at work in many organizations which hierarchies are constituted of such "like-minded" individuals...

Here are a few end results:


[<---click on the "here" to read the full post]

[...]
Twilight Of The Psychopaths

by Dr. Kevin Barrett
Spanish version (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_ponerology09.htm)

from TheCanadian (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/) Website

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.”
– John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman

When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.

Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.

Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.

The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:
1. Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers
2. Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits)
3. Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.


Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath.

Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.

Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208291611&sr=8-1), Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species.

The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons:

“Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges”
(Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing.

Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)

Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent.

The sane majority, would rather die than fight.

The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behavior in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution.

Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.

How could that be?

In Political Ponerology (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/polpon/politicalponerologyccr.htm), Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want.

In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies.

The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths

[...]

Continue here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_ponerology08.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_ponerology08.htm)


... now, is there an even better way to recruit the remaining potential psychopaths than to dismantle any moral vestiges in individuals and promote the "survival of the fittest" as a "law"?

[Selkie]

My focus is on the way people living in America have been able to gloss over all manner of atrocity in order to maintain our claim to moral and ethical superiority.

The effect it causes is when someone wakes up a little and starts to feel like things are turning sour, they believe it's a new phenomenon and not just the same old business as usual for hundreds of years. And I don't think that is accurate.

But you're right, I've made too much of a nuisance of myself, and it's not the first time. I'll move along, and hope that I can still call everyone a friend, despite my loud mouth.

See you on the next engaging thread!

No one is glossing over anything. No one said American was wonderful, now or in its past. No one even implied it. All the OP was about was noting a phenomenon. How anyone feels about Christian values, or Christians is quite beside the point. It is quite possible to loath Christianity and/or America while being intellectually honest about them. Has "the Church" been horrible? Yes, of course! Have Christians murdered and slaughtered their way across the land...many lands? Yes! Did American slaughter the Native Americans? Yes! But all of that is still beside the point of the OP, because the OP was not about Christianity or America, it was about the phenomenon of psychopathy, and the thread has become bogged down in a discussion of religion when it was not necessary.

[Selkie]

[...]

... now, is there an even better way to recruit the remaining potential psychopaths than to dismantle any moral vestiges in individuals and promote the "survival of the fittest" as a "law"?

Didn't John Nash say that Adam Smith was wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

[Hervé]

[...]

... now, is there an even better way to recruit the remaining potential psychopaths than to dismantle any moral vestiges in individuals and promote the "survival of the fittest" as a "law"?

Didn't John Nash say that Adam Smith was wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

Well, I am not sure which of A. Smith or H. Spencer Nash proved wrong, all I know is that, in the end, empires never last.

However, the "survival of the fittest" is the meme that's enforced on educating kids along with "Darwinism" as a recruiting means for the psychopaths' club and, as you know, psychopaths are only interested in short term with exclusive focus on their wishful thinking, regardless of the encompassing bigger picture... that, ultimately, is going to bring about their downfall.

[Hanson]

Now, let's think a bit... and put oneself in some psychopath's shoes... would one widely and pervasively promote a surefire test that directly points at one being a psychopath? Or would one hide it and disappear it from public view and use?
Precisely why I said "Not that that will ever happen."

There will be no twilight of the psychopaths unless there is a dawning of the moral majority who will insist on cooperation instead of competition, equality instead of hierarchy, freedom instead of slavery, and caring instead of coldness. And that dawning will have to be born of grass-roots effort and constructive action. As you indicate, it won't come from our leaders, who will instead clandestinely oppose that dawning at every opportunity.

It will take a group of committed people to start the ball rolling by testing their own group membership for psychopaths. That's why I suggested it might be a group like Avalon, if only there were an easy and accurate way to test for psychopaths. But there isn't, as far as I know. If there is, I'd like to hear about it.

[Jhonie]

An awakening Christian.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukHQh1mEHI

[Selkie]

...There will be no twilight of the psychopaths unless there is a dawning of the moral majority who will insist on cooperation instead of competition, equality instead of hierarchy, freedom instead of slavery, and caring instead of coldness...

(my emphasis)

Like I said in the OP, before the mid-60's THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD! And then it suddenly...but not accidentally...became fashionable for everyone to "do their own thing" (remember that phrase, anyone?). Collectively, we threw restraint to the winds because it felt so good. Suddenly, by the 70's, a wave of narcissism had engulfed the U.S., and everyone had set themselves up as demi-gods and demi-goddesses, worshipping the shrine of "ME".

But not everything that feels good is good for us, either individually or collectively, and now we beginning to pay the price.

To the degree that we have become narcissistic and unrestrained, we have lost our civil liberties. The psychopaths don't care about freedom and liberty, even though they promote narcissistic behavior in the population. What psychopaths do is put people into double binds, in order to punish them. They do this to us collectively (because they have captured our institutions) as well as individually, as when someone is in an individual relationship with a psychopath.

The collective double bind is that the psychopaths have encouraged us to collectively "let out hair down" and become narcissistic and impulsive, and now that we have, they have begun to punish us for it with an ever-more repressive regime of surveillance and police brutality. The thing about psychopaths is that THEY DONT FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES. We, the populace, will end up in a brutal, repressive regime while the psychos who rule will continue to be, well, psychos.

Think Romania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu

Ceausescu lived in unimaginable luxury,

https://romanianjournalist.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/casapoporului-adevarul.jpg

while the people starved.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/46984000/jpg/_46984675_008434812-1.jpg

[Cristi Copac]

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=30375&cid=1&stc=1
christianity has always been that way since 2000 years ago. majority of people who commit acts of violence and crime identify themselves as christians. even the most common psychopaths in history of crime identify themselves as christian. there is a catch to it though. they think themselves as devils. and by large angels and demons have the same god. that is why psychopaths who are christian never kill or attack a saint man of church and that is why the saint man of church forgives the psychopath. don't believe me? read the statistics and investigate this theory. it's brand new...

[Selkie]

...christianity has always been that way since 2000 years ago. majority of people who commit acts of violence and crime identify themselves as christians. even the most common psychopaths in history of crime identify themselves as christian. there is a catch to it though. they think themselves as devils. and by large angels and demons have the same god. that is why psychopaths who are christian never kill or attack a saint man of church and that is why the saint man of church forgives the psychopath. don't believe me? read the statistics and investigate this theory. it's brand new...

Clearly, you have not understood a word I said, and clearly, it is much easier to state the obvious and beat a dead horse than it is to look at things from a different angle :facepalm:

[Selkie]

...christianity has always been that way since 2000 years ago. majority of people who commit acts of violence and crime identify themselves as christians. even the most common psychopaths in history of crime identify themselves as christian. there is a catch to it though. they think themselves as devils. and by large angels and demons have the same god. that is why psychopaths who are christian never kill or attack a saint man of church and that is why the saint man of church forgives the psychopath. don't believe me? read the statistics and investigate this theory. it's brand new...

Clearly, you have not understood a word I said, and clearly, it is much easier to state the obvious and beat a dead horse than it is to look at things from a different angle :facepalm:

So let me ask you this: is the little old lady down the block, who goes to church every day and looks after her grand-kids and puts money in the poor box...is she evil? Are those who live their Christian values of loving their neighbor and treating them well evil? Or could evil people wear a mask of Christianity while perhaps actually being something else? Might psychopathy be a distinct phenomenon from the mask it wears, whatever mask it wears? I think it is.

Its like this: some soldiers are psychopaths, but that does not mean that all soldiers are psychopaths. Its like Ted said: painting all members of a group with one brush is called prejudice.

[heyokah]

..........
Don't forget that the pagans were slave-keepers. They were not gentle tree-huggers. They were savage, with savage rituals. They were erudite and cultured and believed in an earth goddess, but they were savage, and killed slaves and other people for pleasure, as everyone knows.

Even under the best circumstances, when you are a slave, your life, your body and your children are actually owned by someone else. The pagans were also sexually licentious, and yet they infibulated their slaves.

https://www.bme.com/media/story/833351/?cat=ritual

Pagan society was also rife with all kinds of other abuses, like whipping and pederasty, as well as human sacrifice.

So when the slaves took up Christianity and revolted, is it any wonder that they killed unbelievers? If you were a slave, and you had been infibulated and/or had been whipped, wouldn't you want to kill the person who did it to you?

So I think that the excesses of the early Christians can be laid directly at the door of the pagans and their abuses. The excesses of the later Christians, I think, can be laid to the dictum "Never Again". In other words, the Christians hunted down anyone who smacked of paganism simply because they did not want them to "re-boot". And maybe that is why Christianity is on the rise again. Maybe the Christians sense the re-boot of a dangerous system...a system based on slavery. A system (paganism) that is, in its basic behavior, at least semi-psychopathic.[COLOR="red"]

What or who do you mean exactly by pagans? Gnostics? Native Americans? Aboriginals?



....... Its like Ted said: painting all members of a group with one brush is called prejudice.


I think a better title for this thread would perhaps have been: "The Breakdown of Human Morals and Ethics and the Rise of the Psychopaths." ...... without the word Christian.....

[Selkie]

...What or who do you mean exactly by pagans? Gnostics? Native Americans? Aboriginals?

At the time, I was thinking mainly of the Imperial Romans, but if the shoe fits, it doesn't matter who is wearing it. In the effort to make the world a better place, there can be no sacred cows.


...I think a better title for this thread would perhaps have been: "The Breakdown of Human Morals and Ethics and the Rise of the Psychopaths." ...... without the word Christian.....

(my emphasis)

Yes, and I could not agree more, and thanks :) I will ask the mods to change it.

You know, painting all members of a group with positive brush (whitewashing) is no better than painting them with a negative brush. Positive or negative, failure to distinguish is prejudice. We usually think of it in the negative, but whitewashing is just as prejudicial as "blackwashing". Human institutions will always be flawed and will always be vulnerable to being used for evil. It is up to us as individuals to make them better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ma5tF6TJpA

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Would it be possible for the mods to change the title of this thread to "The Breakdown of Human Morals and Ethics and the Rise of the Psychopaths"?

[Cristi Copac]

yes she is. the community as a whole you might do a milion good deeds yourself but if you don't give people the right to defend themselves and you forgive criminals especially hard core ones yes it's a very big evil . if you don't belive in stuff like pride, honor. inteligence and you actually pursue it's destruction that it is evil . it's a perverted evil by not confronting the evil in itsellf and forgiving without actually measuring the results of hundreds of years of forgiving. but of course i would not say this publicly because i'm not a cretin. but this is the truth. and i would not try and fight with guns and axes the type of people you described.

[Selkie]

...the community as a whole you might do a milion good deeds yourself but if you don't give people the right to defend themselves and you forgive criminals especially hard core ones yes it's a very big evil . if you don't belive in stuff like pride, honor. inteligence and you actually pursue it's destruction that it is evil . it's a perverted evil by not confronting the evil in itsellf and forgiving without actually measuring the results of hundreds of years of forgiving. but of course i would not say this publicly because i'm not a cretin. but this is the truth. and i would not try and fight with guns and axes the type of people you described.

(my emphasis)

I addressed that here

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83116-The-Breakdown-of-Human-Morals-and-Ethics-and-the-Rise-of-the-Psychopaths&p=971858&viewfull=1#post971858

This is the salient part of the post from that link,


Quote Posted by Akasha (here)

Quote Posted by Silkie (here)
.....Btw, loving thy neighbor doesn't mean you can't defend yourself and trounce him if he acts like a complete jerk.....

Errrrrr, actually it does:

Quote Luke 6.29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. (KJV)
Not a doctrine I personally subscribe to...


Well, then, that has to be adjusted, because its unrealistic, and its not a doctrine (or ethic, however you want to look at it) that I subscribe to, either. Like I said, not all Christian ethics are ethics that make for a better world.



(emphasis added)

[Cristi Copac]

i don't see any evil in a pagan society. it's better to have open violence and justified than to say you don't want it and to have actually the 2000 years of violence that humanity and earth has never seen. and stupidty and hypocrisiy and the darkness of the human mind and the perverted sadomasochistic soul of christians. sorry man but the romans were right. christians are very very big hypocrites and evil people and i explained why. some people deserve to be slaves in this world.others actually crave that. but i can say this honestly because i know people and i'm not a hypocrite.

[Hanson]

Its like this: some soldiers are psychopaths, but that does not mean that all soldiers are psychopaths. Its like Ted said: painting all members of a group with one brush is called prejudice.
That sounds like a prejudiced statement to me. It's like prejudging those that you believe have prejudged others.

Say you have 100 soldiers. Most could not be labeled psychopaths, but their commanding officer might have psychopathic leanings, and his commanding officer might have even more psychopathic leanings, and so on up the chain of command. The soldiers enter a civilian village and proceed to kill everything in sight. There may not be a flaming psychopath among those soldiers, but as a group, they behaved as if they were one. The hundreds of helpless villagers killed, had they survived, would probably have unanimously classified those soldiers, all of them, as psychopaths. Prejudice?

You probably recognize this event. It was called the My Lai massacre. It is not unique in the annals of war, meaning such behavior is not uncommon among soldiers, the majority of whom are probably not psychopaths. But any group which is led by psychopaths can exhibit the behavior of a psychopath. Prejudice?

[Sean]

[...]
What I mean is not that there cannot be psychopaths among Christians, or whether or not they are real Christians, but whether Christian ethics suppressed psychopathy in general, like in the realm of government, how businesses, corporations and banks were run, etc.

A general, rosy statement like this makes me think someone might want to take time to read about the real America. Come back after reading Wade's essay on the American Empire, and see if you still agree that governments and businesses have been conducting themselves ethically for the past 500 years.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm


P.S. Here's another: "you can have a iron-clad written contract, and it may mean nothing because some people feel like they do not have to keep their word, or honor their contracts."

Someone needs to read about how America has honored every contract/treaty ever entered into with Native Americans.

Governments are always violent, and duplicitous. That is not in dispute. What I am saying is that there was more RESTRAINT. The key word is RESTRAINT. The nature of psychopaths is that they have no restraint. They have no conscience and therefor they have no brakes or checks on their behavior...they have no restraint. The government simply did not used to be so unrestrained. Neither did the corporations and the banks. What loosened the restraints? To me, it seems to be a concerted effort, beginning in the 60's, to overturn Christian values. As imperfectly as they were lived, Christian values were lived well enough by enough people to make life for most people relatively safe and secure.

addition In the case of the Native Americans, they were not Christian, and so maybe the government felt like it did not need to even pretend to practice Christian values in its dealing with them.

I think it's possible that people and governments have ALWAYS behaved this way(unrestrained,cruel, murderous), but with tech advances, we just know about a lot more than we would have 500 years ago. Hell..people were probably WORSE then. To answer your main question..no, I don't think christian morals ever checked anything. Most of the "christians" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, homophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.

morality is an internal thing, a personal thing, a character thing. If you have to find your morality in a book..lol

[heyokah]

....................
morality is an internal thing, a personal thing, a character thing. If you have to find your morality in a book..lol

I fully agree !

[Selkie]

Its like this: some soldiers are psychopaths, but that does not mean that all soldiers are psychopaths. Its like Ted said: painting all members of a group with one brush is called prejudice.
That sounds like a prejudiced statement to me. It's like prejudging those that you believe have prejudged others.

Say you have 100 soldiers. Most could not be labeled psychopaths, but their commanding officer might have psychopathic leanings, and his commanding officer might have even more psychopathic leanings, and so on up the chain of command. The soldiers enter a civilian village and proceed to kill everything in sight. There may not be a flaming psychopath among those soldiers, but as a group, they behaved as if they were one. The hundreds of helpless villagers killed, had they survived, would probably have unanimously classified those soldiers, all of them, as psychopaths. Prejudice?

You probably recognize this event. It was called the My Lai massacre. It is not unique in the annals of war, meaning such behavior is not uncommon among soldiers, the majority of whom are probably not psychopaths. But any group which is led by psychopaths can exhibit the behavior of a psychopath. Prejudice?

(my emphasis)

Actually, what you just showed is that you don't know the meaning of the word prejudice:


prej·u·dice

/ˈprejədəs/

noun

noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices

1.

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"

synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women"


(my emphasis)

Not only that, but you proved my point for me,


some soldiers are psychopaths, but that does not mean that all soldiers are psychopaths

because only Lieutenant William Calley Jr. was convicted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

and other soldiers came to the aid of the villiagers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

So thanks :yo:

[Selkie]

...To answer your main question..no, I don't think christian morals ever checked anything. Most of the "christians" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, homophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.


Again, someone has kindly proven my point for me. You proved it when you wrote "Christians", in quotes, instead of without the quotes.



Using Quotation Marks to Show Sarcasm

The other reason one might use quotation marks in English is to show sarcasm. For example, let’s say Natalie and Mike are friends. They hang out a couple of times a week to watch their favorite TV show or play Rock Band. Natalie’s girlfriends suspect that something more is brewing between the two of them. Natalie is chatting online with her friend Kendra. Observe:

Kendra: What are you doing tonight?

Natalie: I’m going over to Mike’s to watch Lost.

Kendra: Yeah right.

Natalie: What?

Kendra: Nothing. You just seem to be over there “watching Lost” an awful lot.

In this case, Kendra does not believe that Natalie and Mike are actually watching Lost together. She is implying by the use of her quotation marks that the two of them are actually doing something else.

Or here’s another example: Leaf is an avant-garde, hippie artist who gave up his internal combustion engine some time in the late 90s. He has been experimenting lately, however, with vehicles that run on compost and human excrement, but he can’t get a date because no girl wants to be seen in his “car.” Girls, you see, do not see this vehicle as a legitimate car, so when they discuss it, they use the quotation marks to indicate their sarcasm.
(my emphasis)


...morality is an internal thing, a personal thing, a character thing. If you have to find your morality in a book..lol

As I have been saying all along, if it is not lived...in actual, day-to-day interactions with people...then it means nothing, as your example of the "Christians" you know shows. Your morality, my morality, anyone-and-everyone's morality has to be lived, or it means nothing.

p.s. Btw, a book is just a repository of speech. All cultures have their "books" of codes and ethics, but they don't all write them down.

All that said, it would be great if someone would notice that the title of the thread has been changed to better reflect my original intent in posting the OP, thus:

The Breakdown of Human Morals and Ethics and the Rise of the Psychopaths

So if someone...ANYONE...would care to address their posts to the original, true intent of the OP...instead of keeping on hating on the Christians, which is easy, and requires no thinking...I would be extremely grateful.

[Ted]

I think it's possible that people and governments have ALWAYS behaved this way(unrestrained,cruel, murderous), but with tech advances, we just know about a lot more than we would have 500 years ago. Hell..people were probably WORSE then. To answer your main question..no, I don't think christian morals ever checked anything. Most of the "christians" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, homophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of. Do you think they learned that in church or somewhere else?

[Selkie]

...some people deserve to be slaves in this world...

(my emphasis)

I beg your pardon?

[Cristi Copac]

well forced labour and forced sexual services to the tribe are a very good thing to enforce the morality of the tribe who doesn't condone certain acts. i'm not joking. you cross the line and you do a bad deed in detriment to the tribe the tribal chief has the power to sentence you tho what he may consider to be just. this comes from millenia of practice. of course the christians are sincerly pissed of about tribal mentioning of social justice (the true one not the fake) . and i think they sincerely regret the fact that they did not kill or convert each and every one of those tribes like every ""innocent"" christian that have walked this earth.savages my ass. they don't have technology but they know a lot about the human society links and natural links to earth and spiritual developement ... thank you for you attention.

[Flash]

I must say that I pretty much disagree with these paragraphs below. Allow me to use your text and highlight mine following yours to make my point.

- and, just for the argument, please do not use "you do not know the définitions of such and such word" for example, as you did for other posters, as an argument. It is possible that I do not know some English définitions of some similar words in French (therefore use the wrong one) at times, or that I do know the definition but yet, that I am not agreeing (in other words, these - you do not know - statements seems to be condescending to me, that your intent is being condescending or not - so please do not use that, take me as an intelligent being).

Also, I do not use "..." to show sarcasm, I usually use "..." to indicate that the word does not have the traditional definition or that I am using it in another context than usual.

That taken into account, here:


I am posting this mainly as an observation, and I would like to hear what others think about it: I have noticed that the rise in the prevalence of the psychopath in our world seems to coincide directly with the breakdown of Christian ethics.
I do not agree, times and times again, history has proven that psychopathy was prévalent throughout history. Remember the Inquisition in Spain and Southern Europe - more psycho than that is rare, or the burning of witches including Joan of Arc, or the Crusades with their rampage throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And today's rampant pedophilia within the Catholic Church. I would add that Buddhist and Muslims religions have ethics integrated to their religion as well. Why not talk of ethic and human morality as such, without relating it to a religion

Now, I know that some will say that it is Christian ethics that makes us vulnerable to psychopaths in the first place, but that is not how it used to be. When Christian ethics were strong, the world was a better place: not nearly as many psychopaths in high places or running the show, and much more attention to the common good.

How do you know that it is not how it used to be?? and when was that? To me, it seems like you are judging history without historical facts

It is only lately, since Christian ethics have become senescent and Christianity has started to break down, that the psychopaths, in every walk and level of life, have started to rise. And it started to become this way in the 60's...with the CIA-manufactured pagan-like "youth movement" and the rise of the pagan-like drug culture (also CIA manufactured).

Here I agree on something: that the drug culture and the CIA/hidden government drug traficking has been used to make sure ethics and morality would go down, and to make sure everyone had someone hit enough that would have to be taken care of, so that we can never get our heads above water and see the world for what it is. Too much énergies spent helping our loved ones (drugged addict, children with disabilities and behavioral problems, etc etc)
However, it is not correlated with Christian ethics or none. It is correlated with psychopath having the higher hand, as it happened often throughout history

So what if Christian ethics were suppressing the expression of psychopathy? And what if the general rise of what can be called "the ethics of psychopathy" is a direct result of the weakening of Christian ethics, the "ethics of psychopathy" generally being an ethic of "me first", and Christian ethics generally being an ethic of "the common good"?

Church ethics is an ethic or ME first as well. And Christians are organised through churches, very rich churches. What is your topic is wrongly positioned. What is in fact the rise of the psychopath is linked to the rise of unbriddle capitalism and false beliefs into free markets, with no governance of the people, therefore letting free reign to psychopaths?

I hope I have expressed this well enough. If anyone wants clarification, don't be afraid to ask :)

[Innocent Warrior]

So what if Christian ethics were suppressing the expression of psychopathy? And what if the general rise of what can be called "the ethics of psychopathy" is a direct result of the weakening of Christian ethics, the "ethics of psychopathy" generally being an ethic of "me first", and Christian ethics generally being an ethic of "the common good"?

It's hard to say, maybe it's not that Christian ethics were suppressing the expression of psychopathy, it could be the effect of increased fear. With the Cold War and terrorism, our society has also become increasingly paranoid and insecure, which could be giving rise to a survival of the fittest, me first mentality, making psychopathy more acceptable. Perhaps a reflection of fear trumping faith, they're pretty relentless with the fear mongering. We're not big church goers here in Australia, so this could be more true for us than in the US.

[Selkie]

well forced labour and forced sexual services to the tribe are a very good thing to enforce the morality of the tribe who doesn't condone certain acts. i'm not joking. you cross the line a you do a bad deed in detriment to the tribe the tribal chief has the power to sentence you tho what he may consider to be just. this comes from millenia of practice. of course the christians are sincerly pissed of about tribal mentioning of social justice (the true one not the fake) . and i think they sincerly regret the fact that they did not kill or convert each and every one of those tribes. thank you for you attention.

I say again...HUH?

[Selkie]

I am requesting that the mods close this thread. Too many people simply refuse to address the intent of the OP, which I think was pretty obvious in spite that I worded it poorly, and in spite of the change of title. If people want a pretext to hate on Christians, and thereby play into the hands of the psychopaths, let them find it elsewhere.

[Ted]

Most of the "christians" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, homophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.How would I be perceived here if I made a slight alteration to that statement reading: Most of the "Atheists" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, christophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.
Substitute "atheist" with any one of the protected groups and you would still get pilloried. So, what makes the original statement OK?

[Selkie]

I must say that I pretty much disagree with these paragraphs below. Allow me to use your text and highlight mine following yours to make my point.

- and, just for the argument, please do not use "you do not know the définitions of such and such word" for example, as you did for other posters, as an argument. It is possible that I do not know some English définitions of some similar words in French (therefore use the wrong one) at times, or that I do know the definition but yet, that I am not agreeing (in other words, these - you do not know - statements seems to be condescending to me, that your intent is being condescending or not - so please do not use that, take me as an intelligent being).

Also, I do not use "..." to show sarcasm, I usually use "..." to indicate that the word does not have the traditional definition or that I am using it in another context than usual.

That taken into account, here:


I am posting this mainly as an observation, and I would like to hear what others think about it: I have noticed that the rise in the prevalence of the psychopath in our world seems to coincide directly with the breakdown of Christian ethics.
I do not agree, times and times again, history has proven that psychopathy was prévalent throughout history. Remember the Inquisition in Spain and Southern Europe - more psycho than that is rare, or the burning of witches including Joan of Arc, or the Crusades with their rampage throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And today's rampant pedophilia within the Catholic Church. I would add that Buddhist and Muslims religions have ethics integrated to their religion as well. Why not talk of ethic and human morality as such, without relating it to a religion

Now, I know that some will say that it is Christian ethics that makes us vulnerable to psychopaths in the first place, but that is not how it used to be. When Christian ethics were strong, the world was a better place: not nearly as many psychopaths in high places or running the show, and much more attention to the common good.

How do you know that it is not how it used to be?? and when was that? To me, it seems like you are judging history without historical facts

It is only lately, since Christian ethics have become senescent and Christianity has started to break down, that the psychopaths, in every walk and level of life, have started to rise. And it started to become this way in the 60's...with the CIA-manufactured pagan-like "youth movement" and the rise of the pagan-like drug culture (also CIA manufactured).

Here I agree on something: that the drug culture and the CIA/hidden government drug traficking has been used to make sure ethics and morality would go down, and to make sure everyone had someone hit enough that would have to be taken care of, so that we can never get our heads above water and see the world for what it is. Too much énergies spent helping our loved ones (drugged addict, children with disabilities and behavioral problems, etc etc)
However, it is not correlated with Christian ethics or none. It is correlated with psychopath having the higher hand, as it happened often throughout history

So what if Christian ethics were suppressing the expression of psychopathy? And what if the general rise of what can be called "the ethics of psychopathy" is a direct result of the weakening of Christian ethics, the "ethics of psychopathy" generally being an ethic of "me first", and Christian ethics generally being an ethic of "the common good"?

Church ethics is an ethic or ME first as well. And Christians are organised through churches, very rich churches. What is your topic is wrongly positioned. What is in fact the rise of the psychopath is linked to the rise of unbriddle capitalism and false beliefs into free markets, with no governance of the people, therefore letting free reign to psychopaths?

I hope I have expressed this well enough. If anyone wants clarification, don't be afraid to ask :)

It is not condescending to correct someone when they are using a word incorrectly because It is not possible to have a discussion without the proper use of words. Nor is it condescending to point out how someone has proven my point for me, and to show how they did it. And if someone does not speak good enough English to participate, then they should excuse themselves from the discussion, rather than asking a poster to simply their language.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



Most of the "christians" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, homophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.How would I be perceived here if I made a slight alteration to that statement reading: Most of the "Atheists" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, christophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.
Substitute "atheist" with any one of the protected groups and you would still get pilloried. So, what makes the original statement OK?

Thank you, Ted.

[Rocky_Shorz]

is it a breakdown from losing faith, or the ability to communicate with the world, and find other lunatics which make a psychopath feel normal...

[Cristi Copac]

how is that when most psychopats are christian not by prejudice but by identifying as such.... ted bundy, charlie manson....

[Selkie]

how is that when most psychopats are christian not by prejudice but by identifying as such.... ted bundy, charlie manson....

Because their thinking is ****ed up! I have said and said and said that when someone claims to be a Christian, but acts barbarously, then they are acting like something else, and not as real Christians at all. In other words, they are betraying their faith and their morals, not to mention betraying themselves.

[Selkie]

is it a breakdown from losing faith, or the ability to communicate with the world, and find other lunatics which make a psychopath feel normal...

I think it is a concerted effort by psychopaths to corrupt society. I see this concerted effort as starting in around the mid-60's, especially with the murder of President Kennedy and the take-over by the CIA and the secret government. In other words, it would be more correct for me to say that our morals have been/are being broken down, rather than that they broke down. Broken down implies someone doing the breaking, while broke down implies something that happened all by itself.

[Selkie]

I mean, people...come on!...THINK! Who better to give a bad name to churches and religions than the psychopaths???

We all agreed that most religions have the same values...the desire to get along with people and do right by each other and have the world be a nice place to live.

And we all agreed that the psychopaths, pretty much from the get-go, took control of the power structures of the religions, the churches.

So what is the argument? Why hate on Christianity, or any other religion? At this point in history, everybody knows how heinous any religion can be, but to keep on discussing it is, IMO, counterproductive now. We have to look for the things that unite us and stop focusing on what divides us, as true as all the horror perpetrated in the name of any and all religion is.

addition I am sure that with a very cursory search, anyone can find any number of examples of people-who-identify-as-Christians-or-other-religion doing much, much good. The civil rights movement comes to mind as just one example. The underground railroad is another.

[Flash]

You clearly ps sed me off with your comment on those not speaking good English enough, to your taste, for your thread and telling them to avoid participating.

The day YOU will be able to communicate in two or three languages enough to be understood, even if you do not know the definition of every word in that other laguage, you will be able to pass comments on this.

Nobody who speak many languages would make such comments. You are showing your lack of world views and certainly not how educated you think are.

Nobody who had been in contact with people who have language difficulties (dyslexics, dysphasics, autistics) would pass these comments of yours either. Here you are showing lack of empathy for them.

We are on an international forum here. If you are not nice enough and understanding enough of others difficulties, you should be the one excusing yourself and not getting involved in this forum.

Do you call this attitude of yours Christian???? I do not. I call it closed minded and certainly not helpful to the rest of the planet, nor to the members on this forum from elsewhere.

If you have "Christian" values, in your idea, well.... you are showing precisely the close mindedness of people who deem themselves better than others by being "whatever they think they are" actually are. You need an inner revision for real Christian values, because they do not show up much here.

I was not asking for simplifying your language, but I was definitely asking for explaining the meaning of words instead of pointing in a condesceding manner to the defective use of a word. And yes, this attitude of yours is condescending, as it is when telling non English speaker to take a hike.






I must say that I pretty much disagree with these paragraphs below. Allow me to use your text and highlight mine following yours to make my point.

- and, just for the argument, please do not use "you do not know the définitions of such and such word" for example, as you did for other posters, as an argument. It is possible that I do not know some English définitions of some similar words in French (therefore use the wrong one) at times, or that I do know the definition but yet, that I am not agreeing (in other words, these - you do not know - statements seems to be condescending to me, that your intent is being condescending or not - so please do not use that, take me as an intelligent being).

Also, I do not use "..." to show sarcasm, I usually use "..." to indicate that the word does not have the traditional definition or that I am using it in another context than usual.

That taken into account, here:


I am posting this mainly as an observation, and I would like to hear what others think about it: I have noticed that the rise in the prevalence of the psychopath in our world seems to coincide directly with the breakdown of Christian ethics.
I do not agree, times and times again, history has proven that psychopathy was prévalent throughout history. Remember the Inquisition in Spain and Southern Europe - more psycho than that is rare, or the burning of witches including Joan of Arc, or the Crusades with their rampage throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And today's rampant pedophilia within the Catholic Church. I would add that Buddhist and Muslims religions have ethics integrated to their religion as well. Why not talk of ethic and human morality as such, without relating it to a religion

Now, I know that some will say that it is Christian ethics that makes us vulnerable to psychopaths in the first place, but that is not how it used to be. When Christian ethics were strong, the world was a better place: not nearly as many psychopaths in high places or running the show, and much more attention to the common good.

How do you know that it is not how it used to be?? and when was that? To me, it seems like you are judging history without historical facts

It is only lately, since Christian ethics have become senescent and Christianity has started to break down, that the psychopaths, in every walk and level of life, have started to rise. And it started to become this way in the 60's...with the CIA-manufactured pagan-like "youth movement" and the rise of the pagan-like drug culture (also CIA manufactured).

Here I agree on something: that the drug culture and the CIA/hidden government drug traficking has been used to make sure ethics and morality would go down, and to make sure everyone had someone hit enough that would have to be taken care of, so that we can never get our heads above water and see the world for what it is. Too much énergies spent helping our loved ones (drugged addict, children with disabilities and behavioral problems, etc etc)
However, it is not correlated with Christian ethics or none. It is correlated with psychopath having the higher hand, as it happened often throughout history

So what if Christian ethics were suppressing the expression of psychopathy? And what if the general rise of what can be called "the ethics of psychopathy" is a direct result of the weakening of Christian ethics, the "ethics of psychopathy" generally being an ethic of "me first", and Christian ethics generally being an ethic of "the common good"?

Church ethics is an ethic or ME first as well. And Christians are organised through churches, very rich churches. What is your topic is wrongly positioned. What is in fact the rise of the psychopath is linked to the rise of unbriddle capitalism and false beliefs into free markets, with no governance of the people, therefore letting free reign to psychopaths?

I hope I have expressed this well enough. If anyone wants clarification, don't be afraid to ask :)

It is not condescending to correct someone when they are using a word incorrectly because It is not possible to have a discussion without the proper use of words. Nor is it condescending to point out how someone has proven my point for me, and to show how they did it. And if someone does not speak good enough English to participate, then they should excuse themselves from the discussion, rather than asking a poster to simply their language.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



Most of the "christians" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, homophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.How would I be perceived here if I made a slight alteration to that statement reading: Most of the "Atheists" I've ever met were some of the nastiest, narrow-minded, cruel, racist, christophobic, ignorant people in any circle I was a part of.
Substitute "atheist" with any one of the protected groups and you would still get pilloried. So, what makes the original statement OK?

Thank you, Ted.

[Cristi Copac]

you seem an extremly knowledgeable individual and who by the way has true values of kindship and respect. what religion are you if i can ask you this question?

[Hervé]

I am closing this thread as per OP request.

[Hervé]

As a matter of synchronicity and an indication that some concepts are floating in the stratosphere for anyone to catch on, here is an article that was submitted on May 30th but wasn't posted on SoTT-net until June 30th, 2015 (an indication of this is found with the comments to the article on SoTT not starting before July 2sd).

I am including this article in full as a synchronistic postmortem vindication to this thread and its OP.



From Christian faith to nihilistic void (http://sotts.net)


Pierre Lescaudron, Sott.net (http://sotts.net), Fri, 30 May 2014 04:34 UTC
This article is related to two previous ones. As you will see, the destruction of beauty (http://www.sott.net/article/279037-Eradicating-beauty-The-destruction-of-art) (modern art), the destruction of families and identities (http://www.sott.net/article/279645-Mummy-why-is-Daddy-wearing-a-dress-Daddy-why-does-Mummy-have-a-moustache) (gender theory), and the destruction of religions show several similarities. You might already know a bit about my grandma and her witty remarks. I mentioned her in the two articles linked above. Something I didn't share with you yet, is her religious faith.

When I was a kid, raised by atheist parents, I found it difficult to understand why my grandma was going to church, why she was interested in the Pope's doings and sayings, why she was praying, why she had paintings of the Virgin Mary hanging on walls and a crucifix above her bed.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253562/pod/article_0_02D2536400000578_750.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253562/full/article_0_02D2536400000578_750.jpg)
Virgin Mary (Sassoferrato, 17th Century)

To be frank I found all this religious display a bit ridiculous. How could it have been different, when the only thing I had ever heard about the Church was its evil deeds: the Crusades, the Inquisition and, more recently, the pedophile priests.

Grandma's religious faith didn't decline with time. She's now 100 years old and still a religious person. Each time I come back from some medical check-ups, I tell her that the results are good and she's on the verge of tears because she's so relieved. She then tells me in a soft emotional voice: "I've been praying so much for you".

I was struck by our difference in beliefs. Things had changed so fast. Two generations ago most minds were permeated with religion while my generation at best ignored it, at worse despised it.

This introduction might give you an idea of the topic of this article. We will be dealing with religions, particularly Christianity. More specifically, how religions influence us and actually how any social/cultural environment, whether religious or not, influences us. We will see that a religious environment is far less detrimental for individuals and societies than the atheist and nihilistic creed that dominates today's world.

Our social/cultural environment is made of a set of beliefs, rules and norms that basically define what is good and what is evil. For a long time religions played a major role in the definition of those items. So our first step will be to have a quick glance at how the fundamental beliefs (i.e. the cosmogony, the way we see the world) evolved over time.


Origin of religion
Religions are old, maybe as old as man. Almost every civilization that has existed included some form of religion. Only a few groups like the Hazda (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text) people or some Pygmy (http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7403/is-there-a-civilization-that-never-believed-in-god-in-the-ancient-times) tribes show little or no signs of religiosity. As far back as the upper paleolithic period, some form of religion seems to have already existed.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253560/pod/willendorf2.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253560/full/willendorf2.jpg)
Venus of Willendorf c. 23000 BCE


The religion of the Mother Goddess lasted for a very long time, almost 20,000 years, and it also covered most of the planet. Representations of the goddess were found in Europe, Americas, Africa, and Asia.

We can't be absolutely sure about the content of this religion because there's no direct evidence. The only material available is based on the interpretation of ancient myths (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE0QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.clark.edu%2Fafisher%2FHIST251%2Flecture_texts%2Fgoddesses.doc&ei=IGqRVaDrM4PiywOt0IWwDw&usg=AFQjCNG_yrUTJvpfZ0KdpvYYUGDE3h2UIQ&sig2=V6RczBJBXREI398L1j2sFw), particularly Greek and Roman ones that seem to date back to the times of the goddess cult.

Those myths suggest the belief in an immanent Goddess, who permeated every aspect of creation: trees, mountains, water, clouds, you and me. The Universe was one, everything was interconnected (including probably human behaviors and cosmic events - that's the 'human-cosmic connection' that we will deal with later).

Relative to today, humans probably felt less individuated and certainly held more responsibility and respect towards the 'outside' world because they were part of the same living entity.

Antiquity
By the time of Greece and Rome, the cult of the goddess had disappeared. Maybe it was swept away by the cataclysms that marked the end of the Bronze Age. At this time, severe climatic, geological and archaeological changes occurred that wiped out civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254170/medium/image170.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254170/full/image170.jpg)

The Umm Al Binni Lake in the Al’Amarah marshes, Iraq is one of the asteroid impact that marked the end of the Bronze Age. (© NASA)

Archeologists and historians generally agree that a major disaster occurred at that time. The discovery of half a dozen craters (http://www.times-archive.co.uk/cgi-bin/BackIssue) which were formed within a century of 2350 BC, including a massive one (3.4 km diameter) that was discovered in Iraq, support the cometary impact hypothesis, promoted for years by several scientists.

Greeks and Romans had a religion based on a pantheon of male and female gods. There were gods for literally everything; every street, every building. Interactions between humans and gods were solely based on the respect of rituals (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ancient-City-Religion-Institutions/dp/0801823048). If individuals performed the right rituals, offerings, sacrifice, ceremonies, the gods would be appeased and even act in their favor, otherwise the gods would be angry and calamities would occur.

Notice that those early religions were devoid of any moral references. It was not about being good or evil. Greek and Roman myths describe gods that behaved like humans: they got drunk, fought, argued, cheated, etc. So religiosity was limited to averting the wrath of the gods through proper rituals.

There was still a sense of immanence however, the human-cosmic connection was still very present in people's minds. Chroniclers (the historians of ancient times) wrote endless texts about cosmic calamities (the gods' wrath) related to abuses perpetrated by the elites.

For example, chronicler Michael the Syrian (https://archive.org/details/ChronicleOfMichaelTheGreatPatriarchOfTheSyrians) structured each page of his chronicles as two columns. On the right he listed the political affairs and conduct of the elites, while the left was dedicated to natural catastrophes, the objective being to find some correlation between the former and the latter.

The Christian revolution
In the first century AD, Christianity emerged positing the existence of a single, male, remote god. That was a major break from the Greek and Roman pantheism.

But the real novelty introduced by Christianity was the creation of a set of positive moral values. Pantheism was solely based on rituals, Judaism depicted a God displaying negative moral values: jealousy, anger, blackmail, murder... the new Testament, on the other hand, conveys moral values that are almost opposite to the old Testament (the Judaic Bible): tolerance, honesty, humility, patience, compassion, kindness, charity, and above all, love. This is perhaps best exemplified by the beautiful and inspiring letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians on love:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament is not so much about God than about a mythical hero, a new archetypal religious hero: 'Jesus Christ, Son of God', displaying mercy, compassion, love, intelligence, courage. These are the moral traits that would influence the Western world for the following two millennia.

This was a powerful motif because most people are emotionally drawn to heroes. According to C.G. Jung, the hero is one of the twelve most fundamental archetypes (http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html). People have this deep need to emulate, imitate and identify with a role model.

Give them a good model and they will end up emulating those positive traits. Give them an evil model and they will end up emulating the evil traits.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254179/medium/Da_Vinci_Last_Supper.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254179/full/Da_Vinci_Last_Supper.jpg)
Leonardo Da Vinci, The Last Supper (c. 1495)

With Christianity, it was not solely the fear of God's wrath that encouraged believers to behave, but also the desire to emulate the positive role model that was the mythical figure of Jesus Christ. Fear of hell, fear of calamities were present, but these were not the sole motivators any more. A new empowering source of inspiration had been introduced.

Christianity inspired the lives of most, if not all, members of Western civilization. This reign lasted until the 17th Century.

The nihilistic revolutions of the enlightenment
Unlike immanent religions, for the Catholic Church human beings were separated from God. Humans lived in a material world ruled by natural laws while a remote transcendent god intervened in the material world by performing miracles and supernatural feats. Admittedly, it took the Christian church some time to accept these natural laws, and even scientists like Giordano Bruno (who was also a Dominican Friar) were burned at the stake in part for proposing new (and accurate) scientific theories.

But eventually the Christian church's acceptance that the human realm was solely governed by natural laws laid the foundations for the expansive scientific progress that occurred during the Renaissance. It was the task of science to figure out those natural laws. Thus, after the 'medieval dark age' came the period of 'enlightenment', or so we were led to think:

You can, with some plausibility, represent the Renaissance as darker than the Middle Ages. Machiavelli, the Medicis, and the Borgias have long been regarded as sin incarnate in odious forms. Making all due allowances for exaggeration and perversion of truth, the Renaissance was not a golden age, and the dramas of horror are something more than the nightmares of a madman.

Potter, M., 'History, III The Renaissance', Lectures on the Harvard Classics. The Harvard Classics, 1909 - 14 The direct application of the enlightenment philosophy would only happen later with the wave of revolutions that swept through Europe (England in 1642, France in 1789, Russia in 1917) .

The result of those revolutions was the destruction of the aristocracy, whose power and privileges were transferred to a new and far more nefarious elite (the bankers and the bourgeoisie).

An even more fundamental consequence was the destruction of the clergy. For example, during the French revolution priests were forced to relapse, thousands of monks were killed, nuns were raped, churches were burnt. Such atrocities were committed under the noble banner of 'liberty, equality and fraternity'.

Among the targeted groups (aristocrats, middle class, workers, peasants), the clergy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution) suffered proportionately the greatest loss during what became known as 'the Terror', an apt name for a period of history that saw the killing of about 100,000 people. (http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/yvan-najiels/290311/ceci-nest-pas-sans-rapport-avec-la-reaction-politique-epaisse-dans-laq)

This period marked the end of the old world permeated by traditional values: family, community, religion, art and the birth of a brave new world ruled by nihilism, materialism and individualism. Reason became the new religion:

Just as the sun replaces the earth as the center of our cosmos in Copernicus' cosmological system, so humanity itself replaces God at the center of humanity's consciousness in the Enlightenment.

'Enlightenment' (http://www.sott.net/article/www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 20 August 2010.
http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253696/medium/cult_of_reason2.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253696/full/cult_of_reason2.jpg)
Celebration of the goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November 1793

With the hegemony of reason, things became worse because nothing was left but reason. Moral values (good and evil, virtues and sins) or sentiments like faith or hope disappeared, and transcendence (entities and principles that are higher than human beings) was erased. Man, in his totality, was now considered a spirit-less, biochemical machine. This was the beginning of the era of generalized madness:

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except reason

Chesterton, Orthdoxy However, in order to convert individuals to the new, atheist, scientific cult, the elites had to prove its merits, at least for a while. Coincidentally the 19th century was marked by numerous technological breakthroughs, an acceleration of material progress, scientific discoveries and a widespread distribution of knowledge. That was enough to maintain the illusion of lasting progress and to enroll the last skeptics into this new materialistic cult.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254294/medium/MedievalClassroomFullSz.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254294/full/MedievalClassroomFullSz.jpg)
Henry of Germany delivers a lecture to university students in 14th-century Bologna


A good dose of early age propaganda was also necessary to reshape those minds still deeply attached to religion.

In the old world the clergy managed much more than spiritual matters, it was in charge of the hospitals, the orphanages, and the distribution of free food to the poor. It also administered schools throughout the whole country. Most of those social achievements were destroyed by the enlightenment revolutions.

But the revolutionaries were smart enough to keep the schools. Secular power taking control of the education system gave them the possibility to change the content of the teaching and promote their atheist, nihilistic paradigm.

Official history claims that secularism created free schooling. That is not true. Secularism created compulsory schooling so that every single child's brain would be filled with the same propaganda. The real motivation was not teaching the masses but removing any remaining chards of religiosity from human hearts.

The new golden calf
In the first versions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Bible of the nihilistic revolutionaries, the word 'sacred' can be found, which is quite paradoxical for such a clerical document. It can be found once, and it is attached to the word 'property'. This phrasing was still present in the official 1848 version:

Property is an inviolable and sacred right

UDHR (http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/right-property-global-human-rights-law) - article 17 (1848 version) Indeed it was the beginning of the era of capitalists and international bankers. The sacred property also marked the beginning of materialism and consumerism.

While religion was being eradicated, a new creed was being planted in our minds. The Golden Calf was back in Babylon. The individuals were given a new idol, a never-ending search for instant gratification, an illusory quest of pleasure, where the individual reduced to being a hedonist slave runs after a promised happiness that keeps slipping between his fingers:

By asking for pleasure he lost the chief pleasure, for the chief pleasure is surprise.

J.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254310/medium/976864.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254310/full/976864.jpg)
Activation of the nucleus accumbens (center area) in response to an unpredictable event.


Chesterton might have been even closer to the truth than he thought. Recent studies (http://www.ccnl.emory.edu/Publicity/MSNBC.HTM) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measuring brain activity in response to pleasurable stimuli found that the nucleus accumbens — a region known as the brain's pleasure center — responded much more strongly when the event was unanticipated. This means that our pleasure center really cares about unexpected things.

Sex, entertainment, sport, food and consumption are different forms of the same drugs. Expected pleasure is this drug, ephemeral and coming with an ever-growing cost. The doses have to be increased to provide the same effect. After a while, the fix doesn't even provide pleasure but only hides for a while the pain, the emptiness, and the slow ruination of the soul. Hence the growing number of over-eaters, deviant sex fiends, drug addicts, 'extreme sports' adrenaline junkies, hardcore gamers, and TV junkies.

Destruction of knowledge
By the 1960s the mission was virtually accomplished; Christianity was weakened to the extreme. It's around this time that the destruction of education started. Science and technical knowledge had been promoted for a while in order to supplant religions. Now that religions were virtually dead, science and knowledge could finally be destroyed.

Educated minds, even if not religious anymore, have critical thinking, analytical skills, knowledge. They are able to see the lies of the psychopathic elites and oppose them.

So, for decades after decades, the education level was being deliberately reduced, producing new generations of individuals more ignorant than the previous ones. Of course, this dumbing-down was not an overt move; it was all done under the guise of 'equality'. The new education programs would allow 80% (http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/canceling-out-a-generation-of-future-home-buyers-massive-college-debt-student-loan-debt-higher-education-aid-costs-uc-tuition-costs/) of teenagers to get a high school degree while more than 50% (http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/canceling-out-a-generation-of-future-home-buyers-massive-college-debt-student-loan-debt-higher-education-aid-costs-uc-tuition-costs/) would reach college.

Who could argue against such a great 'progress'? Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in a world where each individual (whatever his skills and motivations) would hold a PhD? Maybe not so wonderful after all if this PhD means nothing anymore?

Did you know that according to a 2011 National Institute for Literacy report, a whopping 47% (http://ageofmontessori.org/literacy-rates-reality/) of adults in Detroit, Michigan are "functionally illiterate"? Unfortunately Detroit is not an isolated case. Over a period of eleven years [1992-2003] the proficiency (http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/118549#sthash.j2nSQWJk.dpuf) of all approximately 37 million college graduates [in the US] has declined sharply.

In the Middle Ages, the ignorant Christian had at least a moral compass, a sense of good and bad, a respect for his world and his fellow men, both creations of God. In the 19th century, a knowledgeable atheist had intellectual skills and an ability to understand the reality surrounding him. But today, human beings have been reduced to the condition of ignorant atheists, having neither knowledge nor spirituality, the two fundamentals pillars on which one can build a sound identity.

Dividing and demonizing religions


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254189/pod/chaliehebdo.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254189/full/chaliehebdo.jpg)

"The Coran is s***, it doesn't stop bullets". Cover of Charlie Hebdo after Egypt mass shooting where 1150 people died.

Despite centuries of harassment, religious sentiment was still surviving in some places. Certainly due to the fact that religiosity is ingrained in the very core of the human soul. So, those very last remnants of religion (within Islam and Christianity in particular) were being dealt with through division.

The elites promoted two opposite forms of religiosity, neither of which being the moderate, spiritual one. On one side the secularized religions - some kind of alcohol-free beer - a religion so expunged of its fundamental precepts that it's not a religion anymore.

On the other side extremist religions - like the fundamentalist Christian or the radical Wahhabi movements - that are so literal, so proselyte, so intolerant that they're devoid of any of the positive features of traditional religions.

Meanwhile, the traditional forms of religions were demonized. Islam being insulted again and again by the mainstream media (see the cover on the right for example) under the guise of the 'freedom of speech', Muslims being depicted as terrorists (never mind that those alleged Muslim terrorists are so retarded that all they do is kill other Muslims).

Traditional Christianity received a similar treatment. For example, in 2013 activists of the radical feminist group, Femen, stormed a church (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/une-femen-mime-un-avortement-et-urine-dans-l-eglise-de-la-madeleine-a-paris_1309246.html) in Paris. They were topless, simulated an abortion and urinated in front of the altar (all that in the name of the 'freedom of speech' and the 'right to sacrilege', apparently).

To give you an idea of the support (http://metatv.org/interrogations-sur-le-financement-et-le-statut-des-femen) provided by states to such an organization, Inna Shevchenko, the Ukrainian leader of Femen in France, received a political refugee visa within 7 months and a French passport 9 months later. Meanwhile their office in Paris is provided for free (http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Probleme-reel-de-liberte-ou-politique-de-double-standard-22548.html) by the city hall.

To dare to point out that such acts have nothing to do with freedom of speech, that they are, in fact, pure hatred and provocation, is to be called a reactionary, a puritan, a traditionalist, while Femen are depicted as progressive (http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/04/white-doesnt-always-mean-privilege-femens-ukrainian-context), fearless (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/femen-activists-uk-branch-feminism), etc.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253881/medium/femen_urine_eglise.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253881/full/femen_urine_eglise.jpg)
A Femen activist posing topless in The Madeleine church

While we are on the topic, let's not forget to mention the unforgettable "Piss Christ (http://www.oddee.com/item_98781.aspx)", a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine, sold for $15,000. As if it was not enough, this great piece of art was the winner of a contemporary art award and received $5,000 in 1986 from taxpayers.

In a similar vein, the media repeatedly depicts Christian clergy as a den of pedophiles. Catholic priests are by far the most likely (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PedophilePriest) to be involved in molestation accusations in modern media. But, in real life, pedophiles are much more likely to be a teacher, babysitter, or family friend (http://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

Did you ever wonder why 90% of pedophilia cases extensively presented by the media involve priests, while the testimonies of pedophile ring survivors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations) mostly mention members of the elite who, incidentally, are the ones who control the very same media that equates priests with pedophilia?

[Hervé]

continued:


The power of external influences
At this point we have a better vision of how our 'modern' beliefs and norms evolved over time. When put side by side, the contrast is striking. We shifted from a cultural environment defined by religiosity, responsibility, community, to a set of norms that are the opposite: materialism, nihilism, individualism.

We've shifted from a world dominated by priests who preached humility, honesty and love, to a world where the media promote hate, fear and consumerism.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253650/medium/skirts.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253650/full/skirts.jpg)

A recent news article (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/28/french-muslim-student-banned-from-school-for-wearing-long-skirt) strikingly illustrates this inversion of values. A few weeks ago, a French Muslim student was banned (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/28/french-muslim-student-banned-from-school-for-wearing-long-skirt) from school for wearing a skirt that was too long. Beyond the obvious Muslim scapegoating, we can't miss the radical change in norms.

In the past, it was short skirts that were banned. But with the 60s 'revolution', which was little more than the beginning of the era of sexual promiscuity and drug abuse, short skirts became en vogue.

But does this inversion of norms and values really matter? Do social norms really have any influence on us? We are free to embrace them or not, right?

We all know about those cases of identical twins (http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html) who were separated at birth but showed striking behavioral similarities. So is it only nature that matters, or does nurture also play a role?


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253642/medium/asch_experiment.png (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253642/full/asch_experiment.png)

One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.

A social experiment called the Ash conformity experiment (https://explorable.com/asch-experiment) gives an idea of the tremendous influence exerted by our social environment on the way we think and behave.

In the experiment, students were asked very simple questions. In the control group, those not exposed to peer pressure, everybody gave correct answers.

The results for the other groups were interesting; when surrounded by people giving an incorrect answer, over one third of the subjects also voiced an incorrect opinion.

At least 75% of the subjects gave the wrong answer to at least one question, although experimental error may have had some influence on this figure. There was no doubt, therefore, that peer pressure contributes to conformity.

The important point is that we humans are social creatures. For millennia, our survival was dependent on our belonging to a group (tribe/clan/village). To be rejected and condemned to live alone in the wild was a death sentence. This strong desire to conform and belong has not changed. To belong, we must conform to the set of rules, norms, figures of authority and beliefs that define the identity of our group/society.

The Ash experiment illustrates the influence exerted by our peers, but when figures of authority like policemen, journalists or politicians are introduced, the compulsion to conform increases. That's exactly what was shown by the Milgram Experiment (http://www.performancetrading.it/Documents/JmAbuGrahib/JmA_Milgram.htm), which demonstrated the influence exerted by a figure of authority (a scientist in this case) on individuals.

In this experiment, subjects were told to administer electric shocks to a 'learner' at the instruction of a 'teacher'. The subjects sat in front of a box with electric switches on it. The switches displayed the voltage that was being delivered, and a text description of the level of pain ranging from 'slight' to 'danger severe', culminating in 'XXX'. In the original experiment, the subject could not see the 'victim' but could hear him.

Milgram thought that less than 1% would give the maximum shock (450-volt). The results were far from his predictions (see chart on the right).

100% of the subjects were willing to send up to 135 volts (the point at which the 'learner' asks to be released) through someone they didn't know. 80% were willing to go up to 285 volts (at which point the 'learner' emits agonizing screams). Over 62% were willing to administer the full 450 volts, despite the screams and the labels on the machine stating 'severe danger' and 'XXX'!


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253812/medium/JmA_02.gif (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253812/full/JmA_02.gif)
% of participants reach each level of voltage

But what if you are aware of the manipulation? What if you know that there is an attempt to influence you? A case in point is advertising. If we don't pay attention to the ads, or know what they are up to, then they won't affect our behavior, right?

Unfortunately that is not the case because ads bypass our intellectual center. They directly appeal to our emotional center. The point of an ad is not to claim this car is faster or that detergent washes better, even if its message explicitly says so. The point is to make you associate the product with positive emotions (http://www.dragonsearchmarketing.com/association-advertising-cigarettes-drugs/), that's why there are beautiful women next to the car and a cute baby next to the box of detergent, while nice music plays in a background.

And it works. It works so well that studies (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201008/what-does-advertising-do) show positive association ads will make you choose a product that you know perfectly well is inferior to its competitors. Unconscious emotional associations are stronger than sound intellectual arguments. I had a personal experience of this when my brother and I passed a billboard sign for Budweiser beer, where the bottle had the metal cap inverted to look like a crown (http://files1.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_291/2915105/file/budweiser-king-of-beers-small-46865.jpg) and the slogan read "King of beers". My brother commented on it as we passed, saying: "do they really think that influences anyone?!". About 30 minutes later we found ourselves in a bar. I asked my brother what he would like, he hesitated for a moment, then said: "I'll have a Budweiser". I said nothing.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254303/medium/welt_kompakt.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254303/full/welt_kompakt.jpg)

Advertising for a newspaper featuring a cute baby. What does a baby have to do with a newspaper? Nothing, but it triggers positive association.

The effects of religiosity
Do religions have a similar effect? Is it enough to tell someone to be good for him to be good? For example, does the compassion promoted in sermons, religious art or the New Testament make a Christian more compassionate?

Actually the influence of religions on people's feelings and behavior has been studied extensively. An excellent paper titled 'The Religious Shaping of Feeling (http://psych.stanford.edu/%7Etsailab/PDF/TheReligiousShapingOfEmotion.pdf)' summarizes the results obtained in this field of research.

And the answer is yes, the values and the feelings carried by a religion have, of course, a great influence on how the believer wants to feel (desired/ideal state) but also (albeit to a lesser extent) on how the believer actually feels (actual state):

whereas cultural ideas and practices shape how people actually feel, they shape how people want to feel even more. Religiosity not only affects personal feelings (happiness, optimism), but also the way people feel towards the others (pro-social emotions).

Researchers have begun to examine whether engagement in specific religious practices increases the experience of prosocial emotions. Although much more work is needed in this area, several studies have linked the practice of meditation to increased empathy (Lutz, Brefczynski-Lewis, Johnstone, & Davidson, 2008; Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner, 1998), social connectedness (Hutcherson, Seppala, & Gross, 2008), and hope and optimism for another The problem with most of those studies is that they are based on self-reporting or peer-reporting. So, is there only a change in perceived feelings or is there also a change in actual feelings? According to studies based on unbiased physiological measures, the latter seems to be true:

Although most studies of religion and well-being use self-report measures, which are vulnerable to various biases (e.g., social desirability), several have employed physiological measures to overcome this limitation. For example, in a recently published study (lnzlicht & Tullett, 2010), the authors examined levels of defensive arousal in response to making an error by using event-related potentials (ERPs). They found that when Christian believers were primed with religious icons, they showed less defensive arousal when they made errors than did nonbelievers. These findings suggest that when believers are thinking about their religion, they are less anxious during threat than nonbelievers. Other studies using physiological measures suggest that people who have undergone meditation interventions show neural changes related to the increased experience of positive, approach related emotions compared with wait-list controls (Davidson et al., 2003). These studies suggest that even when assessed by physiological measures, religious practice may promote well-being. One study (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/oct/01/medicalresearch.humanbehaviour) conducted in 2008 by Oxford University was based on physiological measures of pain. Images of the volunteers' brains showed that in believers, an area of the brain that suppresses reactions to threatening situations lit up when they were shown a picture of painting of the Virgin Mary. The same picture didn't produce any effect amongst non-believer subjects. Overall experienced pain was 12% lower amongst believers.

The 'psychopath-ization' of individuals and societies
At this point one can wonder why religions have been so thoroughly undermined? Why such relentless attacks (corruption from the inside, destruction from the outside) against real religions? Here we reach the core of ponerization: the contamination of people and society by psychopathic traits.

Real religions respect life, while psychopaths aim to destroy life. Religions teach that others are our 'brothers and sisters' while psychopaths consider others as objects. Religions extol love, while psychopaths embrace hate. Religions advocate marriage and faithfulness, while psychopaths seek abusive sex and domination. Religions value honesty, while psychopaths lie and deceive as a rule. Religions convey the concepts of universal good and bad, while for psychopaths, that which serves their selfish interest is 'good' and that which opposes it is 'bad'.

As you can see, the values conveyed by most traditional religions are almost diametrically opposed to psychopathic 'values'. Since psychopaths want to submit us and impose upon us their deviant vision of the world (that's the core feature of ponerization), religious principles are a major obstacle to that process of subversion. Religions provide us with moral references that help us resist the ponerization of our minds and societies.

That is why psychopaths want to "free us" from religious sentiments.

Not surprisingly the leaders who genuinely fight the domination of the nihilistic empire support traditional religions, like Chavez (http://dangerousminds.net/comments/watch_classic_and_controversial_chavez_film_the_revolution_will_not_be_tele) praising the revolutionary Christ, like Putin supporting the Orthodox church (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11530938/Vladimir-Putin-praises-Orthodox-Church-for-boosting-patriotism.html) or Pope Francis (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/pope-francis-putin-sincere-peace-effort-ukraine-russia-vatican) praising Putin's efforts towards peace.

Today, those people who still uphold or represent traditional values - family, community, religion, true heroic leaders, royalty - can see that their world is on the verge of annihilation.

That's why, despite their numerous differences, they increasingly unite under the same banner in order to defend what little is left from what makes us still human.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254311/medium/putin_and_pope.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254311/full/putin_and_pope.jpg)
Pope Francis giving Putin a medallion that depicts an angel of peace.

We should not be mistaken; this is a fight for our own souls. That's what psychopaths ultimately want. But the wolves wear sheep's clothing. Their nefarious objectives are hidden behind a politically-correct varnish, the Orwellian novlang ('newspeak' in English) that attempts to make black white, and vice versa:

"It's not destruction of religions, it's just secularism. It's not about the destruction of family, it's about marriage for all. It's not about pro-zionism, it's anti-racism. It's not about the destruction of beauty, it's modern art. It's not about insulting religions, it's freedom of speech. It's not about destroying identities, it's gender theory."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. One has to see behind the lies, the propaganda, the twisted words in order to choose the right path.

Our established authorities don't command us directly to be greedy, afraid, individualist or materialistic. They use the novlang, mentioned above, or they indirectly instil those emotions.

The false-flag terror operations are a case in point, particularly in the US, where mass shootings have become almost traditional. The implicit message is rather clear: "be afraid, you need us, because you can be killed any time." Now shootings even happen in ultra-secure military bases, like Fort Hood (http://www.sott.net/article/196533-Reviving-the-War-of-Terror-Patsy-framed-in-Secret-Team-psy-op-to-generate-public-support-for-wars) in 2009 (you can be killed anywhere, even in the safest places). And shootings also frequently happen in schools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States), like in Sandy Hook (http://www.sott.net/article/254873-Sandy-Hook-massacre-Official-story-spins-out-of-control) (if the terror of being shot dead is not enough, now the threat is to shoot your children).


http://www.sott.net/image/s6/124203/medium/27_angels_near_sandy_hook_scho.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s6/124203/full/27_angels_near_sandy_hook_scho.jpg)
Teddy bears left at a memorial for the child victims of the Sandy Hook massacre


Religiosity and the Human Cosmic connection
One of the most extensive and scientifically sound psychokinesis experiments was conducted by Dr. Robert Jahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn), Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton, and Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist at the University of Chicago.

This research is one of the very few 'parapsychology' studies that has been recognized by a prominent scientific organization, the U.S. National Research Council, which concluded that the experiment was rigorous and that its results could not be explained by chance.

Over a 12-year period, Jahn and Dunne conducted nearly 2.5 million trials in which participants sitting in front of a carefully configured Random Event Generator (REG) would first attempt to 'will' the machine to produce more 1s than 0s, then the reverse, then try not to influence the machine in any way.

Jahn and Dunne found a cumulated deviation that was statistically highly significant because the results were compiled from millions of trials, with dozens of correlating experiments. The odds of these results being produced by chance being one in a trillion.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253657/medium/Indra.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/253657/full/Indra.jpg)
Picture of Indian goddess Indra presented to the ArtReg subjects


One set of experiments conducted by Jahn and Dunne was called ArtReg; the research team hypothesized that various images shown to the subjects would modulate the way they influenced REGs. Altogether they presented 24 different images to their subjects.

ArtReg failed to get significant overall results, but when they looked more closely at the results they discovered that 7 images out of 24 had produced positive REG outcomes. Those images were archetypal, ritualistic or religious ones.

Instead of focusing on individuals, Robert D. Nelson tested the effect of whole crowds and places on 'random' events (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/rdnelson/egypt.html). For that purpose he brought a portable REG (Random Event Generator) to all kinds of venues (stand-up comedy performances, concerts, theatrical events).

During chants, prayers and meditations performed in sacred places, he observed deviations far greater than any other ordinary PEAR study.

When studying this phenomenon further he discovered that both the sacred places (even without any activity) and the chanting (even performed in mundane places) exerted an influence. But, interestingly, the influence was maximized when the activity (chanting ceremony) and the location (sacred place) were coupled together, as if they were working in a synergistic way.

In my article (http://www.sott.net/article/279645-Mummy-why-is-Daddy-wearing-a-dress-Daddy-why-does-Mummy-have-a-moustache) about Gender Theory, I mentioned an interesting coincidence: while same-sex pairs had the most inhibited influence on Random Events Generators, homosexuality was increasingly promoted in Western societies. Meanwhile religions, whose features like icons, sacred places, chanting, and gatherings seem to increase the influence of people on random events, are undermined.

Negative bias against Christianity?
I have discussed this topic with some friends. Several times I was surprised by an almost automatic negative reaction against religions. Aren't we being told that the last 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian culture have shaped our minds? Shouldn't we therefore expect a positive bias towards religions?

The problem is that the reign of Christianity ended 200 years ago. Since then things have dramatically changed.

Let's look at the depiction of Christianity in the media: Christians in soaps (http://culturewarreporters.com/2014/02/11/shame-day-the-portrayal-of-christians-in-popular-media/) are usually portrayed as weak, stupid, or bigoted. People opposing abortion are depicted as terrorists (http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/news_center/archives/01232004-01.htm). The Vatican is presented as the center of a world conspiracy (http://listverse.com/2013/08/21/10-crazy-catholic-conspiracy-theories/). Priests are usually mentioned in the context of pedophilia cases, Popes are depicted as insane (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/insane-pope-babbling-about-angels-2014100391306), the only historical features of Christianity are the Crusades and the Inquisition, and the Christian view of prehistory is summarized by Adam and Eve, or even Jesus Christ living with dinosaurs.

Modern media exhibit a negative bias (http://www.amazon.com/Prodigal-Press-Confronting-Anti-Christian-American/dp/1596385979) against religions, including Christianity. But does this negative bias have any influence on our perceptions?

While studies of negative bias against minorities like homosexual (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html) or black (http://www.fairimpartialpolicing.com/bias/) people are widely publicized, not much is mentioned about anti-Christian bias.


http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254313/medium/index.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254313/full/index.jpg)
Jesus Christ holding a baby dinosaur.


Such studies do however exist, and their results are rather clear. Some studies (Gartner, 1986; Lewis and Lewis,1985; O'Connor & Vandenberg, 2005), based on self-reporting, showed a negative bias against Christians, despite social desirability (social norms discourage prejudice against cultural groups so subjects tend to hide their negative prejudice in self-reports).

Even more interesting is the study titled 'Psychologist Bias in Implicit Responding to Religiously Divergent Nonpatient Targets and Explicit Responding to Religiously Divergent Patients (http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1378.pdf)', which, unlike most other studies, was based on automatic attitudes that were activated spontaneously - that is, without the participant's ability to use reactive and censoring processes to mitigate them.

About 400 psychologists were asked to evaluate the mental states of various patients. The study gave a diagnosis of religious patients as more mentally ill than their non-religious counterparts.

This negative bias is all the more striking when we understand that the literature does not support a correlation between religiosity and poor mental health. On the contrary, religiosity is associated with lower levels of depression (Smith, McCullough, & Poll, 2003) and anxiety (Bergin, Masters, & Richards, 1987), coping with chronic pain (see Rippentrop, 2005 for review), and rehabilitation efforts (Kilpatrick & McCullough, 1999).

Conclusion
Of course, like all other organizations, religions have killed and tortured people. The top of any powerful organization is inevitably ponerized.

The Inquisition is one proof of the Church's cruelty. But it should be put into perspective. According to recent research, only 1% (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanities.internationaleducationnews) of the 125,000 people tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain were executed; that is 1,250 people. And let's not forget that the Inquisition extended over a span of five centuries.

How do those figures compare with the millions of lives sacrificed on the altar of communism, capitalism or imperialism? So should we throw the baby out with the holy water? Since, like any other organization, the Church has been ponerized, should we reject all Christian values, or replace them with worse ones?

Those calamities were conducted in the name of Christianity but had nothing to do with traditional Christian values, in the same way that whole countries today are destroyed in the name of democracy or freedom (http://www.sott.net/article/298448-NATO-Slaughter-James-and-Joanne-Moriarty-expose-the-truth-about-what-happened-in-Libya), while those two concepts have nothing to do with imperial plunder.

'Traditional Christian values' are not perfect either. Commentators have mentioned the excessive submission ('love your enemy', 'turn the other cheek') and the guilt ('original sin'). However, despite all their imperfections and the corruption they've been subjected to, traditional religions still convey some important values: solidarity, charity, community, love. In this sense the materialistic, individualistic values that have been hammered into our minds are far worse than the religious ones that preceded them.

In an ideal world, we would embrace objective science and true spirituality. But we are not in Kansas anymore; in today's world, we have neither.

Christianity, though very imperfect, had a set of positive moral values that encouraged people to become better people. The materialism that dominates today's world proposes a set of negative values that bring out the worst in people. It's as simple as that.

What's wrong with living an individualistic life? Nothing really, if the individuals were truly happy with their lifestyle, since happiness is the main premise of this creed. But are they really happy? Suicides, depressions, anxiety (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anxiety)-relieving drug consumption have never been this high.

Meaning
More importantly, the major difference between those two cultural milieus seems to circle around the notion of meaning. Through the perspective of hell and paradise and a mythical role model like Jesus Christ displaying exemplary behavior, Christian principles provided an incentive to be better, to adopt values like kindness or compassion. The very belief in God served as an impetus to accomplish greater things, to create, to materialize beauty.

Several studies have found that people place higher priority on goals that are deemed "sacred" (Emmons, 2005b) and that sanctified goals generate greater commitment, confidence, and investment of time and energy than do nonsanctified goals

Mahoney et al., Implications of Affect Valuation Theory 279, 2005 The modern-day nihilistic creed doesn't provide any such meaning to life, where gratification is the only 'value', the only goal we are supposed to achieve, like hamsters on a giant wheel.

If there is no good and no evil, what's the point of thinking, making choices or efforts, saying 'no'? In a world devoid of hope, what's the point of living? In a nihilistic world devoid of beauty and transcendence, where can an individual find the motivation to create, to progress, to learn and improve?

Social life

http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254615/medium/xResearchconfirmsfriendship_la.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s12/254615/full/xResearchconfirmsfriendship_la.jpg)
Making social connections overrides making money as one of the keys to happiness.


The Church provided a sense of community and solidarity with collective gatherings, shared beliefs and practices. Christianity encouraged love for one's neighbor, treating others as brothers.

The materialist paradigm destroyed social bonds. By exploiting laborers and over-emphasizing consumption, individuals were forced to leave their villages, move away from their community, family and friends. Most of them ended up in gloomy isolated apartments in concrete grey cities where they didn't even know their neighbors.

How can we know our neighbors when we spend most of our time sweating for a miserable salary, then being told to fear the other by the media during our 'free time' watching the news? And even if we escape the influence of the fear-mongering, what do people today have to share with each other?

Individualism has put each person in his own bubble, oblivious to the other, solely focused on short-term personal gain, gratification and pleasure, perceiving the other at best as an alien, at worse an enemy.

But isolation comes with a high price. As demonstrated by a recent study (http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/relationships/research-confirms--friendship-brings-more-happiness-than-money-310925.html) conducted amongst 1,000 elders, loving relationships, not material gains, are key to contentment. In addition, out of 176 elders who were diagnosed with dementia, those with fewer social ties exhibited higher risk.

Civilization legacy
Pragmatists usually claim that only results matter. If we look at the results of 'modern civilization' compared to what came before, the differences are striking. Why did 90% of the greatest artists, like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Mozart, Beethoven or Shakespeare, live before the revolutions? Why were the greatest pieces of art, like cathedrals, paintings, carvings, music or poems, created before the 18th Century? If humans were such ignorant enslaved bigots back then, how did they create such marvels?

What is the legacy of the nihilistic materialistic civilization? Why is our great modern civilization - paragon of freedom, progress and intelligence - leaving behind only ugly buildings, chunks of plastic, modern art and superficial 'bling' extravaganzas?

Another major change introduced via the nihilistic revolutions directly relates to the very way we interact with the world. Christianity introduced a sense of wonder and gratitude. The world and life were a miracle, a gift from God. Respect and awe towards creation inspired people, led them to respect and emulate it.

For the materialist, the world is a boring thing. The cosmos is a giant clockwork, life is a series of biochemical reactions. A tree is nothing but a bunch of chlorophyll-producing cells. Materialists are bored by the world because they are oblivious to it and its true nature. They don't see its magic, its harmony. They've lost any sense of wonder, curiosity or gratitude. They see the world as a giant supermarket, here to serve their desire for personal, instant gratification.

Life is religion. Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the world will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the 'past.' People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the 'Future.'

Cassiopaeans, 09-28-02