text:
Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
How safe are we from social targeting? Imagine a group of thugs or soldiers who go around in their local territory and gang up on individuals and businesses to intimidate people in to giving valuables to their group. The militant group might call themselves gangsters or "the Counts" or the county government. Or maybe they call themselves the Dukes and they go around and say "put up your dukes (raise your fists), because we are about to duke it out (to attack each other)."
So, even if we are safe from things like severe weather or floods or famines, there can still be an issue of other people intentionally taking things from us or injuring us (or even killing us). Further, social targeting can focus on a single individual or on an entire group (like based on location or skin color).
As an individual, I may be rather vulnerable to assault by predatory operations, like armies or a group of bullies. In fact, I could be vulnerable even to a single human bully or some other kind of predator (such as a bear or a shark or a group of killer bees or hyenas).
So there are a few reasons that I might be alert to a risk of social targeting. I might want to be cautious of individual bullies as well as groups of armed thugs.
Further, I also would not want a group of powerful bullies to persuade a huge crowd of people to target me. Maybe a mob of people gathers around me and says "we heard that you have been trying to avoid paying your fair share of the 10 percent sales tax to the local mafia bosses. All of us have to pay our tithe (our one "tenth"), so why should you be given an exception? Now, not only are the soldiers of the holy empire going to take everything that they claim that you owe them, but all of us are going to permanently stop doing business with you. In fact, we are kicking you out of the city limits. You have 24 hours to leave and never come back."
There can be danger from individual thieves or bullies, groups of bullies, and even resentful victims of bullies who then turn their aggression toward those who attempt to live in an area without participating in the local extortion system (or protection racket). Anyone who even visits the area dominated by that extortion network will be expected to pay their share: 3% or 30% or whatever is the standard rate. Of course, there may be different levels of participation, like in some places, there may be lots of people having yard sales and as well as many other sellers who are not participating in the sales tax extortion network.
To clarify, some extortion networks have over-lapping layers, like a set of affiliates that collect a variety of taxes (and other payments) for local government, state government, and federal government. Those various types of government are formally in alliance with each other. In some cases, the local governments are basically extensions or branches of the central rulers.
In other cases, the common people do not have any direct relationship with the "king of kings." The local kings just collect the taxes in their local kingdom and then send a portion to their ruler (far away in Rome or Jerusalem, etc). The supreme ruler regulates the relationships between the kings, but is only occasionally involved in the activities within each kingdom, such as the sacred and holy ritual of placing the crown on the head of a new local warlord, called a coronation ceremony.
Further, within each kingdom, there will be several smaller jurisdictions. Those will be governed by a hierarchy of powerful officials, such as Barons, Counts, Dukes, Grand Dukes, and Arch Dukes (who are all below the rank of the region's central government, with it's Major Generals and Prime Ministers and High Priests and Chief Justices).
Within a single region, the various counties are not in conflict with each other. Each Count (or Magistrate or Mayor) rules over the local county while generally conforming to the basic rules of the larger extortion network. The Counts (and their ruling deputies within each county's government) generally do not interfere with the extortion operations of neighboring Counts and the counties in which they extort wealth.
If a Count or Monarch is extremely stable in their domination of a particular region, it is predictable that they will even create a local council or national parliament, who will be democratically elected. That can be very beneficial for compliance (like when there is a plan to raise tax rates from 3% to 30% or more).
That democratic voting ritual allows for those who are given the privilege of voting to exert some degree of influence over the extortion operations of that county or kingdom. Each voter can cast one vote (perhaps among thousands or millions) to elect one commissioner or one senator. Then, the royal nobles and their lobbyists of course guide the activities of the commissioners and senators. However, the can be quite a circus of scandals to distract the people of Canada (for instance) from their domination by a distant Monarch (while they argue over which politician or political party seems to them to be the least corrupt).
If the Monarch wants to regulate which health care practices are legal or not, that is what will happen. If the Monarch wants to funnel money from the public to subsidize certain health care practices (such as a certain method of electric shock therapy to promote a certain level of psychiatric health in the general public) then that is what will happen.
Also, if the Monarch wants to create programs in which a small group of lobbyists create an educational curriculum and then implement mandatory indoctrination rituals for the youth of the commonwealth, then those youth can be directed to focus on certain issues (which are pre-selected by the commissioners on the federal curriculum committee). The youth can be trained to memorize and blindly repeat whatever information they are presented (such as doctrines about "science" which the youth have never questioned or verified). Then, more social pressure can create more social anxiety through the rituals of testing. Those who bindly repeat with the greatest conformity will be rewarded with high grades and perhaps even scholarships so that they can be properly trained for roles in the more privileged occupations within the holy empire, such qualifying to obtain a teaching certificate or a medical license.
At all levels of the empire's programming system, students who raise unwelcome questions of scientific merit in regard to the holy doctrines of the science classroom can be ignored at first. If they persist, they will be more and more severely discplined for disrupting the holy rituals of indoctrination, such as by suspension, "therapeutic" electric shocks, or expulsion.
Will the students be brainwashed in regard to the nature of the holy empire of extortion and the nature of the indoctrination rituals of propaganda? They will be taught that certain patterns of interaction are shameful. So, when in the midst of indoctrination, they will be shamed in to silent participation. If they eventually relax from the first layers of social anxiety, then they may still retain quite a bit of hysteria. They will say things like "let's reform our system of extortion so that it fits with how we were brainwashed to think that it already was."
The layers of shame can be intense. As someone is coming out of the hypnosis of the propaganda programs, they will presume that certain recent politicians have betrayed them. They still believe that the extortion system was not a system of corruption and extortion until recently. They think that a particular instance of corruption was isolated. They think that the corruption of a particular politician (or lobbyist or company or industry) is isolated.
They desperately attempt to attract social validation by condemning Monsanto while ignoring DuPont and Bayer and a long list of chemical manufacturers that have nearly identical business practies as Monsanto. They also attempt to invalidate "the evil political party" or "the so-called scientists who dare to question the scientific credibility of the holy doctrines that are publicized in the holy rituals of indoctrination."
They are trying to fix "the isolated problem." They believe that certain patterns of activity are shameful, which is what they have been carefully programmed to believe. So, they hysterically seek to inform others about whatever pet issue or new isolated case best serves the narrative of their ego or social persona.
They have been programmed to focus on certain subjects but not others, to invalidate and ridicule certain ideas but not others, and to bully or extort certain groups but not others. Further, their social distress will almost inevitably evolve in to a contemptuous targeting of the local Monarch (or of the public figure presented as the official King of Kings currently, such as the Holy Roman Pope).
After all, they are just displaying their loyalty to the programmed ideals of the holy indoctrination rituals. They are just competing to be the best perfectionist and attract the most social validation. They are trying to save humanity from "inherently shameful things" like corruption and extortion and taxation and deception and rituals of indoctrination.
Further, if they are exposed too fast to "deprogramming" content such as this article, they may suddenly get headaches, nausea, and drowsiness. They cannot handle the truth. It literally makes them sick (vomit). It is that terrifying. They are so intimidated by the holy rituals of social pressure that they can experience massive distress and shame about realities that they will go to great lengths to deny or dismiss or simply to distract themselves from.
"Look here at yet ANOTHER paragraph where Monsanto clearly influenced the content of that textbook AGAIN!?!? See, it is just like I have been telling you for the last 20 years. See?!?! I'm sure you finally agree now that I am extremely loyal to the ideals that I was programmed to worship, aren't I? Don't you agree that I am a heroic genius for spending so much time saving the world from yet another isolated case?"
How many isolated cases does it take before they are no longer isolated cases? How many thousands of years does it take before a particular system is no longer "new?"
When hysterically ridiculing some "isolated" villain, such as Monsanto or Hitler, that can be a shift from total denial toward rage about an isolated case. After raging at enough "isolated cases," people may even at some point experience clear recognition and calm acceptance.
So, to back up, there will be a vast network of collaborators, like monarchs and prime ministers and counts and even elected county commissioners. Their alliance will seek to monopolize the extortion business within their geographic range by criminalizing unauthorized extortion. They will not only resist small-scale extortion operations like neighborhood thugs and gangsters, but they will also resist invasion by a neighboring kingdom or network.
In order to preserve their dominance, they will make alliances with neighboring extortion operations to minimize the chance of invasion by an adjacent extortion operation. Further, when they do participate in invasions to colonize other nations and expand the territory of their extortion operation, they may do so with a group of allies, like the US, UK, and USSR worked together to invade mainland Europe in the mid 1940s. (Or, the US, France, and USSR were all sending troops to invade Vietnam by the 1960s).
So, just as I might be concerned about being targeted for extortion by a lone bully, by an organization, or by the victims of a powerful organization, I might also be interested in the other side of the dynamic. I might be interested in turning in most anyone who does not conform to the demands of an extortion system. I might be interested in participating in an extortion operation as a mercenary, as some other employee of whatever rank, or as a person who help others in their relations with their local system of extortion, such as by offering services as a tax attorney or accountant.
Finally, I might also be interested in extorting wealth from people without an organization of allies, such as by ambushing someone in an ally and demanding that they voluntarily buy a $10 stolen watch from me for $40 (or else, implicitly, I will make them pay an even higher price). It is like saying "I don't want to hurt you, but that is just a preference. If you do not accept my first offer quickly, then my current generosity and compassion may disappear in an instant."
All of these activities can be compared and contrasted with each other on a spectrum. Each is distinct in the specifics, but similar in the foundation of coercion and extortion.
In addition to overt social targeting for predatory extortion, there are related kinds of warfare that are more psychological in nature, like pressuring people with guilt trips to get them to make a donation or take some other action. Or, people can bait others rather than emotionally blackmail them, like suggesting that if they do as they are told, then they will receive generous rewards from a magical sorcerer named Santa Claus (AKA Saint Nicolaus) who is watching them right this second with invisible telepathic satellites. Or, maybe the voyeur is an immortal wizard named Saint Peter who, if they are obedient, will reward them when they die with exclusive access to a harem of 70 virgins (at least, what I was told is that they are virgins…).
Who will target heretics that threaten their most sacred delusions? Almost everyone who has been programmed to hold certain delusions as sacred will eventually be exposed to interactions that threaten their delusions.
We may naively maintain a delusions for years but then encounter people who never have even heard of Santa Claus. They may find our sincere assertions quite hysterical (even ridiculous).
We may even encounter people who used to sincerely believe in Santa Claus, but no longer do. Naturally, some of us will hysterically call them traitors and liars (for daring to say that certain details of popular dogma about Santa Claus might be inaccurate). However, we may eventually develop skepticism about our familiar dogmas.
If they pose reasonable questions about Santa, we may say "I have never thought of that and I admit that the questions that they are asking about Santa Claus are logical and I do not know how to answer them." We begin to accept the possibility that we may have had some misconceptions about Santa.
However, it is quite startling to confront the idea that there was a massive conspiracy to intentionally deceive millions of naive youth. Would adults intentionally mislead us just to manipulate our behavior?!?!
If so, I am sure that it is just an isolated case. Actually, no, the Easter Bunny is actually somewhat similar. Also, there is the tooth fairy. But… but… those are not designed to manipulate children in to blind obedience and anxiety about a telepathic magicians who knows what they are doing and probably even knows about the shameful things they are thinking of doing!?!?
But regarding all of the things that lobbyists have invested huge amounts of money and time to get publicized to the youth, those must all be entirely accurate, right? I mean, sure maybe a few other governments in distant times and far away places might have intentionally indoctrinated their youth with delusions, but those are all just isolated cases, right?
I know that there was that one case of television programming that showed that one politician pretending to be an actor who was just reading lines from a script and pretending to be a pro wrestler who was very mad at their opponent for cheating, but… but that is just an isolated case, right? And there was the one thing about that one pro athlete who very rarely will fake in one direction but then go the other way on purpose just to deceive their opponents, that is just an isolated case, right?
I guess there that was that other isolated case in which an athlete intentionally committed a foul in order to stop the clock, but that was breaking the rules and no one should ever break the rules because that is cheating and people should not cheat, right? I mean, what would happen in every pro athlete on every team in every sport were all intentionally breaking rules in very selective ways in order to influence the outcome of the game? That kind of cheating and dishonesty would ruin the popular appeal for sports, right?
Plus, shouldn't it be illegal to intentionally fake in direction and then go the other way? How can the refs just let them get away with that?
Those athletes need to be fined. Those refs need to be fired.
We need to raise awareness about the use of deceptive movements in pro sports. Dishonest spontaneous faking is almost as bad as those shameful "misdirection plays" (like a play-action pass or a reverse) that involve a PLANNED deception carried out by a GROUP of people.
We need to reform sports immediately to prevent isolated cases of shameful shames, like the one time that a pro athlete took a bribe to intentionally lose an event (but not by too many points because then their sponsor would have lost money on the bet). People should not have to ever experience shame because that would be like finding out that we may have sincerely made statements to other people about Santa Claus that might not have been entirely accurate. That must be the worst, right?
Shame is probably really awful to experience, right? I mean, I would not personally know about that, but isn't that the thing when someone is hysterically paranoid about competing for social validation? That is like a kind of chronic anxiety, right?
Yeah, isn't that like when someone goes around ridiculing and invalidating pro wrestlers because basically politicians should not pretend to be actors who are performing in circuses to distract the public from the basic fact that we live in the midst of extortion networks that seek to govern the attention, perception, and behavior of the occupied populations in their plantations? Plus, what kind of awful things might happen if the Easter fairy accidentally loses a tooth that Santa gave to it for good behavior? How can that tooth ever be replaced? It's not like the Easter fairy can just grow a new one (or get dentures), right? And what if the Easter fairy INTENTIONALLY loses a tooth?!?!
These are very urgent issues and therefore we need a new, more honest Easter fairy to resolve these issues for us. The media has done their job of telling us what is important. Now our duty is to elect the best Easter fairy for the job, right?
After all, we don't want to regret not doing more to prevent other people from feeling the wrong amount of guilt, right? Therefore, we need to elect an Easter fairy that really cares about each of us amongst the 1,000,0000,000,000 members within our network. That is why I support the candidate who is very different than all of the others because my favorite candidate has been consistently speaking out against corruption for 900 years.
WHAT IS "A REAL MAN?" (On respecting essentials over mere priorities and priorities over mere ideals)
You know the kind of guy that women love to talk about with each other? That is a kind of guy that they find interesting to talk about. We might even call that an "ideal" of a man.
Women may like to imagine a certain kind of man because they like how it feels to imagine themselves with him. They may also fantasize about the boss that they wish they had or the job they wish they had or even the political leader that they wish they had.
Keep in mind that when a bunch of women are socializing with each other, they may talk about a lot of things. What they say to each other about their ideal man (or anything else) is… their business.
Now, imagine a bunch of moms sitting around having lunch together and talking about their ideals of how their little boys will be when they grow up. Or, imagine a pair of really old women talking about what they used to say about their ideal son or their ideal mate. They might be laughing about it all.
Men can have ideals, too, like about how they should be or how they should not be. They can learn those ideals from their own family members, from mass media programming, from classroom social conditioning or from many other sources.
Or, they can form their own ideals. Even in the total absence of any social pressure to adopt certain behaviors or avoid certain behaviors, isn't it inevitable that they would learn to admire certain results and fear certain results? Wouldn't they inevitably develop preferences and priorities?
Note that I am not talking about identifying a particular set of behaviors that will hopefully produce the result of social approval. Attracting some form of social approval (either from a specific person or many people) might be the priority outcome of a man, like during a job interview or a sales pitch. Other than that, how important is social approval in general?
One of the first contrasts between the average man and a "real" man is that many men are focusing on preserving the ideals that they were presented in their youth. They were young boys back then and they are old boys now (socially).
Physically, they are men (adult males). However, socially (emotionally, mentally, behaviorally), they are still "tamed." They are still in a state of chronic stress, preoccupied with attracting social approval (and avoiding social disapproval) by presenting a persona that conforms to certain ideals of behavior.
In other words, they are anxiously pre-occupied with pretending to match some social ideal that they adopted as a coping mechanism in some stressful situation(s) in the past. If there is an obvious contrast between their social ideal and their actual behavior, they will experience a form of intense fear called shame. They may apologize and promise to keep trying the method that they were already trying (as in "I will be sincere again next time, except even harder than last time"). Or they may attempt to justify a particular incident as somehow conforming to one ideal even if it violated another. Simply put, they remain in an inner conflict (in shame). They may even ridicule other people for "being even more offensive" relative to whatever holy ideal they are worshiping.
What about a "real" man? They are not pretending to be a particular way. They are not pretending to be real. They are not trying to convince anyone that they have always been free of pretenses or inauthenticity. They are not hysterically preoccupied with convincing anyone of anything.
They are not trying to invalidate others who do not match a particular ideal (or who do not even glorify a particular ideal). They are not trying to compete for constant social approval. They are not arguing over which ideals are most ideal or least idealistic. They are not arguing that some ideals or all ideals are shameful.
They recognize that when there is shame, there is an ideal behind that shame (and often the precise ideal is not clear to the person experiencing shame because for them it is not just a simple ideal, but an unexamined assumption). There is nothing unusual to them about shame. It can come and it can go. There is nothing unusual to them about ideals either. They can form, transform, and dissolve.
They are interested in the contrast between tense pretenses and relaxed authenticity. They prefer authenticity. In other words, it is an ideal.
But an ideal is not the same as an essential or a priority. When something is essential, failure to address it will typically have fast, obvious, disastrous effects.
For instance, have you ever driven a car for half an hour? Would it be merely an ideal to keep your eyes open and stay awake for the entire drive, or would all of that be essential? How about breathing several times during that half-hour drive? Would it be ideal to inhale and exhale at least a few times in a half hour or would it be essential? How about having on a seat belt?
So one possible problem (that may be present in the vast majority of people) is that they confuse things that are socially ideal with things that are actually essential or priority. They have been socially programmed to organize themselves around this priority: attracting social approval and avoiding social disapproval.
Again, certain kinds of social approval can be essential in relation to a particular priority. Be attentive to the wording here. There are outcomes and there are methods. With a certain priority outcome (such as keeping a certain job), it may be essential to behave in conformity to certain social ideals. However, the behavioral essentials for working as a paramedic are not the same as for a pilot, right?
So the outcome defines the means. This is not about justifying particular means or invalidating other means. This is just saying that different outcomes will require different methods. By requiring a certain method, I mean that the method will be essential, but only relative to that outcome. The outcome regulates which method is best or most fitting.
Next, ideals are not universal. Notice how different groups will have different ideals? For instance, toddlers and grandparents do not have identical ideals, right? A toddler may learn a few new social ideals in a single day!
So a real man is not confused about ideals. A "real" man does not need to make "having no ideals at all" in to a new ideal to worship. Ideals can be respected for what they are, which is a type of strong preference.
Essentials are essential. With a target outcome that it is essential to produce, there will be no problem with taking unusual risks.
For instance, imagine a person driving a pregnant woman who is in labor to a medical specialist. Is that driver willing to violate traffic rules that they would normally follow? Are they unusually willing to honk or wave or yell in order to aggressively direct other drivers?
Some traffic rules will be nearly essential to follow. Others will be a high priority, but not quite essential. Finally, some rules will be quite easy to discard temporarily.
If we have a moderately strong preference toward a certain pattern of behavior, then we can call it an ideal behavior. It is not an essential behavior (like breathing). It is not even a priority behavior (like waiting for traffic lights to turn green). It is just a strong preference (an ideal).
An example might be to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. There can be legal consequences for only slowing down and making sure there is no traffic, then carefully rolling through (like for a yield sign).
However, what if there has been a collision nearby and a car is spinning wildly toward the stop sign? What if the safest thing is clearly to advance ahead of the stop sign without stopping first?
In some cases, there could be major negative consequences for failing to violate a minor rule. It could be a high priority or even essential to temporarily ignore an ideal. Ignoring what is essential, even temporarily, has a totally different level of consequence than ignoring what is ideal. To help you remember the simplicity of that, consider the importance of breathing while driving compared to the importance of wearing a seat belt.
So real men, like real women, are not hysterically obsessed with perfectionism. They know that essentials are essential, priorities are priority, and ideals are merely ideal.
They also know that there are outcomes that can be so important that typical behavioral ideals will be "relaxed." In an emergency, practical priorities always outweigh mere social ideals. If an ideal ever conflicts with a priority, the ideal will be immediately discarded….
The more hysterically that someone relates to social ideals, the more conflict or shame they will feel about having temporarily ignored socially-programmed ideals. Note that when a person forms their own social ideals based on observation, they have no confusion that the ideals are just ideals. The ideals that trouble us most are programmed ideals that we have never examined and that we have sincerely confused with behavioral priorities.
What outcomes should someone have as their targets? That is a question about which ideals they have been programmed to use.
A different question is this: which outcomes are essential, which are priority, and which are ideal? If an essential outcome is perceived to be threatened, everything else gets interrupted to promote that outcome.
Next, the linguistic model of a three-category spectrum is arbitrary. We could easily divide the same conceptual spectrum six times or nine times.
So, as each level of priority outcome is fulfilled, then the next lower level comes in to attention as the most important priority that is not yet fulfilled. As the target outcome changes, then the amount of hysteria about social ideals can decline. In other words, when people are most desperate or distressed or emotionally unstable, then they will most rigidly cling to familiar ideals (without any thought of examining them).
When do people examine their ideals? A common sequence is that a high priority outcome comes in to question (or something essential is suddenly threatened), and then people take actions that they know are not consistent with their previouosly stated ideals. So, they take the action and fulfill the high priority, but then experience shame.
Eventually, they may recognize that the shame is merely a social display. Shame is about an expectation of negative social consequences for the temporary violation of an ideal. Shame is just intense embarrassment, and both are forms of alarm, distress, stress, fear, alert, or extreme caution.
Shame is a social signal of submissiveness. One who experiences shame is expecting punishment. Shame is a display of loyalty to old social ideals that were programmed and have never been examined. Once the behavioral ideals are examined, we can recognize that they are mere ideals and also recognize how they can be very useful guidelines, at least for a child or a person of limited social stability or wealth.
When someone lacks discretion and perceptiveness, then rigidly adhering to programmed social ideals is adaptive. It can even be essential to survival, at least for a while.
Consider the practice of lying. It can be very detrimental, like in the context of a job or an important relationship. However, lying can occasionally be a priority or even essential. Otherwise, why would anyone who has ever been punished for lying ever lie again? Why? Because in some cases it may seem to be worth the risk.
The real man is realistic about behavioral ideals. They are formed for a reason. They eventually change. They may be upgraded to behavioral priorities or even behavioral essentials (like in a certain job, it may be essential to always answer the phone every time it rings, or else expect to lose that job).
Are you realistic about ideals and priorities and essentials? Or, are you hysterically distressed about competing for social approval of your particular form of idealism and perfectionism and social obsessiveness? Do you hysterically ridicule others antagonistically (or merely tease occasionally in a casual social way)?
Are you upset by the idea that hysteria and shame exist? Or, do you casually accept the simplicity of the reality of shame and hysteria and denial and so on? Do you plainly recognize that some emotional displays may be shamed as negative or socially invalidated? Or, do you hysterically relate to certain emotions as somehow fundamentally better or worse than other emotions?
If you have a strong preference for certain emotions, that is a sign of being human. If you relate to certain emotions as fundamentally shameful, that is operating within the emotion of shame. Most people are chronically ashamed and hysterically in denial of their constant state of distress and social anxiety.
They may be ashamed of shame. They may not simply respect it. Instead, they may ridicule it in others and deny it hysterically in themselves (or else desperately justify occasional exceptions).
They hysterically practice the shaming of particular behaviors (rather than selectively and efficiently shaming only certain people and only in very deliberate and caring ways). They do not waste their time shaming people they do not know or arguing with strangers about which ideals are the most ideal (or the least idealistic).
They are not competing for social recognition of their authenticity. They are not trying to be glorified as the least competitive or the least socially-anxious.
They are relaxed and natural. They desire what they desire. They assess risks and take the risks they take, then learn from whatever results they produce.
They assess their target outcomes and their behavioral strategies. They adapt. They invent. They test. They refine.
If something is not working for them, they want to know. If it is working, they may want to measure how well it is working.
They are not just hysterically taking actions "because they should." Or, if they do experience occasional hysteria, they can admit it without shame.
They know they have been naive. They know that confusion is part of life and most instances of confusion are not even important.
They focus on identifying outcomes that powerfully motivate them and then prioritizing the best methods for producing those results. They focus on perceptiveness and effectiveness, not defending prior methods or invalidating some method as inherently… anything.
They are not pretending that certain behavioral standards are always more important than any outcome. They are not hysterical fanatics. They are not "socially tamed." They may appear quite tame when they choose to promote that appearance, but they may also be "quite intense."
As for their preferences in relation to female companionship, they notice what appeals to them most, as well as what repulses them. They focus their attention selectively and deliberately, generally ignoring what most people are doing, except when intentionally measuring social trends or influencing social trends.
"Do good and evil exist?" Well, I will get to that.
First, I presume that the real question there is "do good and evil exist as absolutes outside of language, like certain behaviors or develpments are inherently good or inherently evil?" Absolutes only exist within the realm of language, because absolutes are just one type of linguistic concept. Concepts only exist within language, so no absolute concepts exist outside of language, including "good and evil." So that is the short answer (to my modified version of the original question).
Next, I believe that language exists and within language there is a set of words known as gerunds. Those are verb forms being used as adjectives.
Notice the following uses of the past tense verb form of "vilified:"
"One activity was eventually severely vilified and that vilified activity became much less frequently practiced."
Notice the following statement which uses the past tense verb form of "glorified" as an adjective:
"Whenever the young child announced that they needed to pee and went to sit on the training toilet instead of wetting their diaper, then that pattern of activity was celebrated and glorified by their mother. The mother's influence socially reinforced the glorified activity. Eventually, the intensity of the glorification of each individual case diminished considerably. Further, the targets of vilification and glorification also changed so that simply using the toilet was no longer the primary focus, but instead the activity of flushing the toilet after using it, especially for poop."
So, in addition to the existence of gerunds, I also believe in the existence of contractions. A word like evil is a condensing of the word vilified, just like good is a shortened version of glorified, and like should is a shortened or alternate version of supposed. Here is an example: "Jack supposed that he should probably just do whatever Jill supposed that he was supposed by her to do."
Many people experience a state of perpetual spiritual hysteria and then hysterically relate to the various instances of language. Language, by the way, is one form of a social behavior and it is specifically an instrument for influencing the attention and perception and behavior of others. Also, the state of constant social anxiety or hysteria has been carefully cultivated by the government rituals of indoctrination which are used in mainstream schooling. (Just below, I will say more about the rituals for indoctrinating children with unscientific doctrines about science.)
While it is generally easy to relate intelligently to language, an intelligent relationship with language is not only ignored in schools (not emphasized), but may be specifically interfered with. In other words, hysterical uses of language are glorified and intelligent uses of language are either ignored or even discouraged or vilified.
Students who disrupt a science classroom by asking intelligent questions about the scientific merit of particular claims will be punished and disciplined, right? The classroom ritual is about glorifying memorization and repetition, as in indoctrination about science rather then the practice of scientific methods and inquiry. A hysterical relationship to particular claims about science is glorified and an intelligent relationship to language and science, which would be a natural development for any child who is not under the influence of cultural hypnosis and intense social pressures, is systematically eradicated.
People can be encouraged to worship a few words of mysterious poetry about "the creation of night and day" (in the first chapters of the first book of the Bible). What is the simple, obvious, rather boring truth about the creation of night and day?
Night and day fundamentally are linguistic categories. We associate night and day with particular times, although technically night and day are places. It is always night and always day, but different parts of the earth will be in the place of night or in the place of day at any particular time.
Further, what is the exact boundary between night and day? Which hour is it? Which minute? Which second? Does all of the world switch from night to day in a single instant? Does an entire "time zone" switch from night to day in a single second? Does the sun set at the exact same second throughout an entire time zone stretching across hundreds of miles east to west?
If we use a heavenly measurement for the moment that day ends and night begins in a certain place, such as the sun dipping below the horizon or above the horizon, then there still a problem because there could be mountain ranges to the east or west. So, with that system of using direct visibility of the suns rays, then somebody who is standing near the ridge of a mountain can step into the shadow of night or into the brightness of day in just one step. They can move back-and-forth between the place of night in the place of day. If someone climbs up or down a tower near the time of sunset, are they also going back and forth between the places of night and day?
So language creates night and day. Outside of language, there is no discrete physical absolute boundary between those two linguistic concepts.
They are not two isolated physical realities (such as "either night or day"). There is one reality (and language can be used to divide reality into subcategories).
Language creates night and day as well as heaven and earth as well as land and sea and light and dark. No matter how close we get to a precise boundary between any two complementary linguistic categories, there is always more precision possible.
For instance, someone can claim that a certain temperature is a freezing temperature and that a certain other temperature is above freezing. However, that boundary also is not absolute. It depends on things like air pressure and elevation.
So, the temperature at which water boils or freezes will vary from place to place. There is no constant freezing point of water. In fact, in general, science does not have ANY constants that are actually constant. Even "the gravitational constant" has been measured to gradually vary from time to time.
Some researchers claim that gravity is simply one type of electromagnetic attraction and the electromagnetic properties of the earth fluctuate minutely across years and decades. Further, if the sun is constantly sending neutrinos and other particles with mass toward the earth, then we could also expect the mass of the earth to predictably increase over time (at least if the sun were the only influence on the total mass of the earth).
So, if any mathematical variable within an equation is fluctuating, then that can complicate the fact that all "mathematical constants" are derived from measurements and calculations. The constant is not fundamental to mathematics. The constant is "created" based on repeated observation. When more precise measuring instruments are invented and used, once again, the "official constant" may be revised.
There can be some conceptual problems with the things that humans label as "constant." They may even be uniform across the planet in one particular instant, so in that sense they are constant. However, if each "constant" also changes over time, even very gradually, then clearly they are not constants in the aboslute sense. The value of the various constants may depend on the specific mass and electromagnetic charge of the earth, which can change.
The constants may only be constant across space, but not across time. Or, they are not even constant across space, even though reasonably close in different places. Ultimately, any honest scientist would admit that all "constants" are nothing more than "estimates" or "predictions" or "projections." They are simply "socially-approved ratios to be used to project future measurements according to one unfirm standard of projection."
And, moving on from the general topic of constants to a specific constant, most people (or at least many people) are chronically hysterical (as in socially anxious or shamefully paranoid). So they might argue with antagonism and animosity for WEEKS over which is the real freezing point of water: 0° or 32°. They might argue which is the real scale (which is the only right one for measuring temperature): Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Not only is there no "real" freezing point for water because the freezing point for water is not actually constant, but there is no single scale that is more of a scale or less of a scale than any other scale. Also, if I am using the relatively obscure Kelvin scale, then perhaps the hysterical advocates of Celsius or of Fahrenheit will create an alliance against the "Kelvinists" who are clearly "heretics that threaten all that is holy in our religion of science." (Or was that a thin reference to some anti-hysteria hysteria involving the religious "Calvinists?")
What if all of the warnings about "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" are very practical? What if the original commentary is clearly a warning about hysteria and obsession with certain linguistic labels? What if the popular translations and interpretations are not meant to avoid hysteria, but are actually translations made either by people who were hysterical and delusional as they were making the translations, or who were calmly and intentionally cultivating hysteria in their chosen targets of verbal psychological warfare?
So there is an inclusive linguistic concept of reality, which is everywhere and eternal and all power is contained within it. The ancient Hebrews had a word for that and we may translate it into English as God.
Also, there is a linguistic category that in English we label with this symbolic sequence of letters: "language." That language is not the same as reality, although reality is just a linguistic concept itself. Reality creates language and then language create the boundaries between day and night or heaven and earth or light and darkness (or between Fahrenheit and Celsius).
If we translate the ancient Hebrew word for language into English, we may simply use the word God. However if we translate first into Greek from Hebrew, then will use the word logos and then we translate the word logos into English, we will say the Word or language. Then we write down this sequence: "In the beginning, God was in God, and God was with God, and God was God, who is the one and only God."
For those who are familiar with the first verses of the Old Testament and the New Testament, I just referenced them. Now let's talk more specifically about some famous metaphors about trees….
Within the tree of reality, language is one branch. We could even say that within the tree of reality, language is the trunk and out of that trunk come all of the branches of the tree. There is a hidden or invisible root system, but the trunk of language allows us to differentiate many branches which seem isolated from each other unless we trace them back to the trunk.
So, there are no distinct branches or subsets of reality until language begins to categorize the inclusive omnipresent boundless God, which some Hindus refer to as Brahman. The divine unity of the trunk is a singular whole, and from that unity springs a variety or diversity of branches. All those branches of the divine tree are also the tree. There is no section of the tree that is "outside of the tree."
So, reality is like a tree. Language is like the trunk of that tree which allows all of the branches of reality (all the forms of reality) to be named. Does reality take many forms? Yes. Are any of those forms "an independent reality isolated from the rest of reality?" No.
Moving on, the authors of the Old Testament make clear references to a living entity which came down to this planet from heaven and communicated with individuals such as Noah and Moses and many other prophets. That entity claims to have unleashed a flood to destroy most of the life on earth and also unleashed some plagues to wipe out large numbers of Israelites. Prophets such as Ezekiel were taken up into a spacecraft (or "flying cloud chariot") by this entity.
In the Hebrew language, that entity would be referenced with a word like Hashem. Naturally, hysterical translators might also translate that word in to English as "God."
So there are three distinct uses of the word God. There is a Hebrew "holy trinity." First there is the concept of the almighty, inclusive, omnipresent reality (or "the universe"). Next there is the function of language which is the God that divides light from dark and day from night and so on. Then there is the God that rules over humanity and is a destructive tyrant or villain.
Christians may claim to add a fourth character to that trinity, which is the savior (who rescues us from the eternal tortures and tyranny of the villain). However, the savior is also a character in ancient Hebrew stories. Noah was a savior and there were many others as well.
The Old Testament has many references like this "there is no God but God and God is our only savior." All three of the main branches of the religion of Abraham and Noah and Moses contain that idea in some form: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
So we have a trinity also in Hinduism: the creator, the sustainer, and the destroyer. However, none of them are the singular monotheistic God in Hinduism (Brahman). Instead, there is the father god (or creator), which has been given many names in many languages. Then there is the holy spirit, which divides creation in to it's many facets.
What is that holy spirit? Spirit refers to breathing (like the word respiration). When humans use language, we breath out loud using magical sequences of sound. That is what some Christians call the "Word" or what in the Greek language is called "Logos."
Spirituality is about the magical form of breathing known as language, which is the creator of all experiences. The Holy Spirit is given a different label in other languages, such as in the Hindu tradition.
Then there is the third member of the trinity. In Hinduism, it is Shiva, the destroyer. In Hebrew, the word Hashem may be used to reference the same ET that came down to earth from heaven as the leader of all fallen angels, who rules humanity as a tyrant. In other traditions, Neptune or Poseidon may be the name given to that "lower-ranking" member of the holy trinity.
What is common to all the stories of that creature? It uses a mysterious weapon with three prongs.
That God is said to rule over humans by using deception, confusion, and hysteria. At one time, when humans were getting too intelligent, that God cursed humanity by isolating humanity in to different groups that had trouble communicating with each other because of their different dialects and accents, which eventually diverged in to isolated languages.
Humanity was plunged in to spiritual darkness. The word diabolical comes from the Greek roots "dia-bolos," which refer to throwing a label across something to hide what the thing actually is. Through diabolical uses of language to confuse humanity and pit them against each other, the ET ruler of humanity maintained supremacy through a policy of "divide and conquer."
Some react to these comments or assertions with great hysteria and terror. Denial in language takes this form: "that should not be!" Then, those who have been programmed to experience hysterical denial can hysterically pursue reforms to make the world from how it should not be in to how the tyrant God has programmed them to think it should be.
So, through a diabolical policy of hiding things from humanity by programming them to relate to language hysterically, the great Diabolical ruler maintains naivete, confusion, and supremacy. By the way, the linguistic roots of "dia-bolos" are also familiar in Spanish as "diablo" and in English as "devil."
But most humans do not respect language. Instead, they are terrified socially and so they relate hysterically to language (and spend weeks arguing over whether Celsius or Fahrenheit is the one true religion… or over which branch of Judaism is the best way to measure the freezing point of water: Islam or Christianity).
In their hysteria, they display social arrogance and distressed antagonism toward unfamiliar and threatening uses of language: "I know what is right and that is not right!" All of the militant fanaticists chant "we know what is right" as they march in to battle in the latest holy crusade against each other.
Some may promote antagonism but without the common distress. The Swiss bankers may say to the French that "the English are preparing to wage war against you" and then say to the English that "the French are preparing to wage war against you." Then, the Swiss lend money to both sides and then, after the carnage is over, the Swiss send in their agents to advance their enslavement of the French and the English.
The French babies and English babies are both raised to relate to their regional government as their savior rather than their oppressor. The regional governments extract wealth from the occupied territories and the children are indoctrinated that "each of you already owe the government approximately $100,000 as of now, plus an additional 25% of everything that you earn for the rest of your life."
Then, the Swiss citizens are given annual socialist benefits of $25,000 per year. Those funds come from the labor of the loyal slaves in the neighboring plantations of France and England (and the rest of the European Union).
Of course, if the Swiss are not effectively creating hysteria by playing the French against the English, then they may target a new hysteria, such as "an alliance of the French Christians and the English Christians against the emerging Arabic threat." Or maybe the Swiss notice that the earth's temperatures are once again approaching an ice age, which has never happened before in the entire history of ice ages, so in order to hysterically combat global warming, the Swiss insist on switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius (to reduce the number of degrees in hot summer temperatures down in to the 30s).
For those of you who are wondering "which form of anti-hysteria hysteria is the best way to attract social validation for pretending to save humanity from hysteria," the obvious answer is 42. Or maybe that is the meaning of life according to comedic author Douglas Adams (who wrote "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"). Incidentally, the best way to combat reverse psychology was elegantly sumarized by the same author in these two words: "don't panic!"
On the other hand, I read somewhere that Douglas Adams is in fact Swiss, so therefore we must be suspicious of anything that someone claims that Douglas Adams wrote. In order to save humanity from obsession, we must stop everything else and imediately find out the real truth about whether or not Douglas Adams hid his true nationality in order to distract from the fact that he was actually intentionally using language in order to influence the attention, perception, and behavior of other humans.
So, if you want to be a savior too (by rescuing the victims from the villains so that you can be glorified as a hero for eternity when you die), then please send nine cents in a self-addressed envelope to yourself. Yes, spend money on a stamp to send yourself nine cents. It works every time. At least that is what I read in an online science textbook, so it has to be true, right?
Do not try to negotiate with this system by sending a dime instead of nine pennies. Do not send one penny nine times. Send nine cents one time (whether or not you use a nickel).
If you fail to do this, even now that you have been given the magic ritual for removing the curse of eternal guilt, then you will deserve to suffer for an eternity either in hell or rural Texas. You will be racked by shame for knowing the right way to be heroic and patriotic, but simply refusing because you are such a spoiled brat and you hate God, by which I mean the holy trinity of reality, language, and Shiva, the devil ET with the three-pointed tongue, also known as Eve, goddess of Eve-il Villains.
René Lieberwirth It is my view that we actually are life expressed in living form. In the sense that I am not living life but actually life is living me.
Life spreads through lineage in humans. Now tell me, as an anology: When did the seed grown and fallen from the tree, taking root and growing as a separate tree, become "another life?" I see another expression of life passed on to a new form. In that regard the sense of individuality (life adhering to its form) seems overrated and I believe actually is a misconception. Life is an invisible force.
J R Fibonacci Hunn All linguistic concepts are limited and approximate. Some say that "gravity exists" and they can drop a ball from their hand to "prove it."
I say "no, that is just a special case of one type of electromagnetic attraction, which really does exist, and then you can label it as gravity, which is imprecise and even grossly misleading, but also fine."
René Lieberwirth to J R Fibonacci Hunn Does energy exist? If so. What would be your denotation?
J R Fibonacci Hunn Energy can be measured. When we weigh something, we are measuring a force.
J R Fibonacci Hunn More precisely, "energy" is just a measurement or a dimension. Voltage and frequency (Hz) and amplitude are also "dimensions" (or sub-dimensions).
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, energy is not a single dimension, like "an amount of energy." Energy is a whole field of dimensions.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Further, there is ultimately no isolated energy. I am energy and I can use equipment to measure the temperature in the room, which is just energy. Or I can measure the speed of the wind, which is also just energy.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Alan Watts occasionally used the analogy of waves within an ocean. Can you measure the waves without also measuring the ocean?
Language is a particular method for focusing consciousness (… Which is also energy). To focus on "those five waves" or "the entire ocean" is an operation of language, and language IS measurement!
J R Fibonacci Hunn How bright is a light? 60 watts? 100 watts?
Well, wattage is not really a measure of brightness, but there is a correlation, right?
J R Fibonacci Hunn So language is all about correlations. Plus, in the realm of language, we can invent causes and effects.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Do the waves cause the ocean to move? Does the ocean move the waves?
Does the wind blow the waves? And what blows the wind?
J R Fibonacci Hunn The ocean does the waves (the waving). The earth does the ocean (and the wind).
Language (aka God) does all of these, but of course then some atheists like Amunaptra may come along and say "I do not believe in language. Can you prove to me that it exists?"
Then I say, "I have faith that language exists. If that assertion upsets you, then it is okay with me if you make a different assertion, like create a different linguistic concept or God to worship. By okay, I mean I will not try to prevent you. However, I do not mean that I will not send in the sheriff department to cleanse the empire of infidels."😉
J R Fibonacci Hunn When there is no understanding of the simplest realities of language, then there can be hysterical arguments about "determinism vs free will" as if those two concepts are not simply patterns or models in language. Harry (Rene's son) made some reference recently to the hysteria of people arguing over such issues.
J R Fibonacci Hunn People could hysterically argue over which of the following is the only right way to measure the total number of joints in both of my "ring fingers:"
Language is measurement and measurement is language. In other words, measurement is interpretative or creative.
Quantum physicists may consider that to be a revelation or esoteric or mystical or distinctive. No, it is the simplest and most obvious reality of language.
Language is used to measure. Language is the ruler that we use to measure.
We can use the scale of fahrenheit or celsius, or of kilgorams or pounds. We can use the metric or ruler of centimeters or of inches.
Language RULES. Language organizes perception. Language focuses experience in to being.
Language is divine- the only thing that is sacred whether or not people recognize it as sacred. What lives and rules is the divine Word or LOGOS or language. Just as every branch is entirely composed of "tree," every form of life is formed BY language: tree, branch, wave, ocean, me, you, caterpillar, butterfly, the hive, the queen bee, etc….
Those who have contempt for some particular patterns in language can claim to be atheists, but… whatever. Either we can hysterically discard the claims by the Hopi (and many other cultures) that a sky god ET came down from heaven and told them where to place their villages, or we can respect that possibility, whether or not we deem it a priority to explore.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Back to the issue of measuring the force of weight, we tend to think that we are not moving. We think that weight is not a measure of momentum because we think "we are not moving." Is that objectively true or only subjectively labeled "true?"
I am just sitting here, right? Actually, the high priests of mainstream science claim that I am spinning at an amazing speed as the earth rotates, plus hurling through space at a speed much faster than I have ever flown in an airplane.
Weight is a measure of momentum. A horse traveling at full speed has more "weight" on impact than a horse that is casually walking.
The gravitational pull of the earth on someone at sea level is not the same as when they are on top of a mountain. Why? Exactly why does gravitational force decrease with distance?
Why can the apparent weight of metal change when you spin it? Because spinning metal produces an electromagnetic field. Weight is electromagnetic because gravity is just one form of electromagnetic attraction. Weight is just an appearance or manifestation of electromagnetic attraction.
J R Fibonacci Hunn The electromagnetic weight of the magnets on top is pushing down on the lower magnets, forcing them closer together:
J R Fibonacci Hunn Magnets are electromagnetically polarized. Most things are not.
So, the gravitational electromagnetism BETWEEN a few magnets can cancel the gravitational electromagnetism between the earth and at least one of the magnets.
The electromagnetic weight of a floating magnet approaches "zero." There is not any "net" electromagnetic momentum pulling it toward the center of the earth, so it has no measurable weight (at least while the counter-vectored electromagnetic forces are balanced / equal.)
J R Fibonacci Hunn Again, these two magnets in this position have less electromagnetic momentum toward the center of the earth:
J R Fibonacci Hunn and that is only because "they are gripped" by the strings. What holds the string fibers together? Electromagnetism. What holds a hydrogen atom together? Electromagnetism.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Sound vibrations can also polarize the energy fields known as matter. When the electromagnetic polarity counters gravity, then sound vibrations cause levitation:
Next, here is a spider being levitated by an electromagnetic vibration at a particular frequency, which some physicists like to call by the following technical term: "sound waves."
J R Fibonacci Hunn Can you feel the electromagnetic impact of a thumping bass or a thunder strike? Yes, the electromagnetic weight of sound can literally move an object… or even cause an object to shatter:
to J R Fibonacci Hunn….leave it to you, to take everything, and make it a monologue, as well as a school science project. 😛
The following is an excerpt from a larger thread on the website facebook. This was in response to some other folks who were talking about ISIS and US politics.
I think sometimes it is intriguing to understand who the mainstream media and mainstream education system is, why they are doing what they are doing, and how they are being funded. I expect that, for many, they may learn how rituals of indoctrination are used to cause painful traumas and social anxiety for masses of people.
They are presented a doctrine or dogma, like that cholesterol is poisonous. They are rewarded for memorizing and blindly repeating it. Then they learn to use the label "science" for the memorization and repetition of ideas that they did not examine seriously and certainly did not attempt to independently disprove or verify.
The emotions that they have been taught to hide from their face can be blocked through habits of chronic tension. To face reality exposes them to the emotional energies that they have been programmed to relate to as shameful (to suppress "in to the shadows").
The emotions correspond to hormones (like cortisol, adrenalin, testosterone, etc). The waves of hormones challenge the chronic muscular tensions and the nerves sense that conflict and create "pain signals" to "sound the alarm."
So, the deeply indoctrinated MD may withdraw in distress or make some hysterical attack (or defense of the protocol for attacking the liver to lower production of cholesterol). They may quote some "authoritative" research correlating the *consumption* of dietary cholesterol with the levels of various kinds of cholesterol in the blood of cows. However, if all cows are basically eating grass (or seeds), then there is no cholesterol in their diets.
They do not have high cholesterol in their blood because of eating it. Their religion about science may not just be totally unscientific, but an intentional fraud.
This could be very embarrassing to them and their self-image or social persona. Predictably, many of them may filter out any independent research on the scientific merit of their so-called "science."
What are the documented injuries caused by the use of the statin drugs that they push? They do not ask.
What are the documented detriments of avoiding dietary sources of cholesterol? They do not ask.
What are the benefits of having a healthy liver that produces cholesterol? Again, they may simply not ask.
When someone does ask a question, they also ask it from their bias or prejudice. They are often filtering reality to support their pre-existing dogma or doctrine.
Further, that condition is not only common, but producing it may be the specific purpose of certain systems of governing or regulating humans. Anyone who is hysterically obsessed with "defending the methods of our holy system" can never calmly and humbly explore the purposes that led to those methods. They will erupt in to passionate condemnations about "what should be" rather than accept what is obvious.
further, the shame and contempt and condemnation that the masses have toward the reality of our holy governing empire… Is entirely programmed. The empire projects a persona or facade or mask to keep certain aspects of reality in a shadow.
Someone told me today about a semi-retired teacher who felt guilt and then a relief of guilt after a fifth grade student cut herself with a razor blade and then (and I am not sure of all the details) proceeded to cut about ten other fifth Grade girls in her class. As I understand it, there was a significant aspect of intimidation and bullying and that is how ten girls got cut before this came to the attention of any adults. (Then paramedics and police came and "restored order").
This happened Thursday at a public school in rural Arizona. The person telling me about this was not the teacher, but was in the classroom the whole time (as a sign language interpreter for two deaf students in the classroom). Also, the person telling me about this was recalling soothing the teacher (which produced a relaxing of tension, then weeping and what I understood to be a relief of a sense of guilt).
So, that story reminded me of other recent comments (which were also made to me by the interpreter in the classroom) about "the difficulty people may have with being alone with their own thoughts." Below, I explore how I connect the two issues….
In our youths, we may be pressured socially to present certain emotions but not others. In other words, we are pressured in to shame, which is not innate.
That learning of shame is "the original sin." It is not innate or personal, but learned and social. Infants certainly do not demonstrate a pre-occupation or obsession about social validation, right?
However, it is adaptive to learn shame. A common irony is that many people relate to shame as if shame itself is somehow shameful. First, while the experience of shame is personal or subjective, the process of shaming is inherently social, not innate. It can be "internalized," but it is fundamentally just social pressure (as in antagonism or oppression).
The internalized "social narrative" is a habit of self invalidation or self-pressuring or chronic tension. It can restrict the motions of the tongue and face and throat and shoulders.
most people have not accessed "salvation" (the relaxing of the internalized paranoia or social anxiety) and are what we could call "addicted" to distractions, especially social reassurance and validation. So, they gather in to groups of people with similar ideas to isolate themselves from self-awareness.
there is no coping mechanism which is fundamentally better or worse than any other. Gathering in to groups to habitually distract each other can be adaptive!
"Grace" refers to a natural potential that is difficult to precisely predict. With faith and patience, then by "grace" there can be a gradual or even sudden releasing or relaxing of internalized narratives that "there are certain ways that (we in this group all agree to suppose that) people should be or should not be." When there is a rigid tension about "how people should be," that tension constricts the body, restricting the emergence of emotional clarity, and limits one's own perception of one's self. That perceptual filtering relates to preserving a persona or self-image that one is virtually always "how all people fundamentally should be" and is virtually never "how all people fundamentally should not be."
the person "possessed" by the "demon" of original sin (self-invalidation) will speak of themselves as operating in conformity with "how people fundamentally should be." However, there is an innate awareness that there are frightened pretenses about conforming to the social ideals. That innate awareness can lead to unexpected emergence of guilt and shame.
most people (or very many) are in constant inner conflict or torment, but have adapted coping mechanisms or habits to numb themselves to their own incongruence with their stated ideals of "how all people should or should not be." So, a very common pattern is that when someone is jealous of another, then are ashamed of their admiration for the results of another person. So, they experience resentment and contempt and then condemn the one toward whom they are jealous.
"They should not have obtained those results through those methods because those methods are fundamentally wrong." That is a common hysteria.
"That result should not be that result." They are denying the validity of some reality. They are invalidating or denying some reality… And typically with tremendous social anxiety or distress (even disgust).
They have positioned themselves in opposition to certain aspects of reality. They have internalized the habit of hysterically shaming certain parts of reality (as distinct from careful, attentive shaming or humbling of specific people of interest to someone).
That is the end of my original post. Then, I tagged the only person on my private group that regularly gives sermons at Christian churches. He responded, then I did.
His comments are hard to read (in part because he did not divide it in to paragraphs). However, my replies to him probably will have enough references to his comments that if you just read what I wrote, you will also get exposed to the contrast between the two different patterns presented by myself and him.
John Villegas-Grubbs Your writing is not easily understood for me, at a first pass. I typically need to read it more than once. But I do see that you are addressing biblical concepts in a non-biblical way, so I am at a little bit of a loss to know how to continue the discourse. Original sin, in the biblical sense, refers to an aspect of human nature that seeks to aggrandize the self. All "sin" proceeds from it, and as scripture puts it, Pride is the source of all sin. This is because the first tenant of the relationship God offered to human beings (again speaking from the scriptural basis) is – I am God and you are not. Original sin, as it were, was the human refusal to consent. Shame is of purely human construct. God never designed (according to scripture) for there to be a place in the relationship between Himself and us for shame. It is the beginning of the thread of His love that has its origins in Genesis, and is fully fledged on the cross. Shame is the human thesis that acting out (out of the boundaries set by community) equals worthlessness. It becomes seriously toxic when we individually agree. None of this was God's design, according to scripture. Grace, simply put, is undeserved kindness. The Christian thesis that salvation is grace is rooted in the belief that we could not expunge ourselves of our human nature (self-aggrandizement) because it is in our nature. We failed at the covenant of justice (the old testament). It was all a set up. It's all one story. Scripture tells us that we could not follow the 300 some odd laws of Moses. The laws were set in place not so that we would be perfect, but so that we would understand our imperfection (Romans 7). We simply do not deserve relationship with God. So… Act Two: Jesus goes to the cross. It satisfies the Justice nature of God (give me your first born), and displays His love at the same time. It is like this: (and this is consistent with the parables Jesus preached), when we are hurt by someone we love, we often think that maybe if they knew how much we love them, they wouldn't hurt us. We get that from God. It is part of the image of Him, in which we are made. He was hurt by us. Some argue with me that that is not scriptural but it is "…how I have longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing." (Matthew 23: 37). Those are words spoken by a God whose heart has been broken. The act of salvation is an act of responding to His final act to prove His love for us. Jesus. It then opens the door for a relationship with Him that is real, alive, dynamic, and one pretty wild journey. You cannot convince a Christian not to be a Christian, because it is knowledge of a different sort. That's why the early believers went calmly to their deaths, and do so today. Jesus never said he was a wise man, or a teacher (the others called Him that). He said He was the Messiah. The Samaritan woman at the well said – when the messiah comes he will explain it to us, and Jesus answered, "I who speak to you am He." (John 4: 26) It doesn't get any clearer than that. All this to say that there is a secular treatment for these concepts, but they are scriptural in their origin.
J R Fibonacci Hunn I will comment as I go, John. The phrase you presented [in regard to the "original sin"] is "to aggrandize the self," and that is consistent with my commentary. We may come to worship a specific self-image hysterically (in terror) and we may socially identify ourselves as "only being certain ways that we should be" (but never other ways that we may condemn or vilify).
In small children, this can be "I am NOT a baby anymore. I am a big boy!" If a 3 year old says that with the "innocence" of glee, that is of no great interest to me. However, when the distressed "self-glorification" extends in to contempt for others (aggressively pointing out how they are how they should not be, which is "being a baby"), that is more notable as a "symptom" of being on the look out for justifications for cultivating "ill will."
There may already be an underlying grief which is suppressed (like not crying in public because only babies do that and I am THREE so I am NOT a BABY!). Once the energy of the frightened grief is suppressed, then it can explode in grievances and resentment and contempt and personal ill will.
J R Fibonacci Hunn I do not agree with the word pride as a target of caution. Arrogance is the issue, which is a type of fear.
Pride is a type of gratitude, like when my 6 year old grand daughter rides a bicycle without training wheels, I feel a surge of grateful pride. Or, when a one year old child walks across a room without holding on to anything, they can experience a kind of delight that we can call "pride."
The "demonization" of pride is one of the most remarkable errors of the the common forms of popular Christianity which some people refer to as "spiritually backwards." Rather than warn against contempt and condemnation, so many people who call themselves Christians take lessons about condemnation and then use those passages to condemn others for the "crime" of… condemning others.
That is hysterical hypocrisy. That is completely lacking in spiritual discernment.
J R Fibonacci Hunn John wrote: "Grace, simply put, is undeserved kindness. The Christian thesis that salvation is grace is rooted in the belief that we could not expunge ourselves of our human nature (self-aggrandizement) because it is in our nature."
Grace can refer to the way that an organism moves (with tremendous physical coordination). Grace can mean "without any issue of personal merit," so we might say that by grace some people have unique privileges and advantages.
J R Fibonacci Hunn We can use the word grace to refer to the fact that a relaxing of internalized shame can arise without any issue of personal effort. Salvation in that sense is more of the absence of self-invalidation than the presence of something.
J R Fibonacci Hunn However, self-invalidation can "run deep." It is not innate (as in genetic). It is learned or socially transmitted.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Note that the origins of the words salvation, salve, saliva, salad, salute, whole, and holy are all identical. Instead of the common "broken spirit" of the common person, the one who has experienced a relaxing of learned habits of self-invalidation will no longer experience an internal conflict about always pretending to be "fundamentally better than most people."
J R Fibonacci Hunn By grace, a person can experience a mature humility, which is salvation. They can easily discern between what is fundamental and what is just a linguistic "script" to glorify their ego.
"I am better than those babies over there because I definitely would not cry if I ever fell off of my bicycle. Hey, stop being such a baby! You are offending me by crying in my presence just because you fell down and hurt yourself. Don't make me come over there and give you a reason to cry!"
The hysteria of vilification and contempt is an externalizing of internalized shame and self-invalidation. (First, there is an internalizing of shame, then an externalizing of the internalized shame through the activity of social vilifying.) If I am anywhere close to crying myself (and ashamed of that), then I could be extremely reactive about someone else crying "without a good reason."
J R Fibonacci Hunn I (when I have been in that infantile mode) certainly do not mind if people cry without me knowing. It is not that I am concerned for them, like wanting to put ice on their wounds to dull the pain. I just respond to their crying as a threat. So, if they cry and I find out, then I may attack (verbally or otherwise).
"Stop being such a baby! How can you cry over such a small thing? Your older brother did not cry when he fell out of a TREE and are you seriously crying just from falling off a bike? Come on!"
Note in particular the right side of this image, referencing Mithras:
[Regarding the Easter story of a martyr who is publicly executed and then rises from the dead, which is apparently MUCH older than 2000 years…]
I would not argue with someone who insisted that "salvation did not exist until a specific moment in human history." However, my lack of interest in arguing is not evidence of agreement.
Hundreds of people could all insist on one hundred different moments when salvation suddenly became possible for humans, who they might claim are "by nature fundamentally unworthy of salvation." I might say "let them speak for themselves."
Language and logic may be closer to the "spiritual practice" of yoga than you have recognized. Indeed, both of the words (logic and language) have Latin roots that go back to a Sanskrit root word: yoga.
(Yoga is also the root of the words junction, jugular, join, joint, link, leg, loyal, and even reLIGion. Some people may also know the Greek word LOGOS, which is also a derivative of the Sanskrit word YOGA.)
So, let's stay grounded in simple, obvious, and uncontroversial example. (Because sometimes when I am "stirring a pot," I want to slow down the rate that I am stirring or even reverse the direction of the stirring.)
Let's consider the phenomenon of hyperventilation. It can happen in a wolf or human and so on.
Do we begin by accepting the existence of hyperventilation and respecting it? Or, do we panic in distress and hyperventilate about hyperventilation to attempt to "cultivate it less?"
it is rather easy to interrupt hyperventilating, and all of the methods involve slowing down the exhalation of CO2. In some yoga practices, we may hyperventilate in very specific ways, but then also block one nostril and the mouth to limit exhalation to a single nostril. If you are familiar with that method, then you may know the effects of using it.
(Restricting the airways can interrupt the hyperventilation and result in a sudden increase of levels of CO2 in the bloddstream, and since CO2 must be present in order to carry O2 from the blood cells over to the cells outside of the blood vessels, increasing CO2 levels can be a very good thing. Hyperventilation is basically a biochemical panic caused by having levels of CO2 that are too low.)
Once I know how to accept and respect my own suffering and even the ways that I may have been habitually cultivating my on suffering, then I can stop or reduce or refine those habits. I can bring attention and mindfulness to them.
What does the activity of agonizing produce? Agony is the result.
Is it possible that some masters of wizardry have trained the masses to practice agonizing and produce agony? Yes, that is possible! Maybe they program the masses to be hysterical about a wide ranges of issues like cholesterol and suffering and climate change and distributions of military technology and, one of my favorites, being possessed by a living entity called "a cancer" that will spread and grow and eat the organism that hosts the parasitic cancer demon.
So, as for these diabolical wizards (to the extent that they exist outside of bedtime stories used by adults to manipulate the emotions of children), maybe they have even programmed your intentions. Maybe they have programmed you to be ashamed of what they do and to have contempt for them.
For the one who deeply respects hysteria and is well-developed in the skill of relaxing their own hyperventilation reflexes, the experience of life is not the same as in other modes. Before, when I gloriously and heroically defended the truths that were delivered to me through indoctrination, there were patterns of chronic physical tension that corresponded to "channeling my emotions" toward socially-programmed targets (and repressing or blocking certain other "anti-social" or shameful emotions). In other words, shame (and guilt) were the sea in which I swam, like water to a fish.
What happened as a result of my emotions being socially manipulated? I was encouraged to develop in ways that were at least occasionally rewarded, such as in the use of humor. However, perhaps unlike some of the characters in the movie Napoleon Dynamite, society did not promote in me a development of my ninja sword skills. When I realized that swordsmanship skills not only would not help me to impress females but would not be part of any job application that I would be submitting, my initial interests at age 7 for becoming a
professional ninja had generally disintegrated by the age of 17.
So, my skills in verbal competition were more rewarded than my skills in physical competition. (Plus, since I was not raised especially wealthy nor especially poor, I had no particular momentum in the direction of competing in the business world.) I also have had the luxury of "benign neglect" which has led, after some rather challenging complications, to the arising of mindfulness, perceptiveness, and clarity.
I now have the relative social advantage (from my perspective) of being no longer bound by many of the disadvantages programmed in to the masses. Many of them suffer ABOUT things. They DO the activity of suffering.
That is distinct from experiencing challenges in general. There are many ways to experience a challenge. Suffering through the challenge is not the only way.
Indeed, the word "suffer" can be used in a few ways. Do you know the root of the word "suffrage?"
I am reminded of these lyrics from a song released in 1989 (by the group "10,000 Maniacs"):
Trouble me, disturb me with all your cares and your worries.
Trouble me on the days when you feel spent.
Why let your shoulders bend underneath this burden when my back is sturdy and strong?
Trouble me.
Speak to me, don't mislead me, the calm I feel means a storm is swelling;
there's no telling where it starts or how it ends.
Speak to me, why are you building this thick brick wall to defend me when your silence is my greatest fear?
Why let your shoulders bend underneath this burden when my back is sturdy and strong?
Speak to me.
Let me have a look inside these eyes while I'm learning.
Please don't hide them just because of tears.
Let me send you off to sleep with a "There, there, now stop your turning and tossing."
Let me know where the hurt is and how to heal.
Spare me? Don't spare me anything troubling.
Trouble me, disturb me with all your cares and your worries.
Speak to me and let our words build a shelter from the storm.
Lastly, let me know what I can mend.
There's more, honestly, than my sweet friend, you can see.
Trust is what I'm offering if you trouble me.
Do I relate to a system by claiming that there something wrong with it? If so, why? Where do people get these ideas of "wrong?"
Brainwashing is a very important method in the business operations of many large institutions. In 1622, an organization called "the sacred congregation for the propagation of the faith" was formed in Rome, Italy. It is also called "Propaganda Fide," which is Latin for the propagation (publicizing, spreading) of the faith.
That organization trained individuals who are then sent out to spread certain doctrines and dogmas to people throughout the world. The methods of that institution evolved into modern teachers' colleges where education majors are trained in the conducting of certain brainwashing rituals that are prescribed to them from the central curriculum authority.
The training of future instructors included barraging them with huge amounts of information which they were to memorize and then repeat in exchange for social rewards, such as certificates and diplomas and good grades. The same methods were used to train teachers and also to train medical specialists and also to train or brainwash soldiers as well as young boys and girls.
Sometimes I give the example of cholesterol, which is an essential nutrient that is manufactured by trillions of livers in millions of species on this planet. Cholesterol is an important part of the immune system which is sent to areas of a body where there is a need for repairs, plus it is refined into estrogen and vitamin D and bile and many other essential hormones.
If an individual has been exposed to certain brainwashing rituals for a long period of time, then they can go into a classroom and learn to spell the word cholesterol and also learn to repeat back on a test that cholesterol is dangerous or poisonous or whatever doctrines and dogmas the instructor states. They may have never examined the scientific merit of the claims made by the instructor. They may have never conducted any tests or Scientific inquiry into the claims of the instructor. Yet, remarkably, millions of people who have been subjected to these brainwashing rituals will identify themselves as experts on science because they have memorized a variety of unexamined doctrines about science.
Even more remarkably, when the issue of scientific inquiry is raised in regard to the familiar claims about something like cholesterol, those who claim hysterically to be experts on science may Display a tremendous amount of distress and animosity in regard to the practice of scientific inquiry in regard to their familiar doctrine or dogma.
So, not only are people brainwashed about many subjects including science, but they are brainwashed about the brainwashing rituals. Even though the rituals were developed in the Roman catholic church hierarchy, many people would be terrified and ashamed to identify public schools (which use the indoctrination rituals of the holy empire) as branches of a holy empire.
Some will react by condemning these indoctrination rituals as if the rituals are shameful. Being ashamed of those rituals may be purely the result of the indoctrination and brainwashing.
It is not especially controversial to state that the holy empire has ruled over the regional monarchs throughout the empire (or other lower-ranking officials such as prime MINISTERS). The delegates of the pope are the ones who place the crowns on the heads of monarchs in the coronation rituals that transform a non-monarch into a monarch. This fact is not a hidden secret.
So, at least in a simplified analysis, we might propose that the top tier of the hierarchy is the Vatican (just as the officials of the Vatican have publicly declared for s very long time) and then, under that organization, there are the various regional monarchs who are supervised by and subject to the Vatican.
Finally, a few hundred years ago, a new innovation was developed that created a boost of morale for the masses of human resources. Many monarchs announced the formation of a parliament or a prime "minister," who would be the high priest who is officially just under the Monarch in power.
How did this help the morale of the masses and increase compliance with payment of taxes and so on? Imagine that there are 500 members of Parliament within a given region of the holy empire. One individual voter can influence the local policies of the holy empire by voting for perhaps 3 of the positions within the 500 member parliament.
That voter invests emotion and time and money into the election process. The more that they invest in elections, the more compliant they tend to be in regard to paying taxes and so on.
Imagine that a person is on a committee at their local Catholic Church and they get to vote on which way to promote the doctrines of the church, like whether to say that "high cholesterol is always bad" or in contrast to say that "lowering cholesterol is always good." By their participation, they create a sentimental attachment to The operations of the larger institution. (Elections are a similar ritual for promoting the compliance of taxpayers.)
What is the actual power of each of the 500 members of the Parliament relative to the power of the monarch or the Vatican? That is an entirely different subject which is of no great interest to me to explore here.
I will briefly say this much though:
After Stalin was in power, he instituted regular elections, although a famous quote of his is that it is more important who counts the votes than how the masses vote. Stalin was a US ally of course.
Wasn't Hitler also elected? Wasn't he (as a leader) exactly how we have been led to believe?
Do we really think that just because we vote for someone and perceive them to be "heroic," that they MUST be that way simply because at some point we perceived them to be that way? If we stop pointing fingers (at the evil leaders or the evil masses), what experience is underneath all of the grievances and condemnations?
24 minutes
12.5 minutes
12.5 minutes
For the one who is focused on effectiveness, perceptiveness naturally develops. For the one who is anxiously obsessing over pursing socially approved goals through socially approved methods, there is always a negligence in regard to one's own inner "compass."
Such a negligent obsession may be very popular, of course. Perhaps the promotion of obsessive negligence in the masses is a key tactic of certain systems of social influence.
Next, imagine that 3 different individuals all witnessed the exact same series of words. One of them was totally repulsed by the words and completely withdrew, never making any reference to that sequence of disgusting words. The next one was also repulsed, but was actually more attracted than repulsed. So, that one invested lots of time in the fascinating sequence of words, while constantly condemning the words and labeling them as shameful and repulsive and infuriating (but certainly not "fascinating").
The last one did not claim to be certain what the sequence of words even really meant. They claimed to be skeptical about the value of that sequence of words.
"The crippling of the emotions of the general public is a core function of modern governing systems." – the most famous angel in the Semitic Empire (in fact, "a fallen angel"), who is widely known for carrying a three-pronged weapon
Shiva, who is an entirely different celestial being but just happens to also use a three pronged weapon, read the words above and said "that idea is simply blasphemy and it is forbidden to make any further reference to it."
Neptune, who is an entirely different celestial being but just happens to also use a three pronged weapon, read the above words and said "that idea is insulting and we must do everything that we can to preserve the proper focus of our governing systems, which is to promote the emotional stability and maturity of every single citizen of our plantation."
Poseidon, who is an entirely different celestial being but just happens to also use a three pronged weapon, read the above words and said "anyone who even entertains such an idea is clearly already mentally ill and needs to be forcibly medicated with some electric shock therapy in order to demonstrate the tremendous compassion and charity of our holy system of governing the masses through military domination, psychological indoctrination, and of course the generous support we receive from the targets of our tax extortion scheme."
The angel Satan, who is an entirely different celestial being but just happens to also use a three pronged weapon, said "let's talk about the word Semite for a minute. There was once a fellow named Shem and lots of people descended from him. All the Arabs and Hebrews and Ethiopians and Phoenicians were descendants of Shem, whom we call Semites. Also, anyone who learns to speak the Semitic languages of those Semitic social groups can be called a Semite."
Satan continued, "so what is an anti-Semite? That is someone who does not accept the genetic superiority of the Semites as the rightful rulers over all of humanity. Obviously, anti-semitism is ridiculous because the Prophet Noah clearly stated that he had total social authority over the entire population of humanity, not just over his own family or tribe or clan like his ancestors. He was the first king of kings and so he sent supervisors throughout his empire to place magic crowns on the heads of the various regional kings in rituals of coronation. Eventually, some of those local rulers created parliaments so that the taxpayers could elect a high priest which they called their Prime Minister.
That high priest could appear on TV and pretend to oppose the royals and the ruling bankers. The naive masses would occasionally vote in an election for one of the 69,375 members of parliament so that there was a fair balance of power between the elected ministers of parliament and the various other parts of the ruling priesthood. Because of that extremely fair balance of power, the masses would be more compliant in their participation in the holy imperial operations of paying taxes and spreading democracy through warfare."
Finally, the devil, who is an entirely different celestial being but just happens to also use a three pronged weapon, said "let's talk about humility for a minute. Humility is the experience of someone who respects the potential for social punishment (or of a loss of social benefits). Arrogance, in contrast, is the state of distress in which someone hysterically pretends not to be humble. The arrogant are afraid of being humiliated (humbled). They are anxious that their shameful qualities will be revealed. That is, they are ashamed of themselves (because of social indoctrination), but they are pretending not to be ashamed and so they are anxious about their pretenses being exposed."
The devil continued, "in particular, they are ashamed of experiencing certain emotions that they have been trained to repress as shameful or anti-social. They obsess over continuous reassurance that their emotional state is socially approved (not shamefully anti-social). They use powerful drugs (like beer and Xanax and Prozac) to intoxicate themselves and subdue the upwelling of shameful rage and shameful grief and of course shameful anxiety."
The devil paused for a moment to study your facial expressions and then added," so why do so many people fear experiencing those humiliation emotions? What is so humiliating about them? First, the experience of the emotions is not really so much of the issue. The bigger issue may be someone else recognizing those specific emotions, like in someone's facial expressions or tone of voice. Even bigger than the recognition by someone else of those emotions is the expected result of punishment or a loss of social benefits. Is that clear?"
Satan, who is an entirely different celestial being who just happens to also use a three pronged weapon, said, "I am skeptical of the value of the sequence of words that you have just presented. Isn't that a heresy which the King of Kings and Lord of Lords might punish with eternal tortures in hell?"
Shiva spoke up in response. Keep in mind that Shiva is an entirely different celestial being who just happens to also use a trident with three teeth or points or prongs. However, no one was listening to what Shiva said, or perhaps Shiva was not using the holiest language (which everyone agrees is Aramaic), so none of the other totally different celestial beings (who also use tridents) could understand the ridiculous sequence of words that Shiva was making.
At that point Neptune and Poseidon both spoke at the exact same time, almost as if they were talking to each other through a mirror, saying, "what I see in the mirror is not my reflection. I would never say the things that the shameful creature in the mirror (who also just happens to have a trident) has said. Look… a squirrel!"
The King of Kings then said, "these various celestial beings are apparently competing for my attention with their dramatic narratives about how one pro wrestler is the enemy of the other campaigning politician, rather than admitting that the two of them are actually both reading from the same script that was memorized by them in advance as directed by me, the author of their script."
Shiva then started talking in perfect English, saying "my enemy, the one over there who is also an agent of the same network of collaborating coronated aristocrats as I am, uses a trident. As you probably know as a fan of football, using a trident to poke 3 huge holes in the chest of a player on the opposing team is a violation of the rules of football. Not only do they fake left and then go right, which is deceptive and therefore immoral, but they intentionally break the rules in order to prevent the other team from scoring. That is totally corrupt to get a fifteen yard penalty or even a mere yellow card in order to prevent a score. They are cheating cheaters who cheat! They use a trident the wrong way! They are hysterical!"
Neptune continued… oh no I mean Shiva because those are 2 totally different celestial beings who just both happen to use a 3-pronged spear. Right? Right! So, Shiva continued: "Those cheating cheaters on the opposing sporting team are not the real champions. I am the true people's champion because I deserve to be awarded and glorified and congratulated for the best sportsmanship in the entire actors guild of pro wrestlers. Vote for me next election. Cheer for me at wrestlemania (after paying $600 for a ticket to the event)! Yes! Yes! Yes!"
Are all emotions a kind of inner compass of motivations such as repulsion or attraction? No, some emotions are shameful and negative and totally anti-Semitic.
Will people attack you socially (or withdraw from you) if you humiliate them in a way that they find threatening? They certainly might. So perhaps you will be open to humiliating them more gently and slowly so that they laugh with you rather than jam a trident in you.
Rather than focusing anxiously on which patterns of behavior are socially approved or socially discouraged, be aware that approval or disapproval is a distinct issue from actual punishments or benefits. The public may greatly disapprove of the pro wrestler who intentionally breaks a rule while the official is distracted. However, avoiding public disapproval is not the job of the actor playing the role of villain in the election campaign. Their job is to evoke the emotions of the audience. If the audience members pay $400 a ticket to have the emotional stimulation of sitting in the crowd and shouting in outrage at that particular candidate, a portion of that $400 might go to that performer for filling an essential role in the script of the theatrics of that system of governing the human resources.
Note that focusing away from the inner compass of one's own emotions towards the issue of social approval MIGHT be an effective method. Out of fear and anxiety and intimidation about social bullying, there might be times when provoking the animosity of a huge crowd of people is best avoided.
When is it a good time to provoke the animosity of the masses? When they are enjoying the show, then it is fine to antagonize them and insult them. Or, when the army assembles a priesthood of well-armed mercenaries who are prepared to "mow down" a rioting mob of sign-waving political idealists, then it may be a good time to provoke the mob to rush the soldiers of the local police department (who wear badges that are six-pointed stars to show that they are totally different from the sheriff deputies who wear badges that a pentagrams with a five pointed star inside of a circle, like what is on maps to show the location of a capital city).
Enlightenment is being attentive to motivations and which methods effectively promote the fulfillment of those motivations. We can also call that relaxed, mindful state by the label "humility," since it is not obsessed with social approval like the obsessive social anxieties of the mainstream tax payers.
In conclusion, Moses and Mohamed and Count Dracula were all Semites who were anti-Semitic (because they directed the slaughtering of one of the other neighboring tribes of Semites). Or maybe Count Dracula was not technically a Semite himself. At least he did not stab his enemies with a trident, which is against the holy rules of football.