Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: How to be Hated, Why it is Right!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    How to be Hated, Why it is Right!

    I can remember passionate discussions at the age of four, and people telling me I should be a minister or politician at age seven. My response for the next decade and more was "Don't insult me, they are the opposite of what I will be."

    I can say that still, but I can also say I know I might have done a good job and it would have been a lot better for me if I had taken the easy way to what others think is success. Don't get me wrong - I spent a lot of time doing the normal game of making money and chasing skirts. I had so much of it that I knew even more why it was not ME, by age 30.

    I became a very different or eccentric person with no roots or desire to belong - and I still am. That said - I can introduce the activist or politically incorrect element of society with experience, I did the time and found my rhyme.

    It used to be called abnormal or neurotic not to care about fitting the norm, especially if you confronted the homogenizing nature of political correctness and religious indoctrination. Today we have an almost proud group of people saying "What me Worry" as they gather in social media forums to gain support for and pride in being stupid or uninformed. You probably hear "That is my opinion." or "Everyone is entitled to their opinion." as much as any other phrase today. Some call this ego centered era by phrases like Postmodern me-too think. But that is just psychobabble and it does not go into why the people saying these things genuinely have the right to cop out, as we used to hear directed at the beatniks, flower children or other demographics which seem to have revolution or a desire to make change their goal.

    In the US today (South Carolina for one) you have repression in education reaching backwards through the Rocks - of ages and in boxes. Yes, these boxes of rocks want their children to be exposed to Creationism as taught in the Bible. I have no difficulty teaching the possibilities of Intelligent Design and a debate between knowledgeable people, but I do wish the laws of this land and culture were free of religious indoctrination which produces mind controlled leaders like Shrub or Steven Harper in Canada. People would do better to listen to their newborn babe than a born again pulpit pounder.

    No, I do not equate the people who do NOT care and say "What me worry" with activists, but I do see alienating damage causes are still with us. Have we stopped the Cycle of Violence just because more women are willing to go to court and confront their abusers? The abuse of one person affects everyone who loves that person and to some extent all of society, war is an awesome abuse. Do we really care about the environment if we spend so much time marching and mouthing slogans about Global Warming and mind control by government and our systems of surveillance? So what am I trying to say?

    Is our present society becoming more or less amenable to actual activism or is it false and hypocritical ego activity to make others hear what we are passionate about because we now longer want to delve into the actual causes of the hatred and disenfranchisement caused by political hegemonists and bureaucrats or priesthoods who also are tired and see no way out? There are many correct ways to care or help and many different people who need more than one approach before they gain wisdom.

    Here is a website discussing some of these issues. I agree and I have been active in addressing issues passionately, with the premise that such activism polarizes and alienates as much as the paradigm political correctness does. But the psychological modalities which engage and build empowerment such as Talk Therapy are actually false and hypocritical just as James Dean fought about in the movie Rebel Without a Cause. I say the empathy we must share does not avoid facts and endeavours to make a plan for futures that empower more than just the individual who is supposedly being helped by self-esteem psychologists such as these people are. All the James Dean character wanted was a moral compass and his parents tried to get him to lie or not go to the police for his part in the death of a friend.

    "Social psychologists are saying activists alienate people through their passion, and this has a negative impact on the rapidity of social change. But does that mean everyone needs to give up and give in? Not really, but perhaps it’s time we reassess how to present these passions to others so that people feel engaged rather than excluded. Regardless, activism is still essential to a democracy, so whether feminists, environmentalists, etc. are detested or loved, the fight must go on.

    European Journal of Social Psychology via British Psychological Society’s Research Digest blog:

    When you picture a feminist or an environmental campaigner, what kind of a person do you think of? If you’re like the US and Canadian participants in this new paper, then you’ll have in mind an eccentric, militant, unhygienic person. Nadia Bashir and her colleagues say this commonly held stereotype of an activist is partly responsible for the sluggishness of social change. Large sections of the public agree with activists’ messages, but are put off by not wanting to affiliate themselves with the kind of person they think makes an activist.

    Bashir’s team conducted five proper studies in all, and three pilot investigations. The pilot work involved Canadian students, and US participants recruited online, and was used to establish the characteristics—militant, eccentric etc—that people tend to associate with a typical feminist or environmentalist. ..

    Past research on people’s advocacy for social change has tended to focus on their beliefs about the issue at hand, or on the personality characteristics of people who tend to favour social change or oppose it. This study is novel in that it focuses instead on people’s perceptions of those who campaign for social change. The findings have obvious real-life implications for activists. “… Seemingly zealous dedication to a social cause may backfire and elicit unfavourable reactions from others,” the researchers said. “… [T]he very individuals who are most actively engaged in promoting social change may inadvertently alienate members of the public and reduce pro-change motivation.”"
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-30-2016 at 10:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    "My dear children: I rejoice to see you before me today, happy youth of a sunny and fortunate land. Bear in mind that the wonderful things that you learn in your schools are the work of many generations, produced by enthusiastic effort and infinite labour in every country of the world. All this is put into your hands as your inheritance in order that you may receive it, honour it, and add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on to your children. Thus do we mortals achieve immortality in the permanent things which we create in common. If you always keep that in mind you will find meaning in life and work and acquire the right attitude towards other nations and ages." (Albert Einstein talking to a group of school children. 1934)

    Celebration of relevant new approaches that offer explorations of new perspectives without a sense of black and white answers are seldom found and the character seems to be judged according to how well we imitate or fit the prevailing 'norm'. How can we maintain a desire to explore that is born into the human core courage to know something more than the personal? When will knowing how to cope with sexual, sensual psychological nurturing and other life skills including how to make each other healthier, will these ever truly become valued? The old emphasis on individuals enjoying each others different character becomes lost in a maze of peer and social structure. Is it possible that people will learn to read and communicate at different times in their life? Recent research shows that men learn math best, later than women. Language and communication engages the young brain more fully and should be focused upon at the ages before seven. The Bardic schools knew these things and had young people work as jesters and minstrels early in the process. Imagine if it were possible to teach things like Unsheathing the Soul. There are many similar things we could teach if there was no agenda seeking conformation to what is (paradigm religion) or confirmation of ego and fear.

    ".. we are under an invincible blindness as to the true and real nature of things. .. Hence a great number of dark and ambiguous terms presumed to stand for abstract notions, have been introduced into metaphysics and morality, and from these have grown infinite distractions and disputes amongst the learned. (George Berkeley, 1710)"

    Is there a greater humanist than Albert Einstein? One of his many activist positions was a call to end standing armies. You might be under the impression he is universally liked - and today he is much more than most, but he was often ridiculed and attacked for his thought as well as his supposed race.

    "Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best books of contemporary authors looks to me like an extremely near-sighted person who scorns eyeglasses. He is completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions of his times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the best case rather paltry and monotonous. There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good taste within a century. What has been preserved of their work belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We owe it to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the people in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate themselves from the superstitions and ignorance that had darkened life for more than half a millennium. Nothing is more needed to overcome the modernist's snobbishness." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

    You would have to know alchemy to know why Thomas Paine was a foundational scientist in the field of what religion called superstition and we call science today. Here he is talking about some of the most para - normal and unbelievable fictions you will ever encounter large groups of people swearing is real. (From The Age of Reason Part 2)

    "When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

    When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this — for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so — it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

    It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-15-2016 at 03:03 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    When the media recently saw declassified material proving more of the Bush family involvement in Auschwitz and other eugenics programs before the war (along with Old Joe Kennedy and others) was it right for me to make noise? Is it possible as this article describes to just put it down to normal business greed? Do they cover how IBM was proven to keep the records of Jews for Germany or many other ways Hitler was just a pawn - no they do not.

    But you should learn about it rather than taking tourist trips through Auschwitz and laying blame on Hitler alone.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I have been attacking the Church for sixty years and I am happy to see the pedophile issue getting some headway although the bankrupt moral and legal issues continue. It has often lead to people saying I hate them or the religion, and there are elements of truth in that - but it is not true. I do despise undisciplined and unquestioned adherence to immoral cults.

    So when priests allow kids who are in awe of god to play with their penis are they involved in playing god? Is this ego in any way connected with a moral teaching and if not why is history so full of the cover-ups and pederasts? Why were women not allowed to be taught or educated? Socrates asked this same question and it was part of why he was forced to take his life - there are other factors.

    Mary Rose D'Angelo teaches at Notre Dame and is a member of Common Sense (They should know about Thomas Paine therefore.). Her thoughts on Pedophiles and concubinage or celibacy are almost humorous if you enjoy sick perverse institutions getting their come-uppance as I do. Here is something from her on Angelfire.
    Mary Rose D'Angelo

    Each day’s New York Times brings a new installment in the never-ending saga of priests, pedophilia and diocesan cover-ups that is revealing to US Catholics that their church’s corporate ethic falls significantly below Enron’s. The issue in which my grade-school diocese (Bridgeport CT) made its appearance as sleaze pool du jour offered a particularly ironic juxtaposition with a story about the Vatican demand that the archbishop of Chiapas stop ordaining deacons for five years.

    There was nothing new or startling in the story of about the Bridgeport diocese -- it was one more sordid tale of clumsy prevarication and legal stonewalling by ecclesiastical bureaucrats, their insurers and their lawyers. As elsewhere, their first concern was not to address criminal behavior but to conceal it -- in a series of secret settlements. The raptor settlements have proven to be as dumb as they were dishonest -- in the words of Yale Law school professor Peter Shuck : “In terms of avoiding the scandal and eliminating the liability, this is exactly the wrong to have done. It’s not simply a case of an organization whose agents have erred ...It’s an organization that knew about the improprieties and concealed them.” The article also analysed a larger pattern of diocesan lawyers fighting current accusations of pedophilia by using the statute of limitations (read -- “He did it, but you caught us too late”) and the separation of church and state (“He did it, but its none of your business”) and most recently, trying to bury the evidence under the Vatican’s diplomatic immunity ("Nyah, nyah, nyah"). The “legs” on this story were the suggestion of cross-diocesan collaboration on this pattern -- and the revelation of the past practices of Edward Egan, once bishop of Bridgeport, and now Archbishop of NY and another winner of the Arthur Andersen award for creative myopia.

    The second article reported a letter from Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez (Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments) to the current bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas, Felipe Arizmendi. The deacons in question are married men, largely indigenous, who administer baptism and marriages, and conduct “non-eucharistic” liturgies in the remote and poor accessible villages that see a priest perhaps once a year. There are about four hundred of them, in a diocese that has ordained fewer than ten priests in the last forty years. They were recruited by the former bishop, Samuel Ruiz, who had sought to indigenize his diocese in an attempt to reclaim it from the missionizing of Protestant sects. Unlike the majority of the few priests, the deacons speak the Mayan dialects of the people they serve and among whom they live; they were trained in liberation theology. The deacons, with about 8,000 indigenous catechists are the bulwark of the “Native Church” he left behind on retirement. So effective was their work and his that Ruiz was a credible mediator between the Zapatistas and the government in the Chiapas uprising and his work to end violence in his diocese has made him a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    What is most striking about this narrative is that the Vatican explicitly identifies the moratorium on ordaining deacons as an attempt to undo Ruiz’ work. The letter warns that Samuel Ruiz, who retired two years ago after leading the diocese for nearly 50 years, offered a dangerous precedent : “If you continue augmenting the number of permanent deacons, the perceived danger is that the initiatives sustained by Monsignor Samuel Ruiz will be affirmed, impeding the normalization of ecclesiastic life in the diocese and sending an implicit message of support to the other ecclesiastical groups for an ‘alternative’ church model that could seem convenient for ‘cultural situations and particular ethnic groups.’” Shorn of ecclesiospeak, that seems to say : “Papa don’t ’low no mariachi playin’ here" -- no pre-Columbian symbolism, no liberation theology, no Zapatista sympathizers. In most villages that will also mean no ministry in their own language, and indeed, no regular communal worship at all. Arizmendi tried to explain the “cease and desist” order as pro-priesthood rather than anti-diaconate, arguing that the church “Jesus built” was not based on deacons , who are supposed to be collaborators.” This justification is fraught with historical problems. The career of Jesus was completely innocent of the structures of deacon, priest and bishop; these functions were still loosely defined throughout the second century. If anything, Ruiz’ “native church” seems to be not only one significant realization of the vision of Vatican II, but also a pretty good reflection of the (admittedly wildly variable ) churches of the first three centuries. But beyond the question of accuracy, does the curia really think that cutting down on deacons will increase the number of priests? What can this kind of “normalization” mean in a diocese that has ordained fewer than ten priests in 40 years? Hara-kiri?

    What is the dangerous “abnormality” of the Chiapas diaconate? It seems to be twofold : that the roles of deacons are not adequately distinguished from those of priests (given that most of the diocese rarely sees one) and the roles of the deacons’ wives and widows are not adequately distinguished from those of the deacons. In other words, when the Vatican destroys the pastoral work of Samuel Ruiz and promotes bishops who bury sex abuse cases (like Edward Egan) they are concerned with the same goal : the desire to maintain the closed circle of a male and celibate clergy.

    Numerous apologists have argued that celibacy isn’t the source of this problem--and it’s undoubtedly true that celibacy doesn’t create pedophiles -- the plane loads of married westerners who invade Thailand for sex tourism make that clear, as do the many men and women with or without religious commitments, who live celibate lives and show no need to prey upon either children or adolescents. But pedophilia is not the real problem in this scandal -- the real problem lies in the longterm policy of addressing ecclesiastical wrongdoing with lies, secrecy and silences. A married clergy and the ordination of women would incorporate permanent outsiders into the system. It is worth noting that in so far as there were whistleblowers in the Enron scandal, they were women.

    Mary Rose D'Angelo teaches Theology at Notre Dame and is a member of Common Sense.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Upton Sinclair was a social activist whose journalism and authorship caused the formation of Health Regulations which cleaned up the meat processing and restaurant industry. He also was an outspoken critic of many other things he was castigated and called names for. Here is another of his causes that today would be considered 'conspiracy theory' by some.

    "THE GOOSE-STEP: A Study of American Education
    By Upton Sinclair [books] - from search results, select copy marked for PREVIEW

    "Men die, but the plutocracy is immortal; and it is necessary that fresh generations should be trained to its service. Therefore the interlocking directorate has need of an educational system, and has provided it complete. There is a great university, of which Mr. Morgan was all his active life a trustee, also his son-in-law and one or two of his attorneys and several of his bankers. The president of this university is a director in one of Mr. Morgan's life insurance companies, and is interlocked with Mr. Morgan's bishop, and Mr. Morgan's physician, and Mr. Morgan's newspaper. If the president of the university writes a book, telling the American people to be good and humble servants of the plutocracy, this book may be published by a concern in which Mr. Morgan (or a partner) is a director, and the paper may be bought from the International Paper Company, in which Mr. Morgan has a director through the Guaranty Trust Company. If you visit the town where the paper is made, you will find that the president of the school board is a director in the local bank, which deposits its funds with the Guaranty Trust Company at a low rate of interest, to be reloaned by Mr. Morgan at a high rate of interest. The superintendent of the schools will be a graduate of Mr. Morgan's university, and will have been recommended to the school board president by Mr. Morgan's dean of education. Both the board and president and the school superintendent will insure their lives in the company of which Mr. Morgan's university president is a director; and the school books selected in that town will be published by a concern in which Mr. Morgan (or a partner) is a director, and they will be written by Mr. Morgan's university's dean of education, and they will be praised in the journal of education founded by Mr. Morgan's university president; also they will be praised by Mr. Morgan's newspaper and magazine editors. The superintendent of schools will give promotion to teachers who take the university's summer courses, and will cause the high school pupils to aspire to that university. Once a year he will attend the convention of the National Educational Association, and will elect as president a man who is a graduate of Mr. Morgan's university, and also a member of Mr. Morgan's church, and a reader of Mr. Morgan's newspaper, and of Mr. Morgan's university president's journal, and a patron of Mr. Morgan's university presidents' life insurance company, and a depositor in a bank which pays him no interest, but sends his money to the Guaranty Trust Company for Mr. Morgan to loan at a high rate of interest. And when the Republican party, of which Mr. Morgan (or a partner) is a director, nominates the president of Mr. Morgan's university for vice-president of the United states, Mr. Morgan's bishop will bless the proceedings, and Mr. Morgan's newspapers will report them, and Mr. Morgan's school superintendent will invite the children to a picnic to hear Mr. Morgan's candidates' campaign speeches on a phonograph, and to drink lemonade paid for by Mr. Morgan's campaign committee, out of the funds of the life insurance company of which Mr. Morgan's university president is director.

    Such is the system of the interlocking directorates; such is, in skeleton form, that department of the plutocratic empire which calls itself American education. And if you don't believe me, just come along and let me show you – not merely the skeleton of this beast, but the nerves and the brains, the blood and the meat, the hair and the hide, the teeth and the claws of it."

    Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan was a front for the Rothschilds but eventually became more important than they were in the USA. He in fact bought out the US debt or paid it off and we may never know the full extent of the deal which was made that day. You really should read more Upton Sinclair if you think there are new authors today who make sense as if there was no-one ever telling the same story long ago. Socrates also, was not the first - it was standard fare for the bards of long before him to question all authority - to their face!

    Here is a little to start down another rabbit hole towards wisdom for any who truly care.

    "In 1905, Upton Sinclair (1878–1968), a young socialist journalist and novelist, received a $500 advance to write a novel about abuses in the meat processing industry and spent seven weeks investigating the subject in Chicago. His novel, The Jungle (1906), a shocking exposé of the unsanitary and dangerous conditions in the plants, was an immediate best-seller and incited President Roosevelt to enact a series of food safety laws."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-07-2016 at 04:41 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Some sociologists in the future will probably finally succeed in bringing the truth into the American zeitgeist or milieu. I know many have tried and there are people who think it will happen soon. I cannot see how it will happen without government use of implanted (wireless) thoughts over a long period of time.

    We hear a great deal about American freedoms and how the founding fathers were activists for equality and fair taxation. It is largely a lie even if you allow for the mores and ethics of a near to feudal era. I support the Enlightenment Experiment even though it was based on dispossession and genocide including biologics used by the likes of Columbus and de Soto. Nothing seems to be what it is - in history.

    Most of the elite landowners in the Colonies were slave owners who feared the changing laws against slavery in France and England would lead to them having to give up assets they loved abusing.

    Most people think Lincoln Emancipated the slaves and yet that too is a lie, he did try to create a force inside the nation he was at war with by freeing their slaves and we can also allow for the prevailing ethic being one which he knew a small change was all that could be achieved. However, you should know he upbraided one of his Generals the year before the Emancipation Proclamation for having freed the slaves in Missouri.

    After the Second World War which saw many brave black airmen finally get a chance to show their metal - though not on an equal footing as the movies thankfully show, we saw the House Un-American Activities behaving in an equally horrid and immoral manner. I have chosen one example most people have never heard about, to illustrate the extent of the continuing cover-ups and lies. This man's son (for good reason) believes his father was drugged in the MKUltra program and thus poisoned to the point of ending a once magnificent and productive life.

    "The Many Faces of Paul Robeson


    How many people do you know who are athletes? How about an athlete who has won 15 varsity letters in four different sports? An athlete who has also played professional football while at the same time being valedictorian at his university? Does this athlete also hold a law degree? How many scholar-athlete performers can you name? Concert artists who have sold out shows around the world and who can perform in more than 25 different languages? Does this scholar-athlete-performer also act in Shakespearean and Broadway plays and in movies? Can you identify a scholar-athlete-performer who is also an activist for civil and human rights? Someone who petitioned the president of the United States of America for an anti-lynching law, promoted African self-rule, helped victims of the Spanish civil war, fought for India's independence, and championed equality for all human beings? Did this scholar-athlete-performer-activist also have to endure terrorism, banned performances, racism, and discrimination throughout his career?

    Paul Robeson was all these things and more. He was the son of a former slave, born and raised during a period of segregation, lynching, and open racism. He earned a four-year scholarship to Rutgers University, making him the third African American to attend the school. There he was a member of the prestigious Cap and Skull Honor Society, played four varsity sports (baseball, football, basketball, and track), won speech and debate tournaments, and managed to graduate valedictorian of his class. After graduation, Robeson applied his athletic abilities to a short career in professional football. Aside from his prowess on the gridiron, he earned a law degree and changed the direction of his career. His legal career was cut short, however, after a secretary refused to take dictation from him solely because of the color of his skin. He left law and turned to his childhood love of acting and singing. Robeson starred in Shakespeare's Othello, the musical Showboat, and films such as Jericho and Proud Valley. He was one of the top performers of his time, earning more money than many white entertainers. His concert career spanned the globe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, London, Moscow, New York, and Nairobi.

    Robeson's travels opened his awareness to the universality of human suffering and oppression. He began to use his rich bass voice to speak out for independence, freedom, and equality for all people. He believed that artists should use their talents and exposure to aid causes around the world. "The artist must elect to fight for freedom or slavery. I have made my choice," he said. This philosophy drove Robeson to Spain during the civil war, to Africa to promote self-determination, to India to aid in the independence movement, to London to fight for labor rights, and to the Soviet Union to promote anti-fascism. It was in the Soviet Union where he felt that people were treated equally. He could eat in any restaurant and walk through the front doors of hotels, but in his own country he faced discrimination and racism everywhere he went.

    While Robeson's activist role increased abroad, he met dissent and intimidation in the United States. Rioters at his concert at Peekskill, New York in 1949 smashed the stage, torched chairs, attacked concertgoers, and threatened Robeson's life. His outspokenness about human rights and his pro-Soviet stance made Robeson a prime target of militant anticommunists. In 1950 the State Department revoked his passport, thereby denying his right to travel and, ultimately, to earn income abroad. Robeson fought this injustice for years vigorously but with no success. He repeatedly applied for reinstatement of his passport but was turned down. He filed a lawsuit against the State Department and faced discouraging delays, adverse decisions, and rejected appeals. Yet Robeson stuck to his principles and refused to swear an affidavit that he was not a Communist. "Whether I am or not a Communist is irrelevant," he told the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956.
    "The question is whether American citizens, regardless of their political beliefs or sympathies, may enjoy their constitutional rights."
    In 1958 the U.S. Supreme Court finally agreed, ruling that the State Department could not deny citizens the right to travel because of their political beliefs or affiliations.

    To celebrate, Robeson gave his first New York concert in a decade at a sold-out Carnegie Hall. But the years of struggle had taken a personal and professional toll. Negative public response and the ban on his travel led to the demise of his career. Before the 1950s, Robeson was one of the world's most famous entertainers and beloved American heroes--once being named "Man of the Year" by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Despite all his accomplishments, Paul Robeson remains virtually ignored in American textbooks and history. The activities here are designed to introduce students to Paul Robeson and his many accomplishments and to address the issue of individual freedom versus national security."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    One of the most 'hated' things is the ability to make sense. You will think that means getting your point across or something others think is sensible if you are a normal person.

    It is anything but that, because people generally have their mind made up and they closed shop a long time before they left school.

    It will appear to other people that you do not make sense when you do not think as they do. But that is a cop-out for me, and for you if you do not at least try to analyze where they are coming from and question them about anything you are unsure about in their expressions. Of course some people are simply and easily analyzed and they spew nonsense better than water out of a garden nozzle set for hitting no target in particular. Usually their needs have some relationship to the Cycle of Violence or extreme forms of paradigm thought processes. You can find them in all positions including science as Kaku addresses such people as "know-nothing" scientists.

    It is entirely likely that Dan Kurland and myself would disagree on many things but I have no disagreement with anything he says here. I would add that there are other ways to gain wisdom and sometimes wisdom confronts thought.

    "What is Critical Thinking?

    No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed.
    Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the following:


    We are thinking critically when we•rely on reason rather than emotion,
    •require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and
    •are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.


    We are thinking critically when we•weigh the influences of motives and bias, and
    •recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.


    We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception.


    We are thinking critically when we
    •evaluate all reasonable inferences
    •consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives,
    •remain open to alternative interpretations
    •accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data
    •accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and
    •do not reject unpopular views out of hand.


    We are thinking critically when we•are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive
    •resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and
    •avoid snap judgments.


    We are thinking critically when we
    •recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives
    •recognize the extent and weight of evidence

    In sum,

    •Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.
    •Critical thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding.
    •Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They are open to new ideas and perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.

    Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may vary.
    By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world.
    •They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible understanding.
    •They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
    •They fail to see linkages and complexities.
    •They fail to recognize related elements.

    Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world
    •They take their facts as the only relevant ones.
    •They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
    •They take their goal as the only valid one."

    A ditty serves to make things clearer
    About my thought which I hold nearer

    Hearken here to hear the call
    Of those who know not what the thrall
    Of witches round you, cauldron make
    Or e'en their mind why it should quake
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-25-2016 at 09:56 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Have you heard someone say they do not know everything and use that to impugn someone who has corrected them many times? Is it now a badge of pride to not care enough to verify you are in fact a racist and misogynist or prejudiced or anything at all, just by excusing yourself by attacking a person who very obviously knows the subject you are mouthing off about? Do people accept this code of ignorance and attack every person who seeks enlightenment (Illuminatus or adept)? They had enough sense to see school was attempting to brainwash them into the Critical Thinking format above, and missing some things they knew was important - but did not have the balls to raise their questions. If they did raise a question the teacher proved them wrong or said their minister was selling a Belief - and they could not defend that either. That is not helping them lose a BELIEF it reinforces and makes the person more convinced. We need to address these problems in classes and not in the lunchroom where religious sales pitches flourish and new converts for suicide bombings are taking place every day.

    Yes, and it is not their fault either. After all they have absolute proof from all their fellow idiots that they do not claim to know anything other than what their priestly conspiracy authors or other scam artists have assured them is true. Out schools do not teach thinking and questioning and even Comparative religion is verboten until you specialize in a university program.

    Just like Socrates who probably is the source of the phrase "A fool thinks he is a wise man, a wise man knows he is a fool." I too will drink hemlock before changing to this new ethic of total abstinence from learning. I too am proud to be a fool, but I know how foolish I am (YHVH). The more you know, the more you know you do not know.

    The "DUH" Generation might need wireless implants.

    If Beatrix Potter got the picture of absurd polite behavior we foist on each other why do people not enjoy the truth and tell each other helpful things instead of lies?

    Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code - Page 94 - Google Books Result

    M. Daphne Kutzer - 2013 - ‎Literary Criticism
    ... or more specifically for freedom from the absurd conventions of domesticity and ... And of course the friends must politely go along with the lie, despite the "very ... party, speak to her formality, her stiffness, her falseness to her own cat nature.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-07-2016 at 01:50 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    You will not easily believe how much flack I got for articles like Women are More Powerful about 14 years ago. It was up on until about four years ago. I pointed out the biological facts about men fainting at the sight of blood and women having more body fat in peak condition which would have made them better fighters, especially if they weighed less than a man as far as the horse was concerned. I confronted a few stereotypes and spoke about the archaeologically proven facts about the Amazons, which was not fully accepted by readers even though it is absolute fact - kurgans across 1500 miles show it.

    "It is positive that she brings forth “priestesses” as a central category in these societies. It is common that authorities automatically assume a situation with male rulers even in societies that, if one is to judge from the material, seem to have been dominated by women…

    A Matrifocal and Matrilinar Society?

    [Gimbutas employs the concept] “matrifocality” as a term to describe the female dominance of these societies….this terminology is unclear…the attempt to present “old Europe” as an entirely gender balanced society…is not recognizable in Gimbutas actual description of a woman dominated religion and a woman dominated society.

    This has been noticed by Brian Hayden…her terminology is not consistent with her description…[says Hayden:] “it could well be assumed that she endorses the traditional view of the matriarchal phase of cultural evolution”…a view that Hayden obviously dislikes.

    Hayden believes that Gimbutas to a great degree builds her opinion about the Neolithic “matriarchy” in the view that there was a general ignorance about the male´s reproductive role during the period…In reality this question plays no central role in Gimbutas line of arguments…she expresses herself very carefully: “There is no evidence that in Neolithic times mankind understood biological conception”. This careful statement is by Hayden dricen to a violent polemic…”There are copulation scenes in Paleolithic art!”…To picture a copulation does not really imply any understanding of what it leads to…

    What one knew or did not know during the European Neolithic is something we do not know. But there have actually existed people who far into the 20th century had no idea about the facts of reproduction…the number of ethnographic reports about ignorance regarding the male´s reproductive role are so many that the only logical explanation for those who deny the possibility of such ignorance must be a global conspiracy among the “primitive” people with the purpose of fooling ethnologists.

    But the hypothesis about such an ignorance is in no way necessary for Gimbutas´ theory. Hayden believes it is, who after believing himself to have successfully argued against it, writes:…”If it takes both the masculine and the feminine principles to create life in this world, it is also logical to expect the same in the realm of the Sacred”….Really? Despite the fact that both Moslems and Christians for millennia have known that “it takes both masculine and feminine principles”…this has in no way prevented them from singularly worshipping a male god…

    The idea of a matrifocal culture is by Hayden dismissed with the following argument: “matriarchal societies are unknown within the ethnographic present…it appears that men hold the critical reins of power in traditional societies…”

    That female dominated societies are unknown in the ethnographic material is in itself a dubitable claim…more significant is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ethnographic material describes cultures that for centuries have experienced (mildly speaking) tremendous upheavals as a result of the confrontation with Western colonization and in many cases also directly or indirectly for millennia been influenced by non-Western strong states…or patriarchal, shepherding nomad tribes. We live in an entirely different world than the one that existed during the European Neolithic and have been doing so for thousands of years…It is probable that the contemporary tribal societies…are mere shadows of what they once were…

    That men have owned the weapons in all societies is perhaps possible…but it is in fact very seldom a connection between the wielding of weapons and the ruling of societies. Not even military dictatorships are ruled by the soldiers – but by the generals. In Australia, it is usually thought that the elder men have the greatest power – despite the fact that the younger are stronger and use the weapons. Among the Iroquis the men owned and wielded the weapons – but the women owned the houses and the land, controlled the long houses and decided who were to be (the in reality nearly powerless) “chiefs”, and the women had all the benefits in the case of marital conflicts. That the men then defended this female dominated society against external enemies seem to have had no effect whatsoever on the power of the women…

    Regarding matrilineality…this is a system that is not directly mirroring the material world. It is reasonable to assume that such a strong position for the women of the region (which is obvious in Southeastern Europe and probable in Western Europe) is incompatible with a patrilineal clan system…[since Rodenborg wrote this discourse, a lot of genetic studies on Neolithic and Megalithic graves have shown that the norm of the Neolithic was that women in a settlement were related to each other while men came from outside – this is good evidence for matrilineality – men, not women, had to live with the in-laws.]

    Matrifocality discussed among other things with basis in the religion. That there is always a connection between the divine world and the social and political structures of society is generally well established from the ethnographic evidence…That the Neolithic should be entirely different is not very probably. There are still many scientists who accept the fact that the figurines mirror a female cult, yet who do not wish to make any conclusions about the social organization based on this fact.

    These attempts to avoid the perspectives that are opened by the archaeological material sometimes lead to rather absurd reasoning…

    In Southeastern Europe, the settlements and the houses were dominated entirely and without exception by an overwhelmingly female symbolism in the shape of vases, figurines, etc, connected to the houses and often specifically to the stove (Hodder, 1990)…The houses are the centers of the entire culture…had a complex architecture and were often decorated…the graveyards connected to the towns give no possible opening to any display of male prestige – often they are dominated by children´s graves and the grave goods are meager…Graveyards do not exist during the early period…much later…a few graveyards very far outside the settlements show up with a strong male dominance, with prestigious grave goods material and with a strong polarization into poorer and richer graves…Hodder views this as an example of how an alternative to the domus-ideology appears – an alternative filled with male symbolism – starts to develop. This still happens at the same time as the houses dominate the picture, that is, “domus” in Hodder´s terminology is the focus of society. [Says Hodder, with the extreme caution typical of archaeologists dealing with female-dominated evidence:] …”I certainly cannot say whether these societies were matrilineal, matrilocal or matriarchal…to put it over-simply, women may or may not have had any real power in the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe, but certain aspects of being a woman were conceptually central…”

    If certain productive activities always are connected to a female symbolism in the archaeological material, it is still possible that it was in reality produced by men. This extreme carefulness would, if it was consistently applied to for example the Swedish Iron Age, totally revolutionize all archaeological studies about the relationship between the sexes [i.e. “even if the symbolism is masculine, kings and warriors could have been women, etc”]. To be exact, this line of argumentation would render impossible any conclusions about real social relations and the archaeologists would hereafter only study symbolic systems…"

    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-10-2016 at 05:52 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Yes, you know about the woman scorned and you might even know a witch or two, but if you say something like this a Wiccan or pagan 'expert' will climb up and down you for all to see. Usually they know the audience is already in their pocket, when I used to visit witchy sites.

    I forget who said "if you want to know what a Druid knows - ask a wild bee?" Maybe it was Bernard Mandeville in his BEE book. The BEES are important to be certain (Mormons and the House of Mallia and the first minted coins of the Phocaeans, and Napoleon's investiture robes as Holy ROMAN Emperor).I even throw a BEE in with "To Be or not to BEE." - occasionally. St. Columba said "Jesus is the new Druid!" He would know because he was the Arch-Druid selling out to Rome. But he did save 1200 Bairds.

    Yada - yada, blah and blah - eh? My point is - people say things and do not necessarily even care to verify what they say is true. Once a person is dead it gets easier to do it, and Druids are extinct or close to it.

    Now it might surprise you that people who call themselves Druids and have been members of OBOD for fifteen years would challenge someone like myself with my name, even if they did not know I authored a book on Druids (In it's second edition I just saw - I get nothing from the publisher.). I have written another book titled Druid's Eggs and one on Ogham and so on. But that is how cults go, they accept dogma and build on what people will accept when you say it with conviction. I asked him how his organization could be Druidic and survive the Roman bounties and Christian purges, and bribes. Here is another example; I just mentioned in the last post that Dryads were made or forced to become Sibylls or seers for the Romans. So I went to check on the Dryads and number one of the google hit parade was this person saying Dryads are not female Druids - they are Greek tree spirits. "About Druids and Druidry - Pàganachd

    Jump to A lady druid is a “dryad”, right? - A lady druid is a dryad, right? No. A “dryad” is a Greek tree-spirit. It has nothing to do with druids.

    Here is someone with a different tune, calling the Druids a holy female sisterhood. Frankly I do not know which is worse.

    "Female Druids also known as dryads (Greek) or oak nymphs were oracular priestesses, each with her own personal tree spirit. Dryads were also known as priestesses of Artemis, whose souls dwelt in trees. Dryads could also assume the shapes of serpents and were called Hamadryads or Amadryades.

    Dryadism and druidism (Scottish) were two phases of the same religion, restricted to a female priesthood in the earlier, matriarchal stage, but later open to male priests as well. Irish churches were originally known by the old druidic name of dairtech, or “oak-house,” a sacred grove. The Christian church attacked the Druids for their paganism, and also for their tendency to include sacred women in their ranks."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts