Posts Tagged ‘poder’

Porque não podemos doar `a Humanidade, o poder tecnológico sobre a matéria e energia

sexta-feira, novembro 4th, 2016

xxxx

” Se você conhece e tem poder para manipular galaxias, e, como dissestes, gostas da especie humana, porque não nos cede o conhecimento e poder apenas suficiente para resolver-mos nossos problemas atuais?” – perguntei eu ao sacerdote que se dizia incorporado por Lúcifer, e que este seria um “espirito da Luz”.

” Porque a humanidade não esta’ preparada. Se eu lhes desse esse poder,  a primeira coisa que fariam seria parar o sol ao meio-dia, para ter claridade por 24 horas, para ter mais tempo para ganhar mais dinheiro…”

Esse dialogo de fato aconteceu quando fui convidado por uma seita de misticos estranhos a um ritual no alto da montanha de Serra Pelada – a maior mina de ouro a céu aberto do mundo, na selva amazônica, para onde afluíram 80.000 homens, em 1986. O restante da conversa parece coisa de outro mundo, quando o incorporado explicou o significado da existência e dos eventos ocorrendo em Serra Pelada e no planeta em geral, mas não vamos nos alongar nisso agora porque este não é o objetivo deste artigo.

Quero aqui lembrar que eu descobri uma formula natural poderosíssima que poderia mudar totalmente a nossa existência – se a formula passar no teste e realmente funcionar. Tenho divulgado-a neste website sob o nome de formula da Matrix/DNA, mas ninguém ainda conseguiu captar o possível poder da formula porque ninguém aprendeu a pensar a formula, como eu apos 35 anos observando-a e estudando-a.

Mas todas as possibilidades de fantástico poder que tenho visualizado na formula, nenhuma é no sentido de destruir, matar, que poderia ter interesse militar. Todas as inúmeras fantásticas possibilidades são apenas em beneficio, para o bem do homem.

Nada produzi de pratico porque qualquer destas possibilidades demandam a aplicação de recursos materiais que eu, sozinho nesta empresa, não possuo. Mas vamos dizer que de repente eu ganhasse uma boa soma na loteria e trabalhasse essa formula obtendo o real poder de transformar a vida da humanidade, para o bem. Infelizmente eu teria que manter tudo isso em segredo, não doar nada para ninguém. Porque? Lúcifer acima me fez perceber o erro que eu faria, pois o que seria para o bem, poderia tornar-se terrivelmente mal para a humanidade.

E’ preciso antes entender e aceitar a triste realidade que o corpo carnal e mesmo o cérebro humano veio da evolução de animais irracionais e nas selvas. Portanto os instintos animais ainda dominam nossa carga genética, e não tem como exorcizar esse animalismo do ser humano repentinamente. Por exemplo, o animalesco comportamento de matar animais e come-los, nunca vai desaparecer enquanto ainda tiver-mos os dentes caninos. Apenas a Natureza, a evolução, e o tempo, poderão fazer essa transformação, mesmo que Jesus Cristo venha a Terra cem vezes repetir seu discurso educativo visando a transcendentalidade da auto-consciência humana.

Um destes principais instintos – e o que determina que a humanidade ainda não pode ter o poder sobre a matéria e energia – fica bastante visível e evidente quando pensamos sobre todos os tipos de sistemas sociais criados na historia da humanidade ate hoje. Todos eles (seja o tribalismo, o feudalismo, o comunismo, o capitalismo, etc.) apresentam o mesmo padrão estrutural. As regras ou leis sociais geram sistemas em que o poder maior pertença a uma aristocracia ou alta classe, um resto de poder menor e’ concedido a classe media, e em terceiro a classe baixa sem poder algum. Porque em continentes e eras tao distantes entre si seus povos apresentam sempre o mesmo padrão? Qual então foi a base da origem deste padrão?

Meus sete anos na selva amazônica me forneceu a resposta límpida e clara. Os animais também apresentam a mesma divisão de poderes, as mesmas regras sociais. Assim temos os grandes predadores, os médios predadores, e as presas.

Ora, sabemos que nestes sistemas, como ainda acontece nos sistemas atuais, 85% ou mais da população vive torturada sob o equilíbrio da miséria. Se dessemos o poder a humanidade hoje de controlar a matéria e energia do sistema solar, e portanto a facilidade de sanar todos os problemas destes 85% dos povos, nada seria solucionado que não fosse conveniente ao vampirismo da classe dominante, e um poder ainda mair se concentraria nas mãos da classe dominante. Enquanto temos caninos vamos matar animais e comer carne, enquanto este instinto de predador existir, os predadores não saberão existir sem as presas. E apenas poderão existir as presas enquanto elas forem mais fracas e dependentes dos predadores, o que tem sido obtido pela escassez ou ciclo da miséria.

Obviamente que muitas soluções seriam repassadas aos cerca de 7.5 bilhões de humanos das classes baixas. A cura das doenças tradicionais mortais, a liberação do trabalho escravo rotineiro, etc. A tortura e maleficio as classes baixas viriam por outro lado, talvez pior ainda. O modelo social iria na direcao do Admirável Mundo Novo de Huxley, sob o domínio do Grande Irmão, de Orwell. O paraíso para os corpos humanos seria implantado na Terra, o qual seria recuperado e transformado num planeta ajardinado.

Mas se a minha formula tem fornecido explicações inusitadas, jamais imaginadas, para todos os fenômenos e eventos reais, naturais, e novos significados de existências destes fenômenos naturais como é o próprio ser humano, é a sua sugestão de qual é a razão “cósmica” da existência da humanidade, a que mais indica o despreparo da humanidade para manipular esse poder. A cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA sugere que este Universo perceptível aos nossos sensores nada mais é que uma especie de placenta onde esta’ ocorrendo um processo genético de reprodução, a embriogênese de um ser auto-consciente. E sendo o homem um dos agentes dotados de um principio de auto-consciência significa que os seres humanos são genes construindo este embrião. Então a essência da existência humana e’ sua mente, sua auto-consciência, o resto todo sera descartável junto com a placenta.

Mas o paraíso terrestre do grande Irmão seria exatamente o aborto assassino e prematuro deste embrião. Neste paraíso não existiria lugar para a auto-consciência, já que ele seria o reino da estupidez total , o coroamento da prevalência daqueles instintos irracionais herdados dos animais. E o controle deste poder iria catapultar a especie humana ao espaço sideral, exportando todo o luxo poluidor, e a malignidade destes instintos para planetas com formas de vida mais primitivas. Cada homem é um gene, uma informação genética que nada nem ninguém mais tem neste Universo, então ele precisa ser livre para trabalhar sua missão cósmica, ou seja, sua consciência precisa ser livre. Todo o resto de sua existência atual são meros acessórios. E doar o poder a humanidade significa que os grandes predadores não abririam mão de seu instinto canino e os 85% seriam assassinados, abortados fora, em sua essência existencial.

Eu vou voltar a selva amazônica, preciso dar continuidade a alguns tópicos que apenas a natureza virgem da selva pode solucionar. E desta vez levarei alguns instrumentos, alguns recursos materiais mais poderosos. Mas seu conseguir algum resultado efetivo, ele servira apenas para a minha satisfação pessoal, a minha declaração de que “Vim, vi, e venci”, porque ele ficara como segredo enterrado na selva. O único tipo de resultado que eu traria para o seio da civilização e tentaria aplica-lo, seria algo relacionado a aceleração do exorcismo destes instintos da carga genética humana. Se eu não puder fazer algo em beneficio da minha especie e da grande meta desta nossa existência, que eu seja morto antes que faça algo em prejuízo desta especie e daquele ou daquilo que gerou este Universo. Isto não e’ complexo de Messias, e’ apenas aquele raciocínio logico de todo ser humano, pelo qual não fazemos algo que sera’ ruim para nos mesmos.

 

Todo poder é ocupado por psicopatas mas quem gera o poder é você, e eu. Então o que somos? Veja o Vídeo

quinta-feira, janeiro 12th, 2012

Identifying Psychopaths

and:

More on Psychopaths

Êstes dois interessantes artigos “tocam” a cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA e são importantes temas para abrir nossos olhos, corrigir nossos enganos ocultos.

Nosso corpo material surgiu dentro de um sistema astronomico e até prova em contrário, a lógica indica que êle foi feito pela matéria dêste sistema astronomico. Tentando conhecê-lo eu me deparei com surpreendentes idéias compiladas nesta “teoria”. A minha interpretação da História Natural sugere que o nosso corpo material é o produto de um decaimento d6este nosso ancestral astronomico, cujo pecado cometido antes de nossas origens foi se tornar um egóísta sistemas fechado em si mesmo. Mas tambem sugerem os modêlos teóricos que a Natureza tem um propósito ao caminhar evolutivamente e para isso dispõe de um acêrvo de fôrças naturaisque permeiam a matéria. Estas fôrças teriam sido ativadas para corrigir o pecado original de nosso ancestral, dissolvendo-o em genes-fragmentos para serem semeados na superficie de planetas. Mas tal evento parece uma estratégia bastante inteligente. Como educar o certo a um ser que se comporta errado, ao mesmo tempo respeitando seu livre-arbitrio? Planejando um ambiente onde o ser será inconscientemente obrigado a criar de si mesmo as lições corretivas. Então pega-se um grande pecado, dissolve-o em fragmentos com pequenas frações do grande pecado, frações de pecado diferenciadas entre si, as quais vão se conflitarem, se auto-destruirem, e depois volta-se a juntar os fragmentos que estarão depurados de pecado, e tem de novo o mesmo ser sem a tendencia ao mesmo êrro, mantendo a ilusão de que possui o livre-arbitrio.

Vamos dar um nome às pequenas frações diferenciadas dentre si do grande pecado: psicopatológicas. Hoje então, o unico DNA ancestral que desceu á superficie da Terra, está dividio em 7 bilhões de cópias diferenciadas em algum minimo quesito, o que nos leva a concluir que todos somos pequenos psicopatas. Será dificil a nós aceitar isso, muito mais será dificil a nós identificar-mos em nós mesmos qual é o nosso tipo de psicopatologia. Serão os nossos tropeços na experiencia de vida nêste mundo e as reações opostas dos outros seres humanos que nos revelarão onde e como estamos mentalmente doentes. Mas ao invés disto me inferiorizar, me deprimir, isto me anima mais do que se tivesse constatado que sou o mero macaco melhorado como uma verruga incongruente que nada teria a fazer nêste Universo. Pois isto nos revela que o Universo, a Vida, e seja o que ou quem está por trás dêles, está investindo em nós, tem um plano para alem do macaco, para nós.

Alem disso, a Matrix/DNA mostrou a fórmula de sistemas fechado e aberto, e mostrou como e porque todos os dois são punidos e eliminados pelas leis naturais. A sabedoria é não ter sistema algum. Enquanto isso a não-sábia Humanidade continua a criar para si sistemas. Sistemas sociais, politicos, economicos, etc. Onde não existisse sistema, seus elementos decidiriam tudo em assembléias, não haveria lideres, governantes, patrões, empregados, governados. Mas são quase inexistentes as cabeças pensantes que estão pensando em como transformar a sociedade sob sistemas em sociedade descentralizada, sem sistemas. Sistemas são criados por partes, peças, seus elementos, cujo caráter é egoísta. O egoísmo é herança da matéria pura, ancestral, cujo supremo objetivo é conseguir se estabelecer como sistema em equilibrio termo-dinâmico e de preferência sob o mais elevado estado vibratório possível, porque nêste a fricção produz o estado sexual orgásmico. Não conheço argumentos que possam condenar êsse objetivo da matéria, seria o mesmo que condenar alguém pela busca da sua felicidade total. Mas o mundo, a Natureza, o Universo enfim, parece ter um argumento, tanto é que existe uma lei que pune e destrói êste paraíso material, a qual é medida pela entropia. Um dos efeitos do sistema fechado é que êle se afasta do processo da evolução, interrompe sua evolução e de tôdas as partes, tôda a matéria que êle contem. Mas como condenar essa matéria que resolve se isolar do mundo? Se ela em nada afeta o resto do mundo? Porque lhe é proibido fazer o que lhe compraz se assim não prejudicas a nada e ninguem? Parece que o Universo quer ser o dono da matéria e esta tem que se sujeitar a ser sua escrava. Como ainda não sabemos o que é o Universo e o que existe alem dêle – se existe algo – vaamos pular isso, pois não temos como resolvê-lo. O fato é saber que algo muito poderoso no mundo não quer, e não aceita sistemas fechados em si mesmos.

Sistemas abertos – os sistemas machos ou machistas – consistem em existir como paraíso porem sustentado pelo mundo externo. O principal exemplo é o sistema social patriarcal humano, onde o homem é caçador e guerreiro, que sai para as aventuras de conquista e retorna para descansar num lar onde uma mulher lhe acaricia e cura as feridas. Nêste caso é compreensível que algo no Universo se levante contra êle, pois ao saquear outros rincões está ompedindo suas evoluções e ao enriquecer seu paraiso tambem se torna conservador de um estado contra sua evolução. Novamente percebemos que existe uma lei contra êsse sistema que o pune e o destrói: a lei da dissolução. Se a entropia tem inicio na periferia do sistema fechado e avença para o nucleo fazendo o sistema se colapsar, a lei da dissolução começa no nucleo, no lar central, e vai se expandindo para a periferia, fazendo-o explodir.

Portanto, se não podemos saber qual é a fonte desta fôrça poderosa universal, podemos inferir que seu intento é defender e manter a evolução. Ela sempre ataca o que prejudica o processo da evolução.

Os sistemas nos enganam porque apresentam ao lado do “egoísmo” a sua contraface que é o “altruísmo”. Se egoísmo parece ser uma fôrça do mal, o altruísmo parece ser uma fôrça do bem. Pura ilusão de óptica. O altruísmo de uma parte ou elemento de um sistema é uma forma disfarçada de egoísmo. Joe Matador era altruósta em relação à Máfia, faria tudo para defender seu lider, Al Capone, a Máfia era um sistema, Joe era altruísta em relação ao sistema, porem, sabidamente, egoísta em relação ao mundo externo ao sistema. Ser altruísta para um sistema que é egoísta é ser o maximo do egoísmo, é tambem uma fôrça do mal. A santa Madre de Calcutá era altruísta erm relação à sua religião, mas ela fornecia esmola como alimento a pessoas que se reproduzem e proliferam como ratos quando bem alimentados, com isso ela foi um agente da super-população que pode destruir a Humanidade, ela foi um mal para a Humanidade.

Assim deparamos com dois imperativos da existência contra os quais não é inteligente lutar: não formar sistemas, não participar de sistemas e não interromper a sua evolução e nem a evolução do mundo externo a seu corpo.

Mas as formas de sociedades em que a maioria dos humanos se encontram, são intenções justamente nestas duas direções: formar sistemas e atrapalhar, atrasar, mesmo até impedir, a evolução da maioria. Mesmo a democracia é uma intenção errada onde o poder que emana das partes é direcionado a uma central regulamentadora do todo. A sociedade ideal não pode ter nucleo, centro, pois onde existe nucleo, existem partes periféricas, existe sistema. Num sistema, tôdas as partes renunciam à suas identidades individuais e tôdas estas identidades são somadas, reunidas numa só, que se torna a identidade do sistema, a qual desce manipulando as partes. Um exemplo são os sistemas religiosos. Existem tais sistemas que a identidade sistêmica é tão forte a ponto de conduzir as partes ao auto-suicidio, como os homens-bomba dos fundamentalistas islâmicos. As partes se entregam voluntariamente porque assim se acomodam sob o guarda-chuva pseudo-protetor e pseudo-provedor do sistema e evitam a tortura sacrificante de exercitar o raciocínio, não precisam esforçar o cérebro na busca das soluções dos problemas. Mas assim se estacionam interrompendo sua evolução. E aqui cometem o segundo grande pecado contra o Universo, ou contra desconhecida fonte poderosa que emite as fôrças da entropia, da dissolução, ambas culminando na morte dos sistemas, e a qual dita a ultima sentença.

Existe uma tese de que o poder central estaria diretamente relacionada com “psicopatologismo”. Não sou versado o suficiente em psicologia moderna, não sei bem o que é isso, mas desde que estou descobrindo que a criação do poder central é uma ação que parte do povo, ou das “peças”, então o povo emite de sí uma ação psicopatológica, que me interessa identificar, saber qual sua origem, o seu porquê. A tese diz que alcança os tronos do poder quem é psicopata, ou que o poder transforma qualquer ser humano normal em um psicopata. Será mesmo? Se for, isto significa que o povo todo é psicopata, pois é êste quem cria o trono e o poder, o qual servirá como luva para abrigar o “psicopatismo”. E isto inclue eu e você… Será que somos todos psicopatas e não o sabíamos?

Êste tema merece um sacrificio, um esforço em sua elucidação, afinal todos nós queremos ser saudaveis, sem defeitos, incluindo os defeitos mentais invisiveis. Por isso, convido aos que submetam a êsse sacrificio para fazer-mos êsse trabalho.

Sugiro que iniciemos tentando traduzir para o português ao menos dois artigos relacionados à tese, pois enquanto traduzir é um ótimo método para captar tudo e aprender o que o texto transmite, estaremos evoluindo no nosso conhecimento de outro idioma.

xxxx

Website: Adask’s Laws

URL: http://adask.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/identifying-psychopaths/

Article: Identifying Psychopaths

“We hang petty thieves and appoint great ones to office.”

Nós prendemos os pequenos ladrões e elegemos os grandes para cargos do govêrno.

xxxx

The world seems to divide along the lines of predators and prey. Psychopaths and “normal” people.

O mundo parece dividido entre predadores e prêsas. Psicopatas e pessoas “normais”.

But the world is not so simple that we can easily separate the predators from the prey. It’s unfortunate, but

Mas o mundo não é tão simples que nós possamos separar os predadores das prêsas. É uma infelicidade, mas

the “normal” people seem to believe they need their own predators to protect them from other predators.

as pessoas normais parecem acreditar que elas necessitam seus próprios predadores para protegê-las de outros predadores.

We have military to protect us from foreign predators. We have police to protect us from domestic predators. But in the same sense that it takes a thief to catch a thief, it takes a predator to catch a predator, and a psychopath to catch a psychopath.

We celebrate our psychopaths with James Bond movies, political power, licenses to practice law, and great wealth. But we then claim to be shocked when when our celebrated psychopaths–or those seeking to emulate them–predate on us.

I suspect that every time we refuse to do our own fighting, we invite and encourage others to be or become psychopaths.

As a nation, we seem determined to invade other countries and engage in “endless war for endless peace”. But we abhor the draft and don’t intend to do any of the fighting ourselves. Insofar as we won’t do our own fighting, but pay others to fight in our stead, we shouldn’t be surprised if our mercenary military becomes increasingly “psychopathic”.

Americans want “law and order” but most don’t want to do the necessary fighting and killing ourselves. We hire a professional police force to do our dirty work, and we look the other way if our official psycho’s break the law to imprison the private psycho’s. The result is an increasingly psychotic police state.

We hire lawyers to do our fighting for us in court. We accept a legal system that relies on levels of knowledge beyond what an average man can easily acquire. In doing so, we reduce “average men” to the status of “prey”. Then we complain that the legal profession is dominated by psychopaths and our courts are corrupt.

We hire Bernie Madoff to invest and “fight for”our wealth. Then we complain that he was a crook.

I suspect that anyone can become psychopathic. I suspect that every time we refuse to do our own fighting, we become “prey” who bring out the psychopath in others. So long as we are willing to be victims, others may be compelled to become psychopaths.

It’s possible that the psychopaths secretly hate being psychopaths. If so, they might therefore hate the “prey” that invited them to become psychopathic and therefore treat their prey with added cruelty. For example, consider Adolph Hitler. Circumstances in Germany allowed and even encouraged Hitler to become a psychopath. Did Hitler therefore secretly hate Germany enough to seek to destroy it? Does the psychopath necessarily hate the family, community or nation that spawned him?

It could be argued that all of life is a series of trials and tribulations that tend to push many towards psychopathology. The fundamental challenge of life may be to see if each of us can “overcome” (in the biblical sense) and reject the impulse to emulate James Bond, Hannibal Lector, Bernie Madoff, and Dick Cheney.

In a society increasingly dominated by psychopaths, there may be only two results:

1) The “prey” overcome their fear and find enough courage to fight the psychopaths–in which case the psychopaths will may (gladly) retreat back into “normal” behavior. This notion is consistent with reports that some psychopaths want to be caught, they want to be stopped from doing harm or evil. Or,

2) The “prey” succumb to fear and the psychopaths continue to rage at and destroy the “prey” until the nation itself is destroyed–much like what happened to Nazi Germany. Perhaps, once the cowardly “prey” are all destroyed, the psychopaths can be freed from their compulsion to predate and do evil.

Here’s a video on psychopathology that makes clear that psychopaths are nowhere near as rare as movies about Hannibal Lector would have you believe. Psychopaths are common, can be found in all levels of society and may tend to predominate among the most powerful positions of government and corporations. This implies that psychopathology is not simply some sort of chemical or genetic aberration so much as an innate “option” that’s “built in” to every human psyche.

To some degree, society creates psychopathy with its passivity. Our fear feeds the psychopaths and makes them strong. By refusing to fight our own battles, we invite others to become psychopaths and consume us.

Look at our prison system about 97% of all inmates are there based on a “plea bargain”. They agreed and consented to go to prison for a moderate period of time to avoid a trial where they might be sentenced to an extreme amount of time. Motivated by fear of the courts, most convicts agreed to go to prison.

Think about that.

More, roughly 3% or 4% of those charged with crimes have enough courage to take their case to court. Admittedly, most of ‘em lose in court. But if just 10% of the people charged with crimes had enough courage to go to court, they would at least double and probably triple the prosecution burden placed on prosecutors and the courts. The “criminal justice system” would almost certainly fold under that load.

Now, think about that. The police state could probably be collapsed if just 10% of those indicted had enough courage to go to court. Conversely, our police state largely exists because 97% of Americans charged with crimes are so consumed by fear, that they will not risk fighting for their own innocence in court.

The same principle applies to traffic tickets. If just 10% of those ticketed went to court and on up on appeals, the whole traffic ticket racket would probably fold. Insofar as the police state is reflected in our traffic laws, the police state is based on the fact that 99% of Americans are too lazy or fearful to take their tickets to court.

We don’t have a police state because it’s being imposed upon us by a superior force. We have a police state because, as a people, we lack sufficient courage to fight. And I’m not talking about finding enough courage to shoot or bomb. I’m talking about enough courage to stand up and speak for yourself in court.

The implications are scary. We have become a nation of cowards who fear our own government. Based on our fear, the government has become despotic and psychopathic. We the People once created the “land of the free”. We the Cowards have more recently created the police state.

The lesson is as universal as fighting against a schoolyard bully. That bully is drawn by nature and circumstance to try out for the role of local psychopath. If you’ll fight him, he may abandon that role; if you fear him, he may embrace it. The same principle applies in our courts and police state. If you won’t fight, they will predate.

Our fear brings out the psychopath in others. But fear is inversely proportional to faith. Insofar as we have real faith in God, what do we have to fear? What do I care if I am killed in this life, if I have faith in the next?

Conversely, if I had no faith in God, this life would be all I know or believe in. The thought of losing this life or even suffering in this life would be terrifying to me. My terror, my fear would inspire and bring out the psychopath in others.

If so, the antidote to psychopathology must be real faith in God and the resulting personal courage. A faithless people are necessarily cowardly and will therefore spawn a psychopathic government. That pathology will continue until the nation either finds the faith and courage to fight its official psychopaths or it succumbs to self-destruction.

I am suggesting that most psychopaths are not “things in themselves”. I am suggesting that our lack of faith and resulting personal cowardice tends to cause and create psychopaths.

video

00:07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMG1qjpzNPg&feature=player_embedded

A lot of people ridicule religion for promising “pie in the sky, bye and bye” (your good behavior in this life will be rewarded in the next). But I’m beginning to see that a “churchfull” of “country-club Christians”–who believe in prosperity in this life–may be far more contemptible and even dangerous.

Those “pie-in-the-sky Christians” who believe in rewards in the next life, will necessarily have courage to actually fight in this life. That individual courage will tend to keep our psychopaths in check.

But those “country-club Christians” who implicitly measure their faith with their prosperity, should be scared of losing the car, house, and jobs that are hallmarks of that prosperity. In the “prosperity” church, how can you be a real Christian, if you’re poor? Doesn’t your material poverty mark your faith as defective or non-existent? Doesn’t greater wealth prove superior faith?

Insofar as the measure of each country-club Christian’s faith is found in his material possessions this life, I don’t see how that “Christian” can’t be dominated by fear of losing his earthly possessions. Insofar as the country-club, prospeirty “Christian” is subject to fear of loss in this life, that “Christian” is inspiring the psychopathology in others.

If this line of conjecture is correct, the “prosperity church” and its “country-club Christians” may be a significant cause for the rise of our “official” psychopaths.

This analysis makes some sense insofar as the rise of the modern police state and its “official” psychopaths coincides with the rise of the “religious right”. Doesn’t the “religious right” call for “law and order” and a “git tuff” attitude towards crime? Doesn’t the increased “law and order” and “git tuff” attitude seem inspired by fear of criminals (read, Blacks)?

Isn’t the religious right predisposed to blindly support our military invasions of just about any country at any time? Doesn’t “blind support” imply a fear of questioning whether a particular war is justified? Doesn’t blind support imply an underlying fear of de facto authority?

And why did the religious right support the invasion of Iraq? Wasn’t it because we were afraid of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)? Those WMDs didn’t actually exist. But our fear of non-existent weapons drove us to support the unwarranted military invasion of a foreign country and the murder of several hundred thousand innocent Iraqis.

We decided to trust in our military rather than our God and therefore invaded Iraq. How’s that fear-based war working out?

Support for the Iraq War came from across the political spectrum–not just the religious right. And for the past decade or two, if someone charged me with being a member of the “religious right” I might squirm a little, but I probably wouldn’t object. It’s not my intent to “bash” the religious right.

Nevertheless, my concern with “country-club Christians” and the “prosperity Church” and their association with the “religious right” has been growing for some time. Insofar as those “institutions” are motivated by fear, they are at best a compromised or, at worst, false faith. Insofar as those expressions of religion are motivated by fear, they might be a fundamental cause for the rise of the police state, the rise of psychopathology in our our military, and the rise of “official” psychopaths in positions of governmental and corporate power.

I am suggesting that all of us need to look more closely at our own motives to discover whether we act out of fear or faith. Just because you go to a church, doesn’t mean that you’re acting out of faith. Each of us needs to learn to discern between those of our motives that are intended to serve God courageously and those which tend to serve ourselves (and/or “mammon”) fearfully.

If we would stop the police state and reduce the prevalence of psychopaths in our government and corporations, we must each first escape our own fears. To escape the psychopaths, we must first find real faith and the real courage it inspires.

If you want to identify a psychopath, look for any man or woman who enjoys inordinate success in a society that has little or no real faith.

xxxx

More on Psychopaths

09Jan

5 Votes

Image by Adam Crowe via Flickr

In his article “How All Government Systematically Destroys Peace & Prosperity,” David A. McElroy observed that “positions of power attract psychopaths”. In other words, psychopaths are irresistibly drawn to those high positions in government and corporations. McElroy’s observation is certainly true.

But what I’ve suggested in my article “Identifying Psychopaths” is that “positions of power” don’t merely attract psychopaths, but inevitably create psychopaths. Put a decent man in a position of power, and see how long it takes him to become psychopathic. It’s been observed for centuries that if you want to test a man’s character, give him power and see if he can resist the impulse to degenerate into something bestial.

And what is a position of power? It’s evidence that a lot of people–subordinates and dependents–have consented to be led and controlled by some superior. A position of power exists when hundreds, thousands or millions of people not only surrender their power to some single “leader,” but also surrender their responsibilities to individually decide and choose what is best. A position of power exists in one man by virtue of many other people surrendering both their individual power and their individual responsibility to choose–and if necessary, fight.

• This isn’t news. Read 1 Samuel, Chapter 8. Israel (which had previously been under the law form of “judges” wherein everyone was equally subject to the law), wanted a “king”—a sovereign who would not be subject to the law. God expressly warned them (1 Sam. 8:9-18) that such a king would inevitably exploit them and lead them to national ruin. But the Israelites insisted (1 Sam. 8:19-20) that, “. . . we will have a king over us, that we also may be like other nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.”

The Israelites refused their personal responsibility to judge others according to God’s law and they refused their personal responsibility to fight their own battles. They abandoned their lives as independents to become dependent on some king or government.

God gave the Israelites a series of kings. A few were pretty good; most were bad and possible psychopaths who led Israel to ruin and national destruction.

A nation composed of people willing to abandon their personal responsibilities to some “king” is a nation not merely headed for destruction, but is in fact headed for self-destruction.

• Barack Obama is nothing but a skinny, smooth talkin’ black guy–except that millions of people have surrendered their individual power and individual responsibility to him. In giving Obama our personal power and responsibilities, we have created conditions that predispose Obama to become a tyrant/psychopath.

Our Constitution is based on the idea of “separation of powers” to not only keep the individual branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) separate and fighting among themselves, but also to prevent any branch–and especially, any individual–from gaining so much power that it or he becomes psychopathic. Insofar as Whee duh Peepul have allowed Congress to delegate more and more powers to the office of President, Whee have allowed and even caused our Presidents to become psychopaths.

If so, then it doesn’t make much difference who we elect to the Presidency. No matter what values any candidate may have had for all of his life, once he’s elected and receives all the powers of office, he’ll be subjected to temptations so far beyond a normal man’s ability to handle, that he’ll be driven to become psychopathic.

In essence, if the people won’t be personally responsible, why should their “king”/President?

• Think not? Shortly after his election, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. In truth, he won that prize for being black rather than any efforts he’d made to secure peace.

Even so, how “peaceful” has Obama been since that award? Did he end the Iraqi war as quickly as he’d promised? When will Obama end the Afghan war? Didn’t Obama participate in (and perhaps cause) the invasion of Libya and indirectly participate in the murder of Col. Qaddafi? Isn’t Obama responsible for the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden? Didn’t Obama and his staff watch that assassination on closed-circuit TV? Didn’t Obama sign a law that allows American citizens to “indefinitely detained” without warrant? Didn’t Obama sign a law that allow American citizens to be executed (assassinated) without benefit of judicial process?

I don’t know that Obama was ever truly drawn towards peace. But we can legitimately wonder if he’s been a psychopath all of his life, or if he became one since he entered the office–and powers–of the presidency. Have the incredible powers of the presidency driven Obama mad? Can any man be expected to embrace those powers without also degenerating into a psychopath?

I don’t think so.

• In A.D. 1887, John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834–1902)—an historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton–observed,

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

I doubt that the word “psychopath” existed in A.D. 1887, but I don’t doubt that Lord Acton would’ve agreed that the “corruption” he referred to would be synonymous with the psychopathy we observe today.

More, note that Lord Acton did not allege that “power” tends to attract those who are already “bad men”. He alleged that any man given sufficient power will almost certainly degenerate into the role of “bad man”. According to Lord Acton, the more power you give a man, the more corrupt (psychopathic) he becomes.

I agree.

Power does not simply attract psychopaths, it creates psychopaths. Insofar as “absolute power” is political, the resulting psychopathology will be expressed as tyranny, despotism, oppression and a police state. As our institutions become bigger and therefore more powerful, their CEO’s become more psychopathic. “Big” government is inevitably psychopathic government.

• Here, in The United States of America, we are supposed to have federal system of government wherein we had a relatively weak national government in Washington DC. We granted only “limited powers” to the federal government and reserved most powers to the States of the Union and to the People.

By giving the federal government only limited powers, we also limited the natural tendency for the federal government to become psychopathic. Figuratively speaking, we were supposed to have 50 “little” psychopaths (the governors over each State of the Union) rather than one “big” psychopath (the President over the whole nation). But over time we’ve stripped the little psychopaths and the States of their powers and increasingly concentrated those powers in Washington DC, and especially the President.

By refusing to take personal responsibility to understand and enforce our own Constitution, Whee duh Peepul have allowed and created an office of the Presidency that is sufficiently powerful to drive all who hold it mad. No, we don’t have a President who, like Howard Beal, is screaming “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!” Not yet. But you wait. If we keep surrendering our power and personal responsibilities to the President, the day will come when we’ll have a President as crazy as Caligula.

The concentration of national power in Washington DC is essentially driving our federal government and even our nation, mad.

• And what is the essential objective of the New World Order? To create a concentration of global power in Brussels, or some such. If it’s true that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” then it necessarily follows that any world government will be the most corrupt, the most psychopathic off all. This conclusion is consistent with biblical “end times” prophecy that warns of the absolute tyranny, evil and psychopathy of a coming world government.

Solution?

if you would prevent tyranny and a police state, take back your personal power. Any fool can see that.

Power to the People! Yaaaayyyyyy!!!

Let’s all cheer “Power to the people!” There’s a slogan we can all agree to.

But that’s not the end of it. To avoid tyranny and a police state, we must not only take back our personal power, we must also take back our personal responsibilities. That means no welfare for the poor, no So-So Security for the middle class, and no subsidies for the rich.

Ooooo . . . that’s not so much fun, is it?

Let’s see if any politicians or political activist can cause Whee duh Peepul to chant “Responsibility to the People!” with the same enthusiasm as they chant “Power to the People!”

We all want power, but very few want or will even accept responsibility. In fact, I could make a good case the definition of “power” is the absence of personal responsibility. The more power you have, the less responsible you become. Given enough power, you can openly assassinate a man living in Pakistan, or use Monica Lewinsky as a humidor for your cigars.

It’s not love, it’s power that means “never having to say you’re sorry”.

• Every one of us who depends on government for our support, is fueling the police state.

If so, the African-Americans’ predicament is more complex than previously supposed. I.e., blacks complain bitterly about police oppression, but demand their welfare checks. They don’t understand that government welfare and government oppression are two sides of the same coin. You won’t have one without the other. Want welfare? Then welcome police oppression because the two are linked by your refusal to accept personal responsibility for your own life. Want to escape police oppression? Stop being a dependent. Become independent. Take personal responsibility for your life.

Blacks also complain about two standards of justice: one for the rich, another for the poor. I agree with that complaint. But I can also see that when one of the psychopaths we employ as police officers meets a rich man, he may subconsciously presume that rich guy to be independent and self-sufficient and therefore worthy of respect of deference. On the other hand, when that same cop encounters someone who appears impoverished, that cop will know that’s he’s probably dealing with a dependent, a man who surrendered his personal responsibility to take government “entitlements”. As such, that poor man has unwittingly supported the police state and implicitly invited police oppression.

• How ’bout women? Like many blacks, they don’t mind being dependents, but they object to being oppressed. If you’re a woman who thinks she should be “entitled” to shop til she drops, you’re headed for oppression. If you’re a “gold-digger” who believes she can find a rich man to give her a “free ride” you are headed for oppression. If you believe you’re entitled to the “maternal presumption” in divorce courts, you are headed for oppression.

None of this is news. The relationship between dependency and oppression has been seen for centuries. It would seem to be an attribute of the human psyche.

• What about the elderly? They are clearly dependent and often unable to provide for themselves. Yet, they are legitimately concerned that Obama-Care will ration health care in a way that allows or even causes the elderly to die. That seems unfair, doesn’t it?

But on the other hand, most of the elderly did willingly become dependent on big government, didn’t they? They abandoned their personal responsibility to provide for their own retirement, and instead gave power and responsibility to do so to government. Now, the government that the elderly empowered has grown so large that a police state is growing and the government has become sufficiently psychopathic to become remorseless, without empathy and therefore indifferent to the elderly’s demise.

• Children confront the struggle to gain power without having personal responsibility. ”You can’t tell me what to do!” shrieks the teenager. The parent responds, “Oh, yes, I can–so long as you’re living under my roof.” In other words, so long as the child takes support from, and is dependent upon, the parent, the parent can issue orders to, and even oppress, the child.

As parents, we intuitively understand the relationship between dependence and control. But we don’t dream that the same principle also applies between adults and their government. Insofar as we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the government’s carrots, we will also be subject to the government’s sticks.

The relationship between the abandonment of personal responsibility and the rise of a police state and psychopaths in government appears to be an unpleasant attribute of life in general or at least the human psyche.

• Blacks, women, the elderly and children all offer good opportunities to illustrate the relationship between surrendering personal responsibilty and fostering a police state.

But the same thing can be said for those of anyone on So-So Security. Face up to your personal responsibilities. Don’t bitch about the police state, so long as you’re cashing that SS check every month. When you abandoned your personal responsibility to save money for your own retirement, and instead trusted in and relied on Social Security, you cast your vote in favor of a police state just as surely as the Israelites voted for national destruction when they demanded to have a ‘king” who would “fight their battles” for them.

How ’bout you rich SOBs who complain about excessive government regulation while you continue to collect subsidies for your farm and business? You may say you’re just “working the system,” but the truth is that you vote in favor of all those regulations and a police state, every time you cash a government subsidy check.

• It occurs to me that even “deficit financing” may be conducive to psychopathy. If it’s true that a man foster psychopathy in others when he abandons his personal responsibility and powers to them, it may follow that the same is true for a nation. Insofar as our Congress refuses impose enough taxes now to provide for whatever “entitlements” they’ve promised to currently provide—and instead leaves the bill to future generations–that Congress has abandoned its responsibilities and powers to its creditors, predisposed its creditors to psychopathy, and accepted a banker-imposed “police state” on the nation.

Does that sound crazy? Look at Greece. They took all the money they could grab from other nations and creditors. Life seemed good. But, because the Greeks are now exposed as unable to repay their debts, they’re being forced to accept “austerity”. The Greeks rioted. They’ve violently refused to accept personal responsibility, but Greek police have slapped them down. So, is “austerity” merely a description of financial circumstances? Or is “austerity” code for a kind of police state?

Because the Greeks refuse to take personal responsibility and instead chose to rely on credit to fund their national “party,” they are now entering into a police state. Two sides. Same coin.

• If it’s true that deficit financing (credit) is conducive to official psychopathy and a police state, then it might follow that all credit is similarly conducive.

After all, what is credit other than an opportunity to escape the personal responsibility for having already earned and saved enough of your own money to buy whatever it is you want to purchase?

I see something on the internet that I want to buy now, but I don’t have enough money to do so. No matter, rather than being personally responsible for my own purchases, I can purchase with my credit card and let someone else (the credit card company) pay my bill.

But how many people succumbed to using credit cards in the last 20 years and wound up bankrupt?

How many bought a house on credit? It seemed like a good idea at the time. Everyone was doing it. How else can you get a house in this country?

But how many homes have been foreclosed because people were unable pay their debts. How many of those foreclosures were executed by the local sheriff’s department? Is the foreclosure process a manifestation of the police state? Does it follow that the use of credit (denial of personal responsibility) fosters the police state and government psychopathy?

Can it be said that the failure to accept personal responsibility for saving enough money to buy a house and instead relying on credit (a form or personal irresponsibility) was conducive to foreclosures and growth in the police state? I think it can.

• Can it also be said that the personal irresponsibility implicit in credit has been conducive to more psychopathy?

That argument would be a stretch, but consider this: Vacant homes deteriorate (or are looted) more rapidly than homes that are occupied.

Nevertheless, we have several hundred thousand foreclosed homes in this nation that are currently vacant. At a time when lots of people need a home, we have thousands of vacant homes that are rotting on their foundations. I’m not sure that we can say that’s evidence of psychopathy, but it’s surely evidence of some kind of insanity. We have people who need homes; we have lots of vacant homes; but the creditor who own those homes would rather see them rot than make them available at a price current buyers can afford. Could we say the creditors who own those homes are psychopaths?

Maybe.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the Bible’s observation that the “love of money is the root of all evil” might’ve been more accurately expressed as the “love of credit” (and the underlying desire to escape personal responsibility) is the “root of all evil” (psychopathy).

• The whole concept of “entitlements” is an obscenity. Not one of us is legitimately “entitled” to one dime that we haven’t personally earned. I don’t care if you’re taking welfare, So-So Security or subsidies from government, to the extent that you refuse to take personal responsibility for your own survival—to the extent that you are not living within your own means—you are abandoning your personal responsibility and your personal power. Insofar as you abandon your responsibility and power to another, you create the “positions of power” that create the psychopaths that run our police state.

Until Americans are ready to chant “Responsibility To The People!” with the same glee as they chant “Power to the People!,” this nation will continue to slide into a police state and foster more governmental psychopaths.

Anyone who argues in favor of big government is a fool or a satanist. The bigger government becomes, the more powerful it becomes. The more powerful it becomes, the more psychopathic it will be.

If you won’t accept personal responsibility to provide for yourself and live within your means, you will be personally oppressed. If you won’t accept personal responsibility for controlling your government, you will elect men who become psychopaths in office. The more you entrust government with your power and your responsibility for your life, the more you foster the police state and government psychopaths