Saturday, January 27, 2018

The Economy of Shame


The Economy of Shame

The economy of shame is an economy of blackmail under any definition, and it is used to modify beliefs and the behaviors that flow from those beliefs. The ransom is always the same...conform or suffer the consequences.  
Shame has one goal and one goal only and that is to make you believe, feel, think and act and believe that you're not good enough. If shame is successful in accomplishing this goal, the only destiny you'll reach is poverty and that poverty is found in all of our economies and most importantly the human spirit.
SSSThere are many different economies that we operate from, whether they be monetary, intellectual, emotional, physical, psychological, choice based economies or even how we spend our time for that matter. In fact, I would go as far as saying that any interaction between two or more parties or even an interaction with self is based on an economy of some kind. No matter what the economy or how it manifests its' transactions, shame is a dangerous form of leverage and the human spirit can break under its' pressure.
Control represents the ability to negotiate transactions and through that we gain or lose power. Shame represents the component of control and if it were eliminated from every transaction we make relationally, then the power acquired as a result would vanish. Everyone of us pretend not to see that we are operating from an economy of shame much less using shame as a means to acquire power. That is why we don't want to eliminate shame. If we did, it would threaten our predatory advantage and our personal acquisition of power.
Shame is currency and its' rate of exchange is relied upon more than the rate of exchange of any other currency and I would argue that it drives lesser currencies such as money. Shame creates wealth and poverty simultaneously. It is a defense and an advantage for those that enrich themselves by its' use.
We see this in predatory lending, institutions of learning in regards to indoctrination, emotional blackmail, bullying, political correctness, our choices and time, especially related to employment and retaining viability etc... and it really amounts to social blackmail. We negotiate with those who take our economies hostage under the threat of shame and social exclusion and sometimes even death.
Now, all economies have wealth and poverty and I want to just say that I am not against wealth creation of any kind. Everyone tries to acquire wealth and experience the ever increasing enhancement of life. What I am against is the get rich quick mentality that steamrolls everything in a person's path in an attempt to acquire wealth, regardless of the economy. I see a great deal of jack and the beanstalk get rich quick schemes that use a person's rights and choices against them to acquire wealth, and shame is used the same way to steamroll others for the sake of individual and collective beanstalks. Shame is the lowest common denominator no matter where we find poverty in any other economy. Whoever promotes the greatest shame simultaneously promotes the greatest poverty. Shame as control is how this wealth is gained and maintained. The poverty of the rich is, in fact, the poor that is created as a result. In other words, If you cannot create wealth without violating the rights and choices of another human being, then all you're creating is poverty and that poverty belongs only to those that use shame to enrich themselves while impoverishing others.
Shame is big business and has the potential to create wealth for those that know how to use it to subdue others. Shame is used as negative stimuli to modify behavior towards productivity and that productivity only benefits the one using shame as leverage. Power and corruption and its’ relation to shame is socially protected and we protect our use of shame at all costs because without it there is no power to lord over another. The acquisition of power is spearheaded by an economy of shame and supported in each and every cultural, social, economic, political and religious institution. In fact, I am convinced that if there exists a social construct, there also, is the influence of the ideologies associated with shame and its' power to impoverish. We have socially engineered our paralysis, not our motivation and it's time to mature.
Shame is exploitative and uses our greatest loves, fears, hopes and dreams against us to spur productivity that only benefits the one using shame. When a person zeros in on tactical targets, they are using another person’s contingencies against them. The people that use these tactics know exactly what they're doing. They are disenfranchising a person's rights and choices for the purpose of acquiring power as well as superiority in society. They do this by exploiting trust, and attacking personal dignity under the threat of exposure if compliance is not met.
Luke 13:6-8 NIV
Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and dung it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
We have been taught that shame is the great fertilizer of the soul but in reality it is only the shit of life. It causes paralysis rather than genuine motivation. This is a motivation towards a productivity that only benefits the one using shame as a force to motivate towards cooperation. Moreover, it demands cooperation as a contingent for survival and existence. In other words, our productivity aligns itself with kissing the world's ass for the right to exist rather than a productivity that aligns itself with an experience of genuine appreciation and the motivation that flows from that.
Who uses this fertilizer? Bosses, spouses, all religions, all governments, society in general...we see it in political correctness and social justice campaigns, group associations, family systems, friends, strangers...online platforms. I mean, you tell me where it doesn't exist. Shame is social wealth creation that simultaneously creates poverty at the same time. It teaches us that we must kiss the world's ass for our social viability, our survival and our existence. It teaches us to negotiate with tactics that are no different from blackmail.
Just look at any famous psychological experiment. Is it any surprise that these experiments demonstrate the devastating effects of the negative stimuli designed to take control away from the subjects. That's what shame does, and not only that but we've taught ourselves to apply the findings of these experiments to social systems to exact outcomes that produce paralysis instead of genuine motivation. In the case of Curt Richter's rats and resilience, control is taken away and motivation and productivity is spurred by a water sprayer that forces the rats to either swim without rest or drown. Our lives are swim or die and most of us are one paycheck away from that reality. In the case of Martin Seligman's dogs and learned helplessness, control is taken away and motivation and productivity is spurred by an electrical current that creates opposing outcomes for dogs in the exact same situation, to teach the illusion of control to one dog while taking the illusion of control from another. This is easily evidenced in the use of tasers by police officers against citizens. You will comply. The use of shame corrupts the world with helplessness, takes advantage of resilience and promotes cruelty because if control can be taken away then we have no control. It causes a person to recoil away from the negative social stimuli that ultimately produces paralysis or a false sense of control that enforces cooperation or else, evidenced in the Stanford prison experiment. I don't like to see the world as existing in a prison made of shame but if you think that you don't operate from an economy of shame, simply test it and see what happens when you give up the right you afford to yourself to shame another person and watch how limited your interactions become and how much power over others you relinquish when you do so. Animals are afforded higher ethical standards than what we're willing to afford to each other as humans.
 RWe are at a turning point in civilization where the information and technological age have intersected with each other and this makes everyone very visible to each other and naturally discriminative. As a consequence, local and global cultural conflicts are arising due to opposing views, various disparities between groups and even the issues surrounding differing cultural ways of life. Because social cohesion is necessary, shame is relied upon to enforce cooperation. Mutual appreciation doesn't rely on enforcement but rather encourages cooperation which is something we engaged in much more often before we had such high visibility. Now that everyone is made visible we use shame to establish superiority, hide our own flaws and create social wealth and we do this under the guise of having good internal values but all we're doing is teaching helplessness, destroying natural resilience and hindering growth and development by spurring withdrawal away from the negative stimuli of social blackmail. We are an impoverished generation that refuses to build social trust. Show lRBuilding social trust cannot be accomplished by promoting shame. Again it just makes you feel like you have to kiss the world's ass for your existence. I honestly believe that this is the primary motivation behind suicide in my opinion. It is the ultimate recoil away from the shame that the world we live in forces us to endure when we have to kiss the ass of the social systems we operate from or else.
RWe have manufactured a global culture of shame and the paralysis that it creates is dismissed as having no ill effects. We have become so desensitized by the common use of shame that we don't even feel guilt and that causes us to step away from what we truly value. A society without values is a society without guilt. A society that relies on shame to promote cooperation will never value anything. Shame teaches the use of behavioral blackmail whereas teaching values teaches the use of behavioral responsibility.
The time has come to see shame for what it is and once and for all reveal the true nature of its' primary goal, which is to acquire power and to make you feel, think, believe and act as though you're not good enough so as to modify behavior and cause a recoil effect away from the shame and to spur productivity in the form of compliance that only benefits the one promoting shame.Show less
RTake a look around the world and pick any issue faced by humanity and remove the shame. Now, ask yourself what does that issue look like without the shame? Replace shame with mutual appreciation and the world looks very different and I would argue better. Shame will never assuage suffering. Shame amplifies it. Shame cannot rescue humanity from its’ suffering because shame is its’ suffering and the only viable remedy is mutual appreciation as cooperation in a world where there is a healthy balance between individualism and collectivism and no benefit can be found in one without the other.
I've said many times...Give me a government that does not use shame as a means to modify behavior and I'll celebrate my freedom...Give me a society without shame and I'll contribute without being asked...Give me a religion without shame and I'll believe...Give me a life that allows me to be vulnerable without shame or fear of attack and I'll be happy.
Fire is more tolerable than shame.

Take care.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

The Fig Leaf


The saddest expression I have ever seen is when someone smiles through the dying.
More and more we are suppressing emotion because the emotional experience has become so predictable that even the mere thought of expressing an emotion of any kind presents us with a fear that people will start pointing out our behaviors to us. It has become quite easy to identify the behavioral and psychological dynamics that people operate from and because these human traits are common to man, all of us are susceptible to displaying them. And the more we display them, the easier it is to point and make an accusation. Fear of shame and the perception of weakness causes us to recoil away from expressing our emotions and this naturally causes us to suppress emotion. So, we pretend that we're not bothered by that, but we are.
People have adopted the belief that any expression of emotion is the equivalent of behavioral and psychological disrobing...sharing honestly has become self prohibitive as a defense mechanism because no one has the right to be vulnerable without shame or fear of attack. We watch what we say, what we do, even what we think because of social ramifications and the possibility of being behaviorally identified and classified. So, we ultimately conform and resort to living in emotional stealth mode. Conformity is social camouflage that allows us to hide in plain view, and the more we learn about human nature, the more camouflage we need.
Everyone walks around smiling and sharing pleasantries, but underneath it all, we are groaning. That groaning is a desire to not be so easily sized up psychologically or intellectually...and especially not emotionally.
Human behavior has been so analyzed at this point that it's been chalked up to instinct and stimuli and how we respond to it ...all lumped together in coffee table books. That desensitized and clinical approach to the human condition presents a view of the human experience that reduces the emotional being of a person towards obsolescence and human interaction and sharing is in decline right alongside it. Isolation becomes a safe haven for emotions because predictability of human behavior doesn't provide adequate social camouflage so instead, we hide.
As a result, the human experience is facing a relational winter and has been for quite some time. Relationships are distant and superficial despite the fact that we have a very common and intimate understanding of what makes us tick. Our intentions, motivations and behaviors have become transparent and hiding is how we cloth ourselves. Since we can't literally hide, we have to camouflage ourselves with emotional obsolescence (indifference) to mask our emotional and psychological nudity. What appears to others as apathy or indifference is really just a mask to hide our desperation to express emotion without judgment and condemnation.
We have become hyper vigilant and trust is difficult if not impossible to cultivate, because the minute you lower your defenses and become vulnerable, it is seen as weakness and weakness is an intolerable crime in society everywhere. This is why we turn to intimate relationships as a consolation for the suffering of hiding in plain view. Relationships become a place where you don't have to hide.
If  emotions become obsolete then experiences will naturally be devalued and social interaction will suffer. When we reach out to no one or that diminishes to suppression of emotion and we give up on consolation, we become non beneficial to each other. We no longer build relationships because we can gain no benefit of consolation, because emotions are devalued and obsolete.
If taking away the fig leaf of human nature leads us to hiding behind masks and apathetic responses to conceal any perception of vulnerability, then our existence has become pathetic. We really have been a buzz kill to each other, and lowering our quality of life by eviscerating emotion and exposing motives is how we've done it. We have stomped the mystery of the human experience into the ground.
The emotional and psychological manifestation of the human experience has been laid bare. Everyone is metaphorically naked and conformity is camouflage for being seen. It is the elephant in the room that everyone pretends is not there. Everyone is a social policeman on patrol and there is only one crime and it's recoil.
And what recoil do we attempt to conceal? The fact that we are not ok with detachment and apathy as camouflage. It's recoil from the fact that our camouflage doesn't make us feel safe, any more than sitting in a room naked with ten other naked people makes us feel safe. It's uncomfortable but we pretend it's not.
It's the pretending that bothers us the most. That is the elephant. Take away the fig leaf of human behavior and we isolate ourselves and we do this because we fear judgment for being our true selves. This is why trust is built on the foundation of non judgment and non condemnation and this is why no one trusts anyone because that's what we do...judge and condemn each other.
The safeguards we seek are trusting relationships and trust is in decline. If people had the power to touch another person and know a person as well that person knows themselves...people would recoil. Rightly so. Taking away the fig leaf of human behavior exposes us to unhealthy perceptions of ourselves and others and we become naturally suspicious of people looking too closely. This can threaten our sense of privacy and personal safety.
Mutual disclosure and getting to know someone and allowing someone to know us as well as we know ourselves is a choice to disrobe psychologically, physically, spiritually intellectually and emotionally. That choice can only be expressed in freedom...And it's a freedom that we afford to each other mutually. The human experience is about experiencing life and the deepest connections that we share, and those connections are deeply personal and based in a desire to be known as well as we know ourselves and have it be ok, but then again, this is why we pull away, because it's not ok.

 The minute you can't express the desire to be known and feel safe, we begin pretending. The minute we can't express how the pretending bothers us, we become a suspect and promote our own emotional obsolescence...our own indifference and apathy...emotional obsolescence has become our alibi for the crime of being human.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

On Islam Muslim Refugees Tolerance And Violence

I can think of nothing more oppressive or tyrannical than being forced to tolerate intolerable behaviors.
https://youtu.be/lHX5jsomq_U Muslim Refugee Gang
https://youtu.be/Zuij0qDzmVQ Attacking a French Girl
https://youtu.be/L3yQTxGGgig Rottingham Attack
https://youtu.be/8fSvyv0urTE David Horowitz Exposes Intent
https://youtu.be/P-xYDlVO2cM Muslims Are Innocent Supposedly
https://youtu.be/E0qZlBY4-2I Muslim Girl Attacked in London
https://youtu.be/n7gfYCG077A Brigitte Gabriel speaks out against radical Islam
https://youtu.be/B8Oc5TbbMqE 16 year old German girl pleas for help
https://youtu.be/uZnElkJpv0Q Woman accused of burning a Quran is murdered and later declared innocent.
So, why are non muslims concerned with muslims, especially in regards to refugees and immigration?
It's because of the bad behaviors that flow from the beliefs of Muslims under the influence of mainstream Islam. These bad behaviors are not isolated incidents but happening around Europe and the middle east and these behaviors are on full display for everyone to see. We seem to forget that we live in a highly visible world due to the digital, information and technological age and it is intolerable to be expected to overlook the effects that those beliefs and behaviors have on western civilization.
When countries open their borders, they are extending an invitation to that countries way of life. The people in the communities of those countries are welcoming immigrants and refugees to a better way of life, not to have their way of life over run by the same things that people claimed they were trying to escape.
Now before I go any further, no one is interested in condemning anyone's faith in God. Faith is a personal expression of worship towards a creator and religion is where people who share the same faith can have fellowship. However, if that faith influences it's followers that violence against others is a form of worship or obedience, then those beliefs and behaviors must be exposed, and scrutinized and in some cases condemned as intolerable. And let me be very frank here...If God commands violence towards others as an act of worship or obedience and expects that from me, then my answer to God is no.
The western world celebrates freedom and laws that protect people from uncivilized behavior, such as, seeking to violate the rights and choices of others or protection from people who present themselves as a danger to themselves and others, as well as those who refuse to take responsibility for their life and actions.
No one can convince me that it is civilized, holy or humane to violate or endanger others based on any ideological or religious claim whatsoever. Not even if God himself commanded me, face to face, would I be convinced to do so on his behalf. But, if I could be convinced, and I was commanded to fight against anyone that disagreed with me, and I called for tolerance of my faith, I would be told that my beliefs are intolerable. It doesn't matter if I am one person or one billion people sharing fellowship in the same belief. I would not be tolerated in the civilized world for behaviors that are uncivilized. But, for some reason tolerance is extended to Islam for ideological and religious claims that violate and endanger those outside the faith as well as those inside the faith.
Tolerance makes a very convenient excuse for bad behavior and having a lack of tolerance is used to accuse people of discriminations, such as Islamophobia or xenophobia. The fact is, people in western civilization are discriminating based only on behaviors that threaten the establishment of personal safety, which is held in place by the rule of law, that western civilization has worked so hard to establish. No one should be forced to tolerate any bad behaviors that flow from beliefs that contradict what it means to be civilized.
It's not as though the rules of western civilization are complex.
You cannot violate the rights and choices of others.
You cannot present yourself as a danger to self and others.
You take responsibility for your life and actions.
Participation in what we call civilization is contingent upon a mutual belief about what it means to be civilized.
We have no problem denying criminals the right to participate in civilization when they violate the rights and choices of others and present themselves as a danger to self and others and compound matters by not taking responsibility for their life and actions. Yet for some reason we afford tolerance for similar behaviors found in Islam and no one points it out. Again, let's face it these behaviors backed by ideological and religious belief are often criminal. If a person can lose their life just by leaving the faith or drawing a cartoon or being accused of witchcraft or burning a Quran only to be found innocent the next day, is this not a cause for deep concern to everyone?
Islam capitalizes on political correctness to virtually misbehave with impunity. Political correctness is forcing western civilization to hand over the keys to our way of life only to have it replaced by the middle eastern way of life. Excuse me if I'm wrong but, isn't that what immigrants and refugees trying to escape?
The beliefs that promote Islamic domination of the whole world will never change. It is core to the teachings of Islam. This is about ascension by any means necessary and that rests on the foundation that Muslims are innocent and everyone else is guilty. That is a foothold for abuse based upon an inherent superior and elitist world view. The best response for everyone's sake is not to tolerate but rather confront the beliefs and behaviors that hold that world view in place and to do it on the basis of general safety for all. Fundamental Islam will never seek to grow and develop away from ancient behaviors and beliefs that intend to dominate the world. There is no incentive to do so. These are not isolated beliefs and behaviors when we see public demonstrations and intentions promoting that dominance. Now Islamic domination and ascension is a big subject that I may go into in another video but suffice to say that intention is real.
Finding a common ground is impossible if people are not willing to see beliefs as the driving force behind these bad behaviors.
Forcing people to turn the other cheek so that Muslims can get away with intimidation, bullying and attacking people is intolerable. Muslims are in no way superior or above common notions of civilized behavior. And Muslims have every right to be expect the same civility as reciprocal. That's what it means to be civilized and human.
The doctrine of tolerance is derailing everything we stand for in western civilization.
Consider racism. Facing the issue of racism is not found in the differences of skin color. Facing the issue of racism is about confronting racial beliefs and the behaviors that flow from those beliefs.
Confronting Islam is no different.
It surprises me that the doctrine of tolerance is something that we associate to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Tolerance was not his message to the world. He cried out for mutual dignity and esteem based on being judged on the content of his character and rightly so and he demanded that he also be able to judge others based on the content of their character as well. If tolerance was at the heart of his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, then that speech would've gone down in history as the greatest apology ever given for being black. He wasn't crying out for tolerance, he was crying out for mutual esteem based on content of character and that is a direct correlation to mutual accountability as it relates to behavior. In other words, character is directly related to behavior and that's a two way street.
So too, are non Muslims crying out for mutual dignity and demanding the right to judge people based on their behaviors. Especially if those behaviors pose a clear threat to the western world's way of life. So, being able to discern a person's content of character, found in their behaviors, is a paramount concern to everyone.
People don't feel safe and rightly so. Their concerns are valid because they can't discern intentions. It becomes necessary to publicly state what those intentions are and to scrutinize the beliefs of Islam to expose those intentions and in some cases condemn those intentions as having no place in the civilized world.
Let's face it, we all discriminate and we do so because the need for safety in the multicultural world is immediate, especially when those cultures are very different and suddenly placed together. Storms are brewing because of these differences and governments that refuse to acknowledge this because of political correctness and the incessant doctrine of tolerance, are becoming the architects of the destruction of everything we call civilized.
How can nations be expected to discern the intentions of a completely different culture if not through the behaviors that flow from beliefs found in that culture? The best way to discern intent is through behaviors and those behaviors like it or not are driven by beliefs. There's really nothing to figure out. Behaviors speak for themselves. Nations should not have to calibrate their way of life to be tolerant of bad behavior.
The politically correct doctrine of tolerance is completely derailing every attempt to confront the beliefs found in Islam and subsequent behaviors.
Every time I hear the word tolerance, I hear a word used to make an excuse for bad behavior. It's time to confront that word in the conversations and demand that it not be used synonymously with mutual esteem which could never make an excuse for bad behavior. Mutual esteem is an antonym of tolerance because it naturally seeks to eliminate the double standards that tolerance promotes when it makes an excuse for bad behavior on behalf of any ideology or religion and that is not limited to just Islam.
Will Islam ever change? I don't think so and it's not because it can't change. It's because the rest of the world continues to promote tolerance and make excuses for ancient behaviors that have no place in a civilized world.
How clever a single word like "Tolerance" can be when used to make an excuse for bad behaviors and I'm surprised that this point is never made.
It's time for beliefs to progress towards a more civilized future and when that happens, behaviors will follow.
Being forced to suffer intolerable behavior is what is being examined in this video.
We simply must discriminate between good behavior and bad behavior as well as good intention and bad intention. Then we have to decide what's tolerable and what's intolerable.
I can think of nothing more oppressive or tyrannical than being forced to tolerate intolerable behaviors.
Take care.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Circumcision...The Spirit of Abstraction


The spirit of abstraction is a psychological mindset that reduces a human into a function so that you can treat people with cruelty and indifference and go to bed at night and sleep soundly without a sense of culpability or guilt in having done so.
There was a time when it was a legal right and choice to own another human being as a slave. Everyone knows that slavery is an insufferable existence.  Whether that be human trafficking in our present day, sweatshops across the globe, slavery in America or even the slavery of Hebrews in ancient Egypt. Slavery is a blight on civilization.
In the United States, before slavery was abolished, there were people who were opposed to it and advocated on behalf of the humanity of those held in slavery. But the people who owned slaves advocated for their rights and choices to own slaves under the law as property.
We know that slavery is wrong. But people actually believed at one time that this was their right and their choice to engage in owning other people as property.
Slavery was never a right or a choice afforded to humanity ever. It has always been wrong and always will be wrong. And the reason why it lasted so long is because of the spirit of abstraction. The spirit of abstraction is that psychological mindset that reduces a person from a human being to a function, thereby making it easier to treat a person with cruelty and indifference without a sense of culpability or guilt in having done so. And that is a psychological defense mechanism that provides conscious camouflage so that we can be ok with elevating a person's function over their humanity. Since functions are disposable, each time we engage in this, we send a clear message in regards to how we value others. And the message is that we just don't value them at all.
That's why slavery lasted so long. Slave owners couldn't break free from that psychological mindset in order to see a race of people as human beings. Slavery is a blight on humanity. If it was legal to own slaves in this day and age, it would be appalling.
So very simply, why can't we apply that same mindset to circumcision? The answer is that we are clearly operating from the spirit of abstraction. We don't see the humanity of boys and girls or men and women. Instead we see functions are valued over humanity and we want to control functions. Because it's legal or considered religious or cultural, we can do this with impunity. It's our right. It's our choice. It's legal...It is an undeniable fact that boys are the primary target of circumcision. I've seen so many videos at this point where people focus the debate on a choice between circumcising or not circumcising. We knew we were going to have a boy so we had to sit down and go over the decision to circumcise him or not circumcise him. This is not where the focus of the conversation needs to be.
This is not a decision that was ever supposed to be afforded to the human race. It was never meant to be a choice and that's the insidiousness of having choices offered to us. You can choose to circumcise or not circumcise. That is a smokescreen. That choice needs to be rejected with  the same attitude of being offered the choice to own a slave as an option. It surprises me that people don't see it that way. It should sicken them to even consider it...to even entertain the choice.  We should say...what are you doing offering me a choice like that? Are you insane? That's no choice. That was never afforded to the human race.
That's what circumcision is in today's world. The exact same spirit of abstraction that made slavery possible for so long is the exact same spirit of abstraction employed to deflect attention away from guilt and culpability related to violating a person's rights and choices, regardless of gender...male or female. This is why circumcision has lasted as long as it has. It's the same reason that slavery lasted as long as it did. Because we can't break free from the spirit of abstraction that reduces a human into a function that we can dispose of. Circumcision disposes of function.
When I hear people discussing their rights and choices to do this to their children, it disturbs me as much as it would to hear someone defend their right and choice to own a slave. Slavery is a blight on humanity and so is circumcision. The attitudes of people engaged in the spirit of abstraction are a blight on everything that we call civilized. Circumcision rights are not afforded to parents anymore than the rights to own a slave are afforded to anyone.
Today could you imagine a debate about the benefits of slavery vs. freedom? It would be atrocious. It would be called racism and discrimination of the worst kind. Yet we still think that by having this discussion, where the focus is primarily the rights and choices of parents and religions or the benefits and risks of circumcising vs. not circumcising, that we don't see that as a deflection away from where the focus really needs to be.
The focus of conversation needs to clearly point out that it is healthier for humanity to operate from a psychological mindset that is void of the spirit of abstraction. After all, it was the spirit of abstraction that also made the holocaust and every genocide possible in the first place.
The spirit of abstraction is not human health. What's healthy is not affording to ourselves the right to treat people with cruelty and indifference without connecting it to personal guilt and culpability. It's healthy that we can't do that without feeling guilty. The spirit of abstraction promotes the same exact mindset that made slavery possible. That is where the argument lives and breathes. That psychological mindset is where the blight is, and it needs to be acknowledged as such. It lives in our hearts and minds. That's what needs to be circumcised...the spirit of abstraction. That's where the focus needs to be. That's where the conversation and debate needs to takes place.

There is nothing wrong with our bodies. There is something wrong with our beliefs and to continue in beliefs that are held in the spirit of abstraction, preserves the mindset that is the motivation behind all of humanity's cruelty and indifference and when we employ this to serve ourselves we give up our right to call ourselves civilized.
Take care.

Circumcision...I Don't Forgive It


I want to talk about the effect circumcision has had on me personally.
I was circumcised as an infant. I didn't even know I was circumcised until I was 9 years old. I was told by my mother and when she revealed this to me she laughed at the shock on my face. It was a surreal feeling to discover that I was somehow purposely made to be different and I didn't even understand why or what took place. Subconsciously I began hating every thought that crossed my mind about it.
After I was told...I became obsessed with looking at my penis, just trying to figure out what happened. I also became extremely self conscious about what others thought. I was thinking about it so much that I imagined that that was all people thought about. The scar from my circumcision became a permanent reminder that I was assaulted sexually.
I remember trying to find information at the library before the computer age and how impossible it was.
Eventually, I put it in the back of my mind and my self image was modified and my self esteem and confidence lowered. I was different and it has affected me ever since. I've always overcompensated to present myself as valuable and I believe that's directly related to how circumcision makes me feel about myself.
Being circumcised makes me feel hurt, betrayed, sad, cheated, unworthy of protection, vengeful, varying levels of madness where I have private conversations with myself in an attempt to protest on behalf of my body. I secretly practice my defensive arguments as if I were a child about to undergo circumcision or directly after...arguments that I would make to justify my humanness or advocate for myself in some way to change the hearts and minds of those that participated in hurting me. Because I can't undo what they did, I always lose the arguments.
So, I erase my love and trust, so that they suffer a loss that cannot be regained. I tell those people that they gave up their right to be loved by me and I withdraw it. I picture them laughing at me because how can I erase my mother or father. It causes me to spiral down even further.
I do this in private and I don't let anyone hear me because I don't want people to think I'm crazy. It's very isolating.
I don't feel like there's anything about my penis that belongs to me. It belongs to those that cut me and society in general. With every circumcision that takes place, I am clearly told that what happened to me is a socially approved trauma. It's weird to say this but my penis feels disconnected from my body, almost separated. I even tell myself it's not mine.
I've had a sex life but I will never be able to say that it was good and now I am starting to hate sex or even the idea of it.
I am jealous of men who have not been circumcised and happy for them at the same time. There's a lot of mixed emotions about it. You can't talk about because people think it's funny or they support circumcision and don't want to believe anything outside of the propaganda associated with it. Any form of complaint brings ridicule. Everyone tells me to just get over it.
People love to tell me I have  issues or that I have a problem with women when I bring it up because I talk about the beliefs that people hold about the opposite sex. Everything I say gets deflected to something else. I don't feel like people will ever really listen and so if I don't matter to society, then why participate. It's very isolating and I turn to online platforms where I can at least go on record publicly and leave a testimony that will mostly be ignored in a sea of testimonies. It's so easy to ignore people in an age when we are told that connections costs so much. It's as easy as changing the channel.
There literally is nowhere to turn for support and there is no way to undo the harm and so I have had to teach myself to accept it. Well, I don't want to accept it. I simply don't want to accept it. I don't want to deny or invalidate myself so that everyone else can be ok with it. It feels like the worst lie and I'm being told to believe it for everyone else's benefit.
One of the most difficult things to listen to is the opinions of women on the subject. Especially, those that are for circumcision. For some reason, it seems like their opinions matter more and that really bothers me. It's like women have granted themselves some kind of authority or self appointed approval power over male anatomy in order to gain control over how men feel about themselves through the lens of female acceptance. This allows women to secretly celebrate that you can do anything to a man and he will still love women because of how men hate being rejected by women. It's no secret that women like men who demonstrate a resilience and survivability because women basically choose who has the most courageous attitude or having somehow overcome the odds and that promotes their own survivability by proxy. It adds an unnecessary component of complexity to the subject and focuses more on women than the men it actually affects.
I've heard so many women say that uncircumcised penises are ugly, including my own mother. It's very hypocritical to hear a woman make these sexist remarks about circumcision when they would never allow that to be said in regards to their anatomy. I don't see how a woman's critical ideas about male anatomy and aesthetics are even relevant unless they are promoting a man's natural body.
Whenever I hear these sexist comments and opinions, I don't feel like I have a right to my own body and that I'm thought of as flawed for my natural physical being. Nature didn't make a mistake.
People have posted many videos of actual circumcisions and their opinions, and I think to myself...this is like watching a rape. I make it a point not to listen to women that support circumcision because of how they go out of their way to try to make men hate themselves or associate indifference to men. The comment sections of all these videos are filled with comments about God and religion or medicine and statistics and all of the excuses that go with it. It's rare to find support or empathy. I do commend the men women out there that don't think circumcision is a right of choice for parents and religion and they actively advocate on behalf of boys.
Here in the states we are supposed to have equal protection under the law and we clearly operate from double standards. Girls are protected and boys are not and there is no escaping that double standard.
Society knows that this is wrong...I am convinced of that.
I can't forgive because in so doing, life will go on and people will conclude that men eventually get over it and so it's ok.
It's true that I have to live with circumcision and I'm powerless to do anything about it but let what I'm about to say next sink in...
Circumcision has taught me a sad truth about people and the world we live in...
When a man has suffered circumcision, he thinks that because he still feels something or because he can have an orgasm, that he is experiencing the fullness of what he was meant to experience, but he is only operating from a mutilated fraction of what he was meant to experience.
The world has suffered an emotional circumcision. Empathy has been cut away from the human body of emotions where we are most sensitive and because people still feel something that resembles empathy, they think they are operating from the fullness of what they were meant to experience when it's only just a mutilated fraction.

Take care.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Curiosity Kills The Cat But Dogma Kills Curiosity


Personal dogma is a pet that ends up pissing on everyone else's carpet.
Despite the efforts made by atheists to prove that there is no God or the efforts made by those who believe in God to prove that God exists, there is still no evidence either way.
Because everything that we know and believe is held in limited observability and considering that the question of whether or not God exists or doesn't exist is also held in that same limited observability, the most reasonable approach to exploration in my opinion is to remain open to the possibility of both points of view. I say this because anything held in limited observability, yet declared in absolutes, risks the promotion of dogma.
Dogma filters our ability to explore and examine our own point of view which holds the potential to transcend what we currently know and believe to be truth. The filters of dogma are the most disabling limitations placed upon human beings and does not promote the use of our natural inclination to be curious.
I have been told by the atheist community and the religious community alike that one of the most dangerous places to be is somewhere in the middle but I disagree. To be open and unbiased about both positions allows my curiosity to thrive in the exploration and free examination of meaning, purpose, intention and truth, regardless of whether those things are in my knowledge or my faith. Since, the question of God is one of the most deeply personal exploration in the human experience, the very last thing we need is limitations in regards to that. Now that doesn't mean that limitations are bad because the use of boundaries are limitations in regards to trust and trustworthiness. These limitations are beneficial to everyone for the purpose of discerning the intentions of others and our own need of safety in the world.
Openness is an honest elimination of the limitation of dogma on both sides of the discussion whether that be religious dogma or intellectual dogma, so that curiosity and the possibility of personal transcendence and growth and development can take place for the one who asks the question of whether or not God exists.
Hypothetical questions of why or what if are important questions for human beings to ask.
I was raised to be catholic...and as child, I was naturally inquisitive. So, I asked lots of questions. More often than not, the answers I was given ended with...because God. This failed to satisfy my curiosity to say the least, and not only that but I was discouraged to explore or examine beyond that answer. Eventually, I stopped asking questions altogether and surrendered to the limitation of dogma.
As I am now 48 years old and thoroughly enjoying my personal exploration of evolutionary processes, I have found a similar dogma in regards to the intellectual and scientific community that limits exploration and examination with similar answers that end with...because evolution. Well, that fails to satisfy my curiosity as well.
At this point, I refuse to surrender my curiosity to the dogma and limitations of both contexts. I'll just rely on my own observations and enjoy the freedom of open exploration without the necessity of a context. Openness is freedom to explore and examine life on our own terms and whatever a person discovers will almost certainly be held in a continued, limited observability. Whatever conclusions a person comes to is also their freedom and so long as that freedom doesn't hinder another person's exploration with dogma, then curiosity and openness to possibilities and new discoveries will remain a journey of growth and development, rather than a destination of limitation.
I am open to the idea that there is no God and that there is a God, and I enjoy a freedom in my curiosity about both ideas. If it were proven without a doubt that there is no God (and I think that would be impossible) but if it could be proven, then I would experience a loss of exploratory freedom and my curiosity would end up relegated to a limitation of one possibility without the other. If the opposite were true and it was proven that God exists then I would also experience a loss of exploratory freedom and my curiosity would suffer as well.
The benefit of not being able to prove either affords a greater openness to personal curiosity and that benefit of openness cannot be derived from one without the other.
Bottom line...dogma promotes limitation and openness promotes growth and development. Maybe the latter of the two leads to a greater mutual appreciation of what it means to celebrate human curiosity and the question of...what if? Maybe science and faith without the filters of dogma can remain curious about both possibilities.
It would be refreshing to see a paradigm shift in that direction instead of the incessant arguing and belittling of one position over the other.
That's all I really wanted to say on the issue.

Take care.