Tag Archives: psychology

Click Image to hear Doc Nuccitelli interviewed.

ipredator-inc.- michael-nuccitelli-psy.d.-internet-safety-radio-interview-announcement-1100x733

Doc Nuccitelli will be interviewed live again October 2, 2015 at 7:15pm EST on “America Now with Meghan McCain” regarding the recent UCC shooting, the FBI investigating 4chan and the thread the UCC shooter was posting in. Link pasted below to listen to interview. Click on link and hit “Listen Live” at 7:15pm EST.

America Now with Meghan McCain http://www.americanowradio.com/onair/america-now-with-meghan-mccain-56597/

October 1, 2015 1st Interview Link  https://darkpsychology.co/wp-content/uploads//ucc-shooting-america-now-meghan-mccain-michael-nuccitelli-psyd-interview-ipredator.mp3

The more psychologically isolated we become, the more cyberspace perceptually distorts our reality. Michael Nuccitelli, Psy.D. (October, 2015)




Shaming in order to make Same.


I have actually been thinking about this for a while.  The word Allah was a Generic word for God, it was not a specific personal deity.  In ancient times it was a pagan deity.  Mohammed rebranded the term already in use because it was a widely recognized name for God IN GENERAL what Mohammed did was he ENSOULED it with a different spirit.  What was that spirit?  Based on my research occult, philological, psycholinguistic, exegetical, and hermeneutical, in nature, I have arrived at the conclusion that he ensouled or rebranded a generic name for god with an evil Jinn known as an Ifrit.

Theodore Shoebat wrote a pretty good article that confirms many of my suspicions when I was finalizing my research on the topic today. (http://shoebat.com/2012/09/13/the-oldest-reference-to-allah/) The fact of the matter is that no prophet of god, including Jesus Christ, ever spoke poorly of Wise King Solomon, who is also the namesake of my spiritual name, “Shivah Solomon or Shivastus Solomonicus”

I suspect that Solomon had to learn about other gods in order to make one Nation in which all people could live together in peace, and in order to do that he had to understand how everybody thought, what compelled them.  In order to create a sustainable society some people had to be shamed in order to make them the same.  *Shem* (Hebrew: שֵם,) “renown; prosperity; name”   the term Semitic (from the biblical “Shem”, Hebrew: שם‎)

Sibilance is a manner of articulation of fricative and affricate consonants, made by directing a stream of air with the tongue towards the sharp edge of the teeth (Trident = 3 teeth,ש,Ψ )The meaning of the word Shin is 3 fold. Its meaning is tooth, ivory, and to replace. – See more at: http://www.yeshshem.com/shin-page.htm#sthash.VZ85dkPn.dpufExamples
of sibilants are the consonants at the beginning of the English words sip, zip, ship, chip, and Jeep, and the second consonant in vision.
A shibboleth (which is the etymology of the word sibilance) is a word or custom whose variations in pronunciation or style can be used to differentiate members of ingroups from those of outgroups. Within the mindset of the ingroup, a connotation or value judgment of correct/incorrect or superior/inferior can be ascribed to the two variants.
Recorded in the Book of Judges, chapter 12, after the inhabitants of Gilead inflicted a military defeat upon the tribe of Ephraim (around 1370–1070 BCE), the surviving Ephraimites tried to cross the Jordan River back into their home territory and the Gileadites secured the river’s fords to stop them. In order to identify and kill these refugees, the Gileadites told each refugee to say the word shibboleth. The Ephramite dialect did not contain the “sh” sound and so those who pronounced the word as sibboleth were identified as Ephramites and killed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

IN ORDER TO MAKE TWO THINGS THE SAME THAT ARE NOT EQUAL ONE OF THEM YOU HAVE TO SHAME.  The bible was written in Jewish Exegesis which means real names were often not used this is why there is no record of a King by the name of “Solomon” his name derives directly from Shalom which means Peace, as he was the King of Peace.  Representing, the sephiroth Chesed, and the Planet Jupiter also associated with Zeus, and the Namesake of the Chassidim.

Response to Scientific American: A Matter of Time.


I was very intrigued by your recent article on time, I wanted to respond to it in my own terms or thought technology as I like to refer to it.  Since time seems to disappear from the formulas of theorists and doesn’t appear necessary to exist many people in the scientific and physics communities believe that it is an illusion.  Time doesn’t necessarily need to exist.


Albert Einstein Quotes Wallpapers3[15]

Why does the human experience exist?

This is how I want to approach the subject.  To quote myself, “All humans have finite capacity, if they had infinite capacity they would be the universe.”  This is a reference to Einstein’s reason for thinking that man cannot travel at the speed of light because he would approach infinite mass, becoming everything in the universe.  Which is interesting because it suggests that the person moving at the speed of light would become the super position, everywhere at the same time.  If you look at the concept of time dilation, there would be much more time from the perspective of that person because time would be moving much more slowly for him.

It is because we have finite capacity that time appears to exist because we the individual are not whole and in order to make ourselves whole we must continue to interact with our surroundings to maintain a kind of wholeness.  We return to the universe for food, sustenance, shelter, to expel waste, to procreate, and for us survival is wholeness.  One self must rely on the ONE SELF, the universe for survival.

If you look at the connection between mind time and pain what you realize is that pain stimulates the mind and the mind exists to help us connect ourselves with that which would temporarily make us whole, what we need, what we want.


The reason we have failed to discover the theory of everything is because of the cornerstone that we reject, the human perspective.  Fred Hoyle, formerly an atheist, became a deist when discovering the Triple-Alpha process.  This was the first time the Anthropic principle was invoked predictively.  It suggested that the universe might exist for the experience of human beings.

From my experience humans are the brain cells of god.  Intelligence is a very mysterious thing, even though we know it exists and we know it has a huge effect on it’s environment we can’t quantify intelligence like we do everything else.

I have a series of questions for you:  Is intelligence native to the universe?  If so do you believe it had to be here in some form at the inception of the universe?  Would you agree that there is a big difference between intelligent creatures and inanimate objects insofar as we are able to influence our environment?  Now please tell me what percentage of the universe is intelligent?  What percentage of the earth is intelligent?  What percentage of the human body is intelligent?  What percentage of the human brain is intelligent?

Human beings and the human perspective are integral to the theory of everything.  If you examine the way in which math and language frame the problem one (language) presupposes relationship and the other presupposes a singular will, which would be the will of the universe, which would be god’s will, which the mathematician conflates with his own will.



There are two different perspectives that the human being can have.  The person that perceives the universe as an object presupposes tacitly a singular will, one volition, and from their perspective they possess that will and they objectify the universe and those around them, I call this being delusional towards people or relationship.  The person who perceives the universe as a person might be delusional about facts but they tend to be less delusional about relationship, imho.  There is a meeting place between Psychology and Philosophy where the rational man stands, both non-deluded about facts and the universe and non deluded about people as well.

The Ancient Indian Philosophers tell a story of Markandeya, one of the greatest Hindu saints, that like Jonah found himself expelled from the mouth of Vishnu who symbolized the universe.  Outside of Vishnu he found himself floating in cold water in permanent night, not being able to see anything.  Until suddenly he saw Vishnu floating on the water in the lion’s pose, after much prayer he was able to get back into Vishnu’s mouth and into our Universe.  This story communicates to me that our universe was created for our mind.  There is no reason we should be able to understand or contemplate the universe.  And I doubt that anything outside of the universe would be in the least way intelligible to the human brain.  We are god, understanding god, inside of god.  Think of our lives as introspection as it were.  Life has experiential data.  It has meaning for the individual that it doesn’t communicate to anyone else.  Our life, in a way, is like a private conversation between us and the universe.


My Organic Computer Theory suggests that humans are not as unpredictable as we think.  Every event or fact or statement has positive or negative survival data to the individual, which creates negative or positive emotions.  (the binary code for Organic Computers) This depends on how the individual defines themselves.  The definition set of the individual determines who they project their sense of self onto (plasticity of the sense of self) and who they retract their sense of self from.  This is determined by the character they are playing and the story they think they are in.

Linguistic science and cognitive science believe that we remember things in a matrix of narrative.  That is how we string facts together and how we remember them.  If we genuinely understand an individual we know how they will interpret events and what kind of impact those events will have on their psyche.

Unlike facts and objects humans are less predictable, less objectifiable, more difficult to understand.  So the person good with science and numbers might be almost retarded when it comes to relationship.  Thus I refer to humans as Intelligent Objects to distinguish them from facts and objects.



The above is how I describe the universe, if their is nothing their can’t be change, and if their is change their can’t be nothingness.  If the universe has the ability to settle into grosser and finer elements when nothing is happening. Then one end of the spectrum would be more active and the other end more static, if you were to turn this pole in a circle and touch both ends you would get an explosion as faster and slower moving elements came into contact with one another.

Ponder this, if their were only one source of light in the universe and no mass, their would be no friction and therefore their would be also no heat.

Furthermore, if nothingness, the original substance is like a fluid, if it were to be stirred would it create brecciated nothingness?  If that was the case than once again their would be difference and their would be change.


Another question I have pondered, if time doesn’t exist, why does empty space exist?  How come everything isn’t smashed so close together movement is impossible?  You see I am very suspicious of this thing called empty space that allows me to see from here to there.  What is this substance that I am looking through?  I think empty space is a very mysterious substance.  We don’t contemplate it because we categorize it as nothing.  Is there some force that is the opposite of gravity, perhaps levity that is simultaneously pushing things apart and separating them?  Observe how quickly some substances diffuse in a vacuum or even a fluid.  Why doesn’t everything diffuse to fill empty space.

In the article it is suggested the time can be a singular dimension not necessarily associate with the other 3.  For example, like a photograph their could be space but their wouldn’t be time so their wouldn’t be movement.  But why is there space in the first place?  Why is their separation?  If nothing banged why is it not like we are living in a singularity?


One final comment, if time is an illusion, that means that there must be some time some place before time or outside of time.  Which means that all their is right now is the singularity and the illusion of plurality. I wrote a fiction piece a while back showing how this would work, potentially.  From the perspective of the person in the singularity every moment of time would be immediately accessible.  (http://shivastus.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/out-of-time-2nd-noah-socrates-story/)

If time isn’t real, the Universe isn’t real because the big bang never banged.  Which means all their is, is the ONE SELF.  So, if that is the case, are we the dream of God?

Origins of Western Philosophy, Rabbi Ba’al Shivah

A huge help in putting together my theories was the work of Okko Behrends.  What I do is I look for the movement of ideas, words, philosophies, processes, practices (praxis) from one culture to another over time.  These create rhetorical tautologies or identical patterns.  Some cultures adopt and keep those patterns because of an affinity and others do not.

Frankly I think that the Augur’s of Pre-Greek Minoan cult were originally from India and in India I believe they were called the Aghori.

The Aghori (Sanskrit: अघोरaghōra)[2] are asceticShaivasadhus.

The Aghori in Shaivism.

The Aghori are known to engage in post-mortem rituals. They often dwell in charnel grounds, have been witnessed smearing cremationashes on their bodies, and have been known to use bones from human corpses for crafting skull bowls (which Shiva and other Hindu deities are often iconically depicted holding or using) and jewelry. Due to their practices that are contradictory to orthodox Hinduism, they are generally opposed.[3][4]

Many Aghori gurus command great reverence from rural populations as they are supposed to possess healing powers gained through their intensely eremitic rites and practices of renunciation and tápasya. They are also known to meditate and perform worship in haunted houses.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori

8 minutes in Behrend’s defines Auctoritatus as a form of authority not based on force but based on reason, what I refer to as Sapiential Authority.

In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious “power of command” of heroic Roman figures.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas#Auctoritas_principis

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.  Matthew 7


44 minutes okko quotes cicero

Auctoritas is determined by it’s good results and it’s success and by the merit of reason.  The High priest of the Augure’s didn’t create the law, he didn’t manufacture it, he expounded the law that already existed in the universe the Law that governed success.  They were readers of omens, signs, and portents.

The augur was a priest and official in the classical world, especially ancient Rome and Etruria. His main role was the practice of augury, interpreting the will of the gods by studying the flight of birds: whether they are flying in groups or alone, what noises they make as they fly, direction of flight and what kind of birds they are. This was known as “taking the auspices.” The ceremony and function of the augur was central to any major undertaking in Roman society—public or private—including matters of war, commerce, and religion.

The Roman historian Livy stresses the importance of the augurs: “Who does not know that this city was founded only after taking the auspices, that everything in war and in peace, at home and abroad, was done only after taking the auspices?”[1]  


It was also antithetical to tyranny. At 14 minutes tyranny = kingship.  The Augur, much like the president is supposed to be, (I am glaring at you Obama) is not above the law, they are also under the law.  This isn’t from Okko Behrends, but notice how to Remus was not chosen as the first king of Rome because he lived on Aventine hill which was full of “inauspicious birds”.  The reason the birds were present was because Aventine hill was used for the disposal of garbage and dead bodies, remember if you will that the Aghori also live in grave yards.

Roman augurs were part of a collegium of priests who shared the duties and responsibilities of the position. At the foundation of the Republic in 510 BC, the patricians held sole claim to this office.

Augury sought the divine will regarding any proposed course of action which might affect Rome’s pax, fortuna and salus (peace, good fortune and wellbeing).[2] Political, military and civil actions were sanctioned by augury, historically performed by priests of the college of augurs and by haruspices on behalf of senior magistrates.

According to Cicero, the auctoritas of ius augurum included the right to adjourn and overturn the process of law: consular election could be – and was – rendered invalid by inaugural error. For Cicero, this made the augur the most powerful authority in the Republic.

In ancient Rome the auguria were considered to be in equilibrium with the sacra (“sacred things” or “rites”) and were not the only way by which the gods made their will known. The augures publici (public augurs) concerned themselves only with matters related to the state.

The jus augurale (augural law) was rigorously secret, therefore very little about the technical aspects of ceremonies and rituals has been recorded.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur

Shiva Shakti - Maha Shivratri

If you examine the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra you will find that the deep intimate conversation between Shiva and Shakti about the nature of reality becomes the basis of philosophical and scientific reasoning.  It became the Sohbet of Rumi and Shams and before that it was the intimate conversations that Jesus had with his disciples and before that it was the discussion of the Rabbi’s discussing Torah, or the law of the universe among themselves.


This became the Parrhesia of the ancient Greeks:

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, andbeliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered[by whom?] to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]

The field of logic studies ways in which human beings reason through argument.[6]

  • The original Greek term was “λόγος”logos, the root of the modern English word “logic” but also a word which could mean for example “speech” or “explanation” or an “account” (of money handled).[7]
  • As a philosophical term logos was translated in its non-linguistic senses in Latin as ratio. This was originally not just a translation used for philosophy, but was also commonly a translation for logos in the sense of an account of money.[8]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

In rhetoric, parrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking.[1] There are three different forms of parrhesia. Parrhesia is its nominal form, is translated from Latin to English meaning “free speech”. Parrhesiazomai in its verbal form is to use parrhesia, and parrhesiastes is the one who uses parrhesia for example “one who speaks the truth”. [2] The term parrhesia first appears in Greek literature in Euripides and can be found and used in ancient Greek texts all throughout the end of the fourth century and during fifth century A.D. [3] The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” and ῥῆσις “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia

and that became the sciences, the logy’s, or the logic of, teleology, biology, psychology, ecology, geology, etc.  Each logy would have a guru or teacher that specialized in that subject.  The entire western civilization evolved out of this process as well as the Western brain and the way western people think in general.  Our separation of powers, our checks and balances in the government, our sense of propriety, all of them came from the same place.

27 minutes: The name Augustus was chosen by Octavian chose the name Augustus the name of the High Priest of the Augure’s instead of the name Romulus the first king of Rome, he chose between the two names.

‘In my sixth and seventh consulships [28-27 BC], after I had extinguished civil wars, and at a time when with universal consent I was in complete control of affairs, I transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome…After this time I excelled all in influence [auctoritas], although I possessed no more official power [potestas] than others who were my colleagues in the several magistracies.’ (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34.1-3)[[1]]

46 minutes, the separation of powers, the leader can assume command of the military upon leaving the polis, but upon entering the polis must relinquish control of the millitary, (a legitimate leader must never use the military against his people).

Compare that with what President Obama recently did, is he giving power back to the people of the united states?  Is he more like Augustus or Julius Caesar?

In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word ‘tyrant’: they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate. [Rousseau, “The Social Contract”]  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tyrant

In a commentary of Oedipus I once read the author argued that Oedipus Rex should rightly have been called Oedipus Tyrannous because the original term didn’t have a negative meaning, it just meant popular ruler, Julius Caesar was very popular, he also was a usurper of the law.



You are about to use the moving the goal fallacy with yourself as the goal and we are going to have an argument of infinite regress where you refuse to believe what I have just told you no matter how often I support it with facts.  You are not a linguisitic philosopher, an analytical philosopher or a philologist, I am.  Moreover, I am correct.


The Symbols above is known as the hamsa, it originated in India and was associated with the Jains, who were the Janis mentioned in the story of Moses.  The name comes from the Hindu concept of Harmlessness known as Ahimsa, notice the similar phonology?

Ahimsa (Sanskrit: अहिंसा; IAST: ahiṃsā, Pāli:[1]avihiṃsā) is a term meaning ‘not to injure’. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. cause no injury, do no harm.[2][3] Ahimsa is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings – including all animals – according to many Indian religions.[4]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

The word itself derives from So Ham the inbreaths and outbreaths of Brahma if you are familiar with my work you know that I believe that Abraham and Brahma are one and the same, I am not the first or the only person who believes this.

Soham (सो ऽहम्so ‘ham[1]) is the Sanskrit for “I am He/That”. (See also: Tat Tvam Asi.)

When it applies to a person’s name, according to Vedic philosophy it means identifying oneself with the universe or ultimate reality. Some say that when a child is born it cries Koham-Koham which means Who am I? That is when the universe replies back Soham. You are the same as I am. It also stems from the Sanskrit word which means, “self pride.”

I am

“May [God] bless the lads, and let them carry my name, along with the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac. May they increase like fish in the land.” (Gen. 48:16)

The Talmud (Berachot 55b) explains that Joseph shared a special quality with fish:

“The fish in the waters are concealed by the water, and thus not susceptible to the Evil Eye. So too, the descendants of Joseph are not susceptible to the Evil Eye.” http://ravkooktorah.org/VAYEHI59.htm

Kabbalists such as myself know that “water” is a metaphor for Torah which is synonymous with the law of the Universe that is studied by rabbis, and augurs, and expounded.  Fish live in the water, so this zen like koan, which is so paradoxical is saying that the philosophers, the rational people need to be increased.  It is these philosophers who are protected from the evil eye.

The nounkohen is used in the Torah to refer to priests, both Jewish and non-Jewish, such as the Jewish nation as a whole,[1] as well as the priests (Hebrewkohanim) of Baal (2 Kings 10:19).

The Hebrew noun kohen is most often translated as “priest”, whether Jewish or pagan, such as the priests of Baal or Dagon, though Christian priests are referred to in Hebrew by the term komer (Hebrew כומר). The word derives from a Semitic root common, at minimum, to the Central Semitic languages; the cognateArabic wordكاهنkāhin means “soothsayer, augur, or priest“.





Richard Dawkins Deconstructed.


So, I am going to practice describing Richard Dawkins inner world based on my psychological models and using my terms.  It is good for me to practice describing peoples profiles so I get used to using my thought technology (terms).  Religious language, in a manner of speaking, describes our internal world or the way we think the world works.  Our internal world is our soul, or our gestalt, it is our understanding of the world.  Now what is interesting with some atheists with the conceit that god doesn’t exist is that they don’t have any system for describing their internal world workings, which is to say they can’t scrutinize themselves.  Now I created my psycholinguistic model for detecting psychopaths while I was observing troll behavior on social networking sites.  Psychopaths conceal their true self and represent themselves falsely.  My model was created to understand the soul of people that were concealing themselves and revealing themselves strategically, people that don’t want to be understood.

Richard Dawkins, narrative recently changed, in his book, THE GOD DELUSION he mentions that a female associate of his said emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse and that he agrees with her.  Then recently this statement changed to, I was physically abused and I can’t condemn mild pedophilia.  One of the things I do in my deconstruction of narrative is learn to distinguish between authentic behavior and strategic behavior.  The second piece is closer to his true narrative (what is actually going on in his head)  but he is still concealing, although he did sidle up to his true narrative a little.  Now we look for variations on the narrative, and look for different deviations of narrative, and potentially contradictions.  One could say “nancy is a little loose” “nancy is a floozy” or “nancy is a slut.”  Each statement communicates slightly different data and characterizes the person speaking and the relationship between the two objects.  “I was molested and I can’t condemn it” in no way contradicts the narratives, “I enjoyed it” or “I wouldn’t mind doing it”.  So just like minesweeper we are going to go through his other actions and statements all of which are tautologies from his world view, as we think, so we speak, and so we act, unless you are a psychopath and concealing yourself, but we have the MIND HACKER on our side.



Richard Dawkins was habituated into an environment that was highly sexually charged at a young age, boys punished each other sexually, and they rewarded each other sexually too, C.S. Lewis experienced this behavior in school, the boys called it tarting and fagging.  Dawkins also had a teacher that rewarded the boys with sexual attention, and put his hands in his pants at one point and knocked his junk around.  People have a normative bias, they think what is normal is good.  Although Dawkins portrays himself as a victim of circumstances as a tacit emotional appeal, I suspect that he actually enjoyed the environment, and the sexual attention and we will get into why later.  It is also important to mention that in Richard Dawkin’s mind, learning is associated with sexual arousal (and so is teaching), from his experience, teaching and learning are sexy and arousing.

Psychopaths perseverate in their behavior and internal narrative.  Psychopaths can’t reform they only become more manipulative.

In psychology and psychiatry, perseveration is the repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.[1] Symptoms include “the inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate,”[2] or the “act or task of doing so,”[3] and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).

The mind is averse, and it reacts against things it doesn’t like.  This eventually creates the form of the conquest for psychopaths.  Being morbidly in relationship with their issues and in the case of a histrionic psychopath clinging to those issues instead of seeking mental health, they need to change or attack whoever they blame for whatever their mind is averse to.  So what is Richard Dawkins mind averse to?


He is averse to shame and he blames Religion as the cause of the bad for his shame.  Now when he says “child abuse” he is referring to emotional abuse and when we say emotional abuse we mean shame, specifically sexual shame.


Notice the association between not being able to enjoy your life, and god not existing?  That is the way he is mentally in relationship with god.  If god exists it means you don’t get to enjoy your life.  Because of sexual shame.  So now we look for repeating occurrences in his behavior and narrative for sexual shame, what do we find?  Do we find a perseveration of emotional morbidity?

Out Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Out Campaign is a public awareness initiative for freethought and atheism. It was initiated by Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and is endorsed by Richard Dawkins, who is a prominent atheist.[1][2]


“There is a big closet population of atheists that need to come out.”  Richard Dawkins

R. Elisabeth Cornwell has stated that the gay rights movement was a source of inspiration for the campaign.[5] The campaign, however, encourages one to “out” only oneself; it invites atheists to:

  • Reach out and talk to others about atheism and help spread a positive view of atheism
  • Speak out about their own beliefs and values without feeling intimidated, thus helping people realize that atheists don’t fit stereotypes and are a very diverse group
  • Keep out, meaning to promote the idea that religion should be kept out of public schools and government, and that nobody’s religious agenda should be allowed to intimidate
  • Stand out and become visible in their communities and become involved. An offshoot of Stand out is the Non-Believers Giving Aid campaign, which has raised money to help out in the aftermath of disaster. The A+ symbol used in the campaign refers to Atheists Standing out for their activism in social and humanitarian efforts.

So we see he was inspired by a campaign for reversing the sexual shame of the stigma associated with being gay.  How do they identify themselves?

The campaign aims to create more openness about being an atheist by providing a means by which atheists can identify themselves to others by displaying the movement’s scarlet letterA, an allusion to the scarlet letter A worn by Hester Prynne after being convicted of adultery in Nathaniel Hawthorne‘s The Scarlet Letter.[3] It encourages those who wish to be part of the campaign to come out and re-appropriate, in a humorous way, the social stigma that in some places persists against atheism, by branding themselves with a scarlet letter.
Again we see the recurring theme of sexual shame.  What this signals to me is that he is concealing something that was very powerful and he is very averse to, and that was caused by his being shamed, by a religious person, and that is why the form of his conquest is to attack and marginalize religion, and humiliate and ridicule religious people.  Let’s see if we can’t piece together more of his narrative.

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

So exactly where do morals come from?  And what are your morals Richard Dawkins?  Some of his arguments suggest that humans are innately moral.  I find this interesting.  I think he is suggesting that his morals are good which means that he doing what he wants is innately correct.  Because men are innately good, and we shouldn’t be being good because somebody is watching us or threatening us.  Are you starting to get the picture yet?  Let’s take it a step further, what of the morals of a psychopath or a sociopath or a child molester?  If people are innately good than whatever their morals allow them to do is also innately good.  How does he propose we agree on what is good and moral?  Should we turn Science into a religion?  and then science can tell us what is moral?  I mean this is coming from the man that wants to eradicate religion.  Should our morals come from the government?



Expressions of Contempt



I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models.  Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded.  People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win.  So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns.  When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.

The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples.  What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt.  Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.

So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them.  So what does this mean for the near future?  Society is about to get a divorce?  No, much much worse.  The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust.  And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science.  And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet.  If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly.  I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.

Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric.  What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist.  He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science.  What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion.  He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good.  And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields.  What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.

This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t.  Socrates was accused of being an atheist.  So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful?  Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government.  There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is.  Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego.  He wants to be worshiped.  He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.

When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.

“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels[1] to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail.  Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent.  You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights.  They are amoral systems.  Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new.  What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.

Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists.  It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it.  Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right?  If you survive or succeed you are the fittest.  Evolution works!

But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.