Zakat funds Terrorism. Follow the money.
In Taoist and Shinto literature they use an interesting literary device for communicating certain types of data. They anthropomorphize animals, objects, and entities. The animal or entity will essentially stay in character and communicate data that is consistent with it’s behavior. These stories are written in an old style known as the “hieros logos” which is a sacred conversation usually between two people. In the Vaigyan Bhairav Tantra this sacred conversation takes place between Shiva and Shakti. Jallaladin Rumi had this sacred conversation with Shams. In this sacred conversation deep spiritual, psychological, and philosophical truths are communicated to the reader. In the story of the Scorpion and the Frog the psychology of the psychopath is communicated. I refer to the information being communicated as sapiential data.
In this style of literature their is a presupposition of the philosophical nature of the entity speaking and the observation of praxis which is the practice or process of living the philosophy. Everything that is said is a rhetorical tautology of the philosophy or personality of the entity speaking, which allows this literary device to communicate sapiential data. The western world has largely become irrational no longer philosophical or even attempting to live or acquire any manner of philosophy. The entity speaking can’t say anything out of character for this reason. This concept of praxis in my psychological models taught me that everything a person thinks is reflected in what they say and do, even if it is concealed or misrepresented. I refer to actions as dynamic tautologies of thoughts and words when it is authentic and not strategic.
It is a huge source of frustration for me that the arrogant, snide, snarky atheists attempt to prevent the artistic and poetic communication of wisdom in this form. Instead of looking at how something is true and useful they scoff and mock the fact that it could never happen and in doing so they miss the import of the message. Atheists that do this are horrible people. They act as though they have been personally attacked by the artistic expression of a person. It is so stupid that it is evil, in expressing myself artistically I am not dictating to you or anyone else what they must think or believe. It demonstrates not only the insanity of Atheists but their narcissism to think that they can get offended at anything for any reason and then to retaliate as though they were attacked by the expression of another. To carry their tacit bias to it’s logical end all fiction books should be burned and science fiction movies shouldn’t be made or watched. I find it repellent that these terrible people aren’t smart enough to evaluate how full of crap they are. What they are scorning is creative intelligence. Nobody that possesses creative intelligence in any discernible degree would criticize it in another.
It is one thing to dislike something and to not watch it yourself but to try to prevent others from expressing themselves in a creative way or to prevent others from reading or watching is evil and stupid. I have seen these atheists maliciously slandering and lying about people expressing themselves artistically, creatively, and spiritually in an attempt to change how others think about those people. Psychopaths disrespect the boundaries of others and that is what these Atheists are, psychopaths. They can’t see that they have overstepped the boundary of common sense. They can’t see that they are not offering a service but a disservice, they are not making the world better but worse. I pray for the day to come when everything atheists have tried to do and have done to others will be visited on their own persons.
I often contemplate how much noise pollution is created by atheists, how much useless conversation that does’t move towards a solution and isn’t productive. Just crappy, emotionally abusive atheists, wasting bandwidth, and everybody’s time. They don’t exist for anything they exist against something. They are defined by what they are against. They are space fillers, oxygen thieves, light blockers. They aren’t here to contribute to but to antagonize and detract from as a testament to their emotional morbidity.
For those of you that don’t know Toms gives shoes to poor kids through out the world for each pair of shoes you buy. Now lets say that you are a woman and you want a sensitive man. You see a man wearing these shoes and you think, “OHMIGOD, HE IS SO SWEET AND SENSITIVE! I LOVE HIM!” Well allow myself to inform you that I work in retail and TOMS shoes are the most stolen item, I swear for every pair sold another pair is stolen, and probably mostly by young men looking to impress girls with them. If you don’t actually buy the shoes then that little starving kid in Africa doesn’t get any shoes. So where did these scathingly brilliant female creatures go wrong in their decision making process? Superficial aesthetic snap decisions.
The book is not the cover! There is no law anywhere that says that people have to portray themselves accurately! It is easier to manipulate a woman than it is to tell her the truth because she will whine, and complain, and judge and nag until you change your narrative. The conceit that one must have to think that everything should be dumbed down accurately for your benefit, that you yourself are not responsible for knowing who is around you, and the presupposition that you would have this shallow relationship with a person based on the fact that they look stunning on your arm and compliment your eyes.
I am reminded of how my ex-girl friend used to say after knowing me for a year, “where is that sweet man I used to know.” The reason this is so infuriating is that she is comparing me to myself when she didn’t know anything about me. Women don’t want to understand their man, they don’t want to put ANY mental effort into their man. If the man attempts to tell her what he thinks instead of what she wants to hear she will punish and torment him. It is much easier to lie to them and manipulate them. Women are their own worst enemy, and they don’t take responsibility for their terrible decisions and they don’t scrutinize their decision making process.
The male mind and the female mind are mirror images of one another. Women are oppositelanders. They think that everything should be done for them and the person should read their mind and give them what they want. They think that the relationship is about their happiness and they are the judge of the state of the relationship. I am trying to help women realize how they are screwing up America and they hate me for it. They would rather live in pleasant oblivion than be self aware. Wake up women, your world is crumbling around you faster than you know, and you are responsible, more responsible than anybody else.
The male mind, in it’s unadulterated un-pussified form, is sociopathic. He lives in nature and deals with reality, conforming himself to nature so that he can survive. Women presuppose a pleasant environment which is an artificial environment which is created by someone else for them. The female mind is incapable of dealing with the ugliness of reality, it would much rather indulge itself in emotional pornography. Men that haven’t been corrupted, perverted, and turned into women by this disgusting elitist, feminist, liberal western mental environment love that which is true and real. Truth is beautiful because it means survival and success in the world. Women on the other hand are distracted by superficial beauty, shiny objects, polish, refinement.
Take a look at this slob, he is hairy, unrefined, mean-spirited, aggressive, he doesn’t wear TOMS, he eats meat, he is disliked by just about everybody, he uses crass language, the list goes on. But, he is a stand up comedian, an author, a linguistic philosopher, a psycholinguist, an ex-stripper, an ex-bouncer, he was given shaktipat initiation by Gurumayi Chidvilasananda picked out of 2,000 people, he is an authentic Jnana and Shaktipat Guru with an authentic lineage, he is an artist, he created his own martial art, he created his own psychology, he writes original philosophic calculus, and he has worked for one of the biggest fortune 500 companies that does the most charity for 10 years. Can you tell by looking at him?
This is my personal philosophic calculus, so please do not plagiarize me. If you are going to quote me give me credit. It is hard enough in this psychopathic, social climby world to get any recognition.
It is important to understand that two different people can be in relationship differently with the same state. One person wants to experience it again, the other is avoiding it, still another hasn’t experienced it and they either desire it or want to avoid it.
You communicate whatever state you are in. If you feel thwarted you communicate thwartedness. You want to share the state you are in. You want to thwart others. Cognitive psychology has linked the feeling of anger to feeling thwarted.
Right now we are communicating through a shared states. We were both schooled in the english language and the letter “A” means the same to me as it does to you more or less. The word “language” means the same to you as it does to me, more or less.
The problem with the “general will” of Jean Jacques Rousseau is the problem of being highly and equally educated. For example if you had to serve two years in the military after high school as they do in Israel and Northern Europe, you would make decisions differently and that would be a state that you share with others that had the same experience of having to take PERSONAL responsibility for the defense of the nation. So that feeling when everyone knows what is the right thing to do is possible, it is just not an experience we as americans have because of our specialization and our not being highly and equally educated we cannot unleash the “highest common good”.
Physical proximity also might be a shared state in so far as you look from the same vantage point or you experienced the same event. But the problem that we run into is that life has experiential data, which is to say that we tacitly interpret and judge reality in our experiencing of it.
There is also something I realized with psychopaths in that they can communicate a state. In order to do this you have to know how something will be interpreted so it deals in a way with hermeneutics. Interestingly though, psychopaths don’t have to be particularly smart to do this. They can see someone use a behavior and adopt that behavior. Human beings are acquisitively mimetic. I have heard people copy arguments that they personally did not understand because it sounded good and winsome. They copy winning behavior. This is known as strategic behavior.
I studied trolls for years when I was creating my theories on psychology. When I realized that my theories were descriptive and predictive I started using them prescriptively to manipulate the trolls I was trolling. I psychologically destroyed them. I trolled entire groups of trolls off the internet. I realized that I could communicate to them I was in a state that I wasn’t in and as I got better I could communicate to them that I was a person that I am not.
“All narrative is doxography.” ~Joxua
That means that all narrative is point of view. So I would say things that appeared to be coming from a person that I was not. I would be in character, so to speak.