Vicious but Necessary Attack on the New Age Movement and Idealism

I'm someone who has been a 'ultra-empath' for my whole life, but in a very different way. I am extremely articulate and confident, which seems to go in direct contrast to most 'sensitive empaths' or whatever. Instead of merely having a sense of purpose to help people, I have a grand strategy to affect change on a massive scale. I'm willing to make brutal sacrifices to achieve these objectives and live by logic, not principles alone like so many 'empaths' do. I also embody the following: 1) Highly logical and strategic instead of primarily intuitive 2) Heavily psychologically armored, seemingly to an inhuman level instead of weak to emotional pain, though I do feel it intensely. 3) No shields, mental defense mechanisms, etc as I've picked my brain to death and have a very adept understanding of how human psychology works, how the mind can trick itself, ESPECIALLY an advanced mind. 4) Extremely good at lying and manipulating; I could lie my way out of anything, but I choose to do the right thing. However, apparently my similarity to Patrick Jane makes me untrustworthy off the bat... 5)Low number of spiritual experiences, but all have been very potent and easily identifiable 6) Atheistic background instead of growing up spiritual 7) No belief in anything 'new age' 8) Magnet for children, animals, etc. 9) Huge number of talents 10) 'Grand strategy', feeling of immense power, higher sentience, despite little or no regular spiritual activity 11) Seemingly the only person, besides one other who feels this way 12) Absolute dissolution of ego, arrogance, pride, vengeance along with other negative human attributes, plus selflessness that manifests almost like it is 'wired' into my blood. 13) Ability to change peoples minds very easily 14) Ability to change my own mind very quickly and blend in 15) High resilience after brutal emotional hits that would kill most people or drive them mad 16) The sole feeling of needing to serve a higher power + humanity without question, also to fight 'evil' that exists meta-physically 17) "Cybernetic" way of thinking 18) Very calm under even immense pressure, lack of mental breakdowns 19) Easily attract women, though once the smartest ones (especially New Agey types) run once they start to get 'bad vibes' 20) Profound understanding of finance 21) Wide sense of humor while feeling ancient and weary I believe that the "New Age" movement, including things like Astrology, crystal healing, belief in chakras and star children and so on and so fourth, is a scourge. I believe this because these beliefs are honestly just defense mechanisms and intuitive short cuts. They make people feel better about them selves and like they know so much, are so enlightened, etc. Intuition is one tool in ones arsenal, but is very dangerous when relied on entirely. Its not easy or pleasant to believe that things are complicated and hard to understand, thus people use their intuition foolishly to take shortcuts and simplify things that are way beyond their level of understanding (and in many cases, far beyond human capacity to really understand to any major level). In a way, people who practice these things are distancing themselves from God and other meta-physical entities that may or may not exist. Why? Because they are engaging in these practices for validation and meaning in life when they've been hurt, aka trying to repair their ego. It gives them a sense of pride and strength which is ultimately false. To understand when something is a truly spiritual experience, one must have an advanced 'logical filter', an extreme understanding of human psychology and biology (including their own), and an understanding of how easily the advanced mind can trick itself...especially under stress or pressure. As I like to say...the mind is quicker than the eye, but far more prone to error. No, true spirituality is very rare and comes primarily from pain and dissolution of ego, pride, vengeance, selfishness, vanity, and so on and so fourth. It comes from purity. That dissolution can come about through various means, but basically means analyzing your own mind to a meta-meta-meta level or something along those lines, though this concept by definition does not make sense to those who do not understand the concept of meta-intelligence or meta-analysis in the first place. I mean, its possible that some people who are 'spiritualists' are experiencing honest things, but they could never tell until they are able to understand just how sneaky the subconscious mind is at throwing things around. Until they can dissolve their barriers, fears, and biases. Honestly, it pains me so much that so many people buy into this New Age crap. I honestly have embodied the "I could be wrong about anything" life philosophy my whole life which has caused me to have massive shifts in belief again and again, but other people who say they have this trait are just lying. Or at least, they're lying about the way they conduct themselves under pressurized or weird situations. Throw them in a bad situation, and they'll start getting defensive, egotistical, rigid, you name it. My father himself thinks he is so spiritually enlightened; talks about things like balance and energy and the whole nine yards, but he is one of the most closed minded circular thinking individuals I have ever known. He has an excuse for everything he does because his spirituality is just a defense mechanism and he has no idea how he comes off to other people. I don't personally care too much what random jerks off the street think of me walking around, but I do try to practice tact and professionalism as there is no point getting into pointless conflict. This is another stupid thing about "New Age" people; they are pointlessly rebellious when they should be picking their battles and understanding that some just aren't worth fighting regardless of who is right and wrong. I tried to argue with that guy for 17 years before I learned much of this. He was raised spiritual which is the big problem here, ADVANCED LOGIC MUST COME BEFORE SPIRITUALITY. You need that logical filter. Spirituality is too advanced for a child to be raised in, and they will use it as a shield if they are sensitive or have had too many rough breaks in life. Well, even without them, its incredibly easy. And once the mind is anchored in that, its impossible to uproot at a certain point. In fact, I was even going in a conspiracy theorist/slightly new agey direction, and if not for my best friend's atheistic rationality, I would probably be more like most people on here. Also, there are different levels of 'empath'. There's a subset of sensitive people, but few are really true empaths who can pick up emotions like radar (maybe one in a few thousand)...but this is also another new age defense mechanism used wrongly. Then you get the vicious cycle, etc. Actually, logic, cold numbers, and rationality augment empathy because they enable you to filter the crap out in that arena too. "Hyper empaths" who feel the toxic atmosphere of the world and a whole spectrum of pain from thousands of events from the past into the future I would say are far rarer...possibly into the hundreds of thousands. I'd project that a large majority of 'true empaths', regardless of the level, are committing suicide before age 25 due to lack of support. The remainder that survive usually sink into a glacial and stuck mindset/lifestyle, and cannot get out even with a huge kick in the butt. Because...they have forgotten who they are and settled for less. True empaths in numbers are the most powerful force on this planet. When they are rational, practical, and have logical aims, of course. The first is to get as many true empaths together as possible, along with just sensitive intelligent people. Nothing wrong with that...just be aware of where you are without defense mechanisms. Becoming an empath is something you can grow into. Then, emotionally armor yourself, use money to get into positions of power, and bam. You've got a better world. Of course it's something that would have to be engineered over a long time, but by finding crutches in the New Age movement and believing in all this likely false stuff instead of actually doing something about this horrible world, progress is being dramatically slowed down. People become idealists and will NOT use strategy and practicality to achieve good objectives because they are stuck in an insular mindset. I talked to one woman who was offended that I told her that the only way to achieve a faster route to Socialism was to get extremely rich and support Socialism thru various means that exist within the system, instead of activism and all that garbage. Cast down your bucket where you are. Walk softly and carry a big gun (partially joking here). See, one cannot realize ANY OF THIS without having a 'grand view of strategy' and a very practical mindset. It is important to have a duality of rationality and empathy; one without the other gets thrown out of balance. As for my spiritual experiences, they always stick out like a sore thumb and are very rare as previously described. I've had maybe 6 that I can absolutely confirm to myself, and perhaps 10-15 total possible ones. This echoes the whole 'theophany' view of God; as in God or the "Source" rarely reveals, but when 'he' does, it is massive. But see, if I did not have this mental filter, I'd never doubt my intuition, and then my subconscious mind would CREATE even more experiences to validate the whole thing. Starting a vicious cycle. I've come face to face with an evil force that does not exist within the human race (humans are shades of grey). Unlike other people who try to form theories on what they don't understand, I stick to what I can confirm and sometimes offer possibilities without absolute belief in them. The last time this happened, I swore that alive or dead, I'd obliterate as many of these damn things as possible. My previous fear of them ended right there. I've been able to dismiss them with some 'power' very quickly. I did not know why until later. I had an experience of astral projection in which I saw my own spirit....a gargantuan ball of pure white light...and was 'revealed' many things. That I can accomplish my mission to change the course of humankind from either this side or the other side, that I embody or have assimilated (I'm not sure which) the spirit of a very powerful angel or even an archangel (according to what human understanding of an 'angel' is), and consequently that the vast majority of religion and spirituality is horribly misguided. That the massive pain I have experienced, pain that would kill almost anyone 30 times over, and my ability to process it is not for no reason and not a coincidence. Along with several other things, but that's the gist of it. Then it disappeared. Coming from an atheist background, this and several other experiences have been difficult to reconcile. But that's where true spirituality comes from. That's where true 'connection to God' comes from. It comes from purity. Dissolution of the ego and knowing that you truly know nothing, and actually practicing such instead of just saying it. I've seen how even my advanced and crystal clear mind will try to play tricks on itself. I admit my weak points. It's high time that 'empaths' ditch the New Age movement, admit they know almost nothing and that all their beliefs could be wrong, and start working in numbers. That'll be the day when 'critical mass' is achieved. But they must be practical and skilled in practical arts, or idiots and linearly intelligent yet selfish people will dominate them. They must be confident and with purpose. I finally understand why all the awful things happened in my life the way they did. There was, apparently, a purple aurora in the sky when I was born. Over...New Jersey. Scientifically improbable to an extreme. Someone needs to give this 'empath' movement a major kick and start it off towards a logical path that will actually achieve an objective, instead of using new age junk as a defense mechanism and wallowing in confusion and misery. Clarity and logic. Admitting how much you know, what you can know, and what you don't and can't know. That's what its all about. Have some fun, too. Sometimes, maybe even 'dare to be stupid'. But think big.

Game Over

Wow, first blog post in about two years...

Let me take some time to describe the utterly....different situation I have been in for quite some time. I do not think this is a typical case of 'depression' or any kind of mental disorder, and have many reasons why I think this.

When I was younger, I actually helped a lot of people greatly (online and in real life occasionally) with emotional problems. These emotional problems ranged from loneliness to full blown schizophrenia. I have met people from these encounters in person on a few occasions, but not really that many times. However, I did have pretty major depression back then, but it wasn't the same as with anyone I really dealt with that much. While these people were being self-destructive, cutting themselves, attempting suicide impulsively, or in general doing things out of desperation, I would suffer against the coldness quietly, even though a lot of things were boiling. Maybe that's why I ended up more messed up, and things online obviously didn't fill the great gap I had in my life. I expressed myself, but I just didn't do impulsive things. I however, did eventually come to the point where I was very very close to suicide. I got caught, and got sent to a place. It was useless and I came out on drugs, but more suicidal and angry.

Things changed pretty rapidly then. I don't know if the final stroke of anger did it, but I changed like night and day. I gained a huge amount of confidence in a period of about a month or two, and as a result shed my depression. I learned from that experience that depression in the true sense of the word is impossible if you have high confidence, because it requires some measure of self defeatism. I guess I was also a strong person, because I wasn't someone who was fulfilled previously and got screwed, I had been pretty much on my own my whole life. So I grew up very independent through this whole ordeal and I think I dealt comparatively well to the people I 'counseled'.

But I think the counseling I did had a dark side to it. I picked up a very strong sense of empathy from there that caused me to 'hyper-feel' everything in the world in a way. And that really came out when I 'got over' the depression I guess. I was no longer depressed, but instead extremely energized and angry. It was like a huge weight had been lifted off my shoulders, causing everything to go into an 'over-drive'. My creativity and intellectual processes utterly exploded, I was thinking of original concepts and ideas at easily ten times the rate I had before. My mind worked at lightning speed and I could do things in 30 minutes that I had trouble completing in hours. Things that previously seemed interesting, that people had no problem with seemed boring. Everything was easy to divide into patterns and my perspective made my previous life feel extremely shallow. It was as if I now had everything under a magnifying glass. Things that are detached from most peoples lives, philosophical implications, societal trends, and every broad thing seemed under the microscope. A much more 'real' existence.

But there was still something missing:

I had no one really there for me, and ESPECIALLY not someone there to empathize with what I was going through. But I wasn't going to give up there. I had become social around 16 and this started a month after my 17th birthday or so (had social problems before though). I just figured that perhaps I hadn't talked to people deeply enough. I knew that if anyone truly felt like me, they would feel similar longing, and would at least understand to a good deal. After much of this, I also did see a therapist about family issues, and that was quite successful because I kept control of the situation. My dad had problems listening to me, but not to a professional when they said more or less the same thing I had been saying. But that was separate from this.

Anyhow, I suppose I came off a bit strong at first, but after awhile I toned down things with other people to the point of letting them do most of the talking. I never ever found someone in real life that much like me, though there were a few people who were intellectually that advanced. So of course, I mean this in terms of empathy. This period of 'rapid growth' also intensified the sinister emptiness I had felt before, to a point where it was quite painful after awhile.

I was devastated by not having anyone connect to me. I had connected to many people over the course of my life, but never felt it given back. Not that I even tried, anyway, it just never was there and especially not when I tried to find if people really understood this. They would always say they did, but they lacked the interest and fervor that would indicate that it really struck a note with them. Because the high intensity was like a fire out of control, I began to become explosively angry, and eventually made a poor attempt at suicide which I cleaned up before anyone would notice. I am a fighter clearly, and the urge to live significantly impaired my ability to reliably kill myself.

That was the end of all that for awhile. I stomached all the feelings because I was so terrified of dying, but didn't even realize it. Some of it remained intellectually, but as time went on, that went too. I couldn't bear it, but I couldn't bear to die or go insane. After that attempt, I never could sleep with the lights off in my room again. By May 2007, I had almost completely clammed up. I had seen it coming from a ways off and couldn't do anything. I was completely numb, but was waiting to be set off again.

Just a little bit of anger at some superficial life situation set me off again in December 07. Things had just mounted until a straw broke the camel's back, and I exploded. I was suicidal and uncomfortable for a few weeks, then clammed up again. I felt like I was drowning as that happened. Like my real self was being forcibly stripped away by the world. I had started to develop chronic problems like acid reflux and severe bloating, but I did not realize it at the time.

Things clammed up more or less permanently this time, aside from a hiccup or two every six months. Until recently, when the frustration and anger which had been building since almost two years ago erupted. It was a small event that set it off, nothing that really pisses me off too much, but it was enough to topple the whole thing. I felt or rather feel everything as sharp as that time before I attempted three years ago. I feel the extreme emptiness as a horrible emotional torture as bad as being shut in an empty room by myself for fifty years. I feel like I would do anything to have just one person to relate to me in a true manner, in a manner where they actually understand what I have went through, and the way I think and feel. And strangely enough, I am still very independent in one way, and not 'needy'. But in another way, this is absolutely killing me in every way imaginable. I am trying to reach out and find people who understand what I say here, where this truly touches a note deep within them. It was recently that I realized the chronic problems are because of the stress, since my stomach went absolutely berserk when I broke down. I haven't done that in years. I would like nothing better than for this to just be over, but I wish I could just have one person connect to me back. And I don't feel as though I am better than anyone, because this feels more like a curse, even if in ideal conditions it could be a blessing.

I'm completely on the edge. All bets are off. There is no way I am going to last another few years this way, now that the whole facade is gone. I am trying to survive, but I feel like the end is approaching rapidly. One of these days, it's game over.

'Cold Shoulder Theory'

I recently was introduced to this theory in name, though I have known the concept for quite awhile. It essentially states, as a metaphor, that if a window is broken some place and is not fixed, more windows will be broken. This is because a state of disrepair would theoretically push other individuals towards committing more of these acts, because it would be inferred by the populace that this behavior was okay if not punished and attended to. While this may be true to some extent, especially in high crime areas, there are huge negative aspects of this approach to broader public policy. This reflects in our society as across-the-board 'crackdowns' on violators in an effort to stop various behaviors.

As previously stated, there are indeed short-term statistical benefits to this type of action (at least some of the time). However, statistics can easily lie, masking greater problems that may arise or may be ignored because of an excessive reliance on this type of public policy. I believe the root of these problems lies in the reality that people even can be motivated into performing these types of actions by such trivial differences in the environment. If individuals thought rationally, were aware of the consequences of their actions more, were aware of the world, and were aware of themselves they would now have a moral ground to base their actions on rather than simply acting capriciously. A Stanford (?) university experiment confirms this; in a fake scenario where a person was supposedly injured, the biggest factor in whether they stopped to help was whether or not they were in a rush rather than the moral standing of their action. Indeed, most people would assume the latter to at least be more true, which reflects how poorly most people understand their own actions and the actions of others.

The above reflects a broader point I like to bring up from time to time; that simply applying surface solutions to a deep problem only lets the deep problem worsen over time. When these solutions are applied, the result is pretty, but the real problem merely goes underground or shifts in nature. One simply cannot solve a problem without changing the factors which actually cause it.

Blanket enforcement also tends to punish accidental or casual violators much more than necessary. While many may simply violate a rule out of lack of caring, many simple do not know. This means that the many who are not maliciously or carelessly violating may gain contempt for law enforcement and/or the law because of the way they have been treated. Blanket law enforcement lacks common sense, because the situation for 'breaking the law' varies per person.

Also, blanket enforcement hinders the checking mechanism of a law which is whether most people will abide by it. If most people will not abide by a law that has nothing to expressly do with safety (such as with speed limits or drug use), this noncompliance can often be taken as a signal that the law itself is unrealistic or has major flaws. With blanket enforcement that aims to stop all lawbreakers, this system of self-checking is destroyed.

All in all, it's important that problems such as littering, driving dangerously, and lack of respect for property are solved, but as well as law enforcement being involved, it's important to both examine the laws to make sure they apply properly and to possibly look at social methods for solving these problems. Social methods, unlikely legal ones, do differentiate between accidental/casual violators and malicious ones. They also hit the root of the problem far more. Social approaches include community programs, honest information, and awareness efforts that target families. It is important that families embody the right values because if not, the wrong values tend to spread within the family unit.

BWT does also have some useful parallels, too. Two of them I will discuss are the 'Cold Shoulder Theory', and the 'Small Talk Theory'.

The Cold Shoulder theory states that if a substantial percentage of a population (student, community, or otherwise) is cold and distant and nothing is done about it, then these attitudes will carry over into more of the population. This also is something of a vicious cycle, because once a 'cold atmosphere' is established, those who attempt to break it are surrounded by antisocial attitudes. Such prevents more social interaction from spreading, because socialization takes at least two people and because if the percentage of those who are warm is relatively low, then social interactions are rare.

The Small Talk theory states that if a large portion of the population talks about nonsense, then those who want to talk about deeper and more interestinubjects will not express themselves because it becomes impossible to do so. When the atmosphere favors 'jibber jabber' moreso than meaningful conversation, individuals often will not listen to those who express unconventional, profound, or meaningful ideas, or in some cases will merely pay lip service. This in turn causes fewer intelligent people to express themselves, which in turn causes fewer people to think intellectually, finally dumbing down the population. The social atmosphere of 'jibber jabber' may also influence some more desperate intelligent people to small talk to some extent, distracting them from their deeper thoguhts and conventions.

The last two 'theories' I made up seem to be pretty close to each other, and both almost constitute a 'virus' social model, in that negative atmospheres reinforce themselves greatly. This ideally would be true for positive acts and interactions as well (and is to a small extent), but perhaps is not because of the constant negativity people are bombarded with daily, especially in the media.

School Shootings: A different view

The bad rap about guns over school shootings is completely unjustified. Of course, this is common knowledge to people with any shred of logicality, but I'm going to take it a bit further. There are many factors involved in these shootings, including parental neglect, reading insane material, depression, and.....

ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES!

Yep, I said it. The very policies that the schools supposedly 'rely on' to 'prevent' violence are actually a major cause of explosive violence and school shootings.

Why? They don't differentiate between self defense, retaliation, and aggression. This creates a catch 22 for people who are made fun of and feel as though they have nothing to do. Their parents can commonly be seen calling the school, but the school does little, and if they do, the insults continue behind administrators backs. Even so, they're called rats and made fun of even more.

If they ignore aggression, they run the risk of getting hurt but much more likely being completely humiliated. This leaves one option: fight back.

However, with zero tolerance policies, all parties involved are almost always punished equally. This leads to many who just defend themselves or stand up for themselves to think that they are at fault, and even if they realize that this is not the case, it creates a lot more frustration than necessary.

People who are made fun of and snubbed thus have no option other than to suffer, or explode like many of the school shooters do. Even before these 'zero tolerance policies', school policy largely started leading up to this. It clears the school's ass of blame no matter what and makes for an easy method of 'processing' cases without any real critical thought, time or effort.

I'm not condoning school shootings. I understand that they are the minority of those put in this situation; those who have come across certain rhetoric, those who are often abused the worst, those who have formed thoughts that it is okay to commit such a horrible act. But just imagine a poor kid who has been verbally and physically abused in school for eight years. He finally gets the guts to fight back and guess what happens? He's suspended, or worse, maybe expelled if he does a number on the other guy. What's more, his parents make him out to be bad. In the short term, it may shut things up, and make the school look peaceful. But in the long term it fuels an explosive rage that just doesn't go away.

This isn't the whole reason why these occur but I hope people see the logic in this.

Why the 'improvement rates' in psychiatry are meaningless:

Let's face the facts: some people probably do get better after undergoing psychiatric treatment. However, some people also get better from a placebo or on their own. In such complex emotional problems, a small trigger can occasionally lead to a huge mental shift, provided that a person was nearly ready to make that shift. With placebo treatment, this 'positiveness' is usually more temporary, but is also beneficial.

But even so, biopsychiatry's 'treatment' figures fail to properly state the failures of the profession. What's an easy way to this? Blame the person as a biological entity for being 'treatment resistant' rather than relating to them and trying to ascertain what made them feel that way. This easily absolves psychiatry of admitting 'treatment failure' and rather blames the patient. Thus, instead of laying off, they now have the go ahead to force more drugs and possibly electroshock. It's brilliant, but sickening. Here, psychiatry has created a logical loop which always ends up with them winning out. By refusing to acknowledge the dismal conditions of 'hospitals' and the lobotomizing effects of drugs, the field has come to be viewed as 'ironclad' by many misguided individuals.

Also, biopsychiatry neglects the fact that 'treatment' or 'improvement' is highly subjective, and that this judgment is probably best made by the person being 'treated'. Of course, placebo can play a role, and in a drugged up fog, people may think they're doing better because they've been blunted and can't feel anything, but often psychiatrists will judge someone as 'better' simply because they're less expressive and easier to control. This hardly constitutes an improvement at the root of the problems at hand, and may actually worsen them (especially if these problems are with authority).

Human beings are complex. There's no doubt about that amongst people with common sense. But biological psychiatry tends to be devoid of it.

Why IQ could be used to 'prove' that black people are less intelligent.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a racist. I am actually using this idea to show just how goddamn ridiculous the notion that IQ has anything to do with intelligence is.

You've heard about it before. "Oh, I'm really smart, my IQ is through the roof!" "X famous person had an IQ of 180!" The fact is, while such people may have (or would have) received such scores on such tests it has no bearing on their actual intelligence.

Let's start with myself. I scored above 140 on an IQ test administered by a recognized psychologist. This should get those silly accusations of being 'jealous of high scorers' out of the way. Keep in mind, I'm not using this to brag, but rather to show that I have very little bias in my writing of this article. I also was quite sleepy, and didn't try very hard. And this brings me to my first point.

IQ scores can easily go up or down depending on the state of the person at a given time, or the amount that they try. It's just like any test. This has no real bearing on intelligence. I screwed up the 'spatial' section slightly, but had I been in a better state and had practiced said puzzles a bit, I probably would have done perfectly. Did I get 'more intelligent'? Maybe I learned to solve patterns slightly better, but overall, no. There are many sites and advertisements claiming to 'increase your IQ score'. The fact of the matter is that they may very well be true, because an IQ test, even one administered by a 'licensed psychologist' is just that: A TEST! This brings me to my next point: Better test takers will most likely score better on these tests. Is this indicative of anything more than test taking skills and possible 'mental sharpening'? No.

There was also a 'written section' full of simple problems. I solved these quickly and easily. HOWEVER, if I had been able to write faster, couldn't I have gotten more done? Here's another fallacy of so called "IQ tests": they also depend on how fast you can write!

IQ tests have been used to determine the supposed 'genetics of intelligence'. While some people may be more inclined (or occasionally, extremely more inclined) in one area of intelligence, this is another major fallacy. OF COURSE kids of modern adjusted parents are going to have higher scores on a test biased towards what modern society perceives as 'intelligence' than the kids of someone lazier or less adjusted. Going back to my criticism of biological predestination, this provides an easy way to overlook types of intelligences that are not directly beneficial to society's turbo capitalism. This is largely why you see the cynicism of high level intellectuals completely overlooked in schooling (Einstein, Thoreu, Thomas Jefferson, etc) and rather see only their completely objective 'contributions' examined. If people were to realize that those who supposedly 'contributed to society' the most had harsh words for it, they wouldn't have such a rosy vision and be mindlessly compliant, right?

IQ scores have also been used to justify arrogance, which clearly is on the basis of believing oneself to be innately more intelligent. They are also used for the converse. Let me explain. Most people have their heads largely in the sand and probably could act more intelligently and critically than they are now. Of course, there will be differences, strengths, and weaknesses, but this is besides the point. The IQ system not only instills a sense of elitism geared towards those most adjusted to modern society and refuses to recognize this, but keeps people from recognizing their potential because they have determined themselves to be 'ho hum' and because they are scared of acknowledging that they are doing virtually nothing with their lives. This is one of the main reasons why stupid activities are so comforting. They are an escape from the ominous cloud of perspective and reason that hovers high over the heads of the masses.

Now, on to 'racial intelligence'. It's been long shown that the poor and those in third world countries score poorly on IQ tests. Therefore, it could thus be 'proven' that blacks and minorities are less intelligent than white people. However, this assumes that IQ tests are a legitimate tests of intelligence, as was debunked before. You will never hear about this in classrooms or on the news because it would be politically incorrect. Unfortunately, even the victims on the end of this nonsensical fallacy believe in it, and thus would interpret such a statement to be of equivalence to someone shouting "Blacks are less intelligent than white people!" Of course, that would be a ridiculous thing to say, but IQ tests showing blacks to be 'less intelligent' is even more ridiculous if used as a standard in society. The reality is that blacks and minorities, on average, tend to be poorer than whites. And that's it.

As was shown in 'Commonsense Rebellion', a highly interesting (and recommended) book by Bruce Levine, Walter Lippmann said:

"If . . . the impression takes root that these tests really measure intelligence, that they constitute a sort of last judgment on the child's capacity, that they reveal "scientifically" his predestined ability, then it would be a thousand times better if all the intelligence testers and all their questionnaires were sunk without warning in the Sargasso Sea."

Biological Predestination: A Wolf in Sheep's Clad

One might be inclined to say that the idea of behavioral predestination is rather benevolent, in that it simply shows that we're all different. However, this is simply not the case. When one expands this to beyond very base instinctual behaviors and personality inclinations, they deprive others of autonomy, purpose, and they often lose respect for highly subjective attributes such as intelligence and creativity (though both are often in the same category).

An interesting parallel can be drawn to John Calvin's views of 'predestination' in the 16th century. Though this parallel is virtually unheard of, it is widely known that the ideas of people being 'predestined' to go to heaven and hell kept them strictly in line. When they would cross over the line of what was 'unacceptable', then it would mean that they were predestined to go to hell, giving them a greater impetus to stay in line. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. Also, those who believed themselves to be 'good' were able to say that they were good by nature, by the virtue of god, etc. It should be noted that this system of beliefs was probably one of the 'best' for maintaining order, but what effect would it have on the psyche of such people? Here are a few examples:

Passive aggression. With the constant threat of being labeled 'divinely tainted', people back then probably expressed their anger in other ways.

Denial of emotions. This would probably cause a lot of problems that may not take a toll on a person's 'orderliness', but instead on their overall emotional health.

Labeling of oneself as 'bad' or 'tainted'. This would probably be the worst effect. When those who had 'sinned' accepted that they had supposedly sinned, they believed themselves to be innately bad and thus strived to become more and more orderly. However, they could have instead questioned the very basis for this system in the first place, but under that pressure many will not.

Still don't see the comparison? Let's look at today.

Non 'mentally ill' people believe others are 'tainted'. This leads to the idea that they are beyond help, which itself breeds more hopelessness. It also fosters a sense of arrogance that one is beyond such suffering because they must be 'genetically fit'.

Idea of being 'screwed up' prevents people from expressing their emotions, often for fear of being labeled 'unfit'.

Psychiatrists are quick to blame the 'genetic makeup' of such people, further reinforcing this notion.

The equation has not changed, but it has been masked, under the veil of sham science. There's no mistake about it: biological predestination is a wolf in sheep's clad. Many follow the fallacy that science is separate from life, but this could not be further from the truth. Much of our legal and economic systems are based on science, and when 'hard science' attempts to objectify something subjective (the mind, emotions, experiences) with tremendous authority, a vortex of pure disaster has been created.

Biological psychiatry is sucking the purpose of existence out of people with its notions that our finest behaviors have a substantial genetic basis without even providing evidence for this claim. Evidence to the contrary is often dismissed as 'anecdotal' and thus 'worthless' while psychiatrists commit the same fallacies but in contrast to anti-psychiatry advocates utterly fail to examine social variables. Is everything in our conscience simply a manifestation of chemical reactions? Maybe, maybe not. But science is not even close to understanding let alone safely changing these reactions. And even so, a natural approach which leaves room for the subjective that biological psychiatry has a disdain for may provide superior help.