Letting ET Know that the “sapiens” of Earth are White


The Plaque

Voyager Plaque

It’s amazing how many incidences of “inattentional blindness” (or arrogance) one can find in important places. Once again, we see that even cuddly-wuddly Carl Sagan and colleagues mindlessly represented “the people of Earth” as White People! (AKA Masters of the Universe)

This was 1972, and plaques were being designed for the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which would eventually leave the solar system. Since an ET civilization might intercept the craft, the opportunity to attach information about the crafts’ origin was seized upon.  The question of whether or not to depict female genitals was an issue; the compromise was “no.” Later historians argue that NASA and the Presidential Science Advisor would probably have okayed “a slit” in the correct location, but Sagan believed that the decision-making hierarchy was too Puritanical to go that far.

This represents something that has bothered me my entire life: Men talk like they’re big, bad and brave, but then knuckle under to the “Old Male” hierarchy. How embarrassing.

imagesW971YODE imagesQ0VBJ16W___________________________Factually, insects dominate Earth, not humans: “Ants control every millimeter of the Earth’s surface wherever they live, which is most places,” says Mark Moffett, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC, US, who in 2011 published a book called Adventures Among Ants. “These territories are basically micromanaged by ants, altering or removing things even at a microbial level to their benefit.”

So why NO ANTS on the Voyager plaques?


More / How Psychology Destroyed American Public Schools

Humans who are alive today learn in the same ways that our ancestors learned. A person who has knowledge or skill imparts that specific knowledge or skill to a child or other person, through words, pictures or demonstration. One person who can read and write can teach another person to read and write. “In person” teaching imparts the secure feeling in the child that someone cares enough to prepare him or her for life. One would expect “social” people to know this. Children copy the behavior of the older children or adults around them, which is why decent behavior is so important.

Crazy Diagrams: This is not how children learn. This is insane indulgence in erecting abstract conceptual schemes, and then fighting over whose control-freak theory is to dominate education.




1200px-Cognitivism2 developmental

KISS / Good advice rejected by Neurotypicals

You can’t solve a problem using the thought processes that created it.


“Keep it Simple Stupid” was a popular comment decades ago.

KISS is a handy reminder that the more complex a society is, the less effective complicated policies and infrastructures become. The more desks a pile of paperwork has to land on, the more quickly the drive to complete the chain of procedures will slow to a standstill. The more complex, detailed and dictatorial the rules, the more quickly the stream will be sidelined by the need for official intervention and interpretation, or bureaucratic empire building: a minor tyrant will terrorize his or her staff with “new” requirements and procedures that strip employees of any independence to do their job effectively rerouting decisions through their office. Or an angry employee will rebel against a suffocating control freak system and sabotage the flow of work. Built in functionaries will fulfill one task: rewriting and updating protocols to ensure that bureaucrats can’t lose their jobs.

We all know that this breakdown exists in corporations and across medieval government systems, which are neither democratic nor modern. The current fight in the “candidate wars” over Who is Progressive? sums up how antiquated American government (and thinking) is. We have perfectly adaptable founding directives: how much more flexible could “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” be? But U.S. history demonstrates that downgrading and limiting this generous, wide open statement has been far more popular than applying it to “all men” or women, children and various “lesser people.” Indeed, the Supreme Court recently extended this “blessing” to corporate and other wealthy entities: in case no one has noticed, this change has drastically reduced the opportunity for “people” to pursue LL&PH.

Government has fancied itself the arbiter and grantor of just who gets to experience “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” We might think that the number of people who benefit from “noblesse oblige” on the part of ruling white males has expanded since xxx but in effect “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” recedes into fantasyland a bit more each day. The slaves were “freed” (sort of) and women get to vote, work outside the home and keep their pay, and to be out from under paternal control. Gee thanks for “giving me” my rights. But in the interim so many of the options to LL&PH have been legislated or sold – controlled by government law and regulation that stifles independent action and/or turned over to corporations through tax exemption, lack of regulation and bizarre economic policy that favors the already wealthy and pushes “average” people into more extreme financial stress. LL&PH has become as dead as democracy. Of what value is an individual vote today? Has anyone noticed the inferior gang of Dodos presented as candidates?

cd264139-f745-4012-b260-5b32cfb27e49_zps5c7ee4b7 goldwaternuts

Sanity is always a hidden dilemma in politics: if we expose YOUR dangerous SOB, then you’ll expose OUR dangerous SOB. Goldwater: look him up.

What’s the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?

by Davis Sirota, Huffington post. Full post: (once again the url does not link to the correct page, but displays a photo of a bull dog.)

“I often get asked what the difference between a “liberal” and a “progressive” is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, “Isn’t ‘progressive’ just another name for ‘liberal’ that people want to use because ‘liberal’ has become a bad word?” (Today “progressive:” does serve to hide Hillary Clinton’s disastrous liberal focus and Bernie Sander’s Socialist orientation – neither archaic system is suited to govern a 21st C. global empire, which is what the U.S. aspires to.)

“The answer, in my opinion, is no – there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.”

“A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).”


A “real conservative” is easy to define.

Real Conservatives are white upper class males who claim to be strict constitutionalists. What they actually mean by this is that the Founding Fathers were the model for those who are mandated to “run the country” – obviously white males. As the percentage of American citizens belonging to their kind steadily decreases toward extinction, they become ever more frantic, indignant and befuddled that the old school domination of the United States by “boneheaded” white males is in danger. By boneheaded I mean that no new ideas can penetrate the privileged status that has built their impenetrable skulls.

This type is so closed off from political reality on the ground, that they continue to believe that the “peasants” will regain their subservient social deference and sensibly elect one of them: currently, Jeb Bush. These guys rank themselves at “the top” intellectually, but they cannot grasp simple numbers. There aren’t enough of their kind remaining to elect a county dog catcher. The death of Antonin Scalia, through whom they controlled policy and law favorable to their domination – via the back door of the Supreme Court – is a true catastrophe for them.

At this crucial intersection of American obsession with global power, the U.S. refuses to recognize that we are no longer an agrarian homespun republic, but an over-reaching and bumbling empire. An empire without a modern government, and with political leadership stuck in 18th, 19th, and 20th Century ideologies. Politicians and citizens are consumed by social fantasies of replicating a non-existent democratic past.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a truly revolutionary idea in human governance. It was never comprehensive – but has always been thwarted by social civil wars.

Old Age, Wisdom and Peace / But When?


It’s a cliché. Old age may be tough, but one day in the American Myth, you wake up a senior citizen, gaze at a lovely sunrise, and memories drawn from the days of one’s life produce a flood of golden wisdom; a permanent feeling of peace and wellbeing closes out the story. Life was a success. Now where do I go? Uh-oh.

Only in rich nations is this final and fatal greeting card sold. When did “the old ones” ever expect to “get out of life free.” The warmest and most dutiful younger generation cannot fathom that life ends. Adolescents are notoriously immortal. Human groups are lucky if a certain number of adolescents survive manic rebelliousness and the consequences of kids seeking danger; just enough may survive to keep the whole reproductive and “social thing” going.be_nice_to_your_kids_funny_bumper_sticker-r7d0c2e10f4454992bc5b252c173769a9_v9wht_8byvr_324

Often the “respect and duty” scenario that requires adult children to provide for aged parents is not voluntary, but enforced by strict punishment for failing to do so. Aged parents may indeed spend a lifetime “beating up” on their children to ensure obedience to this obligation. Even the most caring adult children may resent having to spend precious money on old people who soon will die anyway, when they see more sense in investing in their children. And, let’s face it, not all children like their parents and vice versa. Duty must bridge that divide and there are lucky families that have abundant love and money with which to weather the final chapter.


I’m so sick of this social tyranny!

Wisdom. What is it? A lot of clichés about how to live, how to cope, how to resign oneself to hard times; how to emerge from tragedy. Somewhere in my middle years, after surviving a boatload of complications from being bipolar and a concealed Asperger, I realized that Life is Tragic; who came up with this notion that it’s one long vacation in Disneyland with a lifelong shopping trip thrown in? Well – Walt Disney, of course.  And this “animated movie” version of existence was on offer to white suburban children, but not our parents who had grown up during the Great Depression and WWII. They genuinely wanted “the best” for us.

Even as kids we knew that Peter Pan was "gay" but adults had to lie.

Even as kids we knew that Peter Pan was “gay” but adults had to lie.

The post-war myth that was concocted for children, for my generation, denied tragedy, although it was all around us. Isolated in suburbia, we lived the myth of prosperity: nice white people enjoying abundant manufactured food and luxuries. A false story that to this day is pushed by American commerce. Life remains tragic: “He who dies with the most toys wins” is not a mature realization of life.

I’m not sure that the myth of old age, wisdom and peace endures anywhere today except in TV commercials, and that’s not the advertised message at all. It’s more like, “Don’t you want to put a good front? Look and feel young? Play tennis, make cookies with grandkids, wave at your neighbors? New drug, new drug, new drug: artificial teeth, Botox, a jolt of something to keep your sex life pornographic, a boob and face lift; acid-etched wrinkles, a hideous wig or weave, braces for your back and knees.  Colostomy bags.” NO ONE WILL KNOW THAT YOU’RE OLD. Really? This is what I slugged and slogged all these years to achieve?

I'm so sick of this crap!

I’m so sick of this crap!

Not a chance. Life is a tragedy from the get-go for most humans, and just because we live in the Good Ol’ U.S.A. it doesn’t follow that we can buy our way out of tragedy, but we try exceedingly hard to hide it.

'My dad just wants to be treated with a little respect and dignity in his old age.' 'Don't worry. We're used to dealing with troublemakers at this home.'




Vatican Hypocrisy / Hey Francis! Tear down that wall!

How rich is the Vatican? So wealthy it can stumble across millions of euros just ‘tucked away’

vatican-bank wealth-francis Church-says-money-is-evil untitledpope pope-francis-attacks-capitalism-demands-world-share-wealth-socialsim-now-the-end-begins rich-pope 7f0455518015b1dea2e8bbd9f6a014d2dd651acd 777px-Vatican_City_map_EN

POPE announces Vatican will tear down its impenetrable fortress wall and will grant citizenship to anyone who wants citizenship. 

“I invite all Muslim refugees to come on in and share the wealth.” -Pope Francis

  • Shane Croucher

    By  International Business News December 5, 2014

    Such is the vastness of the Vatican’s wealth that it can find hundreds of millions of euros just “tucked away” off of its central balance sheet, according to the cardinal responsible for the Holy See’s finances.

    “In fact, we have discovered that the situation is much healthier than it seemed, because some hundreds of millions of euros were tucked away in particular sectional accounts and did not appear on the balance sheet.”

    So exactly how much is the Vatican worth? It’s hard to say. The Catholic Church has a history of opacity about its finances, something Pell says is slowly changing.

  • And much of its assets are near impossible to value because they will never be sold off, such as its gold-laden palatial church property and priceless works of art by the likes of Michelangelo and Raphael. It also owns a global network of churches and religious buildings, many of which contain precious historical treasures, serving the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics.What we do know is that Vatican Bank, officially titled the Institute for the Works of Religion, manages €5.9bn ($7.3bn, £4.64bn) of assets on behalf of its 17,400 customers. And it manages €700m of equity which it owns. Another titbit to emerge is that it keeps gold reserves worth over $20m with the US Federal Reserve.

    The bank has been caught up in a number of scandals in the past, including the funding of priests caught up in sex abuse allegations and of money laundering for the Mafia and former Nazis.

    This is why there are moves within parts of the church to make it more like a normal bank and open up its accounts for greater scrutiny. Protections for religious organisations mean it does not currently face the same transparency obligations as other financial institutions.

    According to Georgetown University, the average weekly donation of an American Catholic to the church is $10. There are 85 million in North America, meaning each week the Catholic Church pulls in $850m through donations from individual Catholics.

    Vatican City itself has a rich economy relative to its size. Though data is scarce, and the exact GDP figure is unknown, the CIA estimates Vatican City’s 2011 revenue to be $308m. It only has a population of 800 people, meaning its nominal GDP per capita is $365,796 – making it the richest state on the planet by this measure.

Weird! Anthropologists discover cultural diversity in communication

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the acceptance of cultural differences in communication were extended to Asperger people!


click for full article with photos: National Geographic blog PHEMOMENA (edited here for length)

The Point of Pointing by Virginia Hughes

Five years ago cognitive scientist Rafael Núñez found himself in the Upper Yupno Valley, a remote, mountainous region of Papua New Guinea. The area is home to some 5,000 indigenous people, and Núñez and his graduate student, Kensy Cooperrider, were studying their conceptions of time.

Most of you reading this post have a Western understanding of time, in which time has a spatial relationship with our own bodies. The past is behind us, the future ahead.  But that particular cognitive framework is not universal. Núñez’s work has shown, for example, that the Aymara people of the Andes think about time in the opposite way; for them, the future is behind and the past lies ahead.

The Yupno…live in small thatch huts surrounded by green mountains. This rolling landscape, the researchers discovered, is what centers the the Yupno’s conception of time. For them, the past is downhill and the future uphill.

Núñez and Cooperrider figured this out by analyzing the way the Yupno point during natural speech. And in the midst of doing those experiments, the researchers stumbled onto something else unexpected: The Yupno don’t point like Westerners do. We Westerners have a boring pointing repertoire. Most of the time, we just jut out our arm and index finger.

Within a few days of their arrival in the valley, Núñez and Cooperrider noticed that the Yupno often point with a sharp, coordinated gesture of the nose and head that precedes them looking toward the point of interest. Here’s how the scientists described the nose part of the gesture, dubbed the ‘S-action’, in a 2012 paper: The kernel of the nose-pointing gesture is a distinctive facial form that is produced by a contraction of the muscles located bilaterally on both sides of the nose, which raise the upper lip and slightly broaden the wings of the nose,” they write. “Informally, the combined effect of pulling the nose upward and pulling the brow downward and inward may be characterized as an effortful scrunching together of the face.

Last year Núñez and Cooperrider made a second trip to the Yupno Valley. For this study…the researchers designed a game in which two people must work together to put various colored blocks into a particular configuration. One person, the director, sees a photo of the target configuration and then instructs the other person, the matcher, on where to move the pieces to make them match the photo.

The game presents a tough communication challenge that players meet by using lots of demonstratives (“This one over here!”, “That one over there!”) and frequent pointing, Núñez says. The Yupno tend to use nose pointing more than finger pointing…That sharply contrasts with… Westerners, in the researchers’ words, “stuck unwaveringly to index finger pointing.”

OK, so culture seems to affect pointing behavior. But there are lots of ways in which Westerners are different from the Yupno. Why, I asked Núñez, should we care about pointing?

Pointing, he answered, seems to be a fundamental building block of human communication. Great apes are never seen pointing in the wild. And in human babies, pointing develops even before the first word.

If we want to understand why people point, then it’s critical to look at how all people point, not just the WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) ones. “If we want to understand human evolution and human minds, we need to really look at variety,” Núñez says. And whatever theories researchers come up with to explain the evolutionary or neural roots of pointing, “they would have to be able to explain all of these different forms.”

The Yupno aren’t the only ones who point with their face. Lip pointing — in which protruding lips precede an eye gaze toward the area of interest — has been observed in people from Panama, Laos, and other groups in Australia, Africa, and South America. Head pointing, according to one study, happens frequently among people speaking Arabic, Bulgarian, Korean, and African-American Vernacular English.

Núñez speculates that early human ancestors used a wide variety of pointing gestures, and these have been shaped and pruned over time depending on the needs of a particular culture.

The article below obviously makes the point that pointing is “Western Style” – What about babies in other cultures such as the Yupno?

How Pointing Makes Babies Human By Nicholas Day

(I have to say that there appears to be creative interpretation (projection) by the adults performing these so-called experiments! Is this ‘pointing’ gesture actually an innate reaching gesture repurposed by adults? By one year of age, wouldn’t an infant have seen the ‘pointing’ gesture thousands of times and been taught / encouraged to adapt it to pointing?)

What does it mean when a baby points?Over the last decade, a series of studies out of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have made a very good argument for marveling at your pointing infant. A group of psychologists there have documented that infants, beginning at around 1 year of age, point and react to other people pointing in remarkably sophisticated ways. Babies point to refer to events in the past and the future. They point to refer to things that are no longer there. They can figure out, when an adult points across the room toward a group of objects, what exactly the adult is gesturing toward (the toy they’ve previously played with, say). They can deduce that, by pointing, an adult is trying to communicate something specific (find that toy hidden in that bucket). And not least of all, babies point because they want to share their experience of the world—that puppy—with someone else.

These may just be the talents out of which humans managed to assemble minor things like culture and language. “The basis of language is all right there in gestures,” says Malinda Carpenter, a developmental psychologist at Max Planck, who conducts research on larger issues of cultural cognition. When Carpenter sees an infant pointing out a clown to his mother, she sees a meeting of the minds: That baby is coming together with someone else to share his experience of—and his attitude toward—something else.

This is declarative pointing—showing something to someone else. (It’s very different from imperative pointing, which is pointing to request something. Imperative pointing is what Donald Trump does.) Of course, you could interpret this kind of pointing in a less sophisticated way than a meeting of the minds. Maybe the infant just wanted more attention. Maybe he just wanted the experimenter to see the toy, not to share in having seen it. Maybe he was just pointing for his own sake; maybe it had nothing to do with anyone else.

So Carpenter and her colleagues designed an experiment: They put infants in a highchair across from a screen with lots of closed windows; when a window opened, a puppet popped out. The infants did what any sensible person would do when face-to-face with a gyrating puppet: They pointed. To test different interpretations of what that pointing meant, the experimenter varied his reaction. The only reaction that the babies found satisfying—the only reaction that inspired them to keep pointing for each puppet—was when the experimenter looked back and forth between them and the puppet, saying things like, It’s Grover! That’s so interesting! The infants were delighted by this response. They wanted the adult to share the totally awesome experience of this totally awesome puppet. When the experimenter failed to do this, Carpenter says, “The kids stopped pointing for this weird adult, who wasn’t giving them what they wanted.” When the adult only looked at the infant, the infant often pointed again at the puppet, as if to say, No, you dunderhead—over there.

The infants didn’t just want attention to themselves. They wanted someone to share in their experience of the world. “It’s just so rewarding to have somebody else share your opinions about something,” Carpenter says. “Especially for a 12-month-old baby, but also for us. Imagine if you had a friend who never found the same things interesting that you did. It’s really rewarding for us, too.”

If you look closely enough at those outstretched fingers, you can see the roots of human cooperation. Our primate relatives don’t point declaratively. They point imperatively, like Donald Trump, and they will point to inform an experimenter where an object is—but only when there’s something in it for them, like food. But an ape wouldn’t point to a puppet, or anything else, for that matter, just because it was really cool. It’s a question of motivation, Carpenter says. “It’s just not important for them to share their opinions of things with others.”

Pointing to share an opinion builds on the foundation of what psychologists call joint attention—when two people pay attention to the same thing (and are aware that they’re both paying attention to that thing). Joint attention arises out of what Michael Tomasello, who heads the Developmental and Comparative Psychology Department at Max Planck, has called the nine-month revolution. Out of it grows the basis of pretty much all human achievement: the motivation and the ability to work together toward shared goals. (Apes never get there: They have the attention part but not the jointness.)

All this is enough for the appearance of pointing in infancy to be the most interesting mundane gesture ever. But as Carpenter and her colleagues have demonstrated, declarative pointing is not the only sort that babies do. “Infants from 12 months on, and even earlier in some cases, are pointing to express all kinds of complex meanings,” Carpenter says. For example, they will point just to inform you of something. “So if you’ve dropped something and don’t realize it, infants will point it out to you. There’s nothing in it for them. It’s just to help you.” In addition, babies will not just point to refer to an object that is no longer there—what psychologists call an absent referent—they take into account whether the adult has previously seen the object or not. In some cases, they seem to be trying to tell the adult what was there.

They can also deduce meanings based on who is pointing. When an adult and a baby are tossing toys in a basket together and the adult points to a toy and says, “There!” the baby will toss that toy in the basket too. He understands the pointing to refer not just to the toy but to the game they’re playing together. However, when another adult who isn’t playing the game points to an object out of the blue and says, “There!” the baby won’t toss it in the basket. (Who knows what that crazy adult means?) They also deduce meanings based on how purposeful the pointing appears: If an adult points to an object while looking distractedly at her wrist, the infant seems to assume that this pointing is happenstance, not an attempt to communicate with him.

Pointing, in other words, seems to call on a sophisticated understanding of what is going on in the heads of other people. “That suggests that they can do so much more with pointing prelinguistically than we ever thought before,” Carpenter says. Until recently, people thought that this sort of knowledge only emerged with language. Carpenter herself went to graduate school because she was interested in language. But then she started looking at prelinguistic gestures. “And everything’s already there! I completely lost interest in language because you can see so much complexity already in infants’ gestures.”

My youngest child is now 10 months old. We have exchanged deeply meaningful glances about fish pull-toys. He holds fabric vegetables up for shared approval. We don’t know why pointing happens when it does. But in all likelihood, sometime soon—after months of my pointing toward interesting things and him drooling and staring dumbly at my finger—it will click. His head will turn.

And then, perhaps when he sees a totally awesome puppet, he will stretch out his own finger. This is a thrilling moment. Instead of listening to yet more of my opinions—and keep in mind that I’ve been monopolizing the conversation for a year now—he can offer his own. As Carpenter says, “The infant herself is able to say, ‘This is what I’m interested in.’ ” And she knows that you’ll be interested in what she has to say.


Nicholas Day’s book on the science and history of infancy, Baby Meets World, was published in April 2013.

Eurocentric Evolution / Again


Evolution leads to white male college student.

Evolution leads to white male college student.

Neanderthal "upgrade"to white since we had sex with them.

Neanderthal “upgrade”to white since”WE” had sex with them.


White soccer mom represents Homo sapiens.

White soccer mom represents Homo sapiens.


Judeo-Christian Beliefs / Crimes Against Nature


Jonathan Edwards was a revivalist preacher. Like most of the Puritans, he hated human beings.

A healthy man does not abuse his strength; a weak man uses physical violence because he has no strength. 

Social humans have replaced physical reality (nature) with a mental fabrication of incorrect concepts (beliefs) that uproot individuals from personal experience, and fool them into believing in the existence of a supernatural universe. This supernatural dimension exists outside of nature – that is, it occupies a ‘space’ in which the Laws of Nature do not apply. Miracles are events that purportedly defy the Laws of Nature; miracles do not happen. Belief in miracles indicates ignorance of how the universe works. Ignorance can be cleared up not only by science and mathematics, but by education in philosophy, art, literature, technology and other cultural histories, although some people will continue to throw away knowledge in favor of irrational belief, possibly due to psychological juvenalization.

If a supernatural description of the universe were true, nothing we see, hear, or otherwise experience would exist. We would not exist. And yet this “mental world” persists, and indeed dominates thinking in the United States, which is supposedly the most advanced and sophisticated nation on earth.

A crime against nature: The fundamental conceptual problem with Judeo-Christian mythology is co-option of the creative act by men. Men did not create the universe, nor can they reproduce without women. How pathological is it for males to obliterate natural sexual reproduction and to “kill” the female principle that is fundamental to life? Healthy men don’t hate women. JudeoChristian belief is all about male tyranny over women. It’s about males “owning” female bodies.

Stealing the creactive act from females and declaring a "male only" universe, can be seen as homoerotic dream.

Stealing the creactive act from females, and declaring a “male only” universe, demonstrates a severe mental imbalance and infantile power complex on the part of the men who wrote the OT.

In Judeo-Christian lore, the very real and knowable universe was created by an imaginary all-powerful male entity: the psychopathic projection of actual living males who behaved very badly toward women, children, animals and “enemies” (outsiders. This is a characteristic of steep hierarchical social arrangements that has been encoded and enshrined as “beyond question” the will of a male creator.

Although the Laws of Physics (Nature) have been painstakingly described by means of mathematics and the scientific method, JudeoChristian mythology has not been updated and replaced, but “runs on” belief in an imaginary all-powerful male entity. When I was first exposed to religion in childhood, this astonishing denial of a visible, touchable, breathable and knowable Earth, which is embedded within a creative universe, astonished me. The ability of religious leaders to convince everyday people to drop their trust in concrete reality, and to disbelieve their senses, was shocking. Why would people abandon their native ability to think and act in the world? Why would anyone replace reality with an inferior invention? It was as if people’s brains had been scooped out and replaced by a preposterous Hollywood movie.

The sick condition of modern society cannot be “fixed” with tiny adjustments to a male-dominated hierarchy. A healthy future cannot be built on 2,500 year old crimes against nature and sanity. 

Abigail Adams: All men would be tyrants if they could.

If the "Founding Mothers" could say this xx years ago, why can't modern women make it happen?

If Founding Mother Abigail Adams (1744-1818) could speak the truth 250 years ago, then why can’t modern women break out of subjugation?

Invading Greek (gods) didn’t murder existing female gods, they married them, and took them very seriously.

The Greek Pantheon: A "normal" dysfunctional human family COMPLETE with Godesses who were revered by males.

The Greek Pantheon: A “normal” dysfunctional human family COMPLETE with Goddesses revered by males.

The JudeoChristian Universe:

imagesGMDNTML4 images8IX7F9W8 images7VG7UGGB




%d bloggers like this: