rainbow walking

rw: Whoa dude, you have taken the metaphor way out of context.

GunnerJ

What do we know about their lives? In the first case, the existance of a life to know about is a dubious proposition at best, in the second case, where would we get info on his character? From his own words, maybe. But I doubt he'd write to the budding Xian churches of the times telling them how the whole religion is a great control scheme (and if he did, it sure as hell [ ] wouldn't make it into the Bible!)

Rather than make fruitless and unnessisary character profiles of the supposed Jesus and Paul to determine if Xianity is a control mechanism, we can simply look at how the Xian church is structured, at how it is described in the Bible, at how it opperates in the real world, etc. etc. If all these investigations suggest that Xianity is a designed psychological control mechanism (which is what Koy's argument sets out to do) then it is irrelevant what Jesus or Paul may have been like. Unless, of course, you have some strong evidence that either of these figures were completely sincere in their motives.

(Note, though, I am not suggesting that we ought assume that they were manipulators until you prove otherwise; I am saying that if a good argument can be offered that Xianity is a control structure, then the burden of proof shifts to those wishing to show otherwise.)

A term that Koy might want to look up is the fallacy of the extended analogy, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#analogy" target="_blank">(LINK)</a>, as you are guilty of it many times over. Basically, just because an anology is used to outline a general rule does not mean that a direct comparison is being made.

Koy, for the umpteenth time, is not in any way insinuating that you are a Klan member, or that the Xian church is an exrension of the Klan. He is merely trying to show that simply calling yourself a "reformed" member of a bad organization (which he doubtless consideres Xianity to be) does not mean you are not a part of it.

luvluv

I'm sorry, but what Koy said was that so long as I believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he would consider me no better than a reformed member of the KKK.

That part of his statement did not strike me as an attempt at analogy. Regardless, it is inappropriate.

Would you be as calm with me if I had referred to all atheists as reformed Nazi's?

Regardless, can you name to me ANY human institution which did not, when it became institutionalized, become a self-seeking control mechanism. If we can establish that institutionalized religion do not differ greatly from institutionalized political or institutionalized economic theories, can we assume that the emergence of control mechanisms is a function of institutionalization and not a function of what is being institutionalized?

For example, it could be argued that democratic politics are characterized historically by career-politicians who use democratic processes to perpetuate their privilidged status. They often do this via demogoguery, fear-mongering, and hate-mongering.

If we can agree that this is the historical trait of democracies, can we say that democracy was originally promoted to advance a privilidged class of career politicians through demogauery... or can we say that the historical character of democratic societies has been corrupted by the institutionalization of a class of career-politicians?

I am not arguing, indeed it cannot be argued, that the church has never been involved in controlling the masses for it's own benefit. What I am asking is if there is any reason to assume this is an intrinsic quality of relgion?

I asked on the free-will thread what response Koy had to monastic and ascetic religions which, far from seeking to control, sought to RECEDE from society. His answer to that was such a relgion was still bad because it robbed society of the talents of the monks. But that does not factor into the failure of his explanation of all religion as a controlling mechanism to account for an entire strand of religious expression (the monastic life) of which there are adherants in ALL organized religions. Since these individuals in their religious life and expression do not seek to control, then religion cannot be described simply as a control mechanism.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Philosoft

<strong>From the cyber-mouth of luvluv:

I am not arguing, indeed it cannot be argued, that the church has never been involved in controlling the masses for it's own benefit. What I am asking is if there is any reason to assume this is an intrinsic quality of relgion?</strong>

I hear this quite a bit. Am I missing something or is there another way to discern the "intrinsic qualit[ies]" of religion other than the observable behaviors of those who self-identify as religious?

Further, what is an intrinsic quality in this context? It sounds like you are claiming there are things that all definitions and permutations of religion must have. What are these things and why is church manipulation not one of them?

GunnerJ

This is a flat-out lie, and a complete straw man, as has been pointed out to you many times. Please stop being so dishonest.

Regardless of what? All evidence ot the contrary that shows that, no matter what Koy's statement "struck you" as, he was not calling you a KKK member, and thus it was not inappropriate?

As this rhetorical question is based on repeatedly, and demonstratedly, false premises, it is irrelevent. I un-ask your question. Mu.

Hmmm... Institutions which becoem controling when institutionalized... something is amiss here.

Define what it means for an organization to be an institution without refering to the level of control it enforces and your question might be answerable.

No. Firstly, you have not defined "institutionalization," and thus any attempt to discuss "institutions," as such, is folly. Secondly, regardless of what you call "institutionalization," religions can be shown to be control mechanisms through other means besides their present day modus operandi, as we shall see.

...as opposed to it being an intrinsic quality of "institutions," right? The answer is yes: religions typically have source materials (for Xianity, the Bible; for Islam, the Koran; for Greek Paganism, the Illiad and the Oddessy; etc.) which outline the proper function of the religion and its core values. If we can show that these source materials contain psychological control mechanisms as part of the prescibed methods or core values, then we can show that it is intrinsic to the religion in question.

To take your example of democracy (and as a pedantic note, our government is a republic, not a democracy): what you are trying to convey, I think, with this talk of "institutionalization," is the difference between the ideal form of an idea and its real world aplication. So yes, it would be fallicious to assume that modern republics are based on control mechanisms because those who run them use these tactics. The reason for this, though, is because the "source material" for modern democracies (the philosophical writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the political writings of the Enlightenment period with special emphasis on those of the founders of the American republic) can be shown not to contain such overtones.

Compare to religion, now: we can say that religions are control mechanisms not only because that is how they operate in the real world, but also (the argument ought go) because the source texts of the religion advocate such tactics in their prescribed methods and core values. We can also say that this controling factor is not merely due to "institutionalization," (although that may play a role,) but is intrinsic to the religion based on the fact that the core values and prescribes methods of the source texts condone it.

Firstly, you statement, "...monastic and ascetic religions which, far from seeking to control, sought to RECEDE from society..." contains, hidden in it, the following sylogism:

P1: All religions seek to control their adherents.
P2: Moastic/ascetic religions suggest hermitage or group seclusion from society.
C1: Therefore, not all religions seek to control their adherents.

This is a complete non sequitir. The fact that monasticism and asceticism preach retreat from society does not show that they do not have ingrained psychological control mechanisms.

Secondly, monism and ascetism are prime examples of the result of this whole "control mechanism" thing we're talking about! Note that we're not nessisarily talking about control structures, where there is a heirarchy of bosses and underlings, although that is an outgrowth, and a common method of the subject at hand. We're talking about psychologcial control mechanisms, where certain memes (such as the carrot and stick, self-belittlement, the scorn of the world, the group eliteness paradign, the us-and-them worldview, the self-perpetuation hook, etc.) seek to play on a person's emotions in order to control their thoughts and behaviors. Control structures are type of this meme, but not a nessesary part. Monasticism and asceticism are based on the need for the adhereant to "purify" himself/herself for percived sins, or to severe the adhereant from "worldliness," or for some other reason. The point is, these reasons are suggested by the main religion, its real world practices and its source materials, from which monasticism and asceticism spring.

Thus, the strand of religious thinking you present as a non-control based, are actually just as bad, in this regard, as their parent religions. In fact, they are worse because there is, usually, no real "boss" suggesting monasic or ascetic behaviour; it is only the pschology of the adhereant suggesting this based on the culture and source materials of his/her parent religion.

Thirdly, have you ever been to a monestary or a cloister? There are few lifestyles more regemented by the dictates of "bosses" and control heirarchies than life in an order of monks or nuns, I will say that much.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

WJ

Philo!

You said:

"I hear this quite a bit. Am I missing something or is there another way to discern the "intrinsic qualit[ies]" of religion other than the observable behaviors of those who self-identify as religious?

Further, what is an intrinsic quality in this context? It sounds like you are claiming there are things that all definitions and permutations of religion must have. What are these things and why is church manipulation not one of them?" [end quote]


An 'intrinsic quality' would go back to what William James' said about the necessary development of religious feeling. This psychological necessity relates to human 'intrinsic' qualities of sentience. Now one way to, in your words "discern" those qualities is to study, experience, practice, etc. etc. a particular religious belief system. Just like becoming, practicing, or doing anything in life; you do it with people.

So the 'initial' reason you have organized entities is that they offer or have commonalities so that people can share their 'discernment' together. Whether it's a hunt club, porn theater, secular lifestyle forum, what have you, it is a place to experience/share common interests and feeling and pleasure. I think that is part of the 'context' but of course does not include any 'controlling elements' or rules of the game that man chooses to invent or interpret or enforce. So I think the 'intrinsic' qualities refer to the initial need or conditions or natural human needs to engage and express feeling. And in this case, 'religious' feeling (as James' would say).

...I just didn't know if you overlooked the obvious here, and don't know if I'm telling you somethng you already knew...

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Those who created the mythology and taught the mythology as if it were true.

Possible, but doubtful. Most likely (if he ever actually existed), Jesus was nothing more than a radical Rabbi who spoke out against orthodoxy. It is even possible that he was one of the first to be murdered by the Roman occupation for sedition; the only reason the Romans would have crucified anybody, beside murder.

One thing is irrefutable: the Romans would not have tried a man and officially declared him to be innocent of all charges only to then crucify him, just to appease the local population.

You don't acquit a man of all charges--hell, find no charges against him at all to begin with--and then sentence him to death!

My money is almost entirely on Paul, yes, though I do not in any way discount Roman collusion with Paul to destabilize the Jewish cult stronghold, since you've asked. It certainly makes sense, since he is the one that is revered by the deity (the rock of the church, as I recall, or was that Peter?) as well as the primary one (we are told about) who travels all around to "spread the word," throwing in considerable words of his own along the way (such as his bizarre referrences to celibacy and--many have claimed--veiled homosexuality).

He also comes rather close to blasphemy, IMO, in his own "theology" and teachings, but always manages to barely hide it behind the robe-tails of the "master."

I would also assert the creator of the commonly called "passion narrative" myth, who may (or may not) have been the author we commonly call "Mark," though it is highly possible and most plausible that all of the authors (whoever they originally may have been) were involved to some degree over the years; at the very least involved in the crafting of the expanding mythology as the movement grew more and more into an anti-Judaic/pro Roman cult.

How do I support this conjecture? The same way any christian supports the opposite, of course; exegesis. Though I add in a hefty dose of common sense, logic and deconstruction.

Just one simple example was something I already posted; the temptation of Jesus by Satan. If you take the documents as historically accurate depictions of actual events, then we know the authors to be liars, since it simply is not possible for any of them to have been personally present to record what was said and what happened between Jesus and the dark Lord of the Hoary Netherworlds, yes?

So, again, it is either myth or historical documentation, so if anyone is going to argue for historical documentation, they had better give a damn good argument that would explain something like the temptation events.

Who? The fictionalized, idealized characters glorified in their own mythology?

Once again, it would have to be established to be historical documentation and not mythology for there to be any way to address that question.

We can, however, see what their doctrines were and the effects they had to try to determine such things.

Or we could just concentrate on Paul's letters, since he's arguably one of the most consequential authors that we do know with a certain reasonable degree of certainty to have actually existed and his letters can be reviewed as historical documents (note "documents" and not "documentation"), since they aren't so much concerned with the mythology as they are about the results of the mythology (i.e., establishing the cult).

So, again from something I already quoted (in the Free will thread):

Right off the bat, you can see Paul putting a controlling "spin" on something that happened (something that they were "blameless" for; meaning, of course, that someone did, in fact, blame them for, BTW).

See any control terminology there?

Any alarms going off yet? "Encouraging, comforting and urging" you to live lives "worthy of God," aka, what I and we tell you is "worthy" of God?"

"Blameless?" "As a father deals with his own children?"

Subtle? Hardly. Spin? Definitely.

Here, let me put into bold some more tell-tale terminology and see if you get what I'm talking about:

Ok? Paul starts out by reminding them all that they are subservient to his "place" within the cult; he is a father to them and they are the children.

He then defers to the mythology--thanks "God" so it has seemingly nothing to do with him, the humble servant himself--prefacing his "because" (which I'll quote in a minute) by reminding them also that the mythology is the one he told them.

This all (so far) breaks down to little more than: I'm your Father and "blameless" and told you a story.

Nothing so horrible there, particulary, but note what he says next:



I'm your blameless father who told you a story that you bought, all because I pretended it was from a walking, breathing god on Earth.

Now, I've heard conflicting assessments on whether or not Paul actually knew Jesus and I think current consensus is he did not, so even if he's an innocent believer simply retelling a story that was told to him, we still have clear and obvious evidence of cult control mechanisms just in these few lines.

They accepted his story--his mythology to be true, because they were already believers; already theists (apparently, Jewish converts).

You are all children and I am your blameless Father who told you a new story that you all accepted because you're already conditioned, right? Because you see God as I see God, hallelujah, can I get an Amen?

Now here comes the twist. He's buttered them up ("them" meaning the leader of that particular group, naturally, since the letter to the Thessolonians wasn't actually to them, of course, but for them) after reinforcing what he had previously established (that he is their blameless Father and they are all children--children--who believe based on nothing more than a story and the acceptance of that story) and now the hook, the poison barb:



God's chosen people--whom the "Lord Jesus" was allegedly sent to free and upon whose doctrines establish Jesus' Messiahship--are actually christkillers who "displease" God and are hostile to all men!

Holy shit!

That is the polar opposite of what the OT says of the Jewish Messiah. Paul is in no uncertain terms telling these "imitators" of the Jews in Judea that being a Jew means you are not one of the chosen poeple in direct contradiction to what God himself said; that in fact God does not favor you and that you are a murderer of your own Messiah and hostile to all men!

Jews are christkillers--hostile to all men--and hated by their own God.

This message of love and goodness from your own blameless Father.

Anything more?

It's all right there in that tiny passage. I am your Father, you are my children and I tell you that your own countrymen are just like the Jews you imitate, who are despised by God and hostile to all men--who murdered their (your) savior--and always heap up their sins upon themselves so that they are the "chosen people," all right; chosen to incur the wrath of their own God who is now our God and not theirs!

It is an unconscionable pack of blatant lies that Paul must have known to be lies, unless he too was seriously brainwashed, since he would have full knowledge precisely how Roman justice operated; that if Jesus had actually been crucified by the Romans then it was because Jesus had broken Roman law and the Jews would have had nothing to do with it, since the Jews could have killed Jesus (and tried) at any time they wanted to.

Lies, control, "encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God" who despises the Jews; the ones who are so despicable that they murdered your savior and always (like your own countrymen) heap their sins upon them so that the wrath of God is upon them, completely contradicting every single thing you've been imitating.

And who are we? Why we are the "holy, righteous, blameless" Fathers telling you of these horrible things and encouraging you to...what? Live lives "worthy" of God.

Well, who isn't living lives worthy of God? The Jews. Not specific men who did a terrible thing; just the "Jews" and your own "Countrymen" who act like the "Jews."

There simply is no mistaking the malicious and deliberate intent in just that tiny passage; the obvious manipulation of these people as well as the direct contradiction of Jewish dogma; the same dogma, mind you, that Jesus came to fulfill.

As do I.

Metaphor, to be precise.

In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, I am not "sensitive" at all. This isn't a church social and we aren't children, yes?

I'm sorry to hear that and my condolences. Likewise, however, my family has had some run-ins with the christian cult (at the business end of the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Church of England, the witch hunts, etc., etc., etc. up until this day, suffering under a Fundamentalist President who is murdering unknown hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children everytime a bomb is dropped, because they are under an "axis of evil" and considered "evildoers").

I don't recall any cluster bombs being dropped on Oklahoma after McVeigh's Al Queda blew up that building, do you?

As with anyone who supports either directly or indirectly the even more powerful and detrimental christian cult has with me. Especially, I should add one who admittedly discards as unbelievable 98% of the mythology of that cult, yet still argues that there is not one "scintilla" of doubt.

Since I never did to begin with (other than in keeping with the metaphor to illustrate my point), deal so long as you recognize that the same distaste you misconstrued in this regard is applicable a thousand fold to the christian cult.

It is not and never has been a benign institution by any stretch of the imagination--as the historical record alone proves--so if you ever argue that your own personal faction is comparatively benign and should not therefore be lumped in with the Catholic or Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, then I will remind you again of the KKK metaphor.

Making such an argument is equivalent to saying "My branch of the KKK isn't that bad," capisca?

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Now that it has been clarified for you again and firmly established that it was you who were simply incorrect in your assessment (as hard to believe as that may be considering how many times it was clarified) we can move on, yes?

No, actually, it is not, so if you still feel that way, then I suggest you immediatly leave the cult it is comparable to, because if being compared to a KKK member based upon your allegiance to the christian cult upsets you so, then so should your continued allegiance to the christian cult, no matter how far down on the ladder it may be, IMO.

Indeed, historically and qualitatively speaking, the christian cult as an overall institution is far more detrimental ultimately than the KKK, since they are merely one of those 20,000 factions; just one under the umbrella that your own church uses to ward off the rain as well.

In case you didn't know, the KKK is first and foremost a christian institution.

Of course not, since that is neither an applicable nor justifiable metaphor. The Nazi's were also a largely christian movement who would have (and did) agree with Paul's words, the founder of the church of Jesus.

Can you name one that proclaimed the entire time that they were out to free mankind and not control them? I can.

More later.

Philosoft

Exactly. We have to decide what these intrinsic qualities are by observing the individuals who practice religion. And one thing we observe, more often than most theists would like to admit, is the authoritarian behavior of the church.

<strong> I somewhat agree, but how is this a defense of luvluv's contention that authoritarian, manipulative behavior by the church is not an intrinsic quality of religion?

Koyaanisqatsi

More now...

Nice try, but no.

Mythology is deliberate fiction, plain and simple. That means that whoever writes it or commissions it therefore creates it, so anything that is found within it is reflective and revealing of its intent.

Making comparisons in the vein of "well, they do it, too" is worthless and does nothing to exonerate.

The control mechanisms we're discussing are designed to induce absolute, unquestioning, dictatorially controlled allegiance and alliance to the cult and nothing but the cult, so help you Jesus.

You are supposed to view every single thing you ever think, practice or preach to be of Jesus, by Jesus and for Jesus, aka, the cult, for they are one and the same; the word "Jesus" is nothing more than the icon you are to worship; the Big Brother you are to obey.

Anyone, therefore, acting on Jesus' behalf, aka Paul, falls under that mantle of allegiance and power, so long as he does everything "in Jesus' name."

It is also not comparable to those other institutions, since those institutions are subordinate to it, hence we have a whole Congress full of jackasses standing on the steps pledging allegiance "under God" like ridiculous five year old children.

Hate the sin, not the sinner. In the case of christianity it is the doctrines of the cult and the words of the cult leaders that directly causes the followers to, for a shining example, hate Jews.

Again, not the specific Jewish leader or leaders who somehow convinced Pilate to throw all of Roman law and procedure out the window in order to officially murder an innocent man, but just "Jews" in general.

Make absolutely no mistake about this, it is the institution that is corrupt and causes corruption from the ground up, even if that corruption is merely the destruction of otherwise intelligent minds.

Again, I ask you to assess how your own intelligence can be so easily controlled as to make you believe--without a "scintilla" of doubt--that a carpenter/Rabbi from two thousand years ago is the omnipotent, omniscient super natural creature that created the entire universe?

That is a fundamentally and irrefutably ludicrous belief, yet you are incapable of even recognizing that fact, let alone agreeing with it.

Here's proof. They got it wrong. It wasn't Jesus, but actually a sandle maker name Joachim from four thousand years ago, who was the Messiah that resurrected from the dead as a testament to his divinity. Joachim was actually the one Mark and Paul et al were referring to, they just updated the story to make it more "modern."

Do you accept that as true? If not, why not? What proof do you have and blah, blah, blah.

It is a fundamentally ridiculous concept that a human being (a) created the entire universe (for that is what the mythology implies; he looks like us, he behaves like us; he's a "he"; he's just more better and bestest) and (b) you must just accept it as true.

Which is, of course, why they created Hell, which you so correctly pointed out did not exist in Jewish cult dogma.

It was a necessary creation to get you (the followers) to fear disbelief; to fear not just accepting it as true.

I submit that you know this perfectly well, which is why you have discarded Hell completely from your beliefs along with 98% of the rest of the ridiculous bullshit you admittedly do not believe in.

Most of which based almost exclusively on the christian model and "in the name of Jesus," yes.

Those that are "one nation, under God?"

Certainly. No argument from me, especially when you realize that no democracy has ever existed that I'm aware of, except, perhaps in various tribal communities, but I doubt it.

We do not live in a Democracy. We don't even really live in a Republic. Technically, we live in a Fascist nation (which, by the way, does not mean steel boots and murder; it means, among other things, that the State subsidizes industry, thereby effecting a measure of control and influence over the economy).

Since this is entirely irrelevant and you're presenting it simply as an invalid comparative argument, who cares?

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

No, you're not really asking that at all, IMO. You're simply trying to shift focus off of the christian cult, which is cool, I guess, since any group of religious followers is indded a cult; it would just then become an assessment of the degree of control inflicted.

In your own case, however, that degree would be hard pressed to delineate, since our entire nation is a christian controlled cult from the "top down."

You have to understand something. There are no such things as gods. They do not and have never existed anymore than leprechauns or Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. This is not a question of "belief" or "opinion." It is fact, plain and simple that you must accept without question (sound familiar?).

But that's what a cult does. It takes primarily children (suffer the children unto me) and it beats intelligence to the punch by poisoning your intellectual drinking well in precisely this manner, so that if I say to you--now--you must simply accept that no such beings as gods have ever existed, you refuse.

Indeed, you get irrate ("you" in the more generalized, "cult member" sense, of course) and trigger your cult conditioning by saying, "NO, you must prove they don't exist!"

A patently ludicrous and invalid argument, since it is not possible to prove something "does not" exist.

Yet, you will simply accept that a god exists; that a carpenter/Rabbi from two thousand years ago is an omnipotent, omniscient super natural being that created the entire universe! Why?

Because you were conditioned to in one form or another, that's why. There simply is no other answer, because these beings do not and have never existed.

I can hear the triggers going off in your head right now as you read this! "How do you know?" "That's just your opinion!" "You can't prove that!"

Painfully simple. Ring a bell and the dog salivates. It's not rocket science and--as you so correctly pointed out in your attempt to marginallize and shift focus--it does exist in all over forms of instititutions to one degree or another, particularly in Governments, which is why, if you'll recall from your history book, America was founded on the separation of Church and State.

The Church (aka, cult) was too powerful!

The active participation of the human beings lead away from society, yes, many of which were indeed the smartest and the most questioning people, unfortunately, though, their cognitive processing had been flipped on its ass through the cognitive dissonance of the cult indoctrination, IMO.

What? How does that "not factor" and what "failure" are you asserting, other than the rehashed straman of "all religion as a controlling mechanism."

The controlling mechanisms are found within the words and doctrines of the mythology as well as the actions of subsequent cult members over the years. If some of those cult members do good--as I granted repeatedly--that in no way redeems the institution as a whole anymore than a reformed KKK member who never lynches anyone and is kind to Jews doesn't exonerate the KKK as an institution.

Again, hate the sin, not the sinner.

Why do you continue to pretend I haven't addressed this over and over and over again?

As I stated twice previously, in the case of christianity, the ultimate bad outweighs the ultimate good and effectively, therefore, negates any good ever done in its name.

Period. End of story; weighed in the balance and found wanting. It is entirely irrelevant if a billion good deeds are done in the name of Jesus if ten trillion bad deeds have been doen in the name of Jesus, the only question is (as you attempt to incorrectly dance around), what causes that preponderance and overwhelming amount of bad?

The words, doctrines and detrimental elements of the institution, of course.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

They have been controlled. That's the point. So controlled, in fact, that they have removed themselves from society; removed themselves--their intelligence, their acumen, their insight--from actively participating in the betterment of society.

For what end? To spend the overwhelming majority of their time in complete solitude chanting cult mantras to a nonexistent fiction.

Possible fathers, statesmen, teachers, social activists, you name it, shutting themselves off from any of those activities all because they were conditioned to believe in a certain way from childhood, almost entirely due to fear and the removal of fear.

Pascal's Wager ring any bells?

Once again, this means humanity has not just murdered millions upon millions of their own kind over the centuries and up to this very day for one reason and one reason only (you don't believe in my God, thus you will die), but a larger amount of otherwise intelligent, dormant minds were never triggered in the proper fashion, so that a ruling 1% elite could continue to enslave and control the 99%; the sheep who are shorn, bludgeoned and eaten by the shepherd.

You can deny it, but you can't face it.

Cognitive dissonance. Arbeit macht frei.* The meek shall inherit the Earth. 2 + 2 = 5.

*German slogan put over Auschwitz meaning "Work shall set you free."