Got science?

Standard

Electron

Source: https://www.facebook.com/progressivesecularhumanist

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “Got science?

    • “Because you dont figure out shit by praying”? Watse “shit” eh Malherpies?

      Watse “shit” probeer jy uit”figure”?

      Is dit die “shit” in jou kop?

      Like

  1. Dis nou natuurlik die sogenaamde “opgemaakte” goed wat Danie van gepraat het. Kan julle die chiek glo om daar te sit en daai wetenskaplikke marvel sommer ” opgemaak ” noem. Die particle collider. Kan Danie miskien vir ons se hoe werk die ding presies aangesien hy sommer kategories besluit dis ” opgemaakte” nonsense. Oor en oor en oor en oor slaan christene hulle name met planke. En miskein moet Johann ook tog maar ‘n trip Switzerland toe vat om te gaan kyk dat hierdie particle collider regtig is en baie indrukwekkend inderdaad. En dat die bedtime story wat sy mamma en pappa vir hom vertel het voor bed eintlik ‘n klomp bogus is in sy kop. Dan wil ek nie eers al die Freudian rubbish wat hy as werklik beskou oor uitwei nie.

    Like

    • Adriaan het jy nou opgehou met jou studies? Freud word die “vader” van diepte sielkunde genoem, wat dit beteken is dat hy ‘n evolusionêre stap geneem het in ‘n sekere rigting en baie ander het hom gevolg net soos René Descartes die vader van filosofie genoem word. Skinner het gedrags sielkunde begin, dink ek, daar is baie “rigtings” wat ingeslaan is deur die mens wat ge-evolueer het. Is evolusie dan nie ‘n werklikheid nie?

      Ek kry die indruk dat jy alles verwerp om te poog om jou “ego” te versterk/verhard.

      Die mens dom het uitgebrei in al daardie rigtings en verder gaan soek na iets wat jy nie van sal weet nie, maar simbolies word dit die “boom van die lewe” genoem

      Like

        • Adriaan, waar val jy nou weer uit? Ek studeer nie sielkunde nie, ek wil weet of jy nog aangaan en of jy opgegee het. . .? Soos ek verstaan het jy nie veel verstaan nie ingelgevaal.

          Like

            • Asking Johann to stop looking for kak is questioning his essence of being. He is a plain fucking spiteful doos. Just like all his fucked up Christian buddies. He admits he doesn’t study psychology himself yet he sits and argues with everything I say. Nothing sense full makes sense to him at all. According to him I am arrogant and stupid. That is completely and utterly absurd. Yet there might still be a 0.000000000000000001 % chance that he is right. But about god existing and even being a loving god I can honestly say he is 0% correct. Again lets suppose god did exist. What a fucking and utter complete doos and douchebag he is. That’s what baffles me about Christians. Since they do believe in that fucker, what on earth do they see in him? He is bitterly unfair, completely psychopathic, sadistical, tastless asshole, his whole creation is an enourmous, gigantic fuck – up. He is completely unlogical and unfair. That’s what a Christian should be thinking. And that doesn’t sound like a nice existence.

              Like

            • Sorry maar ek het glad nie ‘n konflik houding teenoor Adriaan nie, en as hy met my wil praat is ek meer as bereid om sonder woorde oor ontlasting of voortplanting, of vroulike anantomie met hom te praat, maar elkekeer “wys” hy sy “muscle brain” deur my aan te val en te probeer sleg sê . . . . wat ingelkgeval ‘n gedrags patroon van die atijoote op die kotsblad is. Geen wonder die woord atijoot het so maklik gekom nie.

              Like

          • Annoying things Christians say and do

            Citing the Bible

            If you come into an atheist forum citing scriptures at everyone then let me inform you my dear theists that you are wasting your time for several reasons in particular. First on the list is that all atheists don’t accept the Bible as the inspired word of God as you do. It is not inerrant to us and is actually full of things we would deem self-contradictory, immoral, and disgraceful. If all you can do is cite scripture without having any background knowledge as to how those scriptures came to us or how they were composed, compiled, and edited then I am pretty sure that you have little to contribute to any discussion refuting your faith.

            Threats

            Threats of any kind tend to be frowned upon and it makes you look like an ass. When it comes to divine threats speaking for myself I tend to become combative. Not because I find your threats credible, but because I find your threats to be a sign of your arrogance. Secondly, I find your threats to be empty just like your beliefs. Think of it this way: atheists don’t believe in gods so threats about your gods judgement on us is not even a threat but rather a sign of your delusional state. Threats about hell and what awaits us evil nonbelievers in the afterlife are even less effective since most atheists I know don’t believe in an afterlife, although there may be some exceptions out there. So threatening us with God’s wrath, hell, or the great white throne judgement is like threatening an adult with not getting anything for Christmas but a rock of coal from Santa.

            Circular reasoning

            Nothing is more annoying than circular reasoning! What is circular reasoning?

            Circular reasoning: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.

            Here is a perfect example of circular reasoning:
            Proposition: The Bible is the word of God
            Premise: Because I believe it and it says so right there in the Bible

            Keep in mind that to us atheists the Bible, Torah, or Koran is not considered evidence of anything. They are considered for the most part to be the works of men of an ancient and very superstitious time.

            Prejudging or making blanket statements

            This is a cardinal no no when it comes to any discussion forum. Assuming that atheists don’t know what the Bible says, are immoral, don’t understand the scriptures, are angry at God, don’t believe in him so that they don’t have to be accountable for their actions, are in denial because of their love of sin, etc. If you do any of these chances are you will bring upon yourself the wrath of an entire atheist community and will be bombarded by equally or greater offensive blasphemy meant specifically to piss you off!

            Assuming what we believe

            Don’t ever assume that you know what atheists believe! The only thing any two atheists can agree upon with certainty is that they don’t believe in gods. That is all that atheism is we live our lives as if gods did not exist because we believe that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the existence of gods. Our personal views about religion in general, politics, the world, science, nature, etc. differ greatly from person to person.

            Atheists don’t believe in gods or any other supernatural entities described in your texts. This includes angels, demons, saints, Jesus as the son of God, divine interventions known as miracles, end time prophecies, heaven, hell, purgatory, the concept of sin as an offense against God,the fall of man, Jesus rising from the dead, etc.

            Citing Christian sources

            Just like we don’t accept the Bible as the word of God we don’t accept most theistic web sources that misrepresent science or atheist views. Most of these sites for the most part are either misinformed or purposely deceitful. For example when arguing against the Big Bang or evolutionary theory please save yourself the embarrassment of citing banana man Ray Comfort or others like him or creationists websites like answers in Genesis. If you want to learn how not to learn about science this is definitely the website to learn how to make a fool of yourself while discussing these issues with atheists.

            Atheism is a religion

            Warning: if you make this statement prepare to reap the whirlwind that will follow! Not because it’s true as you might assume but because it is one of the most annoying things you can say. It demonstrates to us that you don’t even know what atheism is. Atheism is basically the belief that there are no gods that’s it! We don’t worship anyone or anything, we don’t pray or say mass, we don’t have unholy texts, we don’t all agree on other issues not related to the basic idea of atheism, science is not our god and Richard Dawkins is not its prophet. Our beliefs are based on reason and logical deduction.

            God of the gaps theories are despised

            Another thing theists should not do is try to debunk atheists arguments about origins with god of the gaps theories. This is what is meant when theists specifically attack gaps in our current scientific knowledge. A common point of contention is the one of origins. This refer to the origins of the universe or the origins of life theories. Christians love to throw out the old “if God does not exist then where do you think we came from or how we came to exist?” question. But in all truth I tend to reply that neither I know for sure and they are in the same position as I am since their only source for their beliefs is a book supposedly inspired by divine revelation. Unfortunately dear theist we don’t accept divine revelation as a source of knowledge for anything. Therefore in all truth you are as ignorant to the origins of the universe or life itself as the rest of us on this planet are.

            http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/2013/10/annoying-things-christians-say-and-do.html

            Like

            • shmoly, hierdie artikel gee n goeie opsomming!

              Kyk bietjie na die pragtige video wat ek stuur. Stem nie 100% saam met die video nie maar een van die beste videos wat ek al gesien het.

              Like

              • Interesting that he still remains on good terms with preachers and priests. It is possible to do this unless they’re radical maniacs.

                Like

              • Gerhard, dit sal vir my insiggewend wees as jy en ek bietjie praat oor die hallusinasie geen en wat dit in die elke dag se wel en weë beteken, kan jy bv vir my sê of woorde hallusinasies is?

                Like

            • Ek kan sommer net so uit die vuis uit dinge opnoem wat irriterend van Ateïste is, 1. hulle is fundamentaliste en is nie bereid om enigiets nuuts te probeer of eers te oorweeg nie. Hulle kan gelyk gestel word aan die Moslim brigade wat dink hulle moet Allah se vuilwerk doen. Of die Jode wat alles weer agteraf doen, maar nooit twyfel dat alles onder die son, op die aarde en alles onder die aarde aan hulle behoort nie.

              2. Hulle het ‘n gesnede beeld / gelykenis van God gemaak wat hulle eens probeer “worship” het en toe die ding wat net in hulle koppe bestaan het nie wou lekker reageer nie toe verwerp hulle dit en “glo” alle mense het dieselfde konsep in hulle koppe gemaak, hoe arrogant.

              3 Hulle kan nie verstaan wat die woord “worship” beteken nie en word opgewonde as Ateïsme as net nog ‘n “dogma” beskou word. Hulle Ateïstiese “dogma” pas nie lekker in by hulle konsep van wat die “geloof” prentjie moet wees nie. Die prentjie wat natuurlik net in hul eie koppe geskep is deur hul”self”.

              4. Hierdie “dogma” het hulle so vas en verblind dat hul vryheid van hul af weggeneem is en dis te donker om dit raak te sien.

              5. Ateïste se klym toe vym vraag is “bewys dat God bestaan”, maar het geen idee wat as “bewys” sal dien nie, miskien wil hulle God meet en weeg en in ‘n boksie sit sodat hulle daaroor kan heers. Alles net ‘n soeke na mag, die ego, die mens, die intellek, die logika, die rasionele denke moet heers oor alles, die nuwe gode van die wetenskap. (Dan is daar ook nog menslike aanbidding van Hawkins en dawkins ens).

              En daar is nog so paar goed,maar eks al later jou “copy paste” lees. Al is ek oortuig dat die net so van toepassing is op die Ateïste se “dogma”.

              Like

              • Every single point you raise there is about your got that we don’t believe in. You compare us to the Jews and Moslems that you can’t stand but they are believers in the supernatural just like you . We don’t believe in the supernatural, so what the Jews and Moslems believe doesn’t interest us. You accuse us of being closed minded because we don’t want to believe your two thousand year old book.

                It is beyond your understanding that we don’t believe in magical thinking. You have accused us of living in a Harry Potter world. I have never read a Harry Potter book and yawned through one Harry Potter movie, an experience never to be repeated. Magical thinking and fairy tales bore me. There is so much in the world to be interested in. This is the only shot you get at life on this planet and I don’t intend wasting it with my head in Bronze Age fantasies.

                Like

                • Molly as jy dit nie kan verstaan nie dan weet ek nie, miskien kan iemand anders dit dalk beter stel, as jy skryf dat jy “glo” nie in die God waarin ek glo nie, dan vertel jy my dat die God waarin ek glo wel ‘n realiteit is, dat jy net verkies het om nie in God te glo nie. . . ?

                  En ‘n fundamentalis is ‘n fundamentalis, maak nie saak waaraan hulle klou nie soos jy wat klou aan jou geloof dat jy nie in God glo nie, net so klou die Jode en moslims aan die “geloof” dat hulle die wêreld moet oorneem om van die “infidels” ontslae te raak. Kan jy verstaan dat die konstruksie van dit wat jy “glo” en wat hulle “glo” dieselfde is. Daar is geen buigaamheid of “oop koppe” nie. Dis ‘n oefening van die “mind”/ego/ persona/ unreal self/kop. . . .

                  “Atheism is basically the belief that there are no gods that’s it! We don’t worship anyone or anything,”, en dan ‘n entjie verder. . . . “our beliefs are based on reason and logical deduction.” So julle “geloof” word gebaseer op “rede” en “logiese deduksie”, nou vra ek jou is “rede en logiese deduksie” nie “iets” nie (soos hy skryf van “we don’t worship anyone or anything” “anything = reason/logical deducton”)?

                  As ons die woord “worship” uit geklaar het laaank terug sou ons nou nie weer hier voor die woord gestaan het nie. . . .waarna verwys die woord “worship”? Jy het die woord gebruik en nog nooit verduidelik aan iemand soos ek nie (wat blykbaar nie die vermoëns het om te verstaan wat die kastige “diep” wroeginge van Ateiste is nie) – lyk my jy hou tog van magiese gedagtes.

                  Waarom kan jy ook nie jouself toelaat om iets te geniet wat “boring” is nie. . . ? Is dit omdat jy “rede en logiese deduksie” “worship”?

                  Like

                • Schmoly,

                  Great answer to Boing Boing, but we are really wasting our time with this guy.
                  He genuinely sticks like shit to a woollen blanket. He reminds me of those sand-filled punch bags that keep coming back after you punched them. I bet if you blow his head off with a 12-gauge shotgun he will still come back. He has an obsession with us. He discounts and dismisses us completely, but then wants some answers to some awfully weird questions.

                  Ek dink hy is onnosel verby. En dalk mal verby.

                  There is no sense whatsoever in anything he has posted on this blog. Malherbe warned me long ago against this guy. Sheeet ! I did not think for a moment anyone could be this bad. He truly lives in a delusional world of total denial and altered states.

                  Like

                  • Fanie, weet nou nie hoekom dit vir jou nodig was om weer te “act out” nie, miskien moet jy die “verlede” los waar dit is – in die verlede, en dan praat jy van “delusional”, ‘n woord wat ek graag sal wil hoor wat dit na “wys”.
                    Die verskynsel in die natuur (?) wat jy na verwys as “delusional” watse verskynsel is dit?
                    Die verskynsel in die natuur wat Gerhard na verwys as “hallusinasies” watse verskynsel is dit? (Lyk my hy het homself oor ekspress en nou weet hy nie hoe om dit te “back-up” nie.

                    Die “magical thinking” wat Molly na verwys wat is dit?

                    Het Ateïste ook ‘n hallusinasie geen?

                    Wat is NIE ‘n hallusinasie nie?

                    As my “intellek” ‘n filtreer sisteem (gating system) in stand hou en ek weet dit, kan ek dit omseil?

                    As jy skryf dat die “liefde” is weg – of die gevoelens – wat deur die intellek geblokkeer word, is intellek dan dom, om “ons” so te skenaaiv.

                    Kan pyn gedagtes my seer maak? Of is dit net my “unreal self”/ ego/ persona/ens wat gekrenk is want die moet dit self van waarde ag en in stand hou?

                    Daar is nog baie ander vrae wat ek graag antwoorde op sal wil hê, maar moenie wharrie nie, ek verwag nie van jou om te kan antwoord nie, eintlik praat ek net met myself.

                    Like

                    • Molly! kan ons oor die omvang van die stelling praat? – ” ja, jy’s reg, jy praat net met jouself.” – Is almal op die kotsblad besig om met hulself te praat? Jy en al die ander is net ‘n konsep in my “self”. Jou konsep probeer om my”self” reg te help, en ek probeer om jou konsep te vertel om nie so rigied te wees nie. . . En as ons na non-dualisme kyk dan is ek besig om aan my”self” te skaaf om die pad “huistoe” te vind.

                      Kan dit ‘n moontlike waarheid wees?

                      Like

                    • Jesus fuckin’ christ, Johannie, pleit by Kokkerman om terug te tramp en jou tot hulp te wees, jy het dit werklik nodig!

                      Like

  2. LOVE VS SCIENCE

    Can We Learn to Love? Posted: 04 Dec 2014 11:30 AM PST

    Is that possible?  To learn to love?   Is it ever possible? Nope.   Just a wee bit?  Nope.   How about liking someone more?   Yep.  Then learning to love should be possible?  Nope.  What can we learn as adults?  How to build a computer, fix a propeller, mow the lawn, blah blah.  But love?  Here we are confusing two parts of us that are often antithetical.  Learning is top level; cerebral, a brain devoid of feeling.   Don’t forget; it cannot feel and is not supposed to.  It can interpret feelings, explain them and write about them ad nauseum.  But when feelings surge forth,  the top level recedes.  Love is deeper in the brain, does not need language or learning.   In fact, it is impervious to learning.    The more lessons we have on how to love, the less loving we become.  Saying “I love you,” all day long is not a substitute for hugging and kissing and showing joy at seeing each other.

    The military learns to take orders, and  obey without thinking.  Feeling would screw it all up and we wouldn’t be able to kill any more.  And why is obeying so important?  Because it blocks feeling.  You would not hear a woman who is hugged and kissed often complain, “You never say you love me.”  It was just said in the language of love.  It exudes out of every pore. But what you can actually learn is motivation, a willingness to work and study.  That comes within a loving environment.  The teachers that I had who patted me or put their arms around me are the ones I learned from.  So I perfected Spanish and typing; and after about 12 years of four universities I learned very little else.  I learned a lot from those who called my name and asked me how I felt and how I was doing. So, Mr Reagan, it is not the three R’s, readin, writin and rithmatic.  It is kindness, generosity and interest from those who teach; who show approval and encouragement.   Who love teaching and the students who learn.  School is not the military and “military intelligence” is a contradiction in terms. ….,an oxymoron.

    What was so important that I learned about child rearing was from my dog.  She taught me about loving and how important it was. I gave her every freedom yet she always stayed by my side.  That is why I always took my dog to therapy sessions.  She heard cries and licked my patients who then cried and screamed.   When we are loved the right feeling brain grows and develops and we learn nuance and music and art and kindness and empathy and love; that is a lot of learning.   And that is the springboard for real learning.  That is why my Ph.D degrees could not teach me to do the therapy, even though I knew every theoretical answer.  It could not help me sense what the patient was feeling,

    How do we learn to love?   How do we learn to be a good therapist?  We don’t.  My kids, when they were young, did my therapy and they were right on most of the time.   If they got a doctor’s degree I am afraid that all feelings would have been squeezed out of them. Primal Therapy is an art within a science.  We need to understand nuance coupled with scientific understanding.  Not one or the other, but both at once, conjoined into one outlook; one therapeutic perspective.

    So we know what is going on inside a patient, both in her feeling brain and in her intellectual one.   But alas, we have very smart therapists talking endlessly to patients while crushing their feelings and taking them out of any chance to get well.   Because, they cannot get well in their head alone , but everywhere in their system.   But intellectual therapists are satisfied to get patients well in their thinking, intellectual brain.   The feeling part, the sexual one, the artistic one is neglected and overlooked.   And what do we get?  A smart dummy, who knows history and literature but not their own history and not what they could write if they were in touch with their personal literature.

    I would like to redesign a doctoral program that includes empathy, touch, hugs and kindness.  I would remove all statistics and graphs and concentrate on the doctor herself; help her understand her life, her beginnings and how it shaped and sculpted her.  I would offer her Primal Therapy so she could learn everything she needs to know about treating another person.   And guess what? No charge.  I do not think medicine and therapy should be paid for.  We do that with our taxes.  It is not a profit making venture.   I tried for years to offer my therapy to several governments, to no avail. I took my son to see the English Minister of health and offered him my therapy.  He smoked a pipe, took a deep breath and said, “Let me see if I got this right.  You have a psychotherapy that cures, are willing to have it examined by our specialists and there will be no costs?   Whereupon my 12 year old son said, “Dad let’s get the hell out of here before it is too late.”  And we did. 

    Like

    • Fanie so dit is alles wat jy NIE is nie? don’t dream it boet . . .BE it!

      En dan vertel jy ook sommer vir die ander atijoote dat intelligensie, logika, rasionele denke kan net so vêr gaan. . . . en nie verder nie? Hulle sal jou kruisig boet.

      Like

    • I agree with the part about having dogs around. I have scar formation pressing on the nerve where I was operated and it limits my movements big time. I get pitying looks in supermarkets. However, my two dogs keep me happy; they are always sweet, cheerful and loving. Every child should grow up with a medium size dog, not too big to cuddle, although labradors are cool, but not a pitbull or other potentially lethal dog. What you don’t need when you’re in pain is some person making demands of you and trying to make you feel guilty about something you did, or something you failed to do.

      Like

  3. Boing Boing,
    Ek sien dat Malherbe en Savage doen nie eers meer die moeite om jou te antwoord nie. Nouja, ek is dalk ‘n gek omdat ek so ‘n bietjie meer geduldig is.

    Tot so ‘n hele ruk terug het ek voller vertroue gehad dat jy eendag, net voordat jy die emmer skop, iets sal se wat sin maak. Nou weet ek beter.

    Like

    • As jy nie verstaan wat ek bedoel nie kan jy net vra. Die copy en paste wat jy hierbo gepos het – kan jy my miskien in jou eie woorde vertel waaroor gaan dit?

      Soos ek dit verstaan het die “dom bokwagters” die dit 2000 jaar terug so gestel:1Ko 13:1 Al sou ek die tale van mense en engele spreek, en ek het nie die liefde nie, dan het ek ‘n klinkende metaal of ‘n luidende simbaal geword.
      1Ko 13:2 En al sou ek die gawe van profesie hê en al die geheimenisse weet en al die kennis, en al sou ek al die geloof hê, sodat ek berge kon versit, en ek het nie die liefde nie, dan sou ek niks wees nie.

      Wat is dit wat ons “ekspres” elke dag. . . .elke oomblik . . . .elke pos, , ,?

      Dit wat ons “lewe” noem, ons is soos die “asem” van dit wat ons “lewe” noem, en hierdie lewe wat ons kan ekspress is vol van liefde, en jy wat so vol haat en nyd en boosgeid is, jy is eintlik besig om liefde te ekspress al is dit – watse woorde het Molly nou weer gebruik – an aberraton of brain activity – of misplaaste liefde.. . . .as jy nie lief was vir iets nie sou jy nie so aangegaan het om dit te beskerm nie. . . . . . !

      Dis nie rokit saains nie.

      Like

      • You are quoting me out of context. I said that hallucinations are an aberration of brain activity. Nothing to do with misplaced affection. I wish you would pay attention to what others say, Johann, and not put words in my mouth.

        Like

        • Wat jy gesê het was: hallucinations = an aberration of brain activity. En dis presies wat ek geskryf het, Fanie ekpress haat en nyd en boosgeid wat eintlik ‘n misplaaste/verwronge ekspressie van liefde is.

          Of wat is hallusinasie dan andes?

          Like

          • What you’re trying to say is that Fanie is a hypocrite. Hate is not love all messed up. Hallucination is not based on any feeling, it’s a cognitive disorder. Shit, but you’re confused. And you want to tell others what Freud meant?

            Like

            • Molly, alle gevoelens “voel” dieselfde, dis ons kognitiewe vermoëns wat ons laat besluit “wat die emosie is” wat ons voel. As Fanie nie so lief was vir wat hy “ondek” het in Janov se “primal scream” nie sou hy nie met sulke haat en nyd en boosgeid gereageer het teenoor wat hy beskou die antiteses van sy “liefde” nie.

              Like

    • En Koel Diek / Malherpies het mekaar weerspreek, So nou het arme Danie afgetjop met oorgespoelde haat deur die 2. Hulle wou hul “oops” verdoesel deur baie geraas te maak.

      (As jy nie weet nie – Koel Diek het met groot bravade aangekondig dat – as jy nie iets verstaan nie beteken dit nie dat dit nie bestaan nie, Malherpies het die teenoor gestelde stelling gemaak, en hy het ook geskryf dat hy en ander soos hy veg vir vroue regte en toe gaan hy aan en teister Blou Vlinder(?) seksueel deur aanhoudend na die vroulike anatomie en voorpalantings vermoëns te verwys. . . . . .en dan wil hy my vertel dat hy weet wat rassisme is. . . .?).

      Ek dink hulle is bang.

      Like

  4. I don’t know why there should be ethical reservations about human brain cells being injected into monkey brains. It would be very interesting to see how their natural thinking overlaps with ours.

    Even more interesting would be to see the effects of super human brain cells injected into that of godiots. Would they still thump their bibles? I doubt it. Every fundamentalist I have ever come across was either a natural imbecile or suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.

    —————————————————————

    Human foetus cells injected into baby mice to create ‘supermouse’

    A ‘supermouse’ which is four times smarter than normal mice has been created by scientists by an injection of human brain cells

    The cells from a human foetus have been injected into baby mice to create animals which have brains that are half human.

    Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical said it was like ‘ramping up the power’ of the mouse brain, because human cells are so much more advanced.

    They found that mice with the human brain cells had memories that were four times better than their siblings who did not have the injections.

    “We can say they were significantly smarter than control mice,” said lead researcher Professor Steve Goldman told New Scientist magazine.

    “These were whopping effects.”

    The goal was not to create a new species of ‘supermouse’ but rather to make the brains of mice more humanlike so that scientists can advance their understanding of brain disease.

    The team created the hybrid mice by injecting ‘glial’ cells from donated human foetuses – left over from IVF – into mouse pups.

    Glial cells provide support and protection for neurons and develop into astrocytes, star-shaped cells with long tendrils. Astrocytes are vital for thought processes because they help co-ordinate the transmission of electrical impulses between neurons.

    Human astrocytes are 20 times the size of those in mice and have 100 times the number of tendrils.

    Scientists found that within a year of the injections the human cells had taken over with the mouse cells ‘fleeing to the margins.’

    “It’s like ramping up the power of your computer,” added Prof Goldman.

    Although Professor Goldman said that the cells did not make the mice ‘more human’ he admitted that the team had stopped short at injecting the cells into monkeys.

    “We briefly considered it buy decided not to because of all the potential ethical issues,” added Prof Goldman.

    Other experts said it was astonishing that such a huge effect could be seen with just a simple injection of human cells.

    “That the cells work at all in a different species is amazing and poses the question of which properties are being driven by the cell itself and which is by the new environment,” said Prof Wolfgang Enard, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.

    But he added: “If you make animals more human-like where do you stop?” [Answer to that: humans would become an endangered species.]

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11272505/Human-foetus-cells-injected-into-baby-mice-to-create-supermouse.html

    Like

    • “Every fundamentalist I have ever come across was either a natural imbecile or suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.”. . . .Wel Fanie en Mad Mac sou ek sê die “post traumatic” en Koel Diek / Malherpies seker in die eerste een. . . . . .haha dis Vrydag! Chilax,

      Like

  5. It’s Called Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome, and Yes It’s Real

    If there’s one thing I know the power of, it’s a name.

    For the better part of a decade I suffered from a chronic mystery illness that was attacking me from the inside out. Countless doctors and specialists couldn’t diagnose me, couldn’t give me a name for what was happening. They told me it was all in my head — that I could pull myself out of it if I just tried harder.

    I believed them.

    Debilitating fatigue and pain became a way of life. My physical distress was second only to the mental torture that went like this, “I am doing this to myself. I do not have an actual medical condition. These symptoms are not real. There is nothing wrong with me.”

    But there was something wrong with me. After eight years of sickness, a doctor handed me a slip of paper. On the paper was the name of the disease I had been fighting; the disease that had been fighting me.

    I wept with joy. (Which confused my poor doctor more than a little bit.)

    I had a name. The symptoms were real. I did have a medical condition. I was not doing it to myself.

    Because of the name, I found out I was not alone; there were thousands of other people dealing with the very same condition. Because of the name, I discovered community, support, resources, and treatment. Because of the name, I recovered.

    Because of the name, fatigue and pain are no longer a way of life for me.
    Which is why I am giving a name to a spiritual condition that is even more real and more dangerous than the disease that robbed me of my physical health for many years:

    Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome.

    PTCS presents as a severe, negative — almost allergic — reaction to inflexible doctrine, outright abuse of spiritual power, dogma and (often) praise bands and preachers. Internal symptoms include but are not limited to: withdrawal from all things religious, failure to believe in anything, depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loss of identity, despair, moral confusion, and, most notably, the loss of desire/inability to darken the door of a place of worship.

    The physical symptoms of PTCS — which may or may not be present — include: cold sweats, hives, nausea, vomiting, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbance, rashes, heart palpitations, increased blood pressure — oh, to heck with it. The symptoms are as varied as the people who suffer them.

    There are degrees of PTCS — maybe you can still walk into a church, maybe you can’t, maybe you take the long way on the highway to avoid the sight of a steeple, maybe you’re even standing in the pulpit. But the one thing we all have in common is that we crash into religion when we go looking for God.

    And the crashing has left us with spiritual whiplash, broken bones, bruises, welts and lacerations. It has left us feeling alone and scared and suffering. It has left us with a boatload of internal and external symptoms the persons of spiritual authority tell us are all in our heads and would go away if we just had more faith.

    Don’t believe them.

    Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome is not in your head, and you are not alone.

    When I tackled my own case of PTCS and blogged about it (http://thirtybythirty.com/), I received story after story — in person and via email and snail mail—from people who were suffering from PTCS. Our stories may be different, but the result is the same: we yearn for God without being bound by dogma and subject to spiritual abuse.

    Though I wish I could give you an answer of how to recover from PTCS in 800 words or less, I can’t. (It took me a year and a crazy journey through thirty religions to recover from my own case of PTCS.) Each journey back to spiritual health is as unique as the person taking it.

    But what I can do is hand you this virtual slip of paper stating the condition you’ve been fighting — the condition that’s been fighting you. I can tell you there are thousands, maybe even millions of us. I can tell you that I recovered, that healing is available, that God will meet you wherever you are or aren’t.

    But most of all, I can tell you a name. Sometimes a name is halfway to healing.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithforward/2014/03/its-called-post-traumatic-church-syndrome-and-yes-its-real/

    Like

  6. It’s Called Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome, and Yes It’s Real

    If there’s one thing I know the power of, it’s a name.

    For the better part of a decade I suffered from a chronic mystery illness that was attacking me from the inside out. Countless doctors and specialists couldn’t diagnose me, couldn’t give me a name for what was happening. They told me it was all in my head — that I could pull myself out of it if I just tried harder.

    I believed them.

    Debilitating fatigue and pain became a way of life. My physical distress was second only to the mental torture that went like this, “I am doing this to myself. I do not have an actual medical condition. These symptoms are not real. There is nothing wrong with me.”

    But there was something wrong with me. After eight years of sickness, a doctor handed me a slip of paper. On the paper was the name of the disease I had been fighting; the disease that had been fighting me.

    I wept with joy. (Which confused my poor doctor more than a little bit.)

    I had a name. The symptoms were real. I did have a medical condition. I was not doing it to myself.

    Because of the name, I found out I was not alone; there were thousands of other people dealing with the very same condition. Because of the name, I discovered community, support, resources, and treatment. Because of the name, I recovered.

    Because of the name, fatigue and pain are no longer a way of life for me.
    Which is why I am giving a name to a spiritual condition that is even more real and more dangerous than the disease that robbed me of my physical health for many years:

    Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome.

    PTCS presents as a severe, negative — almost allergic — reaction to inflexible doctrine, outright abuse of spiritual power, dogma and (often) praise bands and preachers. Internal symptoms include but are not limited to: withdrawal from all things religious, failure to believe in anything, depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loss of identity, despair, moral confusion, and, most notably, the loss of desire/inability to darken the door of a place of worship.

    The physical symptoms of PTCS — which may or may not be present — include: cold sweats, hives, nausea, vomiting, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbance, rashes, heart palpitations, increased blood pressure — oh, to heck with it. The symptoms are as varied as the people who suffer them.

    There are degrees of PTCS — maybe you can still walk into a church, maybe you can’t, maybe you take the long way on the highway to avoid the sight of a steeple, maybe you’re even standing in the pulpit. But the one thing we all have in common is that we crash into religion when we go looking for God.

    And the crashing has left us with spiritual whiplash, broken bones, bruises, welts and lacerations. It has left us feeling alone and scared and suffering. It has left us with a boatload of internal and external symptoms the persons of spiritual authority tell us are all in our heads and would go away if we just had more faith.

    Don’t believe them.

    Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome is not in your head, and you are not alone.

    When I tackled my own case of PTCS and blogged about it (http://thirtybythirty.com/), I received story after story — in person and via email and snail mail—from people who were suffering from PTCS. Our stories may be different, but the result is the same: we yearn for God without being bound by dogma and subject to spiritual abuse.

    Though I wish I could give you an answer of how to recover from PTCS in 800 words or less, I can’t. (It took me a year and a crazy journey through thirty religions to recover from my own case of PTCS.) Each journey back to spiritual health is as unique as the person taking it.

    But what I can do is hand you this virtual slip of paper stating the condition you’ve been fighting — the condition that’s been fighting you. I can tell you there are thousands, maybe even millions of us. I can tell you that I recovered, that healing is available, that God will meet you wherever you are or aren’t.

    But most of all, I can tell you a name. Sometimes a name is halfway to healing.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithforward/2014/03/its-called-post-traumatic-church-syndrome-and-yes-its-real/

    Like

  7. BOING BOING,
    Dit is nie net bokwagters van die bybeltyd wat gepraat het oor liefde nie. Liefde is nog altyd ‘n inherentd deel van die brein sedert ‘n paar miljoen jaar gelede. Alle “hoher soogdiere” (higher mammals” het baie lank gelede ‘n tweede brein
    ontwikkel, genaamd die limbic system. Dit is ons “gevoel” brein. Met hierdie brein kan ons liefhe, verhoudings aanknoop, verlang, seerkry, lag, huil, ens.

    Luister nou mooi…… as jy kyk na ‘n vis of ‘n krokodil dan besef jy dat hulle nie ‘n limbiese stelsel het nie, ne? Hulle het geen liefde nie. Maar jy kan ‘n klein apie of ‘n hond vat en liefde gee, en hulle sal kan verlang, liefhe, huil, ens.

    Die mens se tweede brein is ‘n bietjie meer ontwikkel as honde en apies sin.

    Gebare, demonstrasies en later uitsprake van liefde by mense is al daar laaaank voordat daai ou kakboek geskryf is (die jaar tagtig?).

    Die derde brein wat ons ontwikkel het (net mense) is ons intellek. Nou kan ons praat, dink, musiek maak, wiskunde doen, dinge ontwerp en vervaardig ens.

    Ons intellek het ook ‘n ander eienskap ontwikkel. As gevolg van pynlike situasies en omstandighede, m.a.w erge lyding, het ons intellek iets gedoen om ons onbewus te maak van bogenoemde lyding.

    Out intellect started to suppress painful feelings through what is called a “gating system”. It keeps on putting out these gates in order to prevent us from becoming conscious of painful experiences, such as when our needs were not met as babies (being held, loved, fed, nursed, dried, played with etc.) In other words it renders us unconscious. With our intellect, a young lonely and hurting child can imagine that he is being loved by a fairy, an invisible friend and such.
    If he had been told about jesus then he could very well live in a world where he talks to jesus all day long. Many adults who still suffer still do that.

    That is what neurosis is. When you escape into an unreal world i.e. smoking, drugs, alcohol, religion, praying, overeating, non-stop fucking, etc. Obsessions.

    Ever heard of OCD, where people compulsively wash their hands or close doors, etc? Ideas are powerful painkillers. So is false hope. (One day I will be in heaven and there will be no suffering)

    Here is another idea: “He is of the wrong faith so I must kill him” (Radical islam)

    There are so many ideations: “if I add numbers to my name and count them up, then I will be able to predict the future, etc.) Numerology.

    More…. “If I shuffle these cards and display them, they will tell me something about myself and my future” Tarot cards)

    If I was born on a certain day and time it means that the stars have decided that I will be smart, stupid, tall, short, lucky, beautiful, ugly, etc. (Astrology)

    Others will develop a super-intellect that remains busy 24 hours of the day.

    Unconscious humans. Suppressed feelings. Depression. ADHD. Bi-Polar.
    Schizophrenia. Psychosis. Criminality.

    Jy sien Boing Boing, die liefde is weg. Die gevoelens is weg. Om te kan kwaad word, binne perke, is ‘n gesonde eienskap. Jy kan jouself daarmee verdedig.

    Pacifism is also a neurosis. (weet jy wat pacifism is?)

    Like

    • I agree, pacifism is usually a cop out . To paraphrase Leon Trotsky: you may not be interested in war, but that doesn’t mean war isn’t interested in you.

      That bastard “born again” Christian George W Bush conspired to make 9/11 happen, and when it wouldn’t happen from Iraq’s side, he created it himself.

      World Trade Centre 9/11: on the telly the hit on tower number 2. The aircraft disappears into the side of the tower like some sort of ghost, wings, tail surfaces, fuselage, the lot. An outline of the plane is left on the concrete surface. The fuel tanks haven’t burst on impact but found their way through an impenetrable web of steel and concrete and blast out of the other side of the tower in a great ball of flame.

      Repeat footage of hit number 1 is shown and here too the plane just disappears into the steel and concrete, all of it. and burns inside the building.

      Shortly before the disaster there was a power outage and the place was shut down while certain maintenance crews moved in. Senior policemen said they heard explosions inside the collapsing building. Firemen explained that jet fuel burns at 1,800 degrees and cannot melt steel at 2,500 degrees.

      When they came to clear the rubble of the destroyed towers they found that the fundamental steel supports of both structures were melted. Underneath all that mess thermite had continued burning. Molten steel had mixed and solidified with shattered concrete.

      Proudly brought to you by the Christian president and Christian vice-president of America, all for the good of America and world peace.

      Dare say a word about what really happened, and you get locked up. See interview below with Susan Landauer, 9/11 ranking CIA operative, showing how democracy really works when you blow the whistle.

      Like

      • Saddam Hussein was once an ally of the US and performed the very useful function of keeping Iraqi fundamentalists under control. For this the born again Christian American arsehole president had him executed. Thanks to born again George W Bush we now have IS jihadists and their children chopping off journalists’ heads and putting vids of it on Youtube.

        Like

      • Schmoly,
        I cannot believe what I just read here. George Bush actually “created” the 9/11 horror?

        Boy…… are you a fan of David Icke, the master of conspiracy theories?

        Try to think realistically about it, and not like a typical godiot would.

        The US government has some million plus employees. It has a structure of
        safety described as “checks and balances”. It has a lower house and an upper house. For anyone – including the president – to make any move of sorts at all, it has to go first to the lower house for clearance, where it is voted on, then to the upper house where it is voted on again.

        Many people think that Bush sat in his office one day, picked up the phone and said: “Get four planes ready, loaded with passengers, as many pilots, co-pilots and all the usual staff on a plane, and have them fly these planes into the Twin towers. Immediately, a hundred or so people jumped into action to carry out this command from Bush. No-one queried it, no-one was shocked, or ran to the newspapers – does everyone in the US govt. love Bush that much, that they all thought it was a brilliant idea? Would you have done it? If you were a pilot with a wife and four kids, would you have just gladly killed yourself because the president wanted you to?

        Come onnnnn!

        Like

        • You were an aircraft technician, do you believe those two little jets could have penetrated the steel structure of the WTC? They would have crumpled on impact. Perhaps the engines could have made it through.

          So what’s your opinion on this?

          Burning thermite was found under the bottom steel supports of the buildings. The buildings were rigged with explosives to implode.

          George W Bush is and was a total religious nut job who believed he was on a mission from God to start a Christian crusade (his own words) in the Middle East. If you’re that crazy you’re not going to worry about who you kill in the WTC. It’s God’s will that these people should die in a worthy cause.

          If you think you’re doing the work of God, you’re not going to bother with checks and balances, or bother with lower or upper houses.

          I don’t think there were any pilots in those planes, they were remote controlled.

          See that interview with Susan Lindauer, there’s more of her on Youtube.

          I do admit that I copied and pasted something from David Icke’s website when I was lampooning Bob Geldof, but of course Icke is a nut job with his aliens and reptiles.

          But just think about it: those jets going through the towers like that. The structural steel would have had to be removed first to allow it to happen.

          Like

          • First part of rather long article.

            The fatal flaw
            in the 9/11 coverup

            Why can no one name the hijackers
            or prove they flew the planes?

            By John Kaminski
            skylax@comcast.net

            Know how to tell the difference between the truth and lies of 9/11? If they’re talking about hijackers having done the dastardly deed, you know they’re part of the sinister coverup extravaganza, wittingly or not.

            In order for the people of the world to be convinced that Islamic hijackers were responsible for terrible tragedy of 9/11, we need to see some evidence. Not hearsay, innuendo, aspersion or promises of evidence, but real evidence.

            Otherwise, the whole subject is rightly regarded as a ruse, a setup to conceal the identities of the real culprits, the ones who sit smugly in front of the TV cameras and plot their cynical war on terror — otherwise known as the war on the peoples of the world.

            As President Bush continues to insist that his word be accepted as truth on numerous questions, time after time his statements have been revealed as blatant falsehoods. Yet he continues to repeat them, and the whorish corporate media continues to accept them.

            Why hasn’t either the Bush administration or some element of law enforcement in the United States issued a single solid piece of evidence connecting the hijackers to the hijacked airplanes? Why don’t the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos? Why aren’t there credit card records of their ticket purchases?

            Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11? I mean, two and half years have passed. And the feds produced 19 names within 72 hours of the disaster. Notice a mathematical inconsistency here? All that has happened since is mere vigilante hysteria, hypothetical scenarios trumpeted ad nauseum by America’s notoriously brainwashed Zionist press.

            Seven or eight of the names on that original list have been found living comfortably in other countries. Why hasn’t the FBI made any attempt to correct the errors made on that original list? See for yourself. http://members.fortunecity.com/911/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm and http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

            And why, after much hullabaloo about Colin Powell using phony information in his remarks to the United Nations about the reasons for war, hasn’t the U.S. government produced a single conclusive piece of evidence to back up its claim that 9/11 was the work Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists? Not a single piece!

            If you disagree, tell me what it is!

            There’s a simple answer to this, you know. It’s because there isn’t any evidence. And why is that? Because those pseudo-Muslims revealed to be so publicly incompetent at piloting jerkwater training planes had absolutely zero chance of flying sophisticated jetliners into anything narrower than the Grand Canyon, never mind executing tricky maneuvers with extraordinarily complicated machinery.

            The unknown men who played the roles of the so-called Arab terrorist hijackers were really recruited by either American and/or Israeli intelligence services in a scheme set up as a diversion to inflame dumb Westerners against the Islamic world. The purpose was to divert the world’s attention from the Israeli genocide and dispossession of the Palestinians by blaming the attacks on Muslims.

            But that was only half the objective. The other half was to enable our despicable cabal of neocon gangbangers to fleece the American public with an endless array of no-bid contracts to enrich the conscienceless billionaires who are really driving the war machine.

            You know how the Bushista American government uses anything for PR to supposedly authenticate its own evil agenda. If they had any concrete evidence against the hijackers — if they even possessed all their correct names — we would have heard about it by now. There would be an avalanche of TV shows about them, unlike that Jewish claptrap hate crime against Muslims that appeared on NBC the other night.

            After two and half years, with the whole world knowing that eight of the 19 names on the hijacker list are fraudulent, the FBI has made no attempt to substitute new names. And why is that? Because the identities of the hijackers were constructed with mostly stolen papers, for some of the patsies designed to take the heat. In any case, and whoever they were, there is no evidence they ever got on the planes.

            But nothing. Instead we have one minor player convicted in Germany, then the conviction was overturned, partly because Americans refused to help with the prosecution.

            We have the so-called 20th hijacker and assorted other preposterous character actors languishing in jails on trumped up charges. We have security camera film at the Pentagon, which surely reveal that no jetliner hit that building, locked away in Ashcroft’s vault under the phony aegis of national security. We have all the rubble of the World Trade Center, which surely would have revealed the use of nuclear explosives creating shattered beams in odd places, instantly carted away with no forensic investigation. We have transcripts — but no recordings — of these phony cellphone calls, some from people who may not have even existed.

            And we have the famous standdown, in which America’s air defenses suddenly evaporated — the only time in our history this has happened.

            We have Marvin Bush sitting suspiciously on the board of directors of the security company that had the contract for the Twin Towers.

            We have Larry Silverstein, who conveniently leased and insured the towers shortly before the big hits, telling officials to “pull” a relatively intact tower, which then fell identically to the two structures that were struck by airplanes, creating the impression that that’s the way all three came down.

            We have billions of dollars of windfall profits made by savvy investors in the days before 9/11, and an FBI investigation that insists nothing was amiss with these spectacular deals. Of course, we don’t get the details. Only “assurances” that the trades were not suspicious, despite patterns and results that were unprecedented in the entire history of financial trading.

            We have reports from firemen of explosions at the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE they fell, and the seismographic evidence to back up these assertions.

            We have leader after leader saying they didn’t know such a thing could happen when the government had been studying the problem for ten years. It had held at least two major drills simulating such a possibility.

            And we have a president sitting in a ghetto classroom in Florida, at possibily the most pivotal moment in American history, pretending to read a book that he was holding upside down.

            Perhaps most tellingly of all, we have the tragic tale of John O’Neill, rabidly honest FBI investigator, prevented from following his leads about Osama bin Laden because of the danger he would have discovered the links from Afghanistan back to CIA headquarters. Just review the way he was prevented from conducting his probe of the Cole bombing, and prevented by digging into other leads by the same guys — namely insiders Louis Freeh and Thomas Picard — who prevented significant reports from other FBI agents from seeing the light of day.

            So, how does all that make you regard the supposedly impartial government panel investigating these matters? When they talk about Presidential Daily Briefings months before the event, or chitchat with presidential flunkies who leak out these pseudorevelations about this and that tidbit of essentially trivial information. And especially when they talk about the dastardly hijackers (without being able to name them) as if there is no question of their guilt. Talk about your misleading urban legends! This one is the champ.

            Well, no sense feigning surprise. We knew this commission was a set-up from the get-go. Recycled Watergate investigators, even. Part of the same bunch that has run the country and covered up everything for the past 30 years or more.

            Surely you didn’t expect a real investigation. Thomas Kean declared at the outset of his hearings that Osama bin Laden was guilty. End of discussion. As soon as he made that statement, there was no way the hearings could be legitimate.

            Asserting that genuine Arab hijackers did not carry out the attacks of 9/11 requires analysis of two concomitant categories: the history of American (and Israeli) involvement (and subterfuge) with Arab terrorists, and methods of remote control of aircraft, or other means of piloting the aircraft.

            The remote control aspect continues to be a bone of contention among legitimate pilots, with some asserting only real pilots could have made such extemporaneous maneuvers and others insisting only remote control could have accomplished such a feat. An interesting new perspective on this debate can be found here: http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wtc/radiocontrol.html

            A third natural area of study in this regard would be the intimate histories of those whom officials claim to be the hijackers, including putting the microscope on their behavior in the days and weeks before the tragedy.

            Many researchers claim the name al-Qaeda was made up in middle ‘90s by a variety of American functionaries (one of them being none other than Richard Clarke) as an all-purpose villain the U.S. could blame as a convenient reason for its military adventurism. And a group of Israeli provocateurs was recently discovered trying to create their own faux version of al-Qaeda.

            How many more hints do you need? The absence of any relevant arrests or discovery of any clues to the hierarchy of this supposedly worldwide terror group should tell you a lot.

            Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist except for when they want it to, to blame for any sort of strategic terror they have created themselves for some political reason, like influencing the elections in Spain. Hah, that one really backfired.

            Why haven’t American intelligence operatives gone to these foreign countries to interview these named hijackers who turned out to be alive? Simple. Because they knew the list was fiction in the first place, and the Arab-types who have been named as terror gurus are mostly their own employees, or people who have been set up by them.

            Like

          • Holey, be careful of conspiracy theories. They are usually as fabricated and convoluted as religious myths. Typically half-truths are used to distort and confuse. Your question regarding a “small” jet bringing down a building and the issue regarding the melting point of steel serves as typical examples of such half-truths.

            The planes were video taped going into the buildings – there for anyone to view. First off, the planes were not so small (go check it out). Secondly, even small passenger carriers carry significant volumes of propellant – highly flammable, and a perfect potential bomb. Third, believe me, at 1000C the structural integrity of metal and other materials are greatly compromised. Melting point of steel has little to do with the above. What happens with your braai-grid when placed on a simple wood fire? Apply simple old common sense Holey.

            Like

            • Hi Malherbe, it is amazing Amazing that people believe the conspiracy theories around 9-11 without reading some engineering and scientific evidence against them. We have all been through these arguments more than 10 years ago and, shit, they still come up. Any doubt about them can be removed by just reading scientific literature and people can start with www. debunkin911.com.

              Like

            • Ok, but I would not have put anything past religious nut job George W Bush. Ultra religious people should not be in positions of power.

              Like

        • The fatal flaw
          in the 9/11 coverup

          Why can no one name the hijackers
          or prove they flew the planes?

          By John Kaminski
          skylax@comcast.net

          Know how to tell the difference between the truth and lies of 9/11? If they’re talking about hijackers having done the dastardly deed, you know they’re part of the sinister coverup extravaganza, wittingly or not.

          In order for the people of the world to be convinced that Islamic hijackers were responsible for terrible tragedy of 9/11, we need to see some evidence. Not hearsay, innuendo, aspersion or promises of evidence, but real evidence.

          Otherwise, the whole subject is rightly regarded as a ruse, a setup to conceal the identities of the real culprits, the ones who sit smugly in front of the TV cameras and plot their cynical war on terror — otherwise known as the war on the peoples of the world.

          As President Bush continues to insist that his word be accepted as truth on numerous questions, time after time his statements have been revealed as blatant falsehoods. Yet he continues to repeat them, and the whorish corporate media continues to accept them.

          Why hasn’t either the Bush administration or some element of law enforcement in the United States issued a single solid piece of evidence connecting the hijackers to the hijacked airplanes? Why don’t the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos? Why aren’t there credit card records of their ticket purchases?

          Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11? I mean, two and half years have passed. And the feds produced 19 names within 72 hours of the disaster. Notice a mathematical inconsistency here? All that has happened since is mere vigilante hysteria, hypothetical scenarios trumpeted ad nauseum by America’s notoriously brainwashed Zionist press.

          Seven or eight of the names on that original list have been found living comfortably in other countries. Why hasn’t the FBI made any attempt to correct the errors made on that original list? See for yourself. http://members.fortunecity.com/911/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm and http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

          And why, after much hullabaloo about Colin Powell using phony information in his remarks to the United Nations about the reasons for war, hasn’t the U.S. government produced a single conclusive piece of evidence to back up its claim that 9/11 was the work Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists? Not a single piece!

          If you disagree, tell me what it is!

          There’s a simple answer to this, you know. It’s because there isn’t any evidence. And why is that? Because those pseudo-Muslims revealed to be so publicly incompetent at piloting jerkwater training planes had absolutely zero chance of flying sophisticated jetliners into anything narrower than the Grand Canyon, never mind executing tricky maneuvers with extraordinarily complicated machinery.

          The unknown men who played the roles of the so-called Arab terrorist hijackers were really recruited by either American and/or Israeli intelligence services in a scheme set up as a diversion to inflame dumb Westerners against the Islamic world. The purpose was to divert the world’s attention from the Israeli genocide and dispossession of the Palestinians by blaming the attacks on Muslims.

          But that was only half the objective. The other half was to enable our despicable cabal of neocon gangbangers to fleece the American public with an endless array of no-bid contracts to enrich the conscienceless billionaires who are really driving the war machine.

          You know how the Bushista American government uses anything for PR to supposedly authenticate its own evil agenda. If they had any concrete evidence against the hijackers — if they even possessed all their correct names — we would have heard about it by now. There would be an avalanche of TV shows about them, unlike that Jewish claptrap hate crime against Muslims that appeared on NBC the other night.

          After two and half years, with the whole world knowing that eight of the 19 names on the hijacker list are fraudulent, the FBI has made no attempt to substitute new names. And why is that? Because the identities of the hijackers were constructed with mostly stolen papers, for some of the patsies designed to take the heat. In any case, and whoever they were, there is no evidence they ever got on the planes.

          But nothing. Instead we have one minor player convicted in Germany, then the conviction was overturned, partly because Americans refused to help with the prosecution.

          We have the so-called 20th hijacker and assorted other preposterous character actors languishing in jails on trumped up charges. We have security camera film at the Pentagon, which surely reveal that no jetliner hit that building, locked away in Ashcroft’s vault under the phony aegis of national security. We have all the rubble of the World Trade Center, which surely would have revealed the use of nuclear explosives creating shattered beams in odd places, instantly carted away with no forensic investigation. We have transcripts — but no recordings — of these phony cellphone calls, some from people who may not have even existed.

          And we have the famous standdown, in which America’s air defenses suddenly evaporated — the only time in our history this has happened.

          We have Marvin Bush sitting suspiciously on the board of directors of the security company that had the contract for the Twin Towers.

          We have Larry Silverstein, who conveniently leased and insured the towers shortly before the big hits, telling officials to “pull” a relatively intact tower, which then fell identically to the two structures that were struck by airplanes, creating the impression that that’s the way all three came down.

          We have billions of dollars of windfall profits made by savvy investors in the days before 9/11, and an FBI investigation that insists nothing was amiss with these spectacular deals. Of course, we don’t get the details. Only “assurances” that the trades were not suspicious, despite patterns and results that were unprecedented in the entire history of financial trading.

          We have reports from firemen of explosions at the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE they fell, and the seismographic evidence to back up these assertions.

          We have leader after leader saying they didn’t know such a thing could happen when the government had been studying the problem for ten years. It had held at least two major drills simulating such a possibility.

          And we have a president sitting in a ghetto classroom in Florida, at possibily the most pivotal moment in American history, pretending to read a book that he was holding upside down.

          Perhaps most tellingly of all, we have the tragic tale of John O’Neill, rabidly honest FBI investigator, prevented from following his leads about Osama bin Laden because of the danger he would have discovered the links from Afghanistan back to CIA headquarters. Just review the way he was prevented from conducting his probe of the Cole bombing, and prevented by digging into other leads by the same guys — namely insiders Louis Freeh and Thomas Picard — who prevented significant reports from other FBI agents from seeing the light of day.

          So, how does all that make you regard the supposedly impartial government panel investigating these matters? When they talk about Presidential Daily Briefings months before the event, or chitchat with presidential flunkies who leak out these pseudorevelations about this and that tidbit of essentially trivial information. And especially when they talk about the dastardly hijackers (without being able to name them) as if there is no question of their guilt. Talk about your misleading urban legends! This one is the champ.

          Well, no sense feigning surprise. We knew this commission was a set-up from the get-go. Recycled Watergate investigators, even. Part of the same bunch that has run the country and covered up everything for the past 30 years or more.

          Surely you didn’t expect a real investigation. Thomas Kean declared at the outset of his hearings that Osama bin Laden was guilty. End of discussion. As soon as he made that statement, there was no way the hearings could be legitimate.

          Asserting that genuine Arab hijackers did not carry out the attacks of 9/11 requires analysis of two concomitant categories: the history of American (and Israeli) involvement (and subterfuge) with Arab terrorists, and methods of remote control of aircraft, or other means of piloting the aircraft.

          The remote control aspect continues to be a bone of contention among legitimate pilots, with some asserting only real pilots could have made such extemporaneous maneuvers and others insisting only remote control could have accomplished such a feat. An interesting new perspective on this debate can be found here: http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wtc/radiocontrol.html

          A third natural area of study in this regard would be the intimate histories of those whom officials claim to be the hijackers, including putting the microscope on their behavior in the days and weeks before the tragedy.

          Many researchers claim the name al-Qaeda was made up in middle ‘90s by a variety of American functionaries (one of them being none other than Richard Clarke) as an all-purpose villain the U.S. could blame as a convenient reason for its military adventurism. And a group of Israeli provocateurs was recently discovered trying to create their own faux version of al-Qaeda.

          How many more hints do you need? The absence of any relevant arrests or discovery of any clues to the hierarchy of this supposedly worldwide terror group should tell you a lot.

          Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist except for when they want it to, to blame for any sort of strategic terror they have created themselves for some political reason, like influencing the elections in Spain. Hah, that one really backfired.

          Why haven’t American intelligence operatives gone to these foreign countries to interview these named hijackers who turned out to be alive? Simple. Because they knew the list was fiction in the first place, and the Arab-types who have been named as terror gurus are mostly their own employees, or people who have been set up by them.

          It is a celebrated fact that Mohammed Atta and some of his friends were seen in nightclubs in the hours before 9/11, certainly a fact that argues against them being able to carry out their supposed missions because they were motivated by Islamic religious zeal. So their appearance in strip clubs blows the whole story that they were devout Muslims giving their lives to Allah. Devout Muslims don’t drink, never mind cavort with strippers.

          If we knew who the hijackers were, we’d know their names, wouldn’t we? Or is it now worth bombing other nations and murdering thousands of innocent people because we say we know who the hijackers were, even though we don’t know their names? It is the great shame of the American people that they have approved of the murders of thousands of people because of that blatant lie.

          Many of the men who were fingered as 9/11 hijackers received preferential treatment from American immigration officials when it came to entering and leaving the U.S. on numerous occasions. Many of these same names reportedly trained at various U.S. military installations.

          What has resulted after two and a half years of work by America’s crack intelligence agencies, besides the persecution of Muslims throughout the world?

          Well, hundreds of innocent people have been unjustly imprisoned and tortured at Guantanamo. All of them innocent, hapless dupes rounded up in a Rumsfeld-ordered dragnet in Pakistan after U.S. planes had (inadvertently or otherwise) allowed the Taliban fighters to escape with the Pakistani army from Afghanistan.

          Two pathetic flunkies have been arrested and held without due process. One of them, the notoriously pathetic shoe bomber who was obviously a deranged personality and not a member of any terror network, was ceremoniously sentenced to life in prison.

          Other than that, no al-Qaeda kingpins have been even named, never mind apprehended. No clue about how the 9/11 attacks were engineered has ever emerged. This is simply not consistent with being able to name all 19 hijackers the day after the attacks. It is a case of pretending you have all of the information instantly, and then pretending you no information for the next two years. What a smell!

          This means two things: that the list of 19 names was a total fabrication, and that the worldwide terror network called al-Qaeda is also a total fabrication, the wet dream brainchild of the CIA and the Mossad to be trotted out as an excuse for a whole string of terror attacks — Madrid, Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, etc. — that were really carried out by the CIA and the Mossad themselves, cleverly involving designated patsies to give the operations a suitably foreign flavor.

          Al-Qaeda does not exist except as a bogeyman invented by Western powers to justify their evil agenda. There were no hijackers flying those planes on 9/11. And honest FBI agents have been prevented from publicizing that fact.

          If you disagree, prove it! The world knows you can’t, though the high-tech mass murder by the United States and Israel spreads around the world because of this falsified version of events.

          History will show — and the public will soon realize — that those who are telling these lies not only allowed 9/11 to happen, but planned it for their own personal advantage.

          The only question that remains is will the American public awaken to this murderous, treasonous scam before the perpetrators achieve their objective and bury the whole planet in the flames of their insane perfidy.

          Just remember. If they’re talking about the hijackers, they’re part of the coverup, whether they know it or not.

          Much more productive would be analyzing the tiny hole in the Pentagon, how the ejected material in the WTC photos prove there were unexplained explosions, or how those emotional cellphone calls could not possibly have been made as government flunkies have presented them.

          But you won’t hear the official 9/11 commissioners talking about any of that, because they are definitely part of the coverup. You can obviously tell, because they keep talking about the hijackers.

          http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911flaw.html

          Like

              • They did, the flights were scheduled but high jacked. Not much you can do in the short time when the planes diverted from set destinations to hit their targets

                I am not condescending – why are people so sensitive when they meddle in matters they know fuckall about and this fact is pointed out to them?

                Like

    • I do not believe this woman. Her demeanour tells me something. I would never believe what she says.

      “The secular government of Saddam Hussein”????? Jeeesus !

      Saddam hated the Shiites and suppressed them severely. He favoured the Sunnis. He was an Arab, a powerful and extremely cruel dictator. His two sons raped and killed people with total impunity. Why did he allow that? I am glad he is dead.

      Iraq has problems, but please remember that after every overthrow of a suppressive government, there is a period of anarchy that reigns for many years. It might still happen here in SA. We have Mandela to thanks for the peaceful transition, but I think the blacks are beginning to feel cheated, in that they haven’t expressed hardly any of their bottled up anger and pain.

      Like

      • Yes of course Saddam and his sons were total bastards and did not deserve to live – according to our standards. His government was secular because he kept the imams under tight control. After his death the imams took over and things got a hell of a lot worse. The Arabs are all a pile of shit and I don’t think you can compare what happens in the Middle East with what happens elsewhere. After each brutal Arab regime is overthrown you get another, even worse Arab regime. We should all stay the hell away from Arabs, look what happened to that idiot South African family in Afghanistan.

        The Muslims in South Africa are all uppity about Israel so they put a pig’s head in the kosher section of a Woolworths deli. But if you return the compliment and tell them Islam is a pile of shit they will go berserk. If you ask me they have a complex because they are neither white nor black, they are goffels like the coloureds.

        For sure blacks are being cheated out of education and opportunity. But that was always the African “big man” way. The country’s been turned into a bantustan where the chief and his cronies can do what they like. Until the ANC loses power the poor will remain desperate. But don’t think that someone like Zuma or even Ramaphosa will go out quietly, they will have to be taken out kicking and screaming.

        Like

  8. You would think that George W Bush would have had the sense to shut the fuck up long ago, but Baptist godiots from Texas never learn. This story is from November last year.
    ———————————————–

    George W Bush’s new ‘crusade’: converting Jews to Christianity

    Some people think George W Bush did as much as he could to bring about Armageddon with his earlier interventions in the Middle East. But not the man himself, apparently. He has signed up for a fundraising event for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute, an organisation which aims to promote the second coming by converting Jews to Christianity, and will speak today at their fundraiser in Irving, Texas.

    Such “Messianic Jews” – who accept that Jesus was the promised Messiah – are loathed by most other Jews, and regarded with great suspicion by mainstream Christian denominations. If Jesus really was the promised Messiah, this would restore much of the traditional basis for Christian anti-semitism, which most Christians have struggled against for the last 50 years.

    But a belief in the necessary conversion of the Jews still flourishes on the wilder shores of American Christianity. Portions of Biblical prophecy seem to require it. And there is widespread confusion among evangelicals about whether Israel is really a kind of America overseas – a recent poll for the Pew Foundation found that twice as many American Evangelicals as American Jews were unwavering in their support for Israel. This is something that successive Israeli governments have deliberately cultivated.

    There is a delicious symbol of this confusion in the tat sold off the institute’s website – a dog tag bearing the Star of David, with “Defender” written in the middle of it. The description reads:

    “God is raising up an army of believers to defend Israel, especially in these times more than ever. Wear this to represent your defense of Israel. In so doing, it will create conversations to give you opportunity to give a testimony of Isaiah 31:4-5.”

    Maybe that’s the kind of pickup line that works better in Texas.

    Bush himself famously described the war in Iraq as a “crusade” once, before it was pointed out to him that such language had unfortunate resonances in the Middle East. But the links between Zionism and Christianity go much further and deeper than that. The conversion of the Jews, and their restoration to Jerusalem, was a great enthusiasm among English evangelicals in Victorian times. Barbara Tuchman’s marvellous book Bible And Sword chronicles some of the consequences.

    It’s fair to say that without the belief of Victorian upper class evangelical Englishmen – almost exactly the equivalents of George W Bush – there never would have been a Balfour Declaration. And without that declaration, there could not have been the Jewish immigration to Palestine that laid the foundations for the state of Israel.

    Some people will see this as an example of the destructive craziness of religion, and perhaps it is, but it is also an example of the way in which theology is only powerful and important when it is wrapped up in identity. Because if there is one group that has suffered as a result of the establishment of the state of Israel and its support by Western Christian countries, it is the historic Christians of the Middle East – who are now the victims of persecution throughout the region and scapegoats of an angry nationalism. This is one reason why the churches with historic links to Palestinian Christians are much less pro-Israel than those which don’t, like the majority of American Baptists.

    In the end, what matters is not so much what you believe about God, as who you think you are. The upper classes of any global empire feel certain that God is on their side. The Bushes feel that now as surely as the Balfours did a hundred years ago – and two thousand years ago the Caesars believed that gods were actually among their family members. None of them were good news for the inhabitants of Palestine, and I can’t help feeling that Bush and his Texan Zionists are not so close to Jesus as they are to the Romans who crucified him.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/nov/14/george-w-bush-speech-messianic-judaism

    Like

  9. Dit is ‘n koue oggend en ek het so pas vir my ‘n lekker koffie gemaak. ek sit hier en ek dink aan ‘n lifelike vrou met wie ek betrokke was vir agt jaar lank, en ek mis alles van haar.

    And this incredibly beautiful song from Fleetwood Mac comes to mind…..

    Like

        • If only rich white people would not abuse electricity then every black in this country could have as much electricity as they wanted.

          And we’re ALL rich, we white people. Amazing what you can still hold onto after twenty years of affirmative action and BEE.

          Like

    • ….Crosby Stills & Nash; Supertramp; Neill Diamond; Pink Floyd; Uriah Heep; Jethro Tull; Joan Baez; Bob Dylan; Even ABBA; Santana; the Hollies;
      The Who; Yes; Too many to list here.

      Boing Boing, wat van Bles Bridges, Hmmm?

      Like

      • Janis Joplin. Proof that there is no god. If there were a god the seventies would never have ended.

        I was wondering what you meant when you said the other day that it was cold. I woke up freezing this morning, vomiting at both ends. Massive abdominal pain Either sewage has flowed into water or the chlorine has not been topped up sufficiently. It’s not enough to boil water just once unless you can keep it boiling for a full minute, although I hear a drop of Jik sorts the water out as well. Bad news that qualified whites no longer run the municipalities. There are no longer any qualified engineers working for the government. Dumb is beautiful. Dumb is lethal.

        Like

  10. Al die een gehoor?

    Die verskriklike naïf jong meisie hoor eendag vir ou Bles Bridges sing oor die radio. Onmiddelik is sy dol verlief op die ou se stem. Sy koop al Bles se albums, pleister haar mure vol van sy posters, en word uitenidelik sy heel grootste bewonderaar op aarde.

    En later laat sy toe die letters BB tattoeer op haar boude. Die een B op die linkerboud en die ander een op die regterboud.

    ‘n Paar weke later toe is sy in die stort saam met haar boyfriend, en sy laat val die seep. Sy buk toe oor om die seep op te tel……

    Verbaas en geskok sit hy sy arms so in sy sye en vra haar vererg: “Ok, who’s BOB????!

    Like

  11. As has been said thousands of times….. The very best rock music ever made was during the 60’s and 70’s. Perhaps all of us are old enough? to have enjoyed bands and stars like Led Zeppelin; Grand Funk; Moody Blues; Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Jimi Hendrix et al.

    Let’s not forget the Fab Four and the Rolling Stones. Earlier greats were Buddy Holly; Chuck Berry, and the earliest songs of Elvis.

    Also Soul, Blues and Jazz, even some country music. Emmylou Harris anyone?

    All great……..

    En daar is nogal ‘n hele klompie Afrikaanse musiek wat brilliant is. Koos Du Plessis, Herman van den Berg (Proe die aarde), selfs lekker sokkie-dans musiek van Ray Dylan en meer. Ja-nee dis lekker as ‘n mens die lewe kan geniet.

    Ek moet net noem… die dom inees het hard gepreek teen die euwel van rock musiek. Hoeveel kinders se lewens was nie opgefok deur al die ou gotte diens
    kak hier in SA nie…..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s