 
The Seven Shades of Darkness

Newton Fortuin

Copyright © Newton Fortuin 2005

Published at Smashwords

A Note to the Reader

Note that I at times make reference to negative mentalities associated with religious dogma. By this I'm not attempting to argue that being religious is necessarily bad for one's emotional and/or cognitive development.

If one has a religious conviction I suggest you first read Connection between Religiosity and Dementia and Neo Heresy in the Appendix in order to get the overall context of the work.
Prologue

In every single waking moment we make simple choices that empower either a higher or lower reality for our lives. Much of the associated thinking taking place without our knowing.

This manuscript looks at the many reasons we in those moments consciously or unconsciously choose to walk the lower path—the path that takes us into the proverbial valley of the shadow of death.

Within the context of this book, "shades of Darkness" roughly being analogous with Jung's idea of "The Shadow" and Freud's Unconscious.

In The Psychology of Evil psychiatrist Stephen A. Diamond emphasizes the danger of not acknowledging one's own shadow with the following.

While it may be very tempting to succumb to the argument that evil insidiously manifests itself most commonly in deceptively well-functioning but subtly pathological personalities—or in blatant caricatures of evil like Ted Bundy, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, or Richard Allen Davis—we would do well to remember that evil remains an ever-present, archetypal potentiality in each of us.

To naively or narcissistically think otherwise is tantamount to denying the personal capacity for evil—the permanent presence of the "shadow" or the "demonic"—forever dwelling in the fathomless depths of each and every fallible human being. Such denial is evil of the most insipid, prosaic, and dangerous kind.

The manuscript covers seven shadows or dark sides of our being which I refer to as The Seven Shades of Darkness. These shades are not based on any esoteric script or religious view or psychological treatise. They merely are my own formulation of seven differing subconscious mentalities which we ought to be cognizant of in our daily interactions in order to preserve our mental well-being.

The Seven Shades are The Devil (desperation), The Victim (victim mentality), The Enforcer (guilt/religious conformity), The Vortex (fear of sin), The Strangler (expectation), The Cavalier (riding ones luck) and The Conjurer (delusion).
Chapter One: The Devil

For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?

~~~

[Kahlil Gibran]

The Devil can be viewed as the devil within us holding us back from our full human potential. It also is the same latent devil that had created the greatest evil in human history, Hitler, who was brought to power in 1933 after the great depression had left the German people dispirited. Because of the harsh circumstances of the period after World War II allowing those with evil inclination among them to flourish.

This is as in any other evil circumstance where evildoers seek to vanquish whatever good there may be in the world. But specifically, our own devil is the part of our mentality that prevents us from reaching our full human potential within our own very limited lifetime.

The word desperation literally means being de-spirited, or dispirited—that one is depressed or spiritually broken. The name literally translated implies that one is "not coming from the spirit". In the context of this work spirit referring to our inner life essence, or the energy that drives us in the world. It can either be viewed in the religious sense or as a yet to be fully understood aspect of our being.

To be de-spirited can be equated with death, at least spiritually, in that those who are desperate eventually become depleted of their life essence if the state persists indefinitely. And ironically, devil is lived turned around. In a strange twist of semantics, the word can be implied to mean the opposite of living itself—that it is a force against life, but moreover, the constructive living of it.

Jung described evil as the failure to meet the shadow—and I would suppose, specifically to meet the Devil that masks our desperation within. By the shadow Jung implied the subconscious aspects of ourselves we prefer to deny, or aspects of our natures we prefer not to be conscious of. By it he also does not infer that the shadow itself is evil, but rather the failure or refusal to meet or acknowledge it.

As with the reference to devil, evil being live turned around, and thus have equal symbolic significance. One therefore can make a similar deduction about its meaning. In this regard an important distinction we must make is that the Devil referenced in this section is not necessarily the one that is external to oneself—as a Hitler was. What it implies is that, by avoiding the destructive aspects of our natures, we can unconsciously become devilish—or evil—forces unto ourselves.

Notwithstanding how I have just defined it, desperation usually is associated with feelings of frustration resulting from our unsuccessful attempts at controlling the direction we want our life to take. And in modern times, particularly when circumstance forces us to live from paycheque-to-paycheque in desperately having to make do with what little we may have to get by. And yet despite this this effort, regardless of the size of our paycheques, not to make the ends meet. This therefore does not afford one the "luxury" to go within, and thus afford ourselves the luxury to live our lives from the more creative aspects of our being. Or to use the religious reference, our spirit.

So while feeling sorry for our circumstance may be our right—and beyond that, may even be very justifiable—these dire circumstances nonetheless does not allow an opportunity to align the creative aspects of our mind that will help create a better future realty for ourselves.

Nevertheless as a rule one's relative level of desperation has very little to do with whether one is materially wealthy or not. It instead is about how one perceives one's personal worth, irrespective of one's finances or possessions. For instance it is reported by some studies that America is one of the unhappiest nations on earth although they are materially some of the wealthiest. On the other hand one of the poorest, Nigeria, is purported to have of the highest levels of relative happiness. This claim is according to World Health Organisation findings citing relative metrics which supposedly points to this.

While this statistic is not given as a credible measure to prove any significant point as there are so many studies pointing at completely divergent results, it nevertheless does strongly suggest that one's relative sense of personal worth may have very little to do with one's level of monetary accumulation—or at least should not. In any event one's apparent happiness—or lack of it—should indeed be considered a shallow measure. Nigeria perhaps aptly illustrating this point in that it also is rated as one of the most corrupt nations on the planet.

From your perspective, what would you prefer: happiness or being in integrity with oneself and those around you?

Irrespective of what your answer may be, an interesting revelation from the above is that Nigerians are the biggest confidence tricksters in the world, and that American's are by far their preferred target market—the Nigerians referring to them as mugu's (pronounced moogoo meaning big fools or suckers). Based on this example the irony of this dichotomy is incredibly poignant, it is that the wealthiest of all nations in fact appears to be more needy—that is materially and otherwise— than one of the poorest.

This is not meant to be a barometer to judge the relative virtues of one society over another, except to conclude that there appears to be a definite causal link between acquisitiveness and happiness, or the lack thereof. However despite this apparent connection, the levels of desperation usually are higher amongst the perceived poor in very materialistic societies.

One's personal sense of desperateness, therefore, appearing to be more reflective of capitalist dynamics and how societal values are shaped because of it. This is iterated by another study that uses a differing set of metrics pointing to Denmark as the happiest nation. One of the primary reasons cited by the Danes for their relative contentment being the levels of perceived equality amongst its citizens. Notably the USA was 23rd in this ranking, and increasingly becoming one of the most unequal societies and now notoriously ranked the 5th most unequal country in the world. ,

Notwithstanding the findings of these studies, there most definitely are a great many Americans who certainly are living incredibly fulfilled and apparently happy lives. Perhaps even more so than the average supposedly happy and content Nigerian. And that almost every "happy" Nigerian would readily give up their life of bliss for a chance to live the "American Dream". Another interesting anomaly pointing to this is that Nigerians are the most educated population group in the US indeed pointing to the fact that educated Nigerians would rather live elsewhere.

Though I want to restate a very important point: in my opinion the apparent levels of happiness of any society or individual is a very shallow measure of the state of well-being.

Note though that I use apparently, appears, purported and supposed quite often in this section. This is because the appearance of happiness (or the resignation to be happy regardless of circumstance) often becomes the only substitute for those who feel they have very little power to affect the outcome of their lives. Hence what appears to be happiness often merely is the surrender to fate or circumstance, thus to be contented regardless of the desperateness of one's circumstances. One can almost conclude that in such circumstances, the appearance of happiness—which indeed may very well be true happiness and not merely a façade—may in fact be a protective measure against the reality of one's predicament.

Though, as evidence of a causal link between happiness and the means at one's disposal, in another study into happiness done in South Africa—a country with the highest disparity between rich and poor—an interesting finding emerged. It is that the supposed relative rate of happiness (as per the metrics used by the researchers) progressively increased from those who had absolutely no means, to those earning just more than a thousand dollars a month. After that amount a stabilisation was observed with no perceptible increase related to increased income.

My suspicion though is that this stabilisation figure must be significantly higher in the United States where acquisitiveness is the primary driver of perceived self-worth. In fact according to Daniel Kahneman, Nobel winner in Economic Science, this figure is around six thousand dollars per month.

Despite the relative contentment with the state of one's finances, what must be the case in a society where one's sense of worth is reflected by one's possessions is that those with much means in all likelihood would not be happy with the state of their lives if they are to have any less in the foreseeable future. That is even though many may have much more means than they would need to sustain themselves extravagantly for their entire lifetime. And even if that is not a prospect, many are unhappy simply because they may be somewhat less affluent than some of their peers.

What one can roughly conclude is this. That the dependency on capital for acquisition of goods and services as espoused by the capitalist ethic, appears to be the primary factor driving the resultant higher levels of dissatisfaction amongst citizens living in highly capitalistic societies.

However, do we then blame capitalism for this societal affliction?

To a large extent, yes.

It is because modern technological capitalism—particularly as practiced in the United States—thrives on our sense of brokenness for it to then be exploited to achieve its economic ends. Therefore our sense of dissatisfaction with oneself provides an excellent opportunity for some or other commercial fix that may temporarily relieve its symptoms. That is merely for it to again be fixed very soon after, perhaps in this way providing an on-going opportunity for financial gain. So for instance it is not commercially prudent to provide a permanent once off cure for an illness such as a dietary change to prevent diabetes. Rather, it is economically preferable to develop one that will only provide relatively short-term relief that the fix be sustained for the rest of one's life.

Though more often than not the intervention will leave the victim of circumstance as broken as before, if not perceptibly worse off in having taken the supposed remedy. This large-scale promotion of our dissatisfaction has been worsened with the advent of modern media. In particular television, with the wholesale marketing of "the numerous reasons why we ought to be dissatisfied with ourselves", and how it can be cured by the respective advertised product.

The above is so principally because the "American Dream" itself had become skewed.

The dream specifically being the "pursuit of happiness", a right enshrined in the American constitution, and one considered on par with the right to life itself. The modern day interpretation however implies that happiness somehow is a commodity that can be bought. The consequence of this interpretation being that the attainment of personal accumulation for personal accumulation sake appears to have become the all-important end goal. This in itself being an unfortunate bottomless pit which can never be truly fulfilled.

What the dream ought to have been is the attainment of power. But not self-serving egoistic power, but rather the power to impact the greater world one interacts in for the better. In-so-doing to become a positive contributor to humanity as a whole. That's even if such power to influence only extends as far as one's immediate surroundings.

So for instance to focus one's energy to have a positive influence over one's children would indeed would have a ripple effect on the future course of humanity in one way or another. This basic assertion of power, unfortunately, is one many abdicate due to their overemphasis on the accumulation wealth.

Despite the above concerns I nevertheless am of the opinion that capitalism is merely a man-made mechanism that only is as good—or bad—as the respective society that utilises it. Denmark in particular indicating how the Danes appear to have developed a temperament that negates the negative aspects to enhance social harmony.

And while we may not be as fortunate to live in such an egalitarian society, what their example points to is that the viewing of our self-worth relative to the affluence of others, may well be at the heart of great human psychological misery.

In the words of Swiss Philosopher Alain de Botton, it is that those who suffer most from mental illness are those who are afflicted with status anxiety—the desire or pressure to be beautiful, famous, wealthy...

Despite the reality that the rich tend to become even richer in dog-eats-dog capitalist societies such as the United States and South Africa, it must be borne in mind that capitalism was founded on the assumption that: humankind are essentially good; we tend to engage our livelihoods for the betterment of all society; and that we are not primarily motivated by greed.

Although humanity had largely strayed from these lofty ideals, I must contend that society would not have developed as it had without the degree of commercialism over the ages. In fact it has been the single greatest transformative force in human history. It must also be appreciated that modern capitalism certainly has created incredibly many avenues for individual creativity, personal freedom and self-expression.

Though unfortunately, in having set us free from the chains of feudalism, inadvertently also creating an opportunity for our own mental enslavement as well. This simply is because the landscape of our lives has as a consequence become far more complicated. And that in today's world much higher levels of personal responsibility are required to successfully navigate this tumultuous terrain.

While one can endlessly debate this issue, in my view capitalism's primary weakness—but in it also its primary strength—is that it is subject to the unpredictability of human nature. For instance the egalitarian nature of Denmark—despite having a free-market economy—can be contrasted to the inequalities in Russia with its oligarchs despite many decades of communism. And based on the track record of my own country, given current levels of incompetence, inefficiency, nepotism and corruption in the South African public sector, communism would certainly prove to be a total disaster here.

This therefore is more reflective of the socialisation—or shall I say, civilisation—of the respective society, and not necessarily the economic system of the day.

Perhaps one of the reasons that the Devil has become so prevalent in free-market democratic societies in particular, is that we are for the first time in human history, coming to terms with our unique and individual power to affect the greater world around us by our individual thoughts and actions. Humankind therefore is coming of age. This can be compared to an adolescent struggling to assert himself in an unknown world that he is yet to fully master, but is forced to experience on his own, often by learning from bitter mistakes.

Similarly humanity has to a significant extent forsaken the fear-mongering gods of their childhood, replacing them with a new spirit of personal empowerment. So indeed we are coming of age. But also increasingly replacing the god of our parents with the god of mammon and its insatiable shiny allure; believing that this is to have true power.

Though money and all that it can acquire is in-and-of-its-own not the all-consuming devil. Rather that the Devil emanating from it only flourishes when we never seem to have enough of it.

That is regardless of how much we may already have accumulated.

____________________________

There are many varying measures for happiness which are dependent on the relative metrics and methodology of the respective researchers. One cannot therefore definitively say that one nation is happier than another as it really depends on how one views the issue. The examples were merely cited to indicate the overall point.

_______________

Also refer to Joseph Stiglitz: "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers our Future and  America, Land of the Equals.

_______________

By this section I'm not suggesting that modern medicine is not a net positive force on human development. Indeed it is. We live significantly longer because of it. The issue is increasing commercialism, especially from large pharmaceutical concerns. I'm also not anti-vaccination. For my own views on this read my blog post  Pondering the "Vaccines cause Autism" Debate.
Chapter Two: The Victim

There are always risks in freedom. The only risk in bondage is that of breaking free.

~~~

[Gita Bellin]

While the above focused on how a lack of material means can lead to a sense of desperation, it is far more important to grasp that a sense of lack of any kind may have a similar consequence.

So for instance if one lacked a satisfactory father figure in one's formative years, one likely will desperately seek a partner to somehow compensate for the emptiness of not having had such an important role model. For such a woman the Devil then would come in the form of an attraction to an unsatisfactory man who likely will treat her as badly as her father had—if not far worse.

Irrespective of what one's state of despair may be, one of the greatest paradoxes is that the same circumstances very often results in the noblest of human achievements. Thus as much as our state of despair may be responsible for human decay, it can also be the nurturing ground of human greatness as well.

What then distinguishes the spiritually vanquished from the spiritually victorious appears to be contingent on an inner ability to make a simple choice to empower goodness over the potential for evil.

But because our devil's primary influence over our life is to ward off such a higher potential, it is the supreme master of disguise. For this reason it is not readily apparent for the desperate that there even may be a choice at all.

This is because the Devil's primary disguise is that of The Victim. And strangely, one of the principal ways the Victim manifests itself, is as The Oppressor. This is because the Oppressor primarily oppresses out of its feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy, so also being a victim of sorts.

On the other hand the Victim often uses their victim-hood to have power over their chosen oppressor. Or in the very least uses it as an excuse for inaction. And through this diabolical dance, both will remain oblivious to how they may be perpetuating their respective darkness within.

The two most common examples are: the South African Apartheid Government oppressing black South Africans after they too had been oppressed by the British; and the Israeli oppression of Palestinians not long after The Holocaust.

It, however, is imperative we distinguish between the role of the Victim from legitimate feelings of victimization such as having been raped or brutally violated in some form or another—this includes any form of emotional victimization as well. Those who are suffering from depression too are victims of a debilitating disease. Thus those who were subjected to the brutality of others, whether it is an individual or communities such as the Jews in the Holocaust, are very much the victim of circumstance and will definitely bear the scars of that action, perhaps for the rest of their life.

However to reassert this point: victim-hood as described in this section is a role we unconsciously—or even consciously—choose to play, irrespective of whether we may actually have been violated or not.

But usually it becomes a convenient excuse for powerlessness, merely to maintain the status quo irrespective of how unwholesome the state of affairs may be.

As mentioned before a synonym for being dispirited is being depressed. It should be noted that depression is not necessarily negative depending on the legitimate circumstances that may have brought it on. Though depression may very well be the most important indicator of how we may be unhappy with the state of our lives at any point in time, and that some correction must take place.

Many unfortunately ward off this knowledge, so to in avoid the legitimate suffering and sacrifice needed for change. They do so either by developing an orientation that seeks to avoid the pain required for growth to greater levels of adulthood by becoming oblivious to the reality of their lives. But they also do so by taking some or other substance—such as alcohol, overeating, drugs, sex, or prescription medication—to make life more bearable. In this way never to have to make the necessary changes one's state of despair requires from one.

The issue therefore is not about depression per se, but rather our tendency to wallow in it or to purposefully avoid the reality that brought it about. In this way to choose to remain the poor victim of one's supposed misfortune, instead of finding the inner strength to rise above whatever the obstacle may be that is holding one back from growing to our fullest potential.
Chapter Three: The Enforcer

_Those who crusade not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes even perceptibly worse than it was, before the crusade began._

_"By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself._

~~~

[from The Devils of Loudon by Aldous Huxley]

Those who tend to follow the-straight-and-narrow—such as not cheating on one's spouse for instance—solely because they may fear the karmic consequences of their actions, may inadvertently create a psychological barrier limiting the development of their conscience. This is because the overwhelming motivator of their behaviour is as a result of the fear of the wrath of The Enforcer.

This is because it is an even more primitive motivator of our actions than guilt, a necessary precursor for the nurturing of a healthy inner compass. The resulting fear-induced predisposition thus never allowing the nurturance of an innate sense of right and wrong, but a fear based one which curtails the development of a mature conscience. Being guided by our conscience in turn obviating the need for guilt. And importantly, that we are capable of guilt is a sure sign that we are not a psychopath, emotionally disconnected from the world around one.

It is vital for our mental growth not to be subconsciously guided by the Enforcer. This is because our conscience can only truly serve us when our sense of right is derived from an absence of the fear of the possible consequences of our actions. Instead it must be that we simply do the right things because they are the right things to do.

In fact the primary reason most people in today's age live destructive or uninspired lives, is as a direct result of accepting the dogma associated with their religious beliefs, and thus their actions—both constructive and destructive—are derived from an esoteric fear.

For instance one of the inadvertent causes of social deviancy and even criminality is due to rebellion against religious institutionalisation—more so nowadays where people are increasingly questioning conventional belief systems.

The root of the problem is inherent in the fact that a great many religions in one way or another demand unquestioning obedience to the particular religious code by instilling fear. Usually by pronouncing that one will be judged for one's actions now and in the hereafter if one does not act according to the tenets of the respective religious view. Besides the esoteric consequences, organised belief orientations also foster conformity in that it requires we be like those around us. The punishment being that one is banished, ostracised or condemned from the religious community one identified with if we behave differently from the expected norm.

This does have the effect of persuading a great many to stay on the straight and narrow. On the other hand a great many others feel they cannot conform to the strict standards set for receiving heavenly redemption as spelled out in their religious code. Consequently they feel that they are already burning in hells excruciating furnaces and therefore may just as well wreak havoc on the world. This is because they have developed a sense that they have already been judged and are doomed irrespective of their actions.

The underlying religious belief in hell and of being at the mercy of god's fury is also cited as a strong motivating factor by apparently normal mothers from normal households convicted for killing their young children. And they more often than not use as their defence that they did it out of fear for their children's immortal soul.

In the past this was seen as sufficient grounds for declaring the perpetrator legally insane. However this view is increasingly being challenged in the United States where such acts have a high prevalence compared to other western nations. The reason for the high prevalence of this phenomenon here appears to be strongly linked to the type of fundamentalist Christianity practiced in the Bible Belt of the United States.

Specifically one of the motivators are that these mothers feel themselves powerless to protect their children against God's potential future wrath. This is because they may have already pre-empted that their children may one day turn sinful. Instead of having to face this dreadful future spectre, to kill them now while they are still young and innocent and worthy of redemption. In this way ensuring their now still innocent souls a place in heaven; and that their own souls rather rot in hell instead for the ghastly deed they had committed.

This may primarily be motivated by their belief that they already would be going to hell irrespective and that they at least would be sparing their child this future torment.

This is incredibly sad, but also a very real occurrence indicating the very extreme lengths to which humans are motivated by the delusions associated with their religious indoctrination.

And as it is with paradox, so it is that those who are the most sensitive among us, or who possess the most potential to do good because they indeed are so sensitive, also are those who fall astray by such efforts to protect their souls against the dark spectre of evil. While those who succeed not to fall astray, are wracked by guilt, many times for situations that are not real or that they are completely not responsible for.

So they are forced to fight a daily conscious battle not to be sucked in by the fear-mongering monster lurking in the depths of their psyche which they feel powerless to vanquish.

____________________________

ISIS recruitment can largely be explained in terms of the Enforcer. It is noted that the greater majority of the recruits are not considered pious Muslims. Most are either petty criminals or are considered to engage a western life-style. The strict ISIS code offers such individuals a form of redemption to assuage any form of guilt or sense that they may be eternally condemned they may have felt because of their previous sinful lifestyle.

Again, the strict unattainable conformist religious code with their failure to conform fermenting an underlying sense of inadequacy which is readily exploited. This failure to obey the strict demands of the religion, in the case of Islam, precluding such an individual from attaining the ultimate religious end, paradise.

This being the subconscious source of their susceptibility. Their potential death as a martyr resurrecting the possibility that they may yet reach this otherwise unattainable religious end. Specifically with seventy two virgins who will meet them at the gates of paradise satisfying the every currently unmet earthly desire—that is once they are very much dead and buried, or in the case of suicide bombers, blown to smithereens. The value of the sacrifice commensurately increasing for every infidel life they take with them in doing so.

_______________

In the wake of the Aurora shootings I wondered if there may be any link to the mentality of the Enforcer and the general incidence of mass killings in the US. On one level the behaviour is very similar to that of a Jihadist killer i.e. more often than not they are prepared to take their own life.

I however couldn't make any definitive conclusion as I found no data that shows the type of religious upbringing of the respective killers. For instance James Holmes was a Christian known to have attended Church weeks before the killing, but that he may well have deep seated mental health problems which were the causative factor.

Rumours of the religious upbringing of Jared Loughner, abound, but that he was Jewish and known to have attended a synagogue. In this case mental health problems again appear to be at play. Whether it was staunchly religious or not could not be determined. What is revealing is that he had expressed strong atheist views which often is an indicator of reaction formation, i.e. that strong atheist views often develop in reaction to very strict religious upbringing. In fact reaction formation is one of the primary pathologies of the Enforcer.

In the Columbine shootings Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both came from apparently religious homes, but again I could not get any indication of the staunchness of the parents in this regard. It well may be that a sense of not being able to conform to the norms of society, whether religiously instilled or not, had or may have significantly driven them as well. Nevertheless their anti-religious rhetoric may again be as a result of reaction formation which could suggest a possible religious factor—that is considering that overtly pro- or anti-religious persuasion often results because of the same religious psychodynamics, but that the final expression is a factor of the respective individual's psychological makeup.

Isolation or alienation from the societal norm may however be a common thread amongst many, but that there is no evidence of any particular causal link to the religious influences of such individuals. But particularly, that early religious indoctrination or rigorous religious ideologies could be behind any of these. Perhaps it may not have been considered a potential causative factor to begin with hence the lack of emphasis in any study.

What nevertheless is revealing is that  the most violent states in the US are mostly Bible-belt and more staunchly conservative religious states. In terms of per capita incidence of violent crimes they are: #1, Louisiana;# 2, Tennessee; #3, Nevada (not in Bible-belt but religious); #4, Florida; #5, Arizona(not in Bible-belt); #6, Missouri; #7, Texas; #8, Arkansas; #9, South Carolina; #10. Mississippi. This is contrasted with many of the least religious states being the least violent. There is similar relationship to the  number of gun deaths as well. Note that these statistics are even more glaring considering inner-city violence in cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and New York in relatively non-violent states.

Related to this, at least in terms of the contradiction to bible teachings, it is also apparent that  teen birth rates are highest in strongly religious states—that is including the consideration for higher known abortion rates in less religious states.

While there may be underlying cultural phenomena behind the higher incidences of violence and teen birth rates in such communities, what is known is that the respective religious beliefs of any society informs the cultural DNA of that respective group. Thus one cannot easily separate the predominant belief system of a community from their social and cultural behaviour, and in this case, the correlation of incidences of violence and indeed gun deaths.

One can therefore reasonably infer that there may be a causal link between the incidences of gun deaths in general and the main religious views of the societies' where such violent crimes predominate. One can therefore also conclude that the type of religious upbringing by the killer may have contributed to their eventual mentality that had led to the killing. That the lashing out against society may be a direct consequence of a belief that they are beyond heavenly redemption, and therefore may just as well wreak havoc on society as they are already doomed to eternal damnation. This instilled psychosis making the eventuality of such behaviour more pronounced.

I acknowledge that it would be simplistic to link observance of violence in states with a certain religious view to being a causative factor for mass school killings. For instance there appears to be a very high level of drug and alcohol use in states with low levels of religiosity which may indicate another pathology which may be connected to the absence of religion and the sense of nihilism which could result. Indeed, if an eighth devil is to be considered, it would well be called The Void.

Nevertheless the very strong statistical correlation between incidences of violence, murder and teen pregnancies, and the respective religious views practiced, cannot—or at least, should not—be ignored.

_______________

The Sandy Hook killer,  Adam Lanza, was a Catholic although there are some theories that he was a  devil worshipper. Regardless of what his religious views may actually be or whether he may have had a psychological condition, all indications are that his lashing-out may well have been informed by The Enforcer.
Chapter Four: The Vortex

Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be.

~~~

[Lactantius]

Imagine having a pup that at some point starts pulling down your washing. And because of this you decide to severely beat it as punishment. Due to the fear you are inflicting, what likely will happen is that it will develop an uncontrollable compulsion to remove washing whenever it sees it. And the more severely it is punished, the more likely it will pull it down again.

This will happen again, and again, and again, until such time that you are forced to give the poor dog away as it would then, because of its fear, have become a completely uncontrollable beast. And though you may yet be successful in controlling the behaviour by your continual brutality, in doing so, in all likelihood have irreparably diminished the stature of the unfortunate creature, leaving it anxious and its spirit in tatters.

This is basic animal psychology, and I would suppose basic human psychology as well. To understand the greater dynamic behind our own compulsion to do wrong, one must realise what temptation is beyond its general religious context. The most important, if not the only appreciation, is that temptation cannot exist without fear, and specifically, the fear of the negative consequences of our actions.

So for instance the person that fears heights is in fact tempted to jump. And what prevents them from jumping, then, is that they resist the unconscious temptation within pulling them to do so against their conscious will.

And equally if we become fearful of committing sin, unfortunately based on the aforementioned subconscious dynamics of mind, we similarly will be more tempted into sin. This ironically is because the myth for those who so strongly fear sin have become so real that their greatest fear is that they will fail in this monumental endeavour. Thus that they one day would be cast into the dreadful eternal furnaces of hell. Sadly then they are so desperately praying for what they don't want, that in doing so, get sucked into a hell on earth they so bitterly desired to avoid.

The realisation one must make is that these uncontrollable compulsions within one that seems to draw us to do things that are not in our best interest, are in fact our self-made devils resulting from our distorted thinking. These are largely moulded by our primary caregivers in how they formulate our existential or neurotic fears. And therefore the Devil does not exist, except for how we unconsciously advocate for him within our own psyche.

To appreciate the distinction between temptation and other forms of attraction one must distinguish temptation from tantalisation. According to the dictionary definition: to be tempted is to be attracted to do wrong, whatever our definition of wrong may be. While to be tantalised is to be attracted to something that is considered good, but usually perceived as being somewhat out of our immediate reach.

Therefore based on the definition, temptation is a negative attraction that usually goes against what we may consider as good or beneficial and thus its association with fear of its consequences. By creating the mental delusion of sin and the consequences of heavenly judgement, those who have bought into it have inadvertently allowed a monster to enter into the subterranean depths of their unconscious. And now have to be constantly vigilant against this monster or be doomed to eternal damnation.

This is a human nightmare no matter how one looks at it. Those who are lucky enough to succeed to stay clear enough from this deadly Vortex, are obliged to remain ever vigilant for the remainder of their natural lives.

Consequently they are forced to maintain a perpetual state of neurosis and anxiety not to succumb to their sinful desires, or else face God's eternal wrath. While those who fail are taken along a path of darkness and despair that only the most fortunate can ever return from.

And ironically those religious who do not succumb believing they are pure and beyond sin — the self-righteous amongst us — are not truly spiritually alive to begin with as they are too cowardly to live their authentic life. This is because they are too concerned about the faults of others or what others may think of them than living their own life. And their hell is eternal senility as they fail to nurture their timeless essence, so remaining a prisoner held captive by their own limited conditional thinking.

____________________________

Research at the University of New Hampshire found that Children who are spanked develop a lower IQ than those who are not. This appears to be the case across nations, states within a country such as the United States, as well as religious, and cultural communities where the practice is prevalent.

What is important here in terms of the discussion of The Vortex, is that brain development is not physiological affected per se. However it may simply be that the fear induced by spanking reduces a child's ability to reason appropriately and to make coherent decisions. Put another way, the worry that they may make wrong decisions or of the consequences of their decisions may affect a child's overall cognitive and intellectual development.

I would argue that instilling a monster-god or boogie-man of some sort or another in a child's psyche, while convenient for a parent in the short-term to keep them on the straight and narrow, may induce a fear response towards the undesirable action which could have unforeseen long-term consequences.

An example is the view of now deceased Evangelical minister Jerry Falwell, that the death of those in the World Trade Centre is as a consequence of the punishment of such a wrathful god. I presume that this fate had therefore befallen the respective victims for their supposed sinfulness. While those subjected to this form of indoctrination will invariably develop a very limited worldview, but in having to make room for such a vengeful psychological monster, would also adversely influence their psychological make-up as well.

Thus paradoxically, based on the discussion, developing a limited intellect would be the least of their impending problems. It being that the induction of a fear response towards the undesired activity has unintended consequences of subconsciously drawing the child to the undesired behavior as discussed in this chapter, and thus have created a psychological monster they feel compelled to vanquish.
Chapter Five: The Strangler

Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.

~~~

[Kahlil Gibran]

One of the primary disciplines to master in one's lifetime is the ability to manage one's expectations.

Doing so gives one the power to manage the greater dynamics of mind — particularly our more creative right brain — to aid us in achieving our wants and desires. This can be done by developing an attitude of mind that appreciates that the optimal eventually will inevitably happen, regardless.

Note though that it is an attitude that we form regardless of what will happen. For some this attitude merely is a sense of contentment that they would be ok if the worst comes to pass despite their efforts to affect an alternate course.

This of course is the age old religious concept of faith, but with a significant twist.

Simply put the twist is that one develops a state of mind that enables the free flow of environmental dynamics outside of our control to align with our conscious intentions.

The key is the realisation that the details of how events will actually unfold is greatly obscured from our awareness. It nevertheless is already taken care of primarily because we have had a clear and focused vision of the future outcome, and had done all we humanly could to affect the outcome of that vision. The rest then is up to God, or whatever power we ascribe to the ebbs-and-flows of life.

To make sense of the entire notion of faith, one must be aware that there essentially are two differing perspectives. The first is conveyed in Hebrews 11 verse 1.

Faith is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead.

This view places God in a lofty position of power, and from there, adjudging the relative deservedness of our individual faith. And then from his position of omnipotence, listening to our individual wants and desires, upon which he then decides to grant us the end we may want—or not. And if he then does decide to bless us, will orchestrate the desired intervention on our behalf.

But then he also becomes the one to blame for not bestowing his grace on his supposed deserved disciple.

Rather, the dynamics involved should rather have to do with how we consciously facilitate getting what we want by our purposeful thinking that results in the innovation and resourcefulness of our directed actions. In this regard our strong expectations of how the outcome must be, literally creating a stranglehold on the greater creative process which may involve many interrelated events beyond our direct control.

The problem with the aforementioned Christian view is that the outcome seems to be a cut-and-dried thing: that if you have faith the interpretation implies that you will definitely get what you want.

Perhaps the Buddhist understanding of faith provides a more realistic perspective. In One Dharma, an exploration into Western Buddhism, Richard Goldstein describes Buddhist faith as follows.

Faith, devotion and confidence are all translations of the Pali word saddha. All of these terms refer to that feeling that opens the mind and heart to what is beyond our usual ego concerns and desires; saddha opens us to what is greater than ourselves, to the possibility of freedom. Faith becomes both our initial inspiration to practice and explore and what sustains our continuing efforts.

Essentially faith then is connected to our ability to let go of our ego concerns. This being the literal opposite mentality of the Strangler who obsesses over things that are not within his direct power to influence and control.

For example consider the mindset of someone who has an unconditional expectation that the world must treat him fairly. Though in having such a requirement he most likely will be disappointed on almost every turn as the expectation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is because our expectation will most likely not be reciprocated as we would have wanted. And because of this, will perceive unfairness at almost every turn. With this attitude we also will tend to lose sight of our own responsibility in achieving this desired end.

For us to turn this around we must make peace with the fact that we live in a world that at times can be incredibly unfair. This is primarily so as we live in a time where everyone tends to look after their own self interest, very often at the expense of others. It nevertheless is incumbent on us to be fair in all our dealings whether we are being dealt with fairly, or not.

In this way to affect a fair and equitable end wherever possible. Yet never to tolerate unjust actions and unfairness from others, and to stand up for this ideal wherever we can. This is to be a responsible citizen in touch with the realities of the world around one. As Gandhi so eloquently put it, to be the change we want to see in the world.

Why expectations strangle our appreciation of the now is that it literally is an uncompromising demand on a yet to be realised future which has a life irrespective of this inflexible requirement. When we expect a certain outcome we literally are demanding that we must get what we want, and that it must be done in a particular way and in a specific timeframe. And when it is not somehow achieved exactly as required, we end up unhappy and frustrated with the circumstances of our life.

In fact what one is saying when one has high expectations about a particular outcome is that "I will not be happy with my life until my required outcome is met exactly as I expect". Because of this mentality, deferring one's state of well-being to some indefinite future time.

Because of the above dialogue our undue expectations as well as our obsessive dependencies on others create dynamics equivalent to that associated with fear as discussed in the Vortex. We therefore inadvertently create intentions working in opposition to the path we so desperately feel compelled to take. And while we may yet achieve the result we want despite such mental opposition, the outcome will not likely have been assisted by the deeper dynamics of reality which orders our lives beyond our perceptive time and spatial limitations.

Consequently we end up expending considerable anxious mental energy as well as physical and financial resources to eventually force the outcome we may have wanted.

Then again who can deny that Howard Hughes accumulated his great personal fortune precisely because he was significantly obsessive compulsive, exceedingly perfectionistic and uncompromisingly expectant.

But at what personal cost?

The reality is that if we are to live a successful life, a large measure of obsessiveness is required. This after all is our passion: the directed energy we bring to whatever it is we do that it be done to the best of our ability. Obsessions being the wellspring of genius, though notably, of madness as well. The key is that we not get uncontrollably consumed by our obsessions as when we do become compulsively so. In this way losing sight of all else but the objects and outcomes we may desire.

Faith and its positive outworking, therefore, is a strangely circular phenomenon. Having faith in a vacuum indeed is to be irresponsible, or Cavalier, as will be discussed in the next section. This is because faith can only truly be of assistance once you know that you have done all in your personal power to ensure a positive end, and the rest being up to God, so to say.

What this calls for is that we in the course of our lives transcend what otherwise is a very human affliction. It being that we be the master of the ship we are sailing and have direct control over the course we are to take and the ends we desire to achieve. Unfortunately, in overly doing so, to stifle the possibilities of our future with our often apparently legitimate efforts to control every circumstance.

The attitude required is perhaps best conveyed in the following words by Margo Jones.

If you want something very badly, you can achieve it.

It may take patience, very hard work, a real struggle, and a long time; but it can be done.

That much faith is a prerequisite of any undertaking, artistic or otherwise.

The important key to note is that the Strangler is an affliction of thought and by implication can be overcome merely by becoming aware of our limited mindsets and thought patterns. Such awareness will allow us to begin reformulating our thinking that allow us to appreciate the full kaleidoscope of possibilities available in any given moment.

Making such a change to years of often ingrained thought patterns I know is easier said than done. Perhaps it is easier to change our attitude towards life than it is to change our individual thoughts. The key once again to making the change, is to realize that thinking is the detail of how we choose to act towards the circumstances of our life. It, however, can be as simple as a conscious commitment to view the world and our relationship to it differently. And the primary requirement is we develop patience. Put literally, the requirement is that we learn to work with time.

And when doing so, dynamics may well come to play in the unfolding of events which are beyond mere chance. In other words, we may become lucky. The problem with the whole issue of faith is whether one actually depends on one's luck to do the actual outworking for one.

To conclude, the sentiment of how the Strangler may stifle our development is perhaps best summarised by Victor Frankl in his famous work, Man's Search for Meaning, with the following.

Don't aim at success—the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person (or persons) other than oneself.

Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your ability. Then you will live to see that in the long run – in the long run, I say! – success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think of it." 
Chapter Six: The Cavalier

What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?

~~~

[Robert Schuller]

For some the above question should rather be: what would you do if you knew you are definitely going to fail?

Though for those who may have experienced the pain of their irresponsible actions after the fact, it would more than likely be too late as they experience the debilitating consequences of their actions.

This is to be cavalier, meaning to act without any due regard for the consequences. The Cavalier — derived from cavalryman, an elite horse-mounted soldier — can be viewed as bringing to bear more or less the opposite set of mental dynamics than the Enforcer, the Vortex and the Strangler.

These states of mind in a manner of speaking can be seen as afflictions of the head, while one can view the Cavalier as an affliction of the heart—specifically, an overly confident and self-assured heart.

Simply put, the mental orientation of the Cavalier is that associated with the gambler. In a sense the Caviller can be seen as having too much faith — in fact largely taking it for granted — that universal dynamics will somehow come to one's aid. The underlying belief therefore is that one is specially blessed, that fate will always somehow come to one's rescue. Perhaps for good reason as such individuals indeed may appear to be living a very charmed existence where the chips somehow always seem to be falling in their favour.

Put plainly, those who consider themselves to be particularly blessed in this manner are simply regarded as lucky, and many indeed do consider themselves to be born that way. Bill Gates for instance claims that his phenomenal business success had been as a consequence of exactly this—that  he was just plain lucky.

I want to agree with him, except to also add that he clearly then must have a natural temperament that brings him this supposed luck. And specifically that the Strangler is not an overriding factor in his life. He nevertheless also does not appear to be influenced by the Cavalier either, this perhaps explaining his continued luck. I say this, for while he may say he was merely "lucky", I seriously doubt whether he actually relies on this supposed "in-born" capacity to determine the business ends he may have wanted to achieve.

Another apparently lucky individual is the Survivor runner up and Survivor: Redemption Island winner and Amazing Race runner up, Rob Mariano. Within the Amazing Race he describes his luck as follows: "I'm just lucky. It's like I've been born with a horseshoe up my ass."

Perhaps the remark being indicative of the reason for his good fortune as he does not appear perturbed by what others may think of him. In fact Rob can hardly be considered a poster boy for consideration of what others may think of him. This, as strange as it may sound from a conventional religious perspective, in itself suggesting that it may specifically be involved in assisting Rob's apparent good fortune. Again because this is indicative of the absence of the Enforcer, the Victim and the Strangler. And in Rob's case, specifically not conforming to the demands and dictates of others. Though admittedly there is a point where such an attitude can become socially counter-productive. And more than anything else, not conforming to social norms can begin to work against one's continued success as well. This then contributing towards diminishing one's overall sense that one somehow is blessed by the gods of fortune.

One of the other manifestations of the Cavalier, therefore, is pure irresponsibility. For instance if one has the attitude that one simply does what one wishes, and that you will face the consequences later. Or that one does something without any planning and foresight, believing that God will see to the details once one has embarked on one's endeavor, one once again is being cavalier.

The main problem with one having the view that one was born lucky as opposed to merely acknowledging that one's good fortune had been a matter of luck, and that life somehow treats one with a velvet glove, is that one may feel capable of tempting fate itself.

An unfortunate example that reflects this is how famous crocodile hunter Steve Irwin died in a very bizarre circumstance. After countless times facing ferocious predators such as dangerous reptiles, lions, sharks and many others, he died during an interlude from his usually intrepid filming. In this unfortunate case, instead of meeting his end by an angry predator, he ironically was pierced in the heart by the tail-tip of a Manta Ray, an incredibly docile creature compared to all the rest.

In the irony of this tragedy lies a very important lesson. It is that, while one may have a sense that one is blessed, never to tempt one's fate if one can help it. Yet to take necessary risks whenever circumstance may call on it, but never to take potentially life altering risks merely for the sake of doing so.

The danger is that, in taking undue risks, one also faces the possibility that one's luck, which may well have served one till then, may fail one in that very moment. Or to put another way, one would eventually use up all of one's proverbial nine lives.

This brings us face to face with the following dilemma. While those who have an appetite for risk without due caution risks living destructive lives, others who on the other hand may be overly cautious — never to take any significant risks — end up living dull uninspired lives.

What the understanding of the Cavalier literally comes down to is this.

That the call to live one's life fearlessly and courageously, does not necessarily imply that one must as a consequence live it dangerously and irresponsibly.

Finally while the unfortunate death of Steve Irwin was used merely as an example and was not meant as a negative reflection on his inspirational life, it nevertheless does poignantly illustrate the problem with the associated mindset. In his case particularly with regard to facing overt danger on almost a daily basis. Perhaps the incident did happen because Irwin had lowered his guard in this particular instance as the danger was not that apparent, and therefore, did not have his usual sense of vigilance.

Notwithstanding whether Irwin may or may not have been cavalier, I'm strongly of the opinion that Irwin should not have lived any differently. That after all was his choice, and passion. For this reason he most certainly is one of the very fortunate to have completely lived his bliss and likely would not have lived nearly as fulfilled a life otherwise.

He also does not appear to have been irresponsible in how he went about his work. Though for the purposes of this discussion and the inherent lesson, we have to accept that he consciously took extreme risks every time he engaged the wild in the way he did.

We therefore also must be sober-minded about whether we want to engage life in this way, and be clear that with every risk we end up taking, irrespective of the amount of courage we may exhibit or the amount of faith we may have in ourselves, if we tempt fate a single time too often, it will be one time too many.
Chapter Seven: The Conjurer

What consumes your mind, controls your life.

~~~

[Creed]

The Conjurer can also be called The Deceiver. We empower the Conjuror by creating illusion in an attempt to hide from the oftentimes painful reality of our lives. This deceit is the root cause of all evil as it is the nurturing ground of desperation. And ultimately, the playground of our Devil who subconsciously seeks to destroy the essence of our being.

While the following may seem an innocuous example, it nevertheless is indicative of how we subtly can lose our sanity by allowing our thoughts to wonder down the slippery slope associated with our delusional fantasies.

I recently received a seemingly innocent email which was supposedly a spiritual personality test recommended by the Dalai Lama. While I doubt he indeed recommended it, it requested that one diligently follow a given set of instructions for the integrity of the results.

It required one answer four questions. Firstly that one makes a heartfelt wish. The second that one chooses one of four animals provided in a list. Then to associate a name of an acquaintance with a listed colour. And finally, and is the crux of my objection, that one forward it to as many people as possible in order to increase the possibility that one's wish be fulfilled. The power to affect the end result, purportedly, being incrementally increased for every person one sends the email to.

However, if one does take this seriously, then one also must believe that life somehow in this way will conjure up whatever it is that one so desperately had wished for.

This is a common practice on the internet, and if you seriously engage in it, what you are inadvertently doing is creating an expectation associated with this imaginary transaction. And therefore by involving the associated mental dynamics, you are subtly striking a deal with the Devil lurking in the murky subterranean depths of your unconscious mind. Here, once again, the Devil is also not a literal devil with horns and a tail, but rather our shadow or dark side that is responsible for our literal hell on earth. And in this case is the part responsible for accumulating our mounting list of never to be fulfilled wants and desires.

In fact what we are transacting with this devil for is "if I send along this email as you requested, then I can get what I want quicker, and without having to make any effort to do so." Or "if only I send as many emails as I possibly can, then my chances of...will by doing so come true." This was before Facebook and the practice is even more pronounced in this medium, and particularly prevalent with religious messages. However, this is a deal of no consequence, except that it is the path of sneakiness and self deceit which paves the way to one's spiritual and intellectual doom.

This is also the frame of reasoning associated with how we engage our underlying religious beliefs as well, in that the religious tend to use similar semantics. For instance the inner dialogue would be: "God, if only you do this for me, then I will be good..."; or "God, if I'm kind to old ladies, and help them to cross the street, would you change my luck and give me the good fortune I'm currently lacking in my life...".

And therefore coupled to the above, many hide their selfishness and greed by doing "good" to those who supposedly are in need. So they may give handouts to the poor, but then neglect to give what is most needed to those who ought to be dearest to them such as spending quality time with spouses and children. In this way hiding their own insatiable neediness, convinced that because of their supposed good deeds, are beyond spiritual reproach.

Importantly, the issue here is not that of helping the destitute for that is indeed a good thing, but rather to ask yourself what payoff one thinks one may be getting in doing so.

The Conjuror is also responsible for our all-consuming consumer society in that we similarly say "if I only can have... then I will be happy once I acquire it."

But ironically, this is also the path many who professes to be "spiritual" — that is as opposed to being religious — also walk along. By their unconscious dialogue deluding themselves that they are on a higher spiritual rung than the rest of humanity. Though all along they may merely be finding a way to escape from the reality of their lives. Or perhaps to deaden the pain of their circumstance which they are too scared to confront. Note though that I say many, for it certainly is not all. And to find a truly spiritual outlet that does deaden the pain of circumstance can be a very legitimate way to orientate one's life. Though true spirituality is about becoming more involved with life, and as a consequence, oftentimes also requires taking the more painful path.

Notwithstanding this, many who claim to be spiritual use it as an excuse not to confront the reality of their circumstance. This is because a great many that convince themselves they are on such a path very often mentally marginalise themselves from others by claiming they are on a higher rung, oftentimes solely because they may be engaging a particular esoteric practice.

Usually they would argue away any psychological impairments blocking them from legitimate spiritual growth by saying to themselves "...Oh no, that cannot be me! So and so is like that... not me. I meditate twice daily, and do yoga. Anyway, I'm definitely on much too high a level spiritually for it to be so for me..." This sentiment is generally phrased more or less as the following I found on Facebook: "I'm attracting powerful, positive and healthy people into my life..."

What invariably happens is that they end up believing they are on the path of "Truth" in that they would be reading all the right literature or attending the right workshops. But instead of it being a light unto themselves, are on the lookout for the supposed spiritual faults of others. And if they do on occasion see their own Truth reflected back, are too horrified at the spectre thereof, that they immediately rationalise away the ghastliness they may have seen by deflecting it to others.

Thus in their denial are not truly on a spiritual path at all but rather one of narcissism that perpetuates their darkness even further. All along oblivious to the fact that the only way we can have communion with God, is to truly have open communion with yourself. Then once we truly know who we are from deep within, to extend that communion to others, who — because of the way we perceive them, either with compassion or with pernicious judgement — in reality are the reflections of our own spiritual light at any point in our life.

I have also seen many spiritual gurus of late selling supposedly ancient formulas of how you can change your life in 24 magical hours. By doing so making unrealistic promises as they compete for the lucrative new-age spiritual market-share. This increasing prevalence being symptomatic of our time where we want readymade bottled and packaged solutions for everything. This now including packaged spirituality and feelings of love and connectedness to all humanity as well.

But alas, it is the feeling that is being sought after, not true old-fashioned hard earned love and connectedness at all.

In this way many get caught up in one cult craze after another, or one new age remedy after another, in the supposed quest of finding themselves. Yet, because they have chosen delusion over reality, never to truly make substantive headway in this quest at all.

With regard to the many spiritual con-artists doing their trade, there really should be a psychological condition coined guru-complex, an off-shoot of extreme narcissism. For besides the fact that many are false prophets with false messages, exploiting the vulnerable beliefs of others, they may themselves truly believe what they are preaching. And though their packaging may contain grains of truth, their final motive in all likelihood being financial gain. Or as more often is the case, are primarily motivated by the mere fact that they have a following of some form or another.

As a rule of thumb: the best way to identify the Devil, is that he most likely will present himself as an angel; or charge exorbitant fees for his magic cure that you supposedly cannot do without; or if you see self-promotional pictures with halo's around them; or heap themselves with self-accolades; you have spotted one...

My apologies for my cynicism. However, to be cynical about these matters is the best place to start off with for one's sanity to prevail, so to guard against being sucked into an illusory world of no return. Though not to be cynical for the sake of being so, but to allow in the magic of our wondrous creation wherever it is so revealed. Nevertheless, the one truth my four or so decades on this planet has taught me is that very few people are truly in integrity in that almost everyone nowadays are out for gain of some form or other. It simply is the mentality of our consumerist age. And unfortunately those who wish to project themselves most as our potential saviours are the very ones we need to be most vigilant about.

It is not that these so-called gurus are propagating falsehood. Most times what they preach generally is some or other version of a watered down truth. But what they neglect to say is that the world is complex and that there are many competing realities at play.

So for instance, if you are ill, seek conventional medical recourse together with other methods. If you have a cancerous growth, it is a far more practical proposition to have it cut away as soon as possible than to think it away. This is just as it is infinitely easier to bend a spoon with pliers than only with one's mind. In fact I know of only one man on this planet that appears to have an ability to do so. This is just as there are only a handful of very strong-willed individuals that also appear to have cured their own diseases with positive thought alone though these also are in question.

In fact, the vast majority that have only sought to cure themselves exclusively this way are no longer with us to report on their failing—this includes the late Steve Jobs who first sought a "spiritual" cure. And whosoever may be telling you that you should rather do it this way, and then also charge you significantly for their method, cannot be but a false prophet taking advantage of your time of need (also refer to Did Brandon Bays have Terminal Cancer?).

And while one may have a strong intention to become rich, it unfortunately is not nearly enough to achieve it as many new-age preachers are proclaiming. In fact having focused so strongly on it — as Viktor Frankl inferred in the Strangler — is probably the very act that in all likelihood may make you poor. That is in real terms as the pursuit in itself may obscure your unique path to wealth. But more importantly, spiritually, as your mindset will be one that is needy of wealth and you may well spend more money on these supposed miracle methods.

That is notwithstanding that in doing so you may miss the abundance that is all around if only you opened your eyes in that moment to perceive the miracle you are intrinsically part of.

To put the issue of the power of our mind into perspective, bear in mind that we will achieve far better results when we engage a practical plan of action, than merely dreaming or believing that life will on its own miraculously orchestrate the end we desire.

The above examples showing only but a handful of ways in which the Conjurer keeps us in darkness. Indeed there are infinitely many ways we empower illusion over reality. If we rely on fortune-tellers, psychics, mediums, shamans, witch doctors, priests, politicians, football players, movie stars, musicians, and others, to base our sense of reality and well-being on, we are similarly deluding ourselves.

While others may already be mentally spending their winnings from their future gambling revenue; or the millions they will win in a lottery; or the future millions of their yet to be accomplished business success.

Even hope can be a destroyer of the spirit (refer to The Pathology of Hope). That is if it is ill informed or that one is optimistic without good cause. But more pathologically, that one remains in a perpetual state of hope that something or someone will somehow save one from the literal hell one has created with one's perpetual destructive expectations of life.

All that is accomplished in this is that one defers the happiness that can only be achieved by living in the reality of that that moment, in the hope that one day some obscure power will magically save one from one's self-inflicted mental misery.

In this way, calling on the Conjurer to rescue them from their perceived desperate reality, but only to lure them into its blinding perpetual web of darkness.

Again, it can be construed that the above is a call for outright cynicism. However it must be borne in mind that hope that is well grounded can grow and blossom to become a beautiful thing indeed.

But the reality nevertheless is that we must be mindful of all our potential demons, and most importantly, the Conjurer, for he makes promises he never keeps. Simply deferring one's state of dissatisfaction with the here-and-now to a not so distant future. Then only for ones troubles to pile up even further for it to one day come tumbling down on us in a way in which it cannot be ignored.

To buy into the shallow promises of such purveyors of illusion, is to give away your intrinsic power. Instead one must realise that the only way you can become enlightened is to do it one reflective thought at a time, and then to remain vigilant of your demons for the remainder of your natural life.

Fortunately though, your mastery in this regard will increase incrementally with continued success. This is to embark on a journey towards wisdom. And in doing so your judgement no longer being a factor of thought, but that you consult with your deepest sense of what is intrinsically true.

Unfortunately the path of the Conjurer is the path most of humanity prefer to walk along in our time—to remain in darkness while deluding themselves that they are not. This is to choose hell on earth, for it is to choose to wander around in the shadow of the false light emanating from outside of oneself, as opposed to magnifying the life giving light burning from within.

The only true way to go about getting what we want and then to have a sense of satisfaction in achieving it is to know exactly what it is we are seeking for; why we may be seeking it; and then having the patience and dedication to set out to do the work that is required for its successful achievement. But yet most importantly, to have an attitude that detaches from the fact. Accepting that you may not get it despite your best efforts, and that that is OK. Therefore as an unintended consequence, still be greatly surprised and joyed when it does so happen to pass.

This is to have true power in the world. It also is to live in the light.
Epilogue

The Life we Know

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul,

with all one's goodness and righteousness.

~~~

[Albert Einstein]

The following essay I wrote at the age of 18 perhaps best sums up the current dilemma of our time.

...

Man — in his endless search for greener pastures — has gone to great lengths to improve his existence as mere mortal on earth. While most do so honorably, many rob, cheat and even kill to gain more from life. But alas, irrespective of the life lived, its conclusion is simple, exact and irrevocable. A fleeting moment of light returned to an inevitable darkness.

Where's the justice in this? Why is death so cruel and merciless and why is it often accompanied with dreadful pain and suffering? Why live at all for it to be reduced to the sorrow of dying?

The answers certainly are not clear. In an attempt to explain the inexplicable, we must be aware that we are dealing with the mysterious, but two views do emerge. The first is simple and addresses the essence of life - the survival instinct - every creatures' inherent drive to stay alive.

The other is more complex, yet paradoxically, amazingly simple, requiring insight of the workings of the greater universe - none of which anybody really understands \- and ones place in it. It demands a profound and honest understanding of oneself and one's true purpose. It can be a painful journey to hard-to-reach accesses of one's inner self, requiring a lifetime of dedication to maintain.

The first view is a mystical, magical one, shrouded in the supernatural. Though not based on reality, but on the power of illusion, it has become the most active force in man's physical development. It provides a ready consolation to a world ravaged by disease, natural disaster and the daily battle for survival. More than this, it's been the most powerful social tool in history, instilling great levels of cohesion, discipline and most importantly, a fear of wrong-doing and consequently a primitive sense of justice.

What is this magical spell and what is its power over one as 'knowledgeable' as humankind?

The answer is not hard to find. From the moment man realized his mortality, it became an all-empowering force. The mere thought of death is still his worst fear. Would a second chance at life not be the ultimate gift for one destined to die? Would the promise of a better eternal life not be the ultimate motivation needed to inspire humankind to superior heights of discipline, achievement and morality?

Consequently, the philosophy of "a life well lived will be a life well rewarded after death" predominated through the manifestation of religion. Separated by the widest oceans and the highest mountains, numerous religious doctrines developed. Despite physical barriers their essence is universal with the ultimate goal, the attainment of immortality.

What would the world be without these ideals? Surely the rules of the jungle would prevail, where only the fittest, fiercest and most cunning can survive?

For many, death would simply be the end to a pathetic life. By creating the illusion of life after death, man has found the means to lift himself from the realm of savage, to the godlike realm of the immortal. Now, instead of living only by the instinct to survive, he can now be guided by his passion to live. Convinced that contribution to society, compassion towards others, obedience and hard work will bring an eternal life, man has developed himself to an astonishing level of sophistication.

Is this not the magic and wonder of it all? Whether life after death is fact or fantasy should be of little importance, isn't the significance the reality it has achieved?

If you believe in magic and the power of illusion, this life view is sufficient although not complete. You will be guided by your desire to achieve the ultimate, that magical life beyond the pain of death. Unfortunately though, you are not the master of the course you are taking, for it has been carefully drawn by the magicians wand.

Like all magic though, the illusion only lasts as long as there is belief in its power. Many have doubts or lack the resolve to follow through its purest intent. For them, this magic has less meaning than their own understanding of their very existence. Even under the control of religion, man's desires and whims exist and do get the better of him. In attempting to adhere to a doctrine, these feelings are merely suppressed, producing conflicts between these desires and the dogma rigidly forced upon him. The repercussions can be small and insignificant or can take the guise of religious fanaticism, demonism, sadism and war. What is paramount is not the mere adherence to a fancy doctrine in order to achieve a convoluted and somewhat distant goal.

What is important is that man discovers his true inner self. Deep within he should discover the real meaning of life and all that is of true significance.

But how does one find that inner being? Would man not find a wanton demon hidden in his depths, ready to devour all within its power to consume? Would he not become the savage he once was?

He need not. In his journey through life man should have grown from the helpless infant who needs nurturing guidance, past the troublesome adolescent who has to obey the house rules or face the consequences. He should have developed faculties far superior to the wantonness of primitive man. With his superior comprehension, rational thought and the wisdom of time as his guide, he should by now be able to find his own way.

For after all, is he not the same being capable of sending one of his own to outer-space? And is it not he who conquered the skyways and airwaves so that the entire planet is within his reach? While doing so, also tapping into the very atom of all existence releasing a magic genie so awesome that even to this day it is beyond his logical comprehension?

These are but a few of man's uncountable 'victories' against the forces of the universe. But alas, with all this greatness, man's potential greed and zest for power has given him an infinite ability to use his knowledge to destroy himself and his world.

For now, from the ashes of man obsessed with death, a new savage has arisen. One obsessed with life. His own. Cybernetic man. A narcissistic being preoccupied with what he can accumulate in his mortal lifetime.

Domination and control of all that surrounds him is an obsession of this being. Because of this, all living things are vulnerable to his exploitation. Hardly any aspect of life has escaped complete alteration or annihilation as a direct consequence of his meddling. All life forms not suiting his purpose he has killed off or fenced out to suite his convenience. The very life-form precious to all that breathes is being mowed down to satisfy his vanity. The mighty oceans are slowly dying. The skies are losing their once ever-prevalent shield against the constant bombardment of the sun. Our generous mother earth is turning to desert as she rapidly ages, having to provide for an ever growing and demanding mankind.

More destruction and decay was caused in one mere lifetime of cybernetic man compared to the entire lifetime of the earth. Another human lifetime of this insanity is all that is needed to destroy the billions of years of harmony and balance that has been ever prevalent in our world.

As man and this world face what could be their final hour, he should ask this crucial question: If I am so wise and omnipotent, why do I willingly destroy the essence that sustains me?

There can be no logical answer. These actions are that of a demon bent on self-destruction. Surely there is no rational thought at play with such acts of obsessive greed?

Do we not need our world to thrive for us to thrive?

Do we not need our world to be at peace for us to have peace?

Should we not give love to be loved?

Yes, the answer was always there: give that which you wish to receive; _reap what you sow_.

Is that not the essence of living the one life we really know?
Addendum

Neo Heresy

I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion

~~~

[Baruch Spinoza]

To highlight the reality delusion associated with many neo esoteric beliefs I want to recount an incredibly horrific incident.

It concerns an atrocity that occurred just a dozen miles from my home in which a seven year old girl was brutally raped, her throat slit, set alight and left for dead.

Despite the inhuman savagery the girl suffered, she miraculously survived, though now most certainly having to bear the scars of this unspeakable horror for the rest of her life.

And to add to the depravity of the act, it was perpetrated by a close friend of the girl's family, someone she knew and most likely trusted unconditionally. Though someone who in a single hour shattered her innocence, and with it most likely diminished the potential of her young life.

However the real tragedy is that this is a far too common occurrence in a society having been the victim of centuries of brutal colonialism, savage slavery and racial oppression. Though now in post-colonial South Africa the former victims of past oppression are sadly brutalizing their own.

When looking at this particular instance of inhumanity logically and you do hold strong esoteric views, then you unavoidably have to come to some rather irrational conclusions about why this girl supposedly must've earned or even deserved her fate.

For instance if you believe in karma and reincarnation, then it must also be your view that what happened to her – as a consequence of your belief – had to be as a result of her past misdeeds. That is in this life but also of her past lives, and that she now must be repaying back some monumental karmic debt.

Or if you believe in personal spirit guides then they in their infinite wisdom must have orchestrated this monstrous event from some or other higher cosmic vantage. Perhaps it is so that the girl had willingly chosen this lifetime to learn her spiritual lessons through pain and indignity.

Or if you subscribe to the views of The Secret, that "You cannot "catch" anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought", in spouting this profanity you must be of the view that her conscious or unconscious thinking must've been responsible for bringing this cruel inhumanity upon herself.

Or if you are of the opinion that "love is all there is, all else is an illusion", a quote by John Demartini a contributor on The Secret, explain to her that her horror is not really real, but that from a deeper perspective had been an act of love. And furthermore that the actions of the perpetrator were in fact not a vile and monstrous one, but motivated by some or other form of cosmic love which he had unconsciously enacted upon.

If these indeed are your views then my honest opinion is that you are not living in my reality, and particularly not of that girl's, but rather in a sick delusional fantasy.

Though if you are of the opinion that you are not deluded, then you must be an incredibly cruel and unfeeling person for having had the gall to confidently proclaim that these are your views. What you therefore are implying is that at some supposed more consequential level, this poor girl had not been the innocent victim of human savagery, but at some obscure 'cosmic' level had deserved what happened to her.

Such attitudes are very real and unfortunately are significantly increasing with the advent of New Ageism. The real danger in these neo 'spiritual' views is that they essentially are escapist. For instance at a talk I gave in Cape Town where I spoke about this very incident, a prominent person in the city's New Age movement attempted to defend the notion that "love is all there is, all else is an illusion" by indeed rationalizing it from Demartini's perspective.

In defense of his ideology he intimated that, unless one takes mental heed of the event, it did not really happen at all from one's individual perspective.

In his argument he literally equated the events of our lives to the fictitious events on a movie screen by indicating that, if a particular event was not captured on film, it then does not exist from the vantage of the movie audience watching the showing of it at all and thus is not a reality for that particular audience.

Quite frankly, this is the most inhuman argument that I have ever heard.

I say this because I always understood from my Judeo-Christian upbringing (not that I'm a Christian or Jew but an Agnostic, if anything) that one's capacity to become conscious of the suffering and inhumanity around one and then to actively reach out to those ill-fated by circumstance, is the most consequential act of humanity one can ever show.

Moreover, it is imperative we fully acknowledge that the brutality of 'humans' are real and omnipresent and cannot be wished away or meditated into spiritual oblivion as is becoming the predominant view.

Rather it is incumbent on us to fully acknowledge that this type of barbarity takes place, being a scourge within humanity that must be bitterly fought against if we indeed are to collectively evolve to a higher level of being.

Extract from:

Scourge I: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the Age of "The Secret"

____________________________

The incident referred to occurred on Guy Fawkes Day, 5 November 2006.

_______________

The Judeo-Christian and Islamic perspective does not apply to this section. This is because the notion of Judgment Day does not preclude this girl from entering heaven and places no judgments on her as pertains to the events that led to the atrocity. It however has its own shortcomings which are discussed in The Enforcer and The Vortex.
Connection between Religiosity and Dementia

Recent studies are suggesting that fundamentalism of any kind—including fundamentalist non-belief—may in fact put individuals at risk of developing dementia in later life.

In my own daily interactions with those around me I casually observed that a number of strongly religious acquaintances appear to exhibit greater levels of mental degeneration than others who are not as overtly religious. On the other hand some dyed-in-the-wool atheists I have associated with are of the most grumpy cynical narrow-minded people I know (refer to Dogmatism in Action).

Juxtaposed to these seemingly opposing groups, however, I observed a 76 year old family member who has one of the most cogent social and mental dispositions of anyone I know. What I particularly noted about her is that she never spoke about religion or addressed any topic in religious terms. This notwithstanding that she had an apparent strong private religious faith which one could tell by her regular church attendance and activities within her greater religious community. She was also completely open to other religions and would not hesitate to attend a service in another religious denomination or faith if invited or had an opportunity to do so. This is as opposed to the extremely religious Christian grouping who, without fail, are condemning of other views, even other Christian denominations.

These apparent contrasting states of mental health motivated me to investigate a possible link between religiosity and dementia and stumbled upon a very revealing study. Titled Religious Education and Midlife Observance are associated with Dementia three decades later in Israeli Men, it was a joint collaboration between three esteemed institutions including the Department of Psychology at the Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. It observed 1,690 middle-aged and elderly patients. The sample was from 2,604 survivors of 10,059 participants in a Ischemic Heart Disease study, and it determined that 18.9% had developed dementia. Based on a religious self-definition and practice, the prevalence rates amongst those considered most religious were three times greater than the least religious group (9.7%, 17.7%, 14.1% and 28.8% from least to most religious).

What the data suggests is that the least religious had a very low incidence while the most had a particularly high incidence. Compared to all the other categories it had roughly twice the incidence of their average. Thus based on this one study one can simplistically infer that one has a very high probability of becoming demented if one is also very religious. On the other hand, those who tend not to be religious have a significantly lower incidence. This low-religious group could include atheists, agnostics, as well as those with some or other concept of God but do not attend a worship group.

However an anomaly was evident when looking at the type of education the patients received: that is whether they received exclusively religious, mixed or secular education. The data here indicated that those who attended exclusively religious education were about 2.3 times more at risk than those who had a mixed education, while it was only 1.8 times greater for those who received a secular education. Interestingly, the secular group fared somewhat worse than the mixed group.

On further research I found another study at the Duke Medical Centre investigating brain differences based on faith funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Templeton Foundation. The study asked 268 people aged between 58 to 84 about their religious group, spiritual practices and life-changing religious experiences. Protestants who did not identify themselves as born-again were found to have less atrophy in the hippocampus region (the part of the brain involved in memory forming, organizing and storing) than did born-again Protestants, Catholics or those with no religious affiliation. Participants who said they had undergone a religious experience were also found to have more atrophy than those who did not.

Again, there may be many reasons for the above results, but it is generally in line with the findings of the Israeli study, particularly with regards to the extremely religious. This is particular because mainline American Protestants are generally considered far more moderate than Catholics and born-again groups. The born-again groups being associated with the so-called Bible Belt and socially conservative Evangelical Protestantism.

However what must be considered when looking at the Israeli context are that those considered low in the religiosity rank would likely be secular Jews (also referred to as  Jewish Atheists). Unlike atheist in Western Europe and the United States, Jewish atheist still consider themselves Jewish and therefore observe many of the religious traditions, though not to the extent the more orthodox Jews do. Thus, unlike their western counterparts, there most likely would be some religious aspect, but notably, without the associated dogma.

The anomaly between the Israeli and American results, therefore, may well be as a consequence of the type of atheism practiced in the respective communities. Thus the level of fundamentalism or rigidity of observance of a particular view is the likely determining factor for the degree of mental degeneration found. One can therefore reasonably assume that the non-believers in the United States had similar results to more rigid religious groups primarily because non-belief is more fundamentalist or intolerant there than that observed in Israel. Another inference one can make is that non-belief per se is not responsible for mental degradation, but rather the specific attitude towards belief which may be the causal factor.

What is particularly interesting about the American study is that it is widely assumed that the non-religious—and atheists in particular—are generally more intelligent than those who may be religious. At least this is the assumption of many non-believers. Part of the argument for this is that this is evident in them having made the decision to be non-religious to begin with. This is because the perception is that non-believers are generally more intellectual, and that they become non-believers for intellectual reasons. It is also argued that intelligent people tend to do the associated discourse towards atheism primarily because they are cognitively more capable to do so—i.e. in questioning long-standing beliefs and assumptions. ,

However, the greater atrophy observed in this supposedly more "intellectually competent" group than moderate Protestants may potentially be because mainstream Protestants could well be more open to conflicting or psychologically paradoxical perspectives, particularly the paradoxes around our creation. For this reason they may not overtly engage conditional thinking—in other words, having hardwired patterns of thinking—as fundamentalists (that is both religious and scientific fundamentalists), tend to do. The problem with many such "intelligent" individuals, are that they often are so intelligent that they are able to devise arguments that convinces themselves of their rightness. Then there is the more murky issue of intelligence versus wisdom where ones level of wisdom would not necessarily be reflected on one's IQ score.

Another reason that more moderately religious may experience less brain degeneration is that there may be some psychological comfort in having the view to begin with. This comfort derived from the notion of faith has the effect of lowering levels of stress and other associated conditions. This is contrasted with fundamentalists of all ilk who are more inclined to higher levels of obsession and/or delusion.

A study at the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Desarrollo into medical literature between 1990 and 2010 does indicate a general link between religion/spirituality and mental health. The study found that close to 75% of the studies reviewed indicate that those who have some or other religious faith exhibited improved mental health. Specifically they indicated definite improvements in levels of suicide, depression and substance abuse. And in line with the previous studies, some evidence in a lower incidence of dementia.

Note though, if the previous findings were true—i.e. that strongly religious individuals were more prone to mental degeneration—then the strongly religious sample would somewhat neutralize the overall results or there may be contradicting results depending on which community was studied making any definitive conclusion impossible. For instance in the North-Western United States there may be a lower incidence amongst believers than in the Bible Belt region making the results based on pure religiosity inconclusive.

Again, there is yet to be more studies that need to be done for the respective findings to be deemed conclusive, though a pathological trend appears to be evident. It being that higher levels of fundamentalism (or dogmatism) may have some impact on increased mental degeneration in later life.

The irony with a superficial look at the Duke Medical Centre Study is that I too would fall under the non-religious grouping and would therefore have a greater risk of developing diminished brain capacity.

It however is my hope that: because I don't discount the possibility of a "Creator"; I think I'm open minded to most perspectives; and do not outrightly condemn them as hocus pocus since I always attempt to keep an open mind; I may offset my predisposition to have my mental faculties greatly diminished in old age.

This is as the Israeli study potentially shows: that the general demeanor of Secular Jews towards religion (specifically Judaism) may in fact be cognitively beneficial.

Perhaps the cure, then, is simply how we orientate ourselves psychologically to the greater mystery of life, and in so doing, to be reasonably assured that one will live a long and mentally healthy life.

________________________

There are many factors that should be considered which could affect any definitive conclusions. For instance in the Israeli study it may well be that the particular orthodox community may have a greater genetic propensity for dementia considering that Orthodox Jews are a very closed grouping. Other considerations are that the exclusively religious grouping therefore would be a highly homogeneous group that more than likely would remain orthodox in later years.

On the other hand many who attend a moderately religious school may also come from a secular home, though this statistic probably would skew towards the moderately religious. Similarly secular schools would perhaps have a significant number of moderately religious individuals. Furthermore it is probable that a shift in religious attitude in later years is also far more likely in both these groups.

For this reason the sample along the moderately religious and secular groupings may in fact be more diverse if there indeed is a definite link between moderate religiosity and lower levels of dementia as the statistic based on the type of schooling received suggests.
The Godless Atheist

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

~~~

[Bertrand Russell]

I certainly don't have a problem with anyone being an atheist, but it has been my experience that most of the atheists I interact with tends to be oftentimes more dogmatic and intolerant than those who are religiously dogmatic, and definitely more so than the average religious person. And it is not only the religious that has to bear the brunt of their ire, even agnostics are labeled as wimps for being too soft on the religious, and often are referred to as fence sitters when it comes to the issue of belief. The following utterance by political satirist Stephen Colbert conveying a sentiment of many atheists: "Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?"

I know I'm generalizing but that is my personal observation based on my own experience. But let me relate an incident that highlights the typical mentality. The very surprising consternation which resulted in the associated ridiculous event was triggered by the following innocent email.

Good morning everyone. It seems that Monwabisi's condition has worsened and he is in hospital again. His girlfriend relayed that he is at the Vincent Pallotti Hospital in the Poplar ward. He is said to be extremely ill. Guys, please keep him in your prayers and thoughts.

As innocent as this email was, all hell broke loose after she apologized for sending it to the wrong mailing list. She meant to send it to her department only, but chose a group email that sent it to all the staff at the university. She apologized five minutes later, but soon afterwards mails flooded my Inbox requesting to be removed from the list. It became so bad that the secretary of the chancellor had to ask the operations manager to train staff on the "Reply to Sender" function (which is the default function on the GroupWise mail-server) and they used the "Reply to All" (which had to be deliberately selected off a tick box).

The result is that, what appeared to be hundreds of emails (I didn't count as I had to delete them in order to use my mailing service), were sent. By the third day the emails were still streaming in, and someone responded with the following.

To ALL those who don't want to be part of this mail:

This was a simple mail, requesting prayers for one of our sick colleagues. What is so difficult praying for someone, why does that bother you so much?

If you can't pray for him, just delete the mails that come to your mailbox and stop filling other people's mailbox by requesting to be taken out of the mailing list. Tomorrow may be your turn to need prayers. How will you all feel being in Monwabisi's shoes? The Bible instructs us to pray for the sick and to LOVE our neighbors as ourselves.

So, where did Ashley go wrong by asking us to pray for one of us that is battling with ill health?

The more people that pray for him the better.

Yet, this did not end the chain mailing, bearing in mind that these mails were also being sent to Monwabisi mailbox. This is when I thought I'd have my say and changed the email header to "Is this an Institution of Higher Learning?" and responded to the previous email, even though the author clearly had strong religious sentiments.

I agree fully with your email, and I hope the other 2000 or so people who cluttered the email system by purposefully selecting the "reply to all" (as they had to as I purposefully did in this case) actually got your message.

I thought this is a university of higher learning? And that there may be half a chance of finding civilized intelligent compassionate people working here. I know there are, but this clearly had been an exhibition to the contrary.

I will keep Monwabisi in my thoughts.

After this all the emails stopped with the exception of the following.

Sorry, you might but I don't deserve any rebuke!

Let me explain why..... I never 'replied to all', neither did I ask to be removed from the list. I am sorry to hear of a sick colleague, even if I don't personally know him. But actually it is not about that, it is about boundaries. It is very inappropriate to send out an email asking the entire staff of a University to pray for someone. This is not what work place emails are for. If that was the norm where would it end?

We all know people who are in need of support. Can you imagine if everyone suddenly implored us, via internal mail, to call on Devine intervention on behalf of someone else? We'd be flooded by thousands of letters on a daily basis. Use the social networks to do that sort of thing. (By the way they are far more effective)

It is equally inappropriate to send out a manipulative and sickly rebuke reminding us of some biblical injunction or telling us we might be ill tomorrow! It's preposterous! I'm not a child that I need to be chastised. 'This was a simple mail, requesting prayers for one of our sick colleagues. What is so difficult praying for someone, why does that bother you people so much?' Do you get how patronizing that is?

On top of that, in the correspondence comes an innuendo that I am neither civilized intelligent or caring! What do you know of me or anyone else on this campus? What is it about people like yourselves that believe it is alright and fitting to adopt a high moral stance because people didn't respond in a way you thought appropriate...

To which I responded.

Let me not draw this out into a lengthy debate, someone made a simple mistake by choosing the incorrect group address (and invaded your personal boundary), and apologized very shortly afterwards, but moreover, with a very simple request, and all hell broke loose. I would not have known you were supportive of that stance, but now I do. By the way, I'm agnostic, but I respect others efforts to elicit concern for those in need, and why not do it by mail, I receive hundreds of spam daily, so what if a legitimate call for concern slips in once in a while. If it offends you so much, delete it, unless it gives you some

While I cannot say for sure whether this person is an atheist as I had never met him, he does exhibit the typical cynical tone. As far as those who sent the emails, I cannot say either, but more than likely are both religious and non-religious individuals who participated. This however is more reflective of the mob mentality referred to in this work, for, once the first email was sent, it appears as if others also wanted to be part of that dissent, and thus to show all that they also had something to say, no matter how ridiculous. Indeed, I would've called the section Narcissism in Action because of the total disregard for Monwabisi and his circumstance, and that they were more concerned that their boundaries were invaded.

Either way, whether atheist or not, this certainly is reflective of the growing narcissistic, uncaring mentality of our time. And just to remind you, this incident did not happen in urban US, but had taken place in Cape Town, a city on the southernmost tip of Africa.

Extract from:

Scourge III: Thriving in the Age of Austerity
Lucifer's Law

No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.

~~~

[Mary Wollstonecraft]

For me the following is the most disturbing of all the passages in The Secret.

...

The Law of Attraction is a law of nature. It is as impartial and impersonal as the law of gravity is. It is precise, and it is exact.

Everything that surrounds you right now in your life, including the things you're complaining about, you've attracted. Now I know at first blush that's going to be something that you hate to hear. You're going to immediately say, "I didn't attract the car accident. I didn't attract this particular client who gives me a hard time. I didn't particularly attract the debt." And I'm here to be a little bit in your face and to say, you did attract it. This is one of the hardest concepts to get, but once you've accepted it, it's life transforming... you have a choice right now.

Often when people first hear this part of The Secret they recall events in history where masses of lives were lost, and they find it incomprehensible that so many people could have attracted themselves to the event. By the law of attraction, they had to be on the same frequency as the event... If they believe they can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they have no control over outside circumstances, those thoughts of fear, separation, and powerlessness, if persistent, can attract them to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Do you want to believe that it's just the luck of the draw and bad things can happen to you at any time? Do you want to believe that you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time? That you have no control over circumstances?

Or do you want to believe and know that your life experience is in your hands and that only all good can come into your life because that is the way you think? You have a choice, and whatever you choose to think will become your life experience (italics as in the book).

Nothing can come into your life unless you summon it with persistent thoughts.

...

I'm contemplating the above extract almost a week after a number of friends of my son were involved in a horrific motorcar accident. In it two teenage girls died and one was paralyzed from the neck down with 95% blood on her brain.

They were all from stable reasonably affluent families, all members of a positive Christian youth group. When waking from the coma he was in and hearing of the paralysis of his younger sister and the death of his girlfriend, one of the accident survivors expressed extreme fury at God in whom he until then had absolute faith in for allowing it to happen. And certainly in whom his parents too must've placed unwavering faith in to protect their beloved children.

However in Byrne saying "You're going to immediately say, "I didn't attract the car accident." And I'm here to be a little bit in your face and to say, you did attract it," she's either implying that.

These children had brought this tragedy upon themselves by the mental frequency they had transmitted to the universe at the time.

Or that.

Their parents had brought it about by their own negative frequency; thus the death of their children was their fault and reflective of their deeper thoughts which resulted in them unconsciously attracting the tragedy upon themselves.

I suppose one can also then infer that the fate of American comedian Bill Cosby's son shot in cold-blood during a carjacking in Los Angeles, had happened because his son was a negative spirit. This must be so since it could not have been him or his wife as they are widely regarded as the quintessential examples of positivity. Or are they in fact dark negative spirits hiding under an exuberant life-affirming façade?

And so too who do we blame for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? The unconscious frequency of Madeleine's? Or that of her parents'?

And what about Nate Henn, an American who had moved to Uganda to work with former child soldiers who was one of many victims of an Al Qaida bombing in the country. And to compound the tragedy for his grief stricken family, his brother Kyle died in a plane crash on his way home.

What did this poor family do to deserve this? Was their aid not worthy of the Universe? Or did they not provide their good with the required vibrations? Or maybe, it happened because he did not unconsciously apply the law as correctly as Byrne does?

And of course, what about those who do these despicable bombings, also unequivocally believing, that they will be met by 72 black eyed virgins in heaven? By doing so, making up for their largely unfulfilled earthly lives by having made the ultimate humanly sacrifice.

This of course must've been the case since it is based on the "hard science" of The Secret: that one only attracts events based on the thoughts one holds.

However when considering the examples it must be born in mind that, deduced from her remarks, Byrne once again is preying on our most primal fear: the potential loss of a child or dear loved one.

While she may not have said so directly what one must appreciate is that the message is subliminal, and that most who read it tend to make emotional inferences from their personal situations. Specifically, we all would like to be able to control as many variables as we possibly can to minimize impending loss or danger for ourselves and those dear to us. But the reality in spite of this wish is that, beyond what we can do within our physical power to affect events, the rest is very much left to chance. Implying we do have such a magical power, simply is malicious and opportunistic.

What Byrne is actually suggesting is that, if such a parent could acquire her magic formula in advance to protect their child against all that potentially can go wrong, such a most awful of specter would be an eventuality they never would have to concern themselves over ever again.

One then simply can let one's hair down and throw caution to the wind as the universe will be taking care of the details of how one's child will forever be protected.

And so we can continue with this logic infinatum. For instance this logical scientific explanation certainly must also account for the accidental death of Princess Diana. Though it is evident that the universe must have overlooked her contributions to charities as well as her warm and charming disposition. So it too must apply to the six million Jews who died at the hands of Hitler, as they, logically speaking that is, must've attracted their despicable death and indignity unto themselves.

And what about those who died on the Titanic? I suppose the most negative souls alive at the time just so happened to have found themselves on that fateful voyage. So too this logic would account for those hundreds of thousands who died in the South East Asian Tsunami where only those with positive vibrations must've been the only ones who survived.

The same argument certainly would also apply to the three thousand who just so happened to have been negative enough to have woken up for work on the fateful day the World Trade Centre was attacked. Logically speaking then using Byrne's argument, they and the firemen and women who came to their rescue must've been the most negative New Yorkers alive at the time, hence their fate.

When looking at the logic of the above it in fact is tantamount to asking a rape victim what they had done to have caused their violation.

But why are many not similarly revolted by the former assertions?

At this point it is important to reflect on what Byrne is actually implying with her reference to "by the law of attraction, they had to be on the same frequency as the event", in other words that they emitted negative frequencies. In the three steps discussed in Counting Chickens Byrne intimated the following "...in the process it's important to feel good, to be happy, because when you're feeling good you're putting yourself in the frequency of what you want..."

The logical inference one therefore must make from this is that the negative events referred to must have happened because these individuals were unhappy; and because they were unhappy they acted as a magnet which drew the resultant negative consequences unto themselves.

The association between negative frequency and unhappiness being the rational juxtaposition of the given association between positive frequency and happiness.

Quite frankly this despicable logic makes a mockery of the notion of common sense and conventional wisdom. But more crucially, of common decency for having the gall to infer that the victims are to blame for their misfortunes.

Or at least it ought to offend any half decent person's sensibilities.

I don't know what your reaction to this is, but for me it is the most deplorable worldview I had ever come across. Not even Satanism is as perverse for it at least is transparent about its despicable intent. As such its obvious abhorrence wards those with even a moderate inclination for the macabre from its vile shores.

For this reason the subtle spiritual innuendos spouted by Byrne is infinitely more reprehensible. Indeed because of its insidiousness, is far more destructive to the collective human psyche than anything that has gone before.

And if you are of the opinion that I'm overreacting about the above, perhaps you should give this section a slower more reflective read before continuing. But my honest opinion is that, if you didn't get it by now, nothing will wake you up from Byrne's spell.

Extract from:

Scourge III: Thriving in the Age of Austerity

____________________________

After three people had died and 18 others hospitalized as a result of his "spiritual warrior" program, part of harmonic wealth initiative, James Arthur Ray was investigated for homicide as a consequence of his negligence. It is interesting that in his defense that Ray mentioned that it was an accident which was beyond his control. This being in stark contrast to what is claimed above—therefore the reference from the book should be viewed in conjunction with what had transpired at Ray's event. Ray charged 69 people almost $10 000 for the retreat which should not have had more than a dozen people with subpar facilities which did not have a legal permit. This rite is usually provided free of charge by Native American practitioners. That is more than half a million dollars in less than a week, and excludes airfare, while numerous additional mandatory items such a $250 Peruvian poncho, were required to be purchased as well.
The Pathology of Hope

Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

~~~

[Vaclav Havel]

Perhaps the following extract from an article titled Pathologies of Hope by Barbara Ehrenreich I stumbled upon on a skeptics blog (though originally in Harpers Magazine) is useful to consider in the light of some of the issues raised until now.

I hate hope. It was hammered into me constantly a few years ago when I was being treated for breast cancer: Think positively! Don't lose hope! Wear your pink ribbon with pride!...

I got through my bout of cancer in a state of constant rage, directed chiefly against the kitschy positivity of American breast-cancer culture. I remain, although not absolutely, certifiably, cancer-free down to the last cell, at least hope-free.

Do not mistake this condition for hopelessness, in the beaten or passive sense, or confuse it with unhappiness.

The trick, as my teen hero Camus wrote, is to draw strength from the "refusal to hope, and the unyielding evidence of a life without consolation." To be hope-free is to acknowledge the lion in the tall grass, the tumor in the CAT scan, and to plan one's moves accordingly.

Admittedly this quote definitely is on the too cynical side, though it nevertheless raises a crucial question.

If one is faced with a bleak forecast, what is more productive: seeking a constructive course of action that would get one out of that circumstance and be weary of all the potential dangers ahead; or to immerse oneself in the illusion that one's salvation will happen of its own accord?

To indirectly answer this question, it usually is the case that those who are the most jaded and cynical amongst humanity, more than likely at some point in their life were of the most optimistic and enthusiastic about the prospects for their life. And in particular, those who once had unwavering faith that their fellowmen will with open arms welcome their creative endeavors. It's not that most people are bad or even have negative intent. Indeed it is not so, but one's optimism often becomes a magnet for the leaches of humanity, who because of one's naivety, may purposefully seek us out.

Hence the reality is that life very often plays itself out in the exact opposite way as that proposed by "The Law of Attraction". Because of this, as time wears on and we experience the indifference and opportunism of others, one likely will perceive the world as largely uncaring to one's dreams and ideals. That is other than how they can directly benefit from us.

Consequently the sooner we learn that it is incumbent on us within the limits of our own power, to do whatever we personally can to bring our dreams to fruition, the more successful we likely will become.

To this history attests that "many of the greatest achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who simply kept on working.

Thus by all means aspire to become rich, but don't think you can fool the universe into giving you a head start. The bottom line is that if this is what you truly wish for, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way — by earning it through your intellect, cunning, resourcefulness, sacrifice, compassion, endurance and sweat and tears, as opposed to merely setting out with a hope and a prayer — to even stand a remote chance of doing so.

In other words, by not having any delusions about what such an ambition requires of you.

Nevertheless, irrespective of the circumstance, the ability to muster a positive attitude despite the odds always is more beneficial than being in a state of despair and hopelessness. That's beneficially mentally, but also in what may actually transpire.

That is notwithstanding that one may very well be deluding oneself.

Perhaps I'm putting too demanding a requirement on a word which to many embodies a very special place of solace away from their respective humdrum, tumultuous or demanding lives. That there at least is an imaginary semblance—even if it is a mere chance—that their world may yet be better than the limitations they may currently feel themselves confined in.

At this point it is important to take a mental pause and stop to reflect on the following for a while.

It is imperative to grasp that I'm not arguing that hope in-and-of-its-own is a pathology, for that it certainly is not.

Rather, that hope in isolation or hope that has no foundation, can be extremely counterproductive, even pathological, in the long run when one bases much of the intended outcomes one wishes to achieve for one's future largely on it.

In fact the absence of hope is reflective of how well one had prepared for any eventuality that may lie ahead.

As such the dividing line between delusion (and therefore one's sanity) is drawn very fine indeed if hope is the overwhelming factor one had harnessed for one's possible success.

So for instance hopefulness is the primary pathology of the gambling addict. In this regard this insightful comment by poet David Jimenez from a discussion on my blog, provides a very useful perspective.

I see Sanity is a three legged stool, with hope, cynicism, and 'life' each a leg that keeps it Stable. I use life as a leg rather than chaos or the unknown which to me mean the same thing in this case. That is, forward momentum in time without the benefit of knowing what the future will bring.

What is critical to grasp from The Pathology of Hope is that hopefulness is not necessarily about achieving results, but rather about the ability to pick oneself up from any state of destitution, and to still stay the required course regardless of impending hardships along the way. Therefore that it is not the mere façade of groundless positivity.

However the paradox of hope is that, whenever one is confronted by circumstances where there is a near impossible situation to overcome and where there truly ought to be no hope, hopefulness is all we may have to carry us through to the other side. For then, all we truly do have is nothing but hope.

One must also guard against false hope or hope for hope sake as this is the single greatest destroyer of sanity, even more so than hopelessness itself. This is because hopefulness in-and-of-its own can be a form of seeking a release from reality, or a virtual resignation to the impossibility of the circumstance of the moment, and thus an abdication of one's power to forces that are not in one's ambit of control.

As mentioned before, not that such acceptance is a bad thing per se, particularly when one really does not have power over a particular circumstance. On the counter side though, is that for a death row inmate having no realistic chance of a release, having hope which invariably would be dashed, in all likelihood, would become the ultimate psychological death sentence. In this case the most prudent course is a virtual resignation, an acceptance, of one's inevitable fate. That is, unless he is actively working on an escape which in this case would not be such a bad preoccupation.

Admittedly, as aspirational forces faith, hope and belief are our greatest motivators that at times can inspire us to superhuman achievement. But as CNN journalist Anderson Cooper once said in the wake of the resulting confusion of the Hurricane Katrina disaster that: "Hope is not a plan". Or the Arab saying: "Pray to Allah, but tie your camel anyway".

In this is the all important lesson.

It is that hope and belief has power because of the motivational energy it allows us to muster. Not that it creates the reality we want merely by hoping and believing it so.

This dangerous notion, however, is exactly what The Secret preys on through the purveyance of its unscrupulous religion. That the hopefulness of the vulnerable, the ill-fated, the sick, the destitute, the desperate, but more often than not, simply the lazy and greedy, places them at great risk of such potential exploitation.

It therefore is incumbent on us to consciously guard against this omnipresent scourge, not to be sucked (or suckered) into its delusional web of deceit.

It therefore is far more beneficial to our sanity to be skeptical and cynical about these matters than to become uncritically enamored by them.

For us to grow to full mental and emotional maturity, a delicate middle ground must be sought. This requires the recognition that the only single thing in all reality we are truly fully responsible for, is our sanity.

For this reason we must be cognizant that our state of mental health is more precious to preserve than anything else we could ever hope for, desire or possess.

Extract from:

Scourge I: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the Age of "The Secret"
Did Brandon Bays have Cancer?

And how May this be linked to the Death of Steve Jobs?

I had no intention of researching Brandon Bays on what on initial deliberation did seem dramatically spurious claims—that she cured terminal cancer by positive thinking and a vegan diet. That is until I noticed that the search words "Brandon Bays Satanist" had been used to access this book. My initial thought was that someone had a serious religious gripe against this woman. However at more or less the same time my wife  Fiona had been diagnosed with colon cancer (a familial disease in her case), and had to have an emergency colostomy (the complete removal of the colon).

On this news a family member started spewing (at least that is how it felt) how Brandon Bays miraculously cured her cancer through positive thought and that Fiona can do the same. I found this highly offensive as I was certain, given the prognosis, that nothing else but aggressive medical action was going to save Fiona's life, albeit that a positive attitude would surely help the process. I then decided to do more research on Bays. And based on which I decided either one of the following three scenarios could be the reality regarding her assertions.

Firstly, that Bays did cure herself of cancer as she claims. However it is apparent that no medical doctor or medical institution had indicated that she indeed had cancer of any type although she did refer to this in her book. For verification of such an audacious claim and the medical implications it could have it would be reasonable to expect Bays to indeed provide such definitive evidence. Though, since medical records are private, it cannot be proved to the contrary by an outside investigator either. On the other hand the very absence of such clear and easily obtainable proof which would readily put aside very serious question marks about the claim, in itself should cast significant doubt on the truthfulness of her claims. The evidence provided suggest that a naturopath of some sort was the supposed medical person who made the diagnosis. No offense to naturopaths intended as I think they can be of great benefit in preventative health in particular and as a complimentary regimen in recovery, but that the qualified person to make such a definitive assertion should be a relevant medical specialist. That is someone who is a trained pathologist who actually examines the affected tissues, not someone who merely looks into one's eyes or makes some or other superficial diagnosis. Notwithstanding the veracity of the claim, assuming that she had a miraculous recovery, this should not mean that hers now become an accepted protocol for curing all disease. Thus that all disease somehow is a consequence of embedded "cellular memories" which now has to be remedied by some or other "spiritual correction"—in Bays case, the process of Journeying.

The second is that Bays had some other condition which was misdiagnosed by the alternative therapists she had sought. In that case the tumor in all likelihood would have been imminently curable. The following response on a  Skeptical Community blog discussing this matter is useful to consider in this regard.

I imagine you'd have a problem investigating this case, given that private medical records are involved. Access to such records might be extremely difficult if not impossible.

We do know that women can be susceptible to a transfer of genetic material, which can enter certain cells in a woman's body, causing abdominal swelling, development of a rather large sac of fluid, plus growth of the genetically combined tissue within that sac. We do know that good nutrition is routinely recommended by doctors who deal with such cases. We also know that the typical duration of these conditions is approximately nine months. The course of the condition is so typical that predictions can be made to the day of its normal termination. However, surgery is often required to relieve the condition and to remove the growth as well as the accumulated fluid."

In addition, many of these cases terminate spontaneously prior to the usual normal nine-month termination point, for a variety of factors. It is possible that in the Brandon Bays case, poor nutrition and overdoses of minerals caused a weakened condition that led to early termination, although if the "tumor" was indeed "basketball sized", that termination would have been quite dramatic. Some herbal remedies are contraindicated for women in the condition described earlier; if the woman's diet has been explained in detail, maybe one or more of such herbs was included in her diet.

If the description of symptoms of the tumor match those of the condition described here, it could cast suspicion on the diagnosis of "tumor", which is not sufficiently descriptive to identify precisely what was growing in the woman's body.

The third is that Bays is an outright fraud, and thus that she had maliciously set out to fabricate medical claims for financial gain. If indeed so the problem is that it is as clear a medical fraud as Bays did not fabricate her credentials claiming that she was a medical doctor or some or other medical expert. She also had not provided a physical substance which could be examined that she claimed as being the potential cure. In her case it merely is the claim that she had cured cancer by her own means. Importantly, suggesting that any doubt or thoughts that diverted the full belief in the process would negate its efficacy. On all accounts a very difficult prospect to prosecute in the conventional way, and it certainly appears that legislation as it currently stands is ill-prepared to do so unless there is a direct death as was the case with James Arthur Ray.

From my limited investigation I cannot definitively conclude any of the three, but if one is to employ a very basic level of critical thinking to the above one can only conclude that either two or three is the likely answer—particularly given the absence of Bays medical records and that this conclusion can ultimately be a life or death one for many. And even if she indeed had cancer, it is not helpful — and it is indeed very dangerous — to infer that all cancers can now be cured this supposed full-proof protocol. The problem here is directly linked to that discussed in The Pathology of Hope, and that such fabrications and equivocation of facts do well up a sense of hopefulness that the any disease can be cured. Moreover, without the negative side-effects of what an actual cure may acquire—and as in Fiona's case, the rather unpleasant prospect of having to live without a very important organ. The reality is that it indeed is depressing. As iterated many times in the book, being depressed when confronted by a bleak or undesirable future reality is not being negative. In fact it is the very opposite as the one's depression signals a willingness to accept the negative prospect and thus to make the required adjustment. Notwithstanding this, not letting the depressing reality gets the better of one and therefore to drown in depression is the far greater challenge, and indeed, the true challenge which will increase one's odds of survival.

It is important to understand that it is not ignorant or unintelligent individuals who fall for this type of contrived suggestion. For instance Apple Founder and late CEO  Steve Jobs delayed his cancer treatment for nine months to seek alternative therapies, including spiritual therapy. Alarmingly what is evident from media articles is that his rare imminently pancreatic cancer had been detected at a very curable stage, but in his delay to undergo aggressive treatment had progressed to a form which significantly minimized his odds for survival. John Travolta's son Jett too may well have died as a consequence of his belief in  Scientology, and that he therefore did not explore the full range of medical help which may have been at his disposal. A colleague in my faculty – an eminent professor – had made a similar decision and also subsequently succumbed to cancer because of it.

Why Jobs circumstances is critical to consider in the context of this book is that he more than the vast majority were best equipped to take advantage of such "cures". That is particularly as far as financial means is concerned, but moreover, that he is a particularly positive "can do" individual. But instead his hesitation to deal directly with the reality of his disease, had allowed it to progress from imminently curable to terminal in that nine month period. By this I do not want to be critical of Jobs and his decision, one that his biographer indicated he came to regret, but that I merely am doing it to put forward the lesson. It is that even he – one of the most rational inspirational minds in the world – in the desperate circumstance of have a deadly disease may have become vulnerable to the likes of Bays "spiritual" innuendo.

I am also not disputing that "miracle remission" of disease does from time-to-time occur. The reality, however, is that they are exceedingly rare, and that the few are normally quickly and dramatically brought to our collective attention. Furthermore, at least when one considers the religious definition of miracles – the receiving God's  grace – that to wait in expectation of a miracle more than likely is the surest way not to have it occur. What however is apparent is that most miracles come about in very ordinary ways, such as detecting the disease early, or finding a particularly good medical doctor who is very versed with the associated pathology.

What seems to be common with these "ordinary miracles" is that they appear to be serendipitous. Serendipity being defined as "the gift of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for". "Things not sought for" appearing to be at the heart of the definition. Though, because they were not sought for to begin with, these extraordinary "coincidences" more-often-than-not are not noticed.

This serendipity conundrum, then, is the real dilemma that those enamored by likes of Byrne and Bays ultimately are faced with. And its eventual conclusion may very well be deadly.
Broken Dream

Freedom is in danger of degenerating to mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsible-ness.— [Viktor E. Frankl]

What is interesting in the context of the previous section is that research has found that the US in the days of the founding fathers was once considered the most egalitarian society, and that its foundation was built on egalitarian ideals. This is contrasted with today, where America indeed is now  one of the most unequal. Incidentally, Obama being a redistributor being one of Romney's touts.

What is misleading about egalitarianism is not that there is no rich or poor. Rather that there is a reasonable attempt at leveling the playing fields to ensure that relatively equal opportunity to a good education, healthcare and basic social services. This, though, is only possible when a well-structured tax and social contribution ethic exists. It requires citizens have a sense of duty to contribute a greater share to the wellbeing of their society. In doing so enabling their government acts as a social leveler of sorts.

Having a sense of equality and fairness has always been an aspired to virtue by great religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular, but also through the virtues of Aurelius and Confucius—refer to Cardinal Truth). And since the French revolution with "liberté (freedom), égalité (equality), fraternité (brotherhood)" having been the logo of the French Republic, by nations, and by the US founding fathers in particular.

Why this ethic had been reversed in the United States to be replaced by an apparently pervasive greed, while the opposite development had taken place in Europe, is a great social mystery. A New York Times article perhaps sheds some light on why this may be so.

Unlike Europeans, the thinking goes, most Americans are confident that they are "soon to be rich." As a result, the conventional wisdom has it, Americans in the middle look up to their 1 percent and are loath to tax them.

This is at the core of this manuscript and the reference to Mammon (previous name).

Perhaps, then, the American Dream is the real problem?

That somehow a great many, if not the majority, of Americans hold the subliminal belief that they too can acquire ostentatious wealth. That is instead of having nobler ideals such as a dream of a society where everyone indeed has an equal chance at success; and that the definition thereof be significantly altered from that of mere accumulation or other vain and egoistic pursuits.

Therefore the real problem with the dream is not the notion itself, but that has degenerated to an infantile hope or desire they, by some miracle, too will live the life of a rock star, or to achieve celebrity fame and fortune, or to be a billionaire businessman. Instead of having a deep sense of conviction driving one to live ones best life in all the areas one is reasonably endowed with. And that may well include striving to earn the best income one can to affect good in one's own life as well as in others. Perhaps, since it is no different to their interpretation of one of the primary slogans of the nation, there had been such an attraction to the ideology of The Secret. It, perhaps, also explains why the electorate may yet vote for a candidate who clearly expressed that he views half of the nation as pariahs feeding off the other half.

What is very revealing about US society nowadays is that it's most vociferous about an outdated right, the right to bear arms. That is instead of striving to establish a fair and socially responsible society; one that has become the ideal of most other first world and aspiring nations. And certainly at the time of the nation's founding an egalitarian society not based on aristocracy, but enabled by a socially responsible government was the true revolutionary American idea that is as opposed to a government that promotes narrow vested economic interests as had been the case in the recent past, and one that the far-right threatens to return the US to.

Instead these interests appear intent on indefinitely endorsing a primitive "right" to carry arms. By this I'm not arguing against anyone acquiring a firearm if an individual meets the necessary legal and psychological criteria and can prove they are able to use it responsibly. Rather that it in good conscience should not be viewed as an inalienable right as the right to human dignity, for instance, is. Moreover such a right certainly had been appropriate in the dangerous frontier existence of the eighteenth century when it was formulated, but one that definitely ought to be an outdated one for modern American times. Indeed most societies who used to have a similar need for such protection—Australia, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Guatemala, Turkey, and indeed, with the exception of Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria and a few others—have significantly evolved in this regard.

Ironically, it is also so that most people in the US are  killed either by their own weapon or because they or their loved ones possess one. That is because of suicides or accidents or by the hands of a loved one, than killing someone else in self-defense.

The popular rhetoric used by those promoting the proliferation of guns being "It's not guns that kill people, people kill people". What is ignored by this simplistic catchphrase is that a gun—once acquired—is so simple and effective at killing, and indeed can be used at a mere impulse. That is as opposed to a bomb which requires knowledge and forethought to make. Or stabbing which needs some significant physical exertion, and because of the gruesome action required in itself being a deterrent. Actioning a gun merely requiring a mere flick of a finger.

This brief interlude on American gun culture is done not to debate the issue but to emphasize the overall point. It being that the right to carry arms; the tolerance of social inequality; and that government is the enemy; predominates amongst a significant sector of American society, and specifically the right. These views being some of the many irrational views these communities vociferously appear to support with an almost irrational religious passion.

It also is suggestive that: if the zeal with which the members of a particular society wishes to arm itself in self-defense is an indicator of its lack of civilization (or civility), then the US—despite its technological sophistication— must be ranked the most socially primitive society on earth.

And based on such a metric, tribal Yemen would follow a very distant second.

Alarmingly, the zeal with which these counter-logical views have exclusively manifested in one supposedly advanced nation—and indeed the most militarily powerful one in the world—is very disconcerting for me watching this unfold from a distance. This leads back the greater discussion on belief and mass indoctrination in Scourge I, and how it is possible that individuals are persuaded to defend views that for all intents and purposes are against their own best interest.

But moreover, how prevailing subconscious religious beliefs additionally shapes the economic and social landscape of a society as a collective.

That is aside from the fact that the majority of Americans do not directly have these attitudes, but as it was with Hitler's Germany, that the considerably more vocal zealous minority seems bent on having it all their own way.

Fortunately this time around they didn't. And that there indeed is great hope that the most powerful democracy on earth will emerge from this crisis—it is hoped—a profoundly enriched nation.

____________________________

Also refer to  The Reproduction of Privilege, nytimes.com.

________________

Although I'm critical of Romney in this section, the fact that Romney had been selected as a GOP candidate is a positive indicator for America's future. This is primarily because Romney probably was the most centrist candidate the Republican Party could have chosen. The implication is that the Tea Party and right wing politics in the final analysis does not hold much sway in the minds of the US electorate. Indeed my view is that, given the demographics of the electorate and the preference of young voters in particular, the GOP needs to become considerably more moderate for it to have a chance in future elections. That is bar the economic and geopolitical changes dramatically to favor the hawks in the next election. The 2012 elections therefore may well prove to be a watershed election for the US, and the world as a whole.

________________

A gruesome case in point of those killed by their own guns being the massacre at Sandy Hook in Connecticut, where Adam Lanza shot his own mother as well as 26 others with her own arsenal of lethal weaponry. Also refer to  Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed.

________________

The  US government census shows that two-thirds of murders in the US were committed with guns. This is five times more than homicides committed with knives or other sharp objects. US stabbings are in line with that in the UK but gun deaths are  forty times higher in the US. The  murder rate in the US on the whole is 4 times higher than the UK, the difference being almost exclusively attributed to guns. Of the  more than thirty thousand gun deaths in the US, only 36% were homicides, with a significant percentage of that being perpetrated by a close acquaintance or loved one or some someone you may know.

Also refer to  Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun toting utopias.

Extract from:

Scourge II: Belief Orientations behind the Great Recession
Conservative Religion and the Economic Crisis

Religious Identity and Economic Behaviour

History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them. – [B. R. Ambedkar]

When analyzing nations' economic behavior it is important to consider how belief systems inform the behavior of the respective society. It can often usurp the ne norms and values which founded them and or made them great. Greece being a prominent example. It went from the most significant contributor to Western civilization, to hardly any significant contribution in many a millennia. The same can also be said for Iran, formerly Persia, where its current values and culture had almost entirely been usurped by Islamic values and culture which essentially are Arabic in character, and thus are largely foreign to its founding roots.

In this chapter I want to explore what the underlying root cause for such dramatic social declines may be. And given that all the countries with the exception of Greece now experiencing the worst effects of the four year economic recession are overwhelmingly Catholic (Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Ireland), and that that there is a very insignificant difference between Greek Orthodoxy and Catholicism, it is reasonable to ask the following question.

Is there is an underlying connection between these religious views and the ongoing European economic status quo?

While it is a very difficult and contentious proposition to prove such a theological causal link, there however is enough documented evidence that it indeed could be a root cause. For instance Professor Susan Schneider from the University of Geneva and Jean-Louis Barsoux of INSEAD in France describes the Catholic worldview as follows.

In the Catholic Church, profit was sanctioned for the benefit of the community, not for individual enhancement. The role of the (social and clerical) hierarchy was to intervene on behalf of the people to ensure collective well-being (the masses), to mediate in upholding the word of God, and to negotiate redemption

They juxtapose this with the Protestant worldview.

For protestants, access to God was more direct (no intermediary was necessary). Work, rather than a necessary evil (as viewed in Catholicism), was considered to be the means to redemption. It was this work ethic... that promoted capitalism.

The following is important in order to appreciate why this may influence increased productivity in communities who adopted the ethic.

This Protestant work ethic is based on underlying assumptions regarding individual achievement, perceived control over the environment, an instrumental approach, and the belief of a just world (equity). The profile of the PWE believer then is of an independently minded, competitive, hard-working individual who is prepared to persevere at a task to achieve desirable ends.

To get a sense get a sense of the influence of the social hierarchy, the authors go on to say.

In France, making money has long been viewed with some suspicion. Status and prestige came from family lineage and relationships—better to be an endebted aristocrat (ancien pauvre) than nouveau riche. Your personal value is derived from what you are rather than what you do or earn (ascription versus achievement). 23

The influential researcher in the field of cultural economics, Geert Hofstede, additionally found that the Protestant work ethic was considered to drive GNP in the countries where it prevailed. 24

What is ironic is that as much as Catholicism emphasizes "profit was sanctioned for the benefit of the community, not for individual enhancement", the outworking may in fact not be according to that ideal. In a 2010 social experiment titled Religious Identity and Economic Behavior by the National Bureau of Economic Development (NBED) in Massachusetts in the US, found that.

Protestantism increases contributions to public goods. Catholicism decreases contributions to public goods, decreases expectations of others' contribution to public goods. 25

In other words the study suggests that those with Protestant views are more likely to contribute to society and the environment than Catholics. Catholics also have less of an expectation from others to be active in this sense.

While this finding cannot conclusively be considered outside the particular sample group, it nevertheless is in line with Schneider and Barsoux's view.

[That in the in the Protestant Work Ethic] the doctrine of corporate social responsibility can in part be understood as the ongoing effort to reconcile making money for individual benefit and the common good.

An article by the International Business Center titled  How do Hofstede's Dimensions correlate with the World's Religions?, further indicates that.

Predominantly [non-Catholic] Christian countries have a strong belief in individuality, with individual's rights being paramount within the society. 26

Thus, notwithstanding the commonly held view that the Protestant work ethic fosters rugged individualism, actually focuses on and fosters human rights. It thus is noteworthy that some of the most egalitarian societies such as Denmark and the Scandinavian countries are overwhelmingly Protestant, all rank very high in individualism. They too are of the most productive. And linking it to the discussion in the connection between religiosity and mental health, these factors could also provide a reason for the relative increased mental health of liberal Protestants as well.

_____________________

The views expressed were before the inauguration of Pope Francis who is proving to be one of the most prominent change agents in the church for many a decade.

_________________

Hofstede refers to the issue of social hierarchy as Power Distance indicating the extent to which a society accepts unequal authority. It also is an indirect indicator of the level of paternalism in a respective society.

The former Yugoslavia, Russia, France (considering the French revolution which had as an ideal the breakdown of entrenched social hierarchy) and Poland indicating high levels in Europe (that is considering the 53 countries on the list)—these being either Orthodox or Catholic nations. Austria on the other end is an overwhelmingly Catholic country displaying the lowest PDI. This is followed by Israel, while Arab countries in general having very high rankings. Countries with of the highest levels of PDI, Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, the Philippines, and Mexico are indeed predominantly Catholic. This, however, is contrasted with Costa Rica which has one of the lowest PDI's.

What is interesting in the case of Austria and Costa Rica is their particular historical context and very low levels of strict religious adherence. In the case of Austria there are very few practicing members with a particular history where Austria was primarily Protestant before the Habsburg Empire. Costa Rica on the other hand had historically always been more secular than its neighbours.

Although in Europe Catholic nations on average have a much higher Power Distance Index than Protestant nations, Orthodox nations by far have the highest levels.

What is revealing, is that Belgium share strong cultural dimensions with Spain than The Netherlands with whom it has strong historical relations with, indicates that religion strongly influences the cultural orientation of a nation.

_________________

The IBC article summarizes the influences of various worldviews on cultural dimensions as follows: Atheist-=Power Distance, Hindu=Power Distance; Muslim=Power Distance; Buddhist=Uncertainty Avoidance; Catholic=Uncertainty Avoidance; Jewish=Uncertainty Avoidance; Non-Catholic Christian=Individualism.

Uncertainty Avoidance and Faith

The modern history of economic theory is a tale of evasions of reality. – [Thomas Balogh]

Another interesting finding from the NBED study is that Catholicism also decreases risk aversion. This however completely contradicts Hofstede's global study.

He refers to the avoidance of risk as Uncertainty Avoidance. Cultures high in Uncertainty Avoidance are risk averse, minimizing their exposure to risk through mechanisms such as laws, religion or customs. As Hofstede points out, cultures with high Uncertainty Avoidance have the attitude that "There can only be one Truth and we have it". This attitude being the very antithesis of one required for critical thinking.

What is apparent is that Uncertainty Avoidance seems to be overwhelmingly religiously influenced.

Of the 53 countries studied globally, Greece has the highest Uncertainty Avoidance followed by Portugal. Other European countries in the top ten in order of ranking are Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, Spain and France. Notably these are overwhelmingly either Catholic or Orthodox nations. With the exception of one, Japan, the remaining countries in the top 15—Guatemala, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica—are all Catholic. No Protestant country is in the top thirty (the date I referenced did not include any nations of the former Soviet Union). 27

Muslim countries also have a reasonably lower level of Uncertainty Avoidance than Catholic nations, though considerably higher than Protestant nations. This being in line with the Muslim view on faith encapsulated by the Arab saying.

Pray to Allah, but tie your camel anyway.

It indicating that, notwithstanding the all-important role prayer plays in Muslim practice, that a premium is placed on personal responsibility and action.

What cannot be argued away is that a distinct link is evident by the incidence of Catholic and Orthodox countries in the highest end of the scale—93%. In other words, based on the practical unfolding, Catholics should in truth be the most risk averse demographic on the planet.

How does one reconcile this paradox as Uncertainty Avoidance is ordinarily synonymous with risk averseness?

Firstly, the extent of the debt accumulated by the countries at the center of the European Crisis, by implication, certainly does indicate a low aversion to risk. So this in itself backs up the NBER contention despite Hofstede's findings of Uncertainty Avoidance on the ground. And thus if the common thread is a religious one, the propensity for risk must have some religious origin. My view is that it likely emanates from the general Christian view of faith encapsulated in the verse in below.

Faith is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead. [Hebrews 11 verse 1]

As discussed in A Question of Faith, in this view faith and hope stands on their own, no personal intervention is required. If you have such a worldview, you do not need anything more than deep unquestioning faith and a longing hope to achieve your wants and desires.

This is contrasted to the Hindu view which views faith as follows.

Everyone has a particular type of faith, regardless of what he is. But his faith is considered good, passionate, or ignorant, according to the nature he has acquired... Faith originally comes out of the mode of goodness. One's faith may be in a demigod, or in some created God or some mental concoction. One's strong faith is supposed to be productive of works of material goodness... We find different types of faith in this world, and there are different types of religions due to different types of faith. The real principle of religious faith is situated in the mode of pure goodness, but because the heart is tainted we find different types of religious principles. [Bhagavad-Gita as it is, Chapter 17, verse 3]

This pragmatic and less esoteric view of faith perhaps also indicates why India has a relatively low Uncertainty Avoidance index. What is important to reflect on is that "one's strong faith is supposed to be productive of works of material goodness". From this one can infer that faith is connected to our respective acts of goodness, and certaintly not in a esoteric force or mental creation who are to orchastrate positive circumstances in our lives. In the verse, the influence of illusion on one's faith is considered synonymous with darkness. Thus that faith derived from illusion is considered as a significant contaminent on faith that is "productive of material goodness".

To make sense of how a nation's perspective on faith can influence its social and economic behavior, one should look at Uncertainty Avoidance from another perspective. It is that another way to view a low level of risk avoidance or risk averseness, is that it is reflective of having abundant unconditional faith. This being in line with the previous Christian view. This is because having such unconditional faith is associated with a ubiquitous belief that a future outcome somehow is esoterically assured. And in the case of the religious, it is accomplished by some or other esoteric as opposed to practical means.

Thus it may well be that the decreased risk aversion observed by the NBED group may only be psychological. To put it another way, one's risk averseness may not necessarily be reflective of objective circumstances, but rather a factor of religiously instilled hope as discussed in The Pathology of Hope.

However, in the actual confronting of uncertainty there may indeed be a reluctance to act on the part of a person having such a strong faith. Particularly if the action required is contrary to one's strong religiously inspired hopes for a brighter ideal. This is because in their worldview there is no such thing as uncertainty to begin with as everything is in God's control. But what is more, that man has relatively little power to intervene in the divine scheme. Thus that the enduring belief in the desired outcome and actions that would appease or entice the esoteric power, is more likely to ensure the desired ideal, than any proactive human intervention is likely to do.

It is important to bear in mind that this is not a mutually exclusive proposition. For instance Ireland—the only noticeable outlier—is a Catholic country with reasonably low Uncertainty Avoidance. To appreciate this distinction one must yet again look at the particular historical context of Irish Catholicism which had largely been influenced by Irish Protestantism. For this reason all their cultural dimensions are closely related to the UK as a whole.

Italy too has a somewhat lower Uncertainty Avoidance ranking than the average Catholic nation albeit significantly more than others. One must be cognizant thought that it is not a linear proposition as too low a Power Distance index can be socially detrimental as well. Incidentally Jamaica, a country with a great many socio-economic problems, is the 2nd lowest Uncertainty Avoidance nation. However, Singapore, one of the worlds most advanced and socially advanced nations, is the lowest.

In the context of this discussion, what Uncertainty Avoidance is indicative of is a developed (not innate) incapacity by individuals or a nation to decisively deal with situations of distress and uncertainty. For instance in the case of the economic crisis a country such as Ireland is more likely to swallow the bitter medicine of austerity and reform in order to transform for the better or to deal with impending distress. On the other hand a country with very high Uncertainty Avoidance is likely to oust the person or party attempting to do so as Greece had done.

The latest example being an  Irish referendum endorsing the European Union Fiscal Pact, in other words the Irish people voting in favor of continued austerity. Again, this juxtaposing  the Greek election where the electorate voted in a party without a single member ever being in government. This at such a crucial juncture where the consequence in all likelihood would be that they had chosen to exacerbate their considerable troubles even further.

What it therefore suggests is that countries with a high level of Uncertainty Avoidance also appear to have a low tolerance for collective social pain, and that this intolerance appears to be a factor of the peculiar brand of religion practiced in the respective society.

Because views such as The Secret does not have the same social and moral philosophical foundation Catholicism and Orthodoxy have, it cannot in any way be compared to them. However, with regards to the issue of unconditional faith and the esoteric manifestation of the object of our faith, there clearly is a significant convergence.

In other words, when faced with uncertainty, those with such views may feel it sufficient merely to pray to God or to evoke the powers of "The Universe", than to act in a practical and concerted manner. That is, in circumstances of crisis or uncertainty, those in very high uncertainty avoiding countries are more likely to have a subliminal and ubiquitous belief that God or some or other esoteric force will come to save the day. And that it is this unconscious belief system—the hope that a miracle of some sorts will somehow come to one's rescue—that results in social paralysis during such times.

Consequently one can translate Uncertainty Avoidance quite literally to imply a diminished capacity to take responsibility when circumstances or prospects are indeterminate. Thus that Uncertainty Avoidance may very well be an indicator of a person's or a nation's propensity for delusion and denial when confronted with a difficult and prolonged challenge.

If anything, this reinforces the initial assertion that religious belief may well be at the heart of the current intractable economic crisis.

_______________________________

The only other nation in the top ten for high Uncertainty Avoidance is Japan—incidentally the most indebted nation ahead of Greece. This incidentally is a factor attributed for their great success up to now, specifically the Japanese propensity for hard work, but has become problematic as it is also an indicator of their ability to adapt. Japan's index of 92 (7th on the scale) is contrasted with that of Italy (75), Germany (65), South Africa (49), the United States (46), India (40), Great Britain (35), China (30), Denmark (23) and Singapore (8, the lowest index). As indicated before, the highest is Greece at 112.

While Japan, an incredibly stoic nation, cannot in any way be viewed as a nation that cannot tolerate pain, what is apparent is that they do appear to have propensity for bungling crises.

The particular cases in point firstly is the manner with which they dealt with the Fukushima crisis, where there was a continued failure to act decisively which exacerbated the extent of the eventual outfall of the disaster.

Another is the failure to address the fallout of the  Japanese Economic Crisis in the 90's. This is coupled with the  perpetual political morass they appear to have remained in since the crisis ensued. Japan has had 7 prime ministers in 7 years, none of them lasting long enough to make a meaningful difference.

The other is the number of high profile  corporate crises' over the past two years. The main ones being the Toyota safety crisis, the  Olympus accounting fraud crisis and the difficulty  Sony has had in adapting to the changing technology landscape.

The  International Business Center article referred to before points to a very high correlation in Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions between the Shinto and Buddhist views practiced in Japan, and Catholicism. With regard to Buddhism and Shintoism it found that: "Due to the close approximation of Buddhist and Shinto societies, these have been combined for this study. These countries have the closest correlation with Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), which is the same with Catholic countries. In the countries that have over 50% of their populations practicing the Catholic religion we found the primary correlating Dimension to be Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). There were only two countries out of twenty-three that did diverge from this correlation, Ireland and the Philippines".

Protestantism and Social Justice

We might come closer to balancing the Budget if all of us lived closer to the Commandments and the Golden Rule. – [Ronald Reagan]

Another interesting anomalous observation from Hofstede's data is that Power Distance (the extent to which a society accepts unequal authority) is highest in former as well as current communist countries. This is against countries scoring high in individualism such as the Scandinavian countries, Britain, New Zealand, Canada and Australia (with the highest individualism index) notwithstanding having a very high egalitarian social ethos. In practice it turns out that high individualism is associated with lower levels of nepotism and greater respect for political freedom and civil rights. 28

The abstract from an article titled The Role of Protestantism in Democratic Consolidation Among Transitional States is useful to consider in this regard.

Previous studies have examined the causal link between Protestantism and democratization, primarily in shaping a nation-state's cultural ethos and its tendency to affect the outcome of democratic politics. Historically, Protestantism has also been linked to generating a political culture that promotes individualism, tolerance, the pluralism of ideas, and civic associationalism. Recent empirical evidence also shows how Protestant countries are more likely to be democratic compared to largely Islamic and Catholic states. Drawing from established cultural theories, the author empirically tests the argument whether or not transitional states with larger Protestant populations are more likely to strengthen their democracies. Findings indicate that transitional states that have higher Protestant populations are more likely to have higher levels of voice and accountability, political stability, citizenship empowerment, and civil society pluralism. The author contends that transitional states with higher Protestant populations are more likely to consolidate their democracies. 29

Thus contrary to what one may expect, communism appears to foster a sense of social inequality which is in complete contrast to its ideal. What has evolved is that Protestantism in Europe, Canada and Australia has become largely secularized. This, however, is contrasted with the United States which, as mentioned before, is one of the most unequal societies in the world. The distinct difference being that in these societies there is a high level of trust in government and a strong willingness by the wealthy to pay relatively high levels of tax. This being the very opposite in the United States.

Clearly, therefore, there is a distinct difference in the social psychology of the US that has gone on a very different religious path. This is because their Protestantism is indeed significantly different from the more liberal practice in Europe, Australia, and Canada. In large part it is represented by the Bible Belt variety, Prosperity Theology and Evangelical Christianity. European Protestantism being more in-line with mainline American Protestantism which stresses social justice and personal salvation through endeavors that contributes to society as its primary tenets.

Other views such Jehovah's Witness, Scientology, New Ageism, Seventh Day Adventists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have also become part of the greater American religious fabric. Many Christian views indeed developed in reaction to this evolution to increasing Liberalization of Protestantism in the 19th century. New Age views on the other hand have emerged in the mid-20th century largely in reaction to increasing secularization in the West. Again New Ageism found traction in the US while largely waning in other Western nations. The Survivalists is another grouping which advocates for preparation of the end of the existing social order. Atheism (as opposed to secularization) also took a peculiar path through rightwing Libertarianism which advocates for the reduction of the state.

The religious smorgasbord has also led to the proliferation of cults. Many merely being money making or political schemes headed by some or other charismatic charlatan or fanatic in the name of a professed religion or political cause. It has also led a degeneration of religious thinking where a significant percentage of the US population hold the disturbing view that  rape is an act of God.

Thus unlike the transition towards greater social liberalization and secularization outside the United States, fundamentalist religious views have become entrenched, and oftentimes militantly so. One of the consequences is that the 18th century Quaker interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is very different from that viewed through the 21st century Evangelical Christian lens. That is aside from the fact that folks at the time would not have foreseen that a single handheld weapon could fire almost three hundred bone crushing rounds per minute compared to only a single not very lethal round back then. In other words America had become a fundamentally different place from that envisioned by its founding fathers. For this reason this proliferation of religious ideologies has become a largely politically and socially destabilizing factor in the US.

____________________________

For more on the Evangelical worldview see the Christiane Amanpour interview with Jerry Falwell.

The Primacy of Work

Put your heart, mind, intellect and soul even to your smallest acts. This is the secret of success.— [Swami Sivananda]

Bringing this back to the greater discussion of the impact of views such as The Secret, it is important to go back to A Question of Faith. It is that, philosophically, the nature of faith encompasses the fundamental difference between South European (not necessarily North European) and South East Asian (South China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan) philosophies. In South Europe one's sense of good fortune is largely linked to some extraneous or esoteric entity (be it the state, the church, God, family wealth, personal connectedness, social or religious lineage), while in these countries it is primarily connected to the willingness to work.

For instance in the book Outliers: The Story of Success, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the mathematical ability of South East Asians are largely a fact of persistence and hard work, and not at all as a consequence of superior intelligence compared to other nationalities. It is also interesting that in the Far East, the divide is the opposite to that in the West. That is, in the East, warmer southern territories have a stronger work ethic than the North. This largely dispelling the idea that climate may largely be responsible for the respective attitudes in Europe.

He suggests that the associated work ethic is encapsulated by the following Chinese saying.

No one who can rise before dawn three hundred and sixty days a year fails to make their family rich.

Thus one's perceived worth is directly related to thrift and how hard one is prepared to work, and not necessarily the outcome of the work. This concurs with the Indian/Hindu worldview as well.

You have a right to work, but not to the results thereof. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty. [Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 2, verse 47]

The Protestant Work Ethic (primarily North Western European countries) similarly is "based on the necessity for hard work as a component of a person's calling and worldly success" and is regarded as "a visible sign or result (not a cause) of personal salvation".

It therefore may also give an indication of the relative economic success of these nations. The phenomenal growth of the United States over the past century is also attributable to this, albeit that the central premise of the ethic may well be in decline in modern times. This is evidenced by an increasing emphasis on reward which is synonymous with greed. One reason for this is the increasing influence of views espoused by The Secret and in particular the increasing prominence of Prosperity Theology teaching that "financial blessings is the will of God for Christians". The doctrine teaches that "faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one's material wealth". Interestingly, these views are also associated with the more  extreme right-wing fringes of the Republican Party.

What is apparent from the above is that The Secret's gospel is fundamentally no different from that of Prosperity Theology, be it that there is "the Universe" at the center of the former, and God in the latter. Because of the emphasis on the reward and a shift from the implied holiness of the work itself, it must be a consequence that the proliferation and popularization of these views must be responsible for escalating levels of greed, particularly in the United States where these views have emanated. That is regardless of the overall belief orientation of the individual, but that it appears that these views are usurping the Protestant work ethic, which had largely been responsible for their social and economic success.

What is important to take cognizance of is that all prosperity orientated theologies fosters short-term thinking in that the goal of any endeavor inevitably is for the final reward. In other words, money becomes the overwhelming end.

For instance, Germany and the US, the epicenters of the 1929 Depression, had tended towards more prosperity orientated theological views at the turn of the century—New Ageism in the US, and Romantic Idealism in Germany. As suggested in Crashing Hopes: The Great depression, it was the Psychology of Consumption with its unquestioning faith in prosperity that exacerbated the crisis in the 1920's. Again, the essential problem with this orientation is that it fosters short-term thinking, and that the primary purpose of labor, therefore, becomes its outcome.

Existential views on the other hand, such as the Protestant work ethic, fosters finding meaning through work, though in finding meaning in one's existential struggles in general (refer to  Christian Existentialism). Thus it is not necessarily about the salary you bring home at the end of the month. The irony now is that countries where the Protestant work ethic had been the driving force are in fact working fewer hours than others where it had not been a driving influence.

An interesting fact, however, is that the majority grouping in many of the societies indicate no allegiance to any belief orientation, and that the majority of Germans and Swiss are Catholic. It thus is apparent that, while the work ethic of these communities had been influenced by the Protestant work ethic, it had developed to become the national character of the respective country.

The Cardinal Truth

"In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability." – [J. K. Galbraith]

Unlike the Protestant view that seeks salvation through one's virtuous deeds, whether it be work or right action, the principal Catholic tenet is that salvation is secured through prayer and faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless seeking meaning through one's endeavors is also a principal requirement of Catholic faith and is encapsulated by the four Cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, restraint or temperance, and courage or fortitude. These were first penned by the Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Plato. From a religious point of view, however, these virtues had not been given as much "spiritual" significance as the Protestants had done in encapsulating their work ethic.

Specifically, Catholicism indicates that the Theological virtues of faith, hope, and love or charity, are paramount, and that these cannot be attained by practicing the cardinal virtues alone. That is, it does not assert the relationship between one's virtuous actions and the potential of receiving heavenly redemption, and therefore, elevating such a requirement to being an all-important spiritual pursuit.

What this emphasis therefore asserts is that love in particular, exists in a vacuum, and that it does not need our directed action. In other words, it is not considered an act of will in which we extend ourselves to another, and that the action in itself is the sincerest expression of that love, and that love not be relegated to just a mere emotion or feeling.

Because of the implicit emphasis Protestantism places on the cardinal virtues, it can generally be equated to Confucianism where similar values have become secularized into South East Asian culture.

 Confucius five virtues for a healthy, harmonious life are:

Ren – the virtue of benevolence, charity, and humanity;

Yi – of honesty and uprightness which can be broken down into:-

Zhong – doing one's best, conscientiousness, loyalty; and

Shù – reciprocity, altruism, consideration for others, and Confucius' early version of the Golden Rule, "what you don't want yourself, don't do to others";

Zhi – knowledge;

Xin – the virtue of faithfulness and integrity; and

Li – correct behavior, or propriety, good manners, politeness, ceremony, worship.

The Catholic Church's emphasis on the theological virtues on the other hand equates it more closely to Buddhism. This, therefore, could also explain the similarities in Uncertainty Avoidance between Catholic and Buddhist nations.

It is because the Church and the Temple had been declared the holders of these "holy" virtues, and by virtue of the power bestowed on the respective institutions, they become the "devine" domain of the principles of these respective faiths to bestow on the faithful flock. For this reason faith, hope, and love are held virtual captive by institutions who advocate that access to God (or good fortune in the case of Japanese Buddhism) can only be gained through it.

The de facto de-emphasis of the cardinal virtues is also crucial in the development of the mindset of the worshiper as the religious tend to respond collectively based on religious decree by their respective anointed leaders. This is particularly the case with Catholics who afford their clerical elders—the Pope in particular—with far greater reverence than Protestants do to theirs. Thus, while the cardinal virtues are deemed of relatively high social importance but not necessarily worthy of heavenly redemption, that is in the mind of the Catholic adherent, it would nevertheless not be regarded as being of any great significance at all in the greater heavenly scheme of things.

However, while the relationship on the virtues of work is implicit in the Catholic tradition, it had received a significant boost from Pope John Paul II. This is encapsulated in a paper by George E. Garvey of the Columbus School of Law titled Work as Key to the Social Question.

Catholic teaching has always placed great emphasis on the value of work and of workers. Particularly since Pope John Paul II published Laborem Exercens, the philosophical and theological foundation for work's exalted position in Catholic thought is quite clear. Work is the way that humans' participate in the Divine task of creation and contribute to the common good. In doing so, the worker enhances his dignity, he becomes more fully human. Work, then, is both a right and a duty. 30

This emphasis on the spiritual importance of work is a controversial view as many Catholics indeed equate it to the Protestant work ethic which is mistakenly touted as being primarily responsible for the rotten underbelly of capitalism, greed. The conventional Catholic view described by Schneider and Barsoux could also explain the tendency by Latin American countries towards Communism. 31 And perhaps the pronouncements by Pope John Paul could give some insight into the phenomenal economic rise in recent years by Latin American countries and Poland (the pope's homeland). 32

Regardless of whether this may or may not have influenced Brazil's (in particular) or Poland's success, or regardless of whether one's orientation is socialism or capitalism, what is important here in the context of this discussion is the concerted attempt at elevating the role of work by a principal of the Catholic Church. This is opposed to the more traditionally espoused view that unconditional faith be regarded as the preferred means to attain earthly and heavenly outcomes for both the individuals and society as a whole.

How we view reality, ultimately, affects our perception of our respective power to affect the ever-changing ebb-and-flow of the events of our lives. This perception then also affects our respective psychological makeup as well. And crucial in the development to this understanding, is how we view the nature of God. To help one resolve this predicament, consider the following by the last of the Five Good Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

The  Virtues of Markus Aurelius being:

1. Auctoritas - "Spiritual Authority" \- The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

2. Comitas - "Humour" - Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

3. Clementia - "Mercy" - Mildness and gentleness.

4. Dignitas - "Dignity" - A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

5. Firmitas - "Tenacity" - Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

6. Frugalitas - "Frugalness" - Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

7. Gravitas - "Gravity" - A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

8. Honestas - "Respectability" - The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

9. Humanitas - "Humanity" - Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

10. Industria - "Industriousness" - Hard work.

11. Pietas - "Dutifulness" - More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

12. Prudentia - "Prudence" - Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

13. Salubritas - "Wholesomeness" - Health and cleanliness.

14. Severitas - "Sternness" - Gravity, self-control.

15. Veritas - "Truthfulness" - Honesty in dealing with others.

When looking at it from a twenty-first century perspective, it is ironic how the Germanic nations—Aurelius' great foe at the time, and who eventually plunged Europe into the  Dark Ages—had become the inheritors of these ancient Roman ethics of greatness. But moreover, that the Roman worldview had for all-intents-and-purposes been reduced to a dependence on faith, hope, and love as their primary foundation for individual and societal success. None of these having even been viewed as being of any great significance, and indeed independent virtues, by Aurelius.

But beyond clearing the all-important philosophical conundrum about the nature and role of God in your own mind, or getting into a debate about which virtues are more important, what is imperative is to realize the following. It is that the Cardinal and Theological virtues should not be viewed as a mutually exclusive proposition.

Perhaps they are of equal importance?

To understand how one's emphasis plays out socially it must be appreciated that in Greece—as in Catholic nations—there would be a greater premium placed on the Theological Virtues. As such a wealthy oil magnate would perceive his riches as being a direct reward from God. Consequently such an individual would not be particularly compelled to pay his taxes or contribute to social causes as one's opulence then is perceived as one's heavenly due. 33

In the final analysis, what other purpose would one's faith and hope serve than to create an unconscious expectation that God would somehow create good fortune in our lives? And if it appears that one is particularly blessed, particularly if one has acquired significant financial means, that it had been as a consequence of one's supposed virtuous conduct, and that one's good fortune had been divinely bestowed? Isn't it simply that hope is a desire for a future outcome, and faith (at least in the Christian tradition,) that this outcome somehow is a fait accompli if one leaves it in the hands of God?

On the other hand if one places a high value on prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, one's attitude would be that "I and those that contributed to my success am responsible". One one's sense of codependence also then would have a greater compunction to reasonably contribute to the society which had contributed to that success.

What is paramount for successful living is that the cardinal virtues tend to have a greater impact on social and economic accomplishment. It may well be that the overemphasis on this aspect in secular Western societies may bring, or indeed had brought, their own set of problems as is particularly evident with the increasing levels of greed in corporate America in particular. What, however, is clear to me is that one cannot build anything of great significance if it does not have a solid foundation of concerted disciplined endeavor.

And certainly as much as it may be the foundation of any successful society, that the degree of prudence, justice, temperance and courage with which it engages its affairs are greatly demonstrable of the faith, hope, and love it holds in its heart.

Extract from

Scourge II: Belief Orientations behind the Great Recession

 Madness and the Daimonic: Genesis of Violence, Evil, and Creativity, Stephen A. Diamond, State University of New York Press, 1999.

 How Depressed is your Country?, Forbes.com, 2007.

  Nigeria Ranks 136th Most Corrupt Country In Latest Global Corruption Index, Leadership, 2014

#  Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth, BBC News, 2007.

  List of Countries by Income Equality, Wikipedia, 2011.

  Nigerians Most Educated in the U.S , BET, 2012.

  Relative standing and subjective well-being in South Africa: The role of perceptions, expectations and income mobility, econrsa.org, 2011.

  An interview with Daniel Kahneman, Aaron Jarden, International Journal of Wellbeing, 2011.

  A diet to cure diabetes, Dailymail, 2014

 Status Anxiety in the Age of Austerity, Al Jazeera interview, 2011.

  Religiosity Common Amongst Mothers Who Kill Children, University of Connecticut Health Centre News, 2004.

  Study finds brain differences based on faith, USAToday, 2011.

 Children who are spanked have lower IQs, Physorg.com, 2009.

#  One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism, HarperCollins, 2003.

#  Man's Search For Meaning, MascHill, 1946.

 Religious Education and Midlife Observance are associated with Dementia three decades later in Israeli Men, Pubmed, 2008.

  Study finds brain differences based on faith, USAToday, 2011.

  Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, The Free Thinker, 2008

  Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Science Daily, 2010.

  Religion and/or Spirituality, University of Desarrollo, 2010.

 Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite: The American Revolution & the European Response, **Charles W. Toth,** Whitston, 1989

  America, Land of the Equals, _Chrystia Freeland, New Your Times, 2012_

23 Managing Across Cultures, Schneider & Barsoux, Prentice-Hall, 2003

24 Culture and Organisation: Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede, McGraw-Hill, 1991.

25 Religious Identity and Economic Behavior, Benjamin Choi & Fisher, NBER, 2010.

26  How do Hofstede's Dimensions correlate with the World's Religions?, Stephen J. Tailor, International Business Center

27 Culture and Organisation: Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede, McGraw-Hill, 1991.

28 Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance, Nekane Basabe & María Ros, Presses Universities de Grenoble, 2005.

29 The Role of Protestantism in Democratic Consolidation Among Transitional States, Rollin F. Tusalem, Sage Publications, 2009.

30  Work as Key to the Social Question, George E. Garvey, Vatican City, 2002.

31 The Catholic View of Economics, F. R. Hoare, Catholic Apologetics.

32 Latin Europe Lumbers, Latin America Lunges: What are the cultural roots for the difference? _,_ Dean Foster, The Culture Prophecy.

33  Insecurity Touches the Tycoons of Greece, Landon Thomas Jr. and Eleni Varvitsioti, The New York Times, 2012.
