The Christians going to the lions didn't happen in Jesus' time. It started happening around 200 years later, and was mostly due to the Christians disrespecting pagan gods. There were many different gods and religions that got along well in the Roman Empire at the time. For two hundred years. Pax Romana. Almost no religious conflict whatsoever. Until the early Christian churches started popping up. The Christians agitated the public and the public pushed the government to do something about those annoying Christians who were obviously deranged demon worshipers with their zombie prince and talk of brimstone and hellfire.

Nero was persecuting Christians when he was emperor in 64 AD. Persecution of the Christians by Rome ended in 313 AD when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity.

In 380, Rome invented the Roman Catholic Church and made it the official state religion of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church deified Jesus the Messiah. Before the Romans created the Roman Catholic Church, the Christians were a fanatical Jewish sect. They were goofed on because they were easy to goof on. The historical Jesus was a subversive Jew, put to death by Rome. When Rome made the Messiah God their new tool for social control of the empire, they made the Jews the culprit in the execution of Jesus. The Jews "tricked" Rome into wrongfully giving Jesus the death penalty.

Thomas Jefferson took the New Testament and stripped it of all Roman constructs and supernatural additions to turn it into a "religion." The Jefferson Bible presents Jesus as a revolutionary, in thought and deed. Jesus as Ché Guevara, not a guy floating up to the clouds doing magic tricks.

But frankly, I am just going with the research that has been done on the subject up until now. A lot of people don't realize, or don't want to know, that there is really no evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, or Yeshua ben Yosef, which would have been his actual name. Never has been. The entire narrative of Jesus is supported by belief and tradition, not fact or evidence. And I am sure y'all know how I feel about that sort of thing.


Perceptions are not creating reality. It's creating association. If you perceive a wall, your perception didn't create the wall, doesn't change the wall, and cannot control the wall. The wall is still the same as before you perceived it. This is reality. How you feel about the wall after you perceive it is the contents of your own head and no one else's. Your head is not my reality. And it is not the reality of the wall, either. It merely interprets reality. Is the interpreter of French the same thing as the French language?

And from a cognitive standpoint, you are not actually creating a wall by perceiving it. By perceiving it, your brain is translating photon data into neurological impulses that represent the wall. Your perception of the wall doesn't exist in reality beyond electro-chemical data. But the particles most certainty do because we can demonstrate they interact with things when we are not around. They do not cease to exist.

To take it further, you aren't even perceiving the particles of the wall. You are perceiving other particles which interacted with the wall and then bounced to you. The actual particles of the wall are imperceptible.

To suggest that we create the wall through perception is to suggest that without perception there is no wall. Do you think if we put an unconscious man in a catapult, left the area, then remotely launched him at a wall no one was observing, he would simply pass through the wall? Would you like to try? Because I have been trying to convince someone to try this experiment for a long time.

There is no difficultly to understand this. Reality is the sum and substance of our experience. Either we create it as we go along, or there was already something there before we arrived in this existence. Your personal opinions about reality does nothing to reverse the facts of the situation. External independent reality is real. Mind-dependent reality is just a thought experiment. It has no basis in fact.

PS: Yes, I have my moments. Sometimes I can be a materialist too.


The image of men as the primary hunters in our ancient past is a falsehood perpetrated by scholarly assumptions. Archeology doesn't support this theory. Though it does support the notion that men typically hunted larger game in packs, women were equally active in hunting smaller game which was much more plentiful.

And according to neuroscience studies, while men might be better at solving mechanical problems, we are really bad at solving contextual problems. Women are better at that. Has to do with the physical architecture of the brain. There are more connectors between the left and right hemispheres of the female brain that allow for greater leaps in intuition than men. Which helps greatly in interpersonal interactions, but less so when dealing with abstract concepts.

Without women, there would have never been a motivation to build a better mud hut in the first place. Tribes formed the first stationary communities to protect the well-being of the family after the last ice age. Women and the children they cared for was at the center of these communities. Without them, there was no need to form tribal centers or the first civilizations. Of course, without them, there would be no human heritage to begin with.

And yes, you can argue that men are needed in the continuation of humanity as well. But any cock can fertilize any number of wombs. Twelve women and twelve men has the same outcome as twelve women and two men. Two women and twelve men does not.


I saw a meme, "My genitals do not define my gender."

If your genitals do define your gender, then if you lose your penis in an accident or are born without one due to penile agenesis, you are not a man. This is not how society sees such men.

Essentially, society is very happy to classify penisless men as men, unless they are trans men, in which case some people get all exercised about genitals defining you.

As for trying to fit in, that is pretty much what almost every trans person is trying to do.

I'm pretty sure my chromosomes define my genitals and my genitals define the way in which I sex someone up. Chromosomes also define the way in which my brain is orientated--male, female, or anything in between. Society defines our gender, and being an anti-social personality type, I've never really cared much for what society has to say about anything.

There are some social rules I am forced to follow, like don't shoot cops at random. But other than that, as far as I am concerned, penises are for fun, copulation, and secretion ... not labeling. I'm straight because I use my penis exclusively on women, and I am a male because that is how my brain functions structurally. I'm a man because I say so. No backing from society required


Many introverts are good empaths. They respect others just as much as they would wanna be respected. They're shy around people because their sensitive to others' dignity as well as their own. They know their limits so they can tell when a person needs some space.

An introvert might also be aloof due to high sensitivity--indeed, their introversion may result in part from the mental and emotional overstimulation that other people cause, especially in group settings.

So while it may appear that the introvert is stand-off-ish, they are actually protecting themselves from sensory overload, and in a one-on-one situation might be able to go deeper with the other person than an extrovert.

I've always describe introvert as: everything begins and ends in the self. In other words, introverts are kind of the pack rats of reality: going out into the world and gathering representations of reality which they carry back to their own little hole and work with. While, for the extrovert, everything begins and ends in the world of objects.

But saying introversion and empathy are synonymous, or at least complimentary with each other. After a longer look at the two meanings, I want to disagree. Empaths may pick up other's feelings whether they want to or not. Being an introvert can be a coping mechanism in that case.

Regardless of the oversimplified dichotomizing, introverts draw their energy internally, extroverts externally. This seems have to do with the dominance of their acetylcholinergic and dopaminergic systems, respectively. Either could be empaths, but draw from different bases. In this perspective, the introvert could actually be more empathic, given they get past the social barrier. But overall, neither is black or white; we are talking about continuum of functioning.


There is an image of the ideal world where there is no hate and everyone is holding hands and smiling and singing. These kind images of perfection are pretty absurd, if you ask me. I wouldn't like to be happy all the time. I'd forget what happiness was. If I was kind to everyone all the time, I wouldn't be able to differentiate the quality of relationships anymore.

If I loved myself unceasingly I would no longer remember why I was worth loving. It may sound cheesy paradoxical but the all things you don't like are the things that make life worthwhile. Pain, shame, rejected, all the shit you hate to do, not getting what you want.

Many concepts we use are binary. Meaning that they come in pairs of opposites; like good/bad or love/hate or black/white. We often forget these opposites are ending points on a continuous spectrum; not really the same, not really separate, just a long way apart.

Obviously pleasure isn't the same as suffering, but the one is only a reflection of the other. They are references to each other. Therefore if you minimize suffering, you will minimize pleasure. 1 Yin equal 1 Yang. 10 Yin equal 10 Yang. And so on. The most interesting part of the spectrum is not the white or the black end, but the gray middle circulation which is both and neither.

What you are preaching isn't anything new, and who gave us the authority to dictate what's natural for the rest of humanity?

We have no idea what humanity's purpose or natural progression is supposed to be like. And claiming that you do is just a big LOL. What we believe isn't the point. The point is we're pushing beliefs as facts. It makes us pretentious douche. End of story.

If you awaken people before they have found their own truths and done the process themselves, you will awaken immaturity. Beliefs are not facts. Facts are truth known for certain. Beliefs are positions held of a thing to be possible as the truth value. We talk about how what we believe will save humanity, but in reality what we are doing right NOW is what has caused humanity to fall so far.

We're operating under d notion that our beliefs are facts. Beliefs aren't facts. Everything we say about "awakening" is a self-critical-versa.


"Fear is an evolutionary advantage. Without fear, the human race would not have evolved."

Nope. The idea that fear is an evolutionary advantage is a cultural myth not based in any fact. It is a notion that is actually way older than any evolutionary science, so how could evolution have established such a "fact" before it existed?

Here's what the current science has to say about fear:

Fear is mostly the product of the amygdala in the limbic system, one of the oldest structures in the vertebrate brain; the "feeling" portion of the brain. Much older than the frontal lobe where we get our intelligence. So for millions of years, a lot of very simple animals were running basically on fear before higher animals with a capacity to reason evolved.

In simple animals, fear has a very specific function which is "panic." Panic causes an animal to freeze, not fight or flee. Fighting and fleeing are the results of the animal being able to overcome chemical signals from the amygdala, not give into them. The animal rejects fear and chooses to fight or flee. A function of the frontal lobe's reasoning ability.

It is now suggested by evolutionary science that fear was a way in which members of a species could grow stronger by sacrificing its weaker more fearful members to predators who gave into panic while the stronger, smarter members escaped. Fear is therefore not a tool of evolution, but a tool of extinction or population control.

To further this theory, it has been observed under brain scan that an increase in fear signals from the amygdala results in an immediate decrease in activity in the frontal lobe. Therefore, fear actually works against our reasoning brain. Fear makes you stupid. Being stupid is not an evolutionary advantage for the entire species. However, it is an advantage for the stronger members of a cooperative species in terms of becoming the "alpha" members. Fear in a primitive collective could help an alpha control the rest of the tribe and further their own genetic heritage while suppressing others. Our ancestors were not the members of the human species who capitulated, but the ones who dominated. We still see this behavior in lesser primates even though humans have for the most part abandoned this kind of social behavior. Most of us, anyway.

Fear is still used as an excellent tool for controlling the masses by those in charge. So, the idea that fear, a tool which makes sure weaker animals become prey and are dominated by stronger members of their species, is probably not an evolutionary advantage for anyone other than the predators and the oppressors.

Fear is also responsible for things like hatred, racism, bigotry, misogyny, greed, murder, paranoia, self-destructive behavior, addiction, apathy, depression. The kinds of things that are eroding our civilization, not building it up.

It can therefore be properly stated that our civilization is the very fight against fear. Fear is not your friend or ally. Fear is your enemy. How strong you are depends on how much you resist it rather than give into it.

There is also the harmful stress and general mental health issues associated with experiencing too much fear on a constant basis.


Interestingly, every ultimate super-villain is unbeatable because of their level of intelligence (which is supreme but not godlike since their fatal flaw is always the pursuit of godlike knowledge and power), but the reason why every super-hero is the most powerful is because of how hard they can hit.

What does society then tell us through this narrative?

It is that the villain is the person who uses their intellect through their utmost potential. And the hero is the one who is most violent and hits the hardest in the face of the villain's intellectual superiority.

Society tells us that the most brilliant of us are the ones who are in opposition of social stability, and the most violent and righteous are the protectors of society. And yet, it is the most violent and righteous (police, military) who are the vanguard of the oppression of all human liberty. Even though knowledge has done nothing other than elevate the common human to a level in which they can oppose the oppressor.

I ask you, who really has the better chance of eliminating society's biggest ills, the police or the scientist?

Hero narratives are cleverly crafted lies in which society tries to convince us that our oppressors are our saviors. After all, even "Superman" (Übermensch) is modeled after a concept wherein "the ideal superior man of the future" is someone who could "rise above conventional morality to create and impose his own values." Superman is the military industrial complex personified.

And people like Lois Lane are otherwise intelligent and aware "reporters" who are rescued on a daily basis by the hero, but are still not smart enough to recognize that hero for what he really is, despite the rather pathetic means by which he goes to hide his identity--simple spectacles.