Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?

[Laura]

I think the kind of PK experiments by Jahn are an interesting area for research, but that it may be possible to read too much into the results that have been achieved. More robust or definitive conclusions could be made if other researchers were able to produce the same results in other settings. I think sometimes psychological studies have been criticized for using a sample population of e.g. American college students, and then extrapolating the results of that particular sample, that has its own unique traits, to the whole of humanity?

Have you taken the trouble to search out and read all of the PEAR lab studies?

 

[Timótheos]

I would have to disagree. I assume you are familiar with the Amsterdam Gay Pride event? If I would be gay, this would be one of many events I would avoid like the plague. Half-naked people, people in distasteful leather clothing, blown-up naked plastic dolls, and the list goes on. This is supposed to celebrate pride for the LGBT community? Such events are not to be helpful in the ways you describe, it's co-opted, it's about normalizing disturbing sexual acts. And of course events like these are for all to see, including children.

I've never really understood these kind of "pride" movements, whether it be gay pride, black pride, white pride, national or religious pride, what have you. It seems that these types of affiliations encourage people to be proud of WHO THEY ARE (or how they were born) rather than WHAT THEY DO (or have achieved), as if just BEING a certain way is something to be "proud" of, without any effort, work, struggle or sense of accomplishment on the person's behalf.

By some random role of the genetic dice, certain people are born beautiful (by hollywood or model magazine standards), but is that really something to be proud of? Did these people actually DO anything to deserve such praise? Same goes for race, nationality, sexual or gender orientation and the rest. We really had no control or choice in such matters as our skin colour, country of birth, physical characteristics or gender, so personal pride in such attributes seems misplaced.

Perhaps it would be better if feelings of pride itself were reserved for one's own personal efforts or group accomplishments that require hard work and struggle to achieve?

For me, it is the act of "doing" rather than just "being", which truly merits feelings of pride.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pride?q=pride

pride
Pronunciation: /prʌɪd /
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
1A feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements, the achievements of one’s close associates, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired:

 

[Mal7]

Have you taken the trouble to search out and read all of the PEAR lab studies?

No I haven't, so in that respect I think I have already written more than I am qualified to about whether or not the PEAR lab studies are good research. I don't recall having heard of the PEAR lab studies before Pierre's article. I did spend a little time trying unsuccessfully to find the exact study that was discussed in Pierre's SOTT article, during which I briefly browsed some of the links on the PEAR page here:
_http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

 

[Mal7]

One other idea that occurred to me was what might the results be if, rather than a couple, a whole "mob" or crowd of people which had been worked up into a kind of "crowd mind" were tested? Maybe their pushing power would be even greater than for bonded heterosexual couples?

Yes, PK group influence has been tested by Robert D. Nelson ( ‘Field REG anomalies in group situations’, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1996) during all kinds of venues (stand-up comedy performances, concerts, theatrical events) and by Dean Radin who studies the influence of the world population, or most of it, during worldwide 'moving' events (Radin D., The Conscious Universe).

Collective PK influence is addressed in Earth Changes and The Human Cosmic Connection (particularly in chapter 40: 'Collective Resonance' and Chapter 41: 'The Truth Factor')

Thank you for that. I am still waiting for Earth Changes and The Human Cosmic Connection to arrive in the post. The Robert D. Nelson et al. article on anomalies in group situations is online here:
_http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1996-fieldreg-anomalies-group-situations.pdf
It wasn't quite what I had in mind, in that the measurement of anomalies generated by the portable REG was of a more passive nature, with the REG simply being present at the various group events, but with the groups just going about their own business rather than making a group effort to affect the results.

 

[luke wilson]

Besides the point you are trying to make Mal7, what is going on underneath the surface with you if you don't mind me asking? Jahn's work or rather the conclusions derived by Pierre seems to have some significance to you, emotionally? Just a guess, not totally sure.

While it is hard to know exactly what is going on underneath the surface (or it would then be a conscious thought), I could guess I have some kind of fear of a hegemonic discourse that prescribes what is the one good way for humans to live, or what kinds of art are good or bad. Even if some art is "bad", I think people are complex enough that that "bad" art could still be "good" for them where they are at that point in their lives? Politically I consider myself "liberal" in the sense that I think people should be free to do what they want, when it doesn't harm others. When you look at all the different values and ways of living practiced in different human societies throughout prehistory and history, there seems to be a great diversity. Along with the sixth extinction of animal species now going on, loss of human cultural diversity is also taking place, with the loss of whole languages, and the continued expansion of American corporate culture and products into the rest of the world.

Do you think Pierre might 'unwittingly' be 'conservative' in his approach e.g. discourse of art and the PK discussion which is a sort of tick for heterosexual coupling?

 

[Mal7]

Do you think Pierre might 'unwittingly' be 'conservative' in his approach e.g. discourse of art and the PK discussion which is a sort of tick for heterosexual coupling?

I think if there were two art exhibitions in town, one of Greek marble sculpture and the other of jars of urine, Pierre would probably opt for the first. :)
But beyond that, since I don't know Pierre personally, anything else would have to be "speculation, your honour".

 

[Mal7]

One other idea that occurred to me was what might the results be if, rather than a couple, a whole "mob" or crowd of people which had been worked up into a kind of "crowd mind" were tested? Maybe their pushing power would be even greater than for bonded heterosexual couples?

I think the implication behind this idea is that if a mob had even greater "pushing" power than a bonded couple, then rather than seeing the greater effect produced by a couple as compared to an individual as necessarily a good thing, the couple might be seen as a kind of "mob of two", or an inferior mob.

While mob or crowd consciousness can have powerful effects, the "crowd mind" does not have true intelligence, but is suggestible. If a couple were theorized as being like a "mob of two", then even if that couple has greater "pushing" power than 2 unbonded individuals, it would (if the mob analogy applies) also be less intelligent, and consequently it would not be regarded as some kind of ideal state.

 

[Laura]

Have you taken the trouble to search out and read all of the PEAR lab studies?

No I haven't, so in that respect I think I have already written more than I am qualified to about whether or not the PEAR lab studies are good research. I don't recall having heard of the PEAR lab studies before Pierre's article. I did spend a little time trying unsuccessfully to find the exact study that was discussed in Pierre's SOTT article, during which I briefly browsed some of the links on the PEAR page here:
_http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

There are a few that are only available behind a paywall or if you have access to an academic database. I've read most of them and what I see is that the data is very robust and things showed up that the researchers were not expecting nor had ever considered, and this was one of them. Also, there are a number of things that get said spread out through several papers.

 

[mabar]

What is a PC people?

PC = Politically correct.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Thanks!

 

[Scottie]

Many people use others to prop up their low self worth, and often two people come together and do that to each other in a symbiotic kind of way. They might feel in love, but that's not what I'd define as a loving couple. I'd say those type of relationships are generally short lived as the underlying low self worth will come up sooner or later for another fix. Probably then there's more of the real loving relationships able to be found in lasting couples whether homosexual or heterosexual.

I think part of the problem is that many long-lived relationships are between people who really are not in a truly loving relationship, but they sure convince themselves they are. I have seen so many examples of this that I can only conclude that it's pretty much the norm.

I'm not so worried about the negative effect that homosexual couples might have. I'm way more worried about the ultimately negative (and more powerful, apparently) effect that heterosexual couples have when they buy into a bunch of lies.

I mean, with the kind of propaganda flying around today, and people's delusions about basic things like their own issues and relationships, why on earth would the negative effects of a relative minority of gay couples amount to a hill of beans in comparison?

Personally, I'd rather NOT be in such a relationship and contribute any more to the crapification of this already-crappy world due to my own blindness.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Many people use others to prop up their low self worth, and often two people come together and do that to each other in a symbiotic kind of way. They might feel in love, but that's not what I'd define as a loving couple. I'd say those type of relationships are generally short lived as the underlying low self worth will come up sooner or later for another fix. Probably then there's more of the real loving relationships able to be found in lasting couples whether homosexual or heterosexual.

I think part of the problem is that many long-lived relationships are between people who really are not in a truly loving relationship, but they sure convince themselves they are. I have seen so many examples of this that I can only conclude that it's pretty much the norm.

I'm not so worried about the negative effect that homosexual couples might have. I'm way more worried about the ultimately negative (and more powerful, apparently) effect that heterosexual couples have when they buy into a bunch of lies.

I mean, with the kind of propaganda flying around today, and people's delusions about basic things like their own issues and relationships, why on earth would the negative effects of a relative minority of gay couples amount to a hill of beans in comparison?

Personally, I'd rather NOT be in such a relationship and contribute any more to the crapification of this already-crappy world due to my own blindness.

Yes, very agree.
There should be other social recognition for couples, focusing on what is, what they really are in the present and far away from the pompous and fictional names. Because couples are living other type of relationships. And they are very distant from being complementary couples and seek to serve the universe.
One of the problems is that people, generally, do not want to be alone. Want to share their life with someone, share their dreams, fears and a project for the future. I do not think that is bad per se. But yes it is when lying to their companion and themselves calling it "a couple", when probably that is just a mask to hide the fear of loneliness and social prejudices of being single that both feel.
Another harmful ingredient is "romantic love" modern, so emotional and mechanical as present in the official culture. A better definition of love is this :) :

[quote author=Session 9 september 1995]
Q: (L) What about Love?

A: What about it?

Q: (L) There are many teachings that are promulgated that Love is the key, the answer. They say that illumination and knowledge and what-not can all be achieved through love.

A: The problem is not the term "love," the problem is the interpretation of the term. Those on third density have a tendency to confuse the issue horribly. After all, they confuse many things as love. When the actual definition of love as you know it is not correct either. It is not necessarily a feeling that one has that can also be interpreted as an emotion, but rather, as we have told you before, the essence of light which is knowledge is love, and this has been corrupted when it is said that love leads to illumination. Love is Light is Knowledge. Love makes no sense when common definitions are used as they are in your environment. To love you must know. And to know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to have knowledge is to love.
[/quote]

 

[Chad]

A few things came to my mind when reading this thread, but i was hesitant as there were a few things milling around in my mind and i wanted to ruminate a while longer.

Firstly, growing up in an army family, for me, my role models were caricatures of gender and distorted thinking was rampant. What was interesting was how quick squaddies were to dress up in tights and mini skirts! My dad included, dressing up was obviously a release for many.

Other than being sporty, i had a feminine flair to my character and was most definitely reluctant to become anything like my apparent roles models. More so once my father - drill sargent and army prison warden - totally lost it.

So with that in mind, when i hit my teens and was free to associate with whom i pleased, i found myself going to 'alternative' clubs; gay nightclubs, rock clubs etc.. Here i found the most accepting, open minded, progressive individuals which kind of furthered my belief that not only was society corrupted, but mainstream society in partcular, and so perhaps the answers lay amongst the 'alternative' community.

With time, you realise that whilst this is true, the alternative community have their own issues; such as comparing themselves with a corrupted society, the trauma that can come with being an outsider but also, the delusion that they're living differently, when the majority still watch hours of tv a day, support work life as is etc..

So i too had a few knee jerk reactions; defending both myself and the people who had been a haven of sanity in my youth. I think what was helpful, and furthered my thinking was Laura's comment that perhaps there was a role specifically in society for a ... can i say neutral gender?

Growing up, i was the agony aunt to both my female friends (the majority) AND my male friends. Apparently i - being neutral - had a perspective that was useful to both genders. So i have 'felt' this role, whether i intended it or not. And i had made it my 'lifes mission' to break down these stereotypes, risking my safety at times.

The culture i grew up in was filled with typical working class stereotypes and the restrictions that comes with this. ie. Men are men and don't even use moisturizer (and i had acne!). I knew, even as a youngster, and seeing the evident changes in the expectations of men, that these expectations were irrelevant and actually quite hilarious. How people will literally suffer to not appear different. It's not uncommon now to see men using *gasp * lipbalm!

Mainstream media played a big part in my understandings, and in the UK, channel 4 was a tv station which was created to 'promote alternative lifestyles' (i reckon this was a way at conditioning society under guise of 'acceptance'). From swinging suburbia, to teens who want a sex change, to a program about Fa'afafine.

'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine
Fa'afafine are a third-gendered people of Samoa and the Samoan diaspora. A recognized identity/role since at least the early 20th century in Samoan society, and some theorize an integral part of traditional Samoan culture, fa'afafine are (generally) assigned male at birth, and explicitly embody both masculine and feminine gender traits, fashioned in a way unique to this part of the world. Their behavior typically ranges from extravagantly feminine to mundanely masculine.[1]

The word fa'afafine includes the causative prefix "fa'a", meaning "in the manner of", and the word fafine, meaning "woman"

This is similar to what some other cultures, at certain times, have permitted, from what i understand (though perhaps it is only very recent??). And i think it ties in to what Laura said. Perhaps they were a synthesizer or mediator to the rest of the tribe - i'm obviously inferring this from my story about being the 'neutral confidant'.

After reading this thread, i read: 50% of abductees are gay. I called the post 'Gaylien' (i thought it was funny, and catchy!).

So if that is true, and that homosexuality/alternative sexualities are both genetic and 'nurture' based, and those who show promise can be more likely to be victims of the general law; perhaps there is a particular spark that the predators are trying to stamp out OR at least distort?

Also, i think that the labeling is very much a distraction from real issues. It's about sex and labels, something i think this culture loves to waste time debating, and because we are hyper sexualised, we're primed for it.

As for the use of conditioning of media to sexualise the youth, as well as these alternative lifestyles essentially being based on sex (rather than the forming of a bond between 2 people), i think this is quite apparent and serves to further the ptb's agenda.

But also sex, as i mentioned to a friend, the next time you are aroused (when out and about), try to think critically, and observe how difficult it is to maintain both these states. My point is that i bet he would find he was paralysed/neutralised. And how often is he/are we, confronted with imagery that is designed to arouse..

just some ponderings :)

 

[luc]

Thank you itellsya for sharing. I think you brought up a lot of important points.

Here are some thoughts: Through my previous job, I had some contact with the "professionalized" LGBT-scene (NGO's, LGBT media etc.) here in Germany and it's true that these movements are all completely consumed by the PTB's agenda. Though there are some legitimate goals (gotta mix lies with truth, after all), it's mostly about sex, tax cuts, and generally "integration" into the ponerized mainstream society. Plus, they're used as a tool for aggressive foreign policy, witness Russia... Interestingly though, it hasn't always been that way - as I understand it, the gay rights movement in the 60ies in Germany was - at least partly - very different: It was about creating a new, different society and about debating alternative political and economical models. Interestingly, at that time many used the word "homophil" (phil=love), later to be replaced by "homosexual"... So maybe we see shades here of a LGBT community retaking their "traditional" role as an important, positive force for the "tribe"?

But as we know, the PTB like to subvert anything they consider a threat and use it for their own ends, this is the way of the devil, is it not? Just the other day I read a comment on Sott about ISIS being the tool of the PTB to make their own "revolution" in the middle east, since it would come anyway. In the 70ies, they created left terrorist groups to destroy genuine leftist groups. In the 90ies, they created the neo nazi movement in Germany, especially in eastern Germany, which was plundered after the reunification, to portray all fundamental criticism of the system as "nazi". They created Google and Facebook and various layers of the "internet freedom movement" to have some control over the internet and to prevent people from creating these tools themselves, for the people. They subverted the "anti war movement" in the eighties and turned it into a global-warming-promoting "environment-protection" and "human rights" movement, later to be used to justify war. They used women's rights to create a hyper-sexualized society, replacing the more interesting feminist thoughts with groups working to assimilate women into a anti-human society and promoting perversions of "manhood" in women and perversions of "womanhood" in men. And so on...

 

[Perri475]

https://www.sott.net/article/279645-Mummy-why-is-Daddy-wearing-a-dress-Daddy-why-does-Mummy-have-a-moustache
I'd like to post my thoughts on this article. It seems very poorly researched, and uses correlation as causation. A number of logical fallacies were used to make stretches in this article, however the author seemed mostly clueless about the subject..

It's amazing how different the world was less than a century ago. Homosexuality existed of course, but when Grandma was a young lady, things were simpler, much simpler. In most cases, children had one mummy and one daddy, men loved women and women loved men, family members lived together under the same roof. Men were manly and women were womanly.

This cannot be substantiated. In fact, I'm surprised at how many people think this article is "well researched". IF we go back to when your grandma was younger, we'll notice something pretty apparent: heteronormativity was the societal perceived "norm" and if you were a homosexual oh well. No time to try to understand that. People feared for their lives (rightfully so). This kind of reminds me of what I hear when people talk about police brutality who are misinformed. Police brutality isn't new, it just finally started getting heavy publicity (largely due to everyone having cellphones now, imo.). It's very similar with homosexuality, there's more acceptance of it so people can actually come out in there day-to-day lives. This is a blatant opinion using the fallacy of anecdote for confirmation bias. "my grandma didn't know any homosexuals then, therefore it was different and there were less of them, therefore i am right about gay pride because there are more gay people now because it's trendy" (i understand this quote isn't what was said, but this was the point i gathered from that section). Correlation does not equal causation, as we know. And anecdotes about what you're grandmother experienced does not reflect upon the whole world and really serves no place in this article. I digress.

It seems that, for those infiltrators that took over the movement, equality was never their real goal but rather a pretext to bridle a majority of gay people to a very different cause. Like other dominating minorities (vegetarians, Jews, anti-smokers, Masons, gypsies, etc.) the very identity of such groups is defined by their difference relative to common people. The real objective is to exacerbate those differences, have them perceived as a mark of superiority and use them to manipulate the rest of the population. That is to say, the 'rasion d'être' of the leaders of the gay rights movement is to forever be the 'other' and the idea of 'fading away' therefore is anathema to them.


Group sex simulation. Athens gay pride (2012)
Thus, in the subsequent years, an ostensible kind of gay-ism was heavily promoted during events like the gay pride (notice it's not about 'equality' any more but about 'pride') to ensure that homosexuality secures and maintains a high profile in the eyes of common people and society in general.

A growing number of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) opinion leaders started to appear as leaders in many spheres of influence (singers, artists, politicians, journalists, sports, 'captains of industry', etc.)

This enterprise has been so successful that, in a few decades, traditional values have been almost totally reversed. Today, at least in some circles, particularly the younger generation and/or the upscale urban milieu, being gay is a trendy thing, a proof of open-mindedness, a mark of progress, while being a heterosexual is increasingly considered as reactionary, anachronistic, conservative, passé and ultimately boring.

Equality was never the real goal, because of pride instead. Interesting premise, i'll give you that much, but if you were in a group of people who have been treated horribly up until pretty recently, would you not want to feel pride for who you are? The fact of the matter is that they should NOT have to march for equality in the first place, so showing unabashed pride for one's true identity is no problem in my opinion.

This whole "trendy to be gay and cis white males are horrible" thing is blown so out of proportion. Sure you have some rotten apple third wave of feminists spouting this rhetoric. But you also have people supporting the mass genocide of jews, deporting immigrants, and posting "memes" of police brutality (which yes, it's generally white men posting this stuff, like it or not). No one claimed that heterosexuality is considered as "reactionary, anachronistic, conservative, and ultimately boring" except yourself, however those traits (minus being boring, that's such a subjective statement. don't really know why it's in the article) do tend to be found in white men. I mean it really isn't that far of a leap to say most reactionary right wingers are white, is it?
Any who, this idea that LGBT is against heterosexuality is ridiculous. Acknowledging that heterosexuality being the norm has negatively affected people who are not a part of the "norm" is a lot different than what you're implying on your article. LGBT is not defined by their difference, but would rather just not have to makes themselves invisible anymore. They have been made to feel ashamed of the differences that society couldn't accept (i remember reading something in the article about victim blaming. hmm.). If LGBT were accepted and given rights as the should, none of this would need to happen. And I'm sorry, but we can't tie everything back to the "60s drug mind control" stuff, because homosexuality had been around far longer than that. None of this is new, it just has visibility because of the internet (something grandma didn't have when she was around)

In addition, most homosexuals are not interested in marriage and even less in adoption since homosexual unions, statistically speaking, tend to be short-lived. They just want discretion and freedom to lead their personal lives without fear of interference or excessive scrutiny, which is just the opposite of what is brought by LGBT activists: media coverage, hysterization, political claims and special status.

https://winteryknight.com/2012/06/18/are-gay-relationships-typically-stable-and-monogamous/ not going to lie, I almost immediately closed this tab when I saw the logo: "integrating christian faith and knowledge to the public square". Like there's no way this could possibly be biased, right?! But I'm not going to spend time on this, it was already debunked. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1500085X#b0165(the short end of the stick is that a non-negligible number of respondents as having been raised by parents who had a same-sex romantic relationship. We assess the implications of these possible misclassifications, along with other methodological considerations, by reanalyzing the NFSS in seven steps. The reanalysis offers evidence that the empirical patterns showcased in the original Regnerus article are fragile—so fragile that they appear largely a function of these possible misclassifications and other methodological choices.

this was probably the worst source I have ever seen sott use, I have no intention of being rude but this being citated makes me really uncomfortable about this group. I thought this group was supposed to be vary hyper aware of cognitive biases, but we're using bunk statistics from christian websites to imply the homosexuals have short lived relationships and can be bad parents? This is a disgrace to the face of objectivity. Did we even look at the study.. at all? Or did the numbers make the article look better? Because I'm very confused as to why someone would use these statistics knowing they are laughable or alternatively not make sure that they check out. Honestly, this is really embarrassing for you news/media group. Is this the type of information you are okay with using? I've been on this forum for a year now, and while the honeymoon phase was fantastic and I learned a whole lot, I really don't think this place is for me. Sometimes there's a feeling in your gut and heart that you get. I mean if it's okay to use crappy stats to reinforce our points, then what else are we okay with embellishing for the sake of "objectivity"?

Also the "gay people were used as a trojan horse for pedophiles to infiltrate" is disgusting. This rhetoric of correlating homosexuality to pedophilia needs to stop. A=b=C so A=C is a terrible argument. Regardless what you're arguing about. And that's basic rhetorical courtesies for having discourse. I honestly think that some founding members of this group are closeted homophobes who don't realize it.

_https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked
_http://web.archive.org/web/20150409135520/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

good luck with building the next tower of babble, or whatever it is you guys are trying to do. Walking around in circles in your pool or whatever, but what was presented in this article is something I can't stand for.

Best of luck to the forum, delete my account or don't, whatever protocol works best for the site. No one needs to address my points, but I felt this needed to be said. Hopefully this will encourage healthy discourse among the community, but I feel there's no need for me to sit here and wait as the baby boomer generation finally rids themselves of this mental block. I don't have the time nor patience, and honestly "your gay friend" doesn't matter in terms of your homophobic rhetoric because you've already implied there are two types of gay people (the "normal" ones, and the activist, flamboyant ones). Yep homosexuality used to be a private matter, but heterosexuality has NEVER been a private matter (outside of isolated incidences, no one is gonna talk about gettin' it on at church) so this is the trace of your homophobia. People who act different than what's been taught as the norm makes you uncomfortable it seems. No one is gonna like what I'm saying now, but that type of preferential attitude towards homosexuals keeping it "private" is the same as saying "I'm not a homophobe, just act like a normal straight person because you make me uncomfortable!". If someone is gay and flamboyant, and all you can see in them is the "gay flamboyancee" then you are not looking deep enough into people.

I'll see myself out, it seems I've stumbled into the

ps. Delete my account or not, I don't know what is protocol for this site so the admins can do as they see fit. Good luck with your endeavors everyone, I have talked to some pretty incredible and kind hearted people on this site and am very glad I had the opportunity to meet them. This just isn't for me, it seems like more propaganda for the fire. Almost feels too close to neo-liberalism if i'm being honest, and honestly i'm more into a anarcho communist type setup so this isn't my scene. peace out


mod: deactivated links

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: Hmm. Intersting article we have here, I'm gonna rip through it a bit.

I'll see myself out, it seems I've stumbled into the