George Noory Strikes the World Again With Marie D. Jones

On Coast to Coast AM this morning, host George Noory had on Marie D. Jones. At 1:55 A.M. She said in reply to a caller, “‘Nobody knows anything, everything is still a mystery’… I think what’s happened is you’ve lost your ability to be in awe”. So, according to Marie, we should all simply ponder on whether or not child abuse and murder might not be right and might not be wrong, have awe. That is the teaching of a clear psychopath. In other words she doesn’t believe that anyone can know the truth, and implied that, “there is no absolute truth”. From the continuously haughty tone of voice she also seemed to be a narcissist.

George Noory Strikes the World Again With Giorgio Tsoukalos

According to George’s narcissist guest this early morning, Giorgio Tsoukalos, the Bible isn’t about God, but gods who were at war with each other, one of which was Satan. Yet another narcissist who couldn’t be bothered to learn the facts or believe any he came across. How hard is it to come up with the thought (as a multi-culturally aware adult of average intelligence): “evidence for the Bible” or “is the Bible true” and to then type either or both phrases into a search engine, and to then press enter and then start reading carefully? How hard is it to ask someone to do this for you?

Further evidence that Tsoukalos was insane was when at 1:27 A.M., he said in response to George, “Who cares what the aliens look like, the question is, ‘Do we look like the aliens.’”

Why does George the Catholic Universalist hadly ever bring any guest on that says anything useful, but almost always, insane persons like this? I wish I had my own show. Unfortunately, my new computer broke, so that probably won’t happen any time soon.

Government Warned 9/11 Commission To Not Cross Line

by Paul Joseph Watson

3/17/2010

Documents recently obtained by the ACLU show that the government warned the 9/11 Commission against getting to the bottom of the September 11 terror attacks in a letter signed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet.

In a letter dated January 6, 2004, the Commission was refused permission to question terrorist detainees, with inquiry leaders Hamilton and Kean being told there was “A line that the Commission should not cross,” in the course of its investigation.

A PDF of the letter (page 26) can be read here.

The government urged the Commission, “Not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees,” according to the letter, citing the need to “Safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks.”

The warning was just one example of how the Bush administration fiercely struggled to prevent the 9/11 Commission from conducting a deeper probe into the attacks. Bush and Cheney refused to appear before the Commission separately and both refused to testify under oath, instead meeting with panel members informally and in private, with no recordings of the meeting allowed.

“It appears that David Addington took the lead on refusing the 9/11 Commission’s request,” writes the FireDogLake blog. “It appears Addington got the draft of the letter from 9/11 Commission–which was addressed to Rummy and George Tenet. Tenet and Addington clearly had a conversation about how to respond. But it seems that Addington drafted the response, got Condi, Andy Card, and Alberto Gonzales to review it, and then sent it to Tenet (and, presumably, Rummy) to okay and sign the letter.”

As FireDogLake rightly points out, this was part of an attempt to cover-up the systematic torture of detainees which did not fully come to light until the Abu Ghraib scandal was exposed in April 2004.

However, the refusal to allow access to detainees was also undoubtedly so that the Commission members couldn’t later blow the whistle on the fact that the men were nothing more than patsies and goat herders who had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks.

As we have constantly emphasized in the face of establishment media spin that has demonized the mere act of questioning the official 9/11 story, the majority of the 9/11 Commission members themselves have all gone on record to publicly slam the official story as untrue.

The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – said that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,

“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.” – More here.

Related story: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

Study Shows that Environmentalists are More Likely to Be Immoral

from guardian.co.uk:

How going green may make you mean

Kate Connolly in Berlin
3/15/2010/19.42 GMT

When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to “green” type.

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the “licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour”, otherwise known as “moral balancing” or “compensatory ethics”.

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write.

The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals. – More here.

The 34 Signs of a Psychopath and 12 Signs of a Narcissist

This post can also be reached at psychopath.tk

1) during their preteen years (though not necessarily early preteen years) shows signs of regular cruelty to or indifference to cruelty to animals (which includes insects) or people due to a lack of a long-term, loving care with the teaching of good morals by an authority figure (like a parent) which leads to the child doing wrong often in childhood and their conscience becoming seared to the point where it no longer will produce a feeling of guilt, even in adulthood;

2) They are okay with seeing someone do an occasional good deed and may praise them for it and understand that good deeds are honorable, but have a hatred for people who do good deeds in general, hence why none of them have a charitable lifestyle, especially are nor charitable out of kindness. They are also highly resistant to being charitable even if it is to gain an advantage over others, which is because they associate charity with strong morality, which they hate. This is why they will accuse Christians of merely, “Shoving religion down everyone’s throat” and ignoring and not mentioning any good deeds Christians do no matter how many are done or how great, and may refer to those who do good as “goody-goodys”);

They are:

3) hypocritical in their rules and accusations and (due to having no conscience to let them know when they are doing wrong and their minds being narrowly focused on satisfying the desires of their heart rather than being careful to do what is logical and morally good);

4) unwilling to come up with any insight of their own on religion or philosophy, cannot, without explanation from a person with a conscience, belief in absolute right and wrong, punishment to restrain stubborn behavior, and belief in a god or gods or God, reason out the psychological, emotional, or physiological consequences of certain religions or philosophies, hence why

5) many or about all psychopaths are happy to make simplistic judgments on religion, especially complex ones, like, “(all) religions cause wars” or “(all) religion is responsible for deaths” as it conveniently excuses psychopaths to live without moral restraint and is why they are

6) mentally shallow (simple-minded) concerning anything at all despite specializing in something, like finding cheap air fair, a correct translation for a word, the correct answer to a mathematical formula. By imitating what others say in certain situations and with assistance they may appear to be smarter and wiser than they really are (as can anyone who imitates well and gets good help), and so then appear to be a anything, including lawyer, physicist, mathematician, biologist, baby-sitter, priest or even pastor.

7) Their mental shallowness is also evidenced by very stupid questions (shocking to a normal person), for example, if they ask someone to strip naked for them and get the reply, “It’s against my religion to”, they may reply with something like, “Well can’t you change your religion?” or “What is you stopped being religious?”.

8) Their mental shallowness is also evidenced by gullibility, sometimes great gullibility (shocking to a normal person). For example they show that they have a hard time (in general) determining real from not real no matter how absurd or clearly wrong a fiction is (for example belief in a billions of years old giant explosion creating all the wonders of the universe, including irreducibly complex, very beautiful, living, emotional things of countless types). So when a person plays an obvious joke on a psychopath, the person playing the joke will find to his or her amazement (if they don’t realize the person was a psychopath), the psychopath taking the joke seriously.

They are:

9) without empathy (in other words won’t imagine themselves in the painful situation of someone else in order to understand that person’s pain due to a lack of love for others);

10) though they can experience great joy over achieving or obtaining something, they don’t experience joy in general over seeing good deeds done, especially not seeing them done regularly and don’t feel deep anger or sadness over seeing anyone wronged (except themselves) and will, if a friend, close companion or someone they admire encourages them to laugh about it, do so.

11) Their displays of sorrow  over seeing someone wronged, if any, are sometimes combined with a look of bewilderment and/or awe, being fascinated by the misdeed.

12) Though they may sometimes feel sorrow over seeing someone else in a bad position or wronged, it does not last long, and are unwilling to give much help, especially not long, great, suffering unless lead to do so by a friend, parent or someone that they admire.

They:

13) may try to display appropriate sorrow to having done wrong or seeing wrong done or over some sad thing (like a suffering child dying in front of them) if they think they may lose their advantage over others or be unable to gain an advantage over others if they don’t display this sorrow;

14) will experience fear and anxiety, including in great amounts when they believe they are in danger of feeling mental and physical pain or thinking about the possibility of such, but unlike non-psychopaths, will happily do moral wrongs and commit crimes (like stealing, destroying property, lying or committing adultery, regardless of whether or not anyone is being hurt of if they believe anyone will be hurt) if they don’t believe that there will be any painful consequences.feel great distress and worry when they perceive an immediate threat to their life-style. They can also have phobias.

15) They are emotionally shallow on immorality or good deeds (for example don’t feel anything or any deep anger of seeing someone do moral wrong or deep joy over seeing someone sacrifice themselves to help an innocent person or joy over someone suffering to help another who doesn’t deserve it – however they can and do feel great anger over themselves being wronged, especially if threatened by someone who can hinder their lifestyle – and at best experience someone deep wonderment or awe over seeing such things, which is also why their displays of sorrow over wrong-doing or someone suffering or dying lack a sad expression and they do not feel very sad).

16) Though they may sometimes feel sorrow for seeing someone else in a bad position, it does not last long, are unwilling to give more than what they consider to be of little value to help the person they feel sorrow for, though for their own entertainment they are willing to give a little physical help to or chat for a while.

They:

17) may find kind responses to what they realize is their bad behavior to be extremely funny and laugh aloud;

18) try to display appropriate sorrow to having done wrong or seeing wrong done or over some sad thing (like a suffering child dying in front of them) if they think they may lose their advantage over others or be unable to gain an advantage over others if they don’t display this sorrow;

They are:

19) rude (for example will, when annoyed by someone, reply with a cold, annoyed or mocking tone sometimes combining them with expressions like, “well if you would let me finish” or “stop interrupting me”;

20) self-centered/cares more about themselves than anyone else (for example may brush off a request from a friend’s request for some emergency merely because they desire more sleep or hoard money to the hurt of others though not necessarily out of greed);

21) arrogant (for example sees themselves as much better than most people yet having no evidence for this, and may boast aloud of some existing or non-existent trait they have (like clairvoyance) thinking that that trait gives them great uniqueness and a level of goodness or intelligence that makes them much more worthy of attention than other things, including people, and much more valuable than other things, and so if they are interrupted when they are wandering, rambling or ranting or interrupted at all, will make a reply like, “well if you would let me finish” or “don’t cut me off” even if what they are saying is not relevant or obvious, even if that is told to them, and will behave as if what they have to say is relevant, original/not obvious and profound and unable to be known by the person they are talking to unless they tell it to them);

22) are obsessed with finding uniqueness and non-repetition in others (for example may insult someone for not being original and “repeating” themselves) and without realizing it is implying that the uniqueness and originality that they are seeming is immoral and illogical (which they often call “random”) behavior;

23) often quick to lie to save or keep an appearance of being very unique, wise and or whatever their idea of “good” is;

24) able to lie very well due to not being hindered by a conscience.

They:

25) will complain about and show frustration about the difficulty they had in learning subjects that require much patience and concentration which did not interest them (for example may say, “it was really hard to study these things”);

26) live a parasitic lifestyle/take advantage of others in order to survive and avoid having to work either mentally or physically hard for long;

27) will do complex mental work only if they see absolutely no other likely way for them to accomplish their long term goal of having an easy-going life (for example doing math work that bores them in order to get through college);

28) have no conscience (and therefore feel no regret or sorrow or guilt regardless of how badly or how many times they disobey God);

29) have poor emotional self-control/impulsive (for example will touch a person in a place where that person requests not to be touched if they think that they can escape being punished for it, though they may not be promiscuous or display their lust openly out of fear of being rejected for their inability to please another sexually and not having adequate sexually-pleasing physical characteristics);

30) are very resistant to accept that they’ve done wrong if it wasn’t intentional;

31) sadistic and cruel (for example will intentionally and repeatedly do wrong and laugh at seeing it greatly upset a person even if they see that their cruelty is causing great pain or damage to that person).

32) They will, when unable to find people to take advantage of to keep away their boredom or when having little more than shallow social contact, become delusional, imagining relationships or close relationships that don’t exist. They may even fool themselves into imagining people that don’t exist whom they imagine are their friends and converse with them, even going so far as to create false evidence to strengthen their belief in these people (for example may make imaginary Internet user accounts or email accounts supposedly used by these imaginary people and sending email to themselves from these accounts). This is either an insanity or they believe that they can, by their mere will, will things into reality, in other words, “wish” things into reality (including their being right about something).

33) They believe that they have an inherit right as a person, but not because of God’s word or the word of some other supposed god to do whatever they desire to do, so long as it is lawful, though like most people will question certain laws and believe some to be useless and pointless.

34) They don’t believe that there is a logical, discoverable reason for the occurrence of certain things (for example why they may go for a walk at a certain hour of the day and go to a certain street).

35) A psychopath, to protect his or her life-style, may attempt to ruin the life of, blackmail or murder the person who may ruin their life-style (for example if a psychopath suspects that someone is going to try to send them to jail, he may try to poison that person, or if he or she thinks he can get away with it, stab that person to death).

A narcissist can also be a psychopath.

1) Narcissists see themselves as more beautiful or important than they really are or overall beautiful when they are not and obsess on those qualities and/or trying to improve or enhance them. In addition to that or alternatively, they will see their life style as noble or morally good even if it clearly isn’t.

2) They idolize or obsess on those whom they believe to be superior in some way, like in beauty, wealth, strength or eloquence or their fame or high status.

3) If they can, they will display one or more images of themselves prominently or in great amounts for themselves and others to obsess on, and if they can’t, will try to be in public view often.

4) They are easily offended by criticism against themselves, regardless of whether or not the judgment is right and will be quick to show their annoyance and disapproval even going so far as to say that all judgment is wrong in order to gain the love and support of others who hate being criticized.

5) Narcissists will also, in order to better fit the high status or beauty they do or imagine that they have, try to match it by how they speak, both by their tone and choice of words. For example, they may try to speak eloquently and use rare words like “drek”, “ergo”, “notwithstanding” etc. (or if too mentally lazy or stupid to learn “hard” or rare words, simply call themselves smart, intelligent and wise and tell people that don’t see things as they do as not being able to notice the “obvious” and that they are “ridiculous” or “absurd” if not agreeing with the “obvious” (like in macro-evolution, or how beautiful they are). Because of their impulsiveness and focus on using “smart” words more than making sense when using them, they often don’t make sense or contradict themselves. They may also use royal-sounding or wise-sounding phrases like, “intricate complexities”, “tight co-evolution”, “please do”, “may I suggest”, “me thinks [that] you”, “my dear friend”, including Shakespearean or Shakespearean-like phrases).

6) In addition to or instead of using “high” words or phrases, narcissists behave arrogantly/snobbishly and see that behavior a appropriate and good.

7) Though not necessarily to be rude even if it is rude, they will expresses blunt disinterest if someone is trying to please them in a way that the narcissist finds to be uninteresting.

1) show signs of regular cruelty to or indifference to cruelty to animals (which includes insects) or people during their preteen years (though not necessarily early preteen years) due to a lack of a long-term, loving care with the teaching of good morals by an authority figure (like a parent) which leads to the child doing wrong often in childhood and their conscience becoming seared to the point where it no longer will produce a feeling of guilt, even in adulthood;

2) They are okay with seeing someone do an occasional good deed and may praise them for it and understand that good deeds are honorable, but have a hatred for people who do good deeds in general, hence why none of them have a charitable lifestyle, especially are nor charitable out of kindness. They are also highly resistant to being charitable even if it is to gain an advantage over others, which is because they associate charity with strong morality, which they hate. This is why they will accuse Christians of merely, “Shoving religion down everyone’s throat” and ignoring and not mentioning any good deeds Christians do no matter how many are done or how great, and may refer to those who do good as “goody-goodys”);

They are:

3) hypocritical in their rules and accusations and (due to having no conscience to let them know when they are doing wrong and their minds being narrowly focused on satisfying the desires of their heart rather than being careful to do what is logical and morally good);

4) unwilling to come up with any insight of their own on religion or philosophy, cannot, without explanation from a person with a conscience, belief in absolute right and wrong, punishment to restrain stubborn behavior, and belief in a god or gods or God, reason out the psychological, emotional, or physiological consequences of certain religions or philosophies, hence why

5) many or about all psychopaths are happy to make simplistic judgments on religion, especially complex ones, like, “(all) religions cause wars” or “(all) religion is responsible for deaths” as it conveniently excuses psychopaths to live without moral restraint and is why they are

6) mentally shallow (simple-minded) concerning anything at all despite specializing in something, like finding cheap air fair, a correct translation for a word, the correct answer to a mathematical formula. By imitating what others say in certain situations and with assistance they may appear to be smarter and wiser than they really are (as can anyone who imitates well and gets good help), and so then appear to be a anything, including lawyer, physicist, mathematician, biologist, baby-sitter, priest or even pastor.

7) Their mental shallowness is also evidenced by very stupid questions (shocking to a normal person), for example, if they ask someone to strip naked for them and get the reply, “It’s against my religion to”, they may reply with something like, “Well can’t you change your religion?” or “What is you stopped being religious?”.

8) Their mental shallowness is also evidenced by gullibility, sometimes great gullibility (shocking to a normal person). For example they show that they have a hard time (in general) determining real from not real no matter how absurd or clearly wrong a fiction is (for example belief in a billions of years old giant explosion creating all the wonders of the universe, including irreducibly complex, very beautiful, living, emotional things of countless types). So when a person plays an obvious joke on a psychopath, the person playing the joke will find to his or her amazement (if they don’t realize the person was a psychopath), the psychopath taking the joke seriously.

They are:

9) without empathy (in other words won’t imagine themselves in the painful situation of someone else in order to understand that person’s pain due to a lack of love for others);

10) though they can experience great joy over achieving or obtaining something, they don’t experience joy in general over seeing good deeds done, especially not seeing them done regularly and don’t feel deep anger or sadness over seeing anyone wronged (except themselves) and will, if a friend, close companion or someone they admire encourages them to laugh about it, do so.

11) Their displays of sorrow over seeing someone wronged, if any, are sometimes combined with a look of bewilderment and/or awe, being fascinated by the misdeed.

12) Though they may sometimes feel sorrow over seeing someone else in a bad position or wronged, it does not last long, and are unwilling to give much help, especially not long, great, suffering unless lead to do so by a friend, parent or someone that they admire.

They:

13) may try to display appropriate sorrow to having done wrong or seeing wrong done or over some sad thing (like a suffering child dying in front of them) if they think they may lose their advantage over others or be unable to gain an advantage over others if they don’t display this sorrow;

14) will experience fear and anxiety, including in great amounts when they believe they are in danger of feeling mental and physical pain or thinking about the possibility of such, but unlike non-psychopaths, will happily do moral wrongs and commit crimes (like stealing, destroying property, lying or committing adultery, regardless of whether or not anyone is being hurt of if they believe anyone will be hurt) if they don’t believe that there will be any painful consequences.feel great distress and worry when they perceive an immediate threat to their life-style. They can also have phobias.

15) They are emotionally shallow on immorality or good deeds (for example don’t feel anything or any deep anger of seeing someone do moral wrong or deep joy over seeing someone sacrifice themselves to help an innocent person or joy over someone suffering to help another who doesn’t deserve it – however they can and do feel great anger over themselves being wronged, especially if threatened by someone who can hinder their lifestyle – and at best experience someone deep wonderment or awe over seeing such things, which is also why their displays of sorrow over wrong-doing or someone suffering or dying lack a sad expression and they do not feel very sad).

16) Though they may sometimes feel sorrow for seeing someone else in a bad position, it does not last long, are unwilling to give more than what they consider to be of little value to help the person they feel sorrow for, though for their own entertainment they are willing to give a little physical help to or chat for a while.

They:

17) may find kind responses to what they realize is their bad behavior to be extremely funny and laugh aloud;

18) try to display appropriate sorrow to having done wrong or seeing wrong done or over some sad thing (like a suffering child dying in front of them) if they think they may lose their advantage over others or be unable to gain an advantage over others if they don’t display this sorrow;

They are:

19) rude (for example will, when annoyed by someone, reply with a cold, annoyed or mocking tone sometimes combining them with expressions like, “well if you would let me finish” or “stop interrupting me”;

20) self-centered/cares more about themselves than anyone else (for example may brush off a request from a friend’s request for some emergency merely because they desire more sleep or hoard money to the hurt of others though not necessarily out of greed);

21) arrogant (for example sees themselves as much better than most people yet having no evidence for this, and may boast aloud of some existing or non-existent trait they have (like clairvoyance) thinking that that trait gives them great uniqueness and a level of goodness or intelligence that makes them much more worthy of attention than other things, including people, and much more valuable than other things, and so if they are interrupted when they are wandering, rambling or ranting or interrupted at all, will make a reply like, “well if you would let me finish” or “don’t cut me off” even if what they are saying is not relevant or obvious, even if that is told to them, and will behave as if what they have to say is relevant, original/not obvious and profound and unable to be known by the person they are talking to unless they tell it to them);

22) are obsessed with finding uniqueness and non-repetition in others (for example may insult someone for not being original and “repeating” themselves) and without realizing it is implying that the uniqueness and originality that they are seeming is immoral and illogical (which they often call “random”) behavior;

23) often quick to lie to save or keep an appearance of being very unique, wise and or whatever their idea of “good” is;

24) able to lie very well due to not being hindered by a conscience.

They:

25) will complain about and show frustration about the difficulty they had in learning subjects that require much patience and concentration which did not interest them (for example may say, “it was really hard to study these things”);

26) live a parasitic lifestyle/take advantage of others in order to survive and avoid having to work either mentally or physically hard for long;

27) will do complex mental work only if they see absolutely no other likely way for them to accomplish their long term goal of having an easy-going life (for example doing math work that bores them in order to get through college);

28) have no conscience (and therefore feel no regret or sorrow or guilt regardless of how badly or how many times they disobey God);

29) have poor emotional self-control/impulsive (for example will touch a person in a place where that person requests not to be touched if they think that they can escape being punished for it, though they may not be promiscuous or display their lust openly out of fear of being rejected for their inability to please another sexually and not having adequate sexually-pleasing physical characteristics);

30) are very resistant to accept that they’ve done wrong if it wasn’t intentional;

31) sadistic and cruel (for example will intentionally and repeatedly do wrong and laugh at seeing it greatly upset a person even if they see that their cruelty is causing great pain or damage to that person).

32) They believe that they have an inherit right as a person, but not because of God’s word or the word of some other supposed god to do whatever they desire to do, so long as it is lawful, though like most people will question certain laws and believe some to be useless and pointless.

33) They don’t believe that there is a logical, discoverable reason for the occurrence of certain things (for example why they may go for a walk at a certain hour of the day and go to a certain street).

34) A psychopath, to protect his or her life-style, may attempt to ruin the life of, blackmail or murder the person who may ruin their life-style (for example if a psychopath suspects that someone is going to try to send them to jail, he may try to poison that person, or if he or she thinks he can get away with it, stab that person to death).

A narcissist can also be a psychopath.

1) The main concerns of a narcissist is how they visibly appear to themselves, or that they are seen by others often or always, and to a lesser degree, others, and to a lesser degree, how they audibly sound and their reputation in the minds of others or that they are in the minds of others often or always.

2) They see themselves as more beautiful or important than they really are or overall beautiful when they are not and obsess on those qualities and/or trying to improve or enhance them. In addition to that or alternatively, they will see their life style as noble or morally good even if it clearly isn’t.

3) If they can, they will display one or more images of themselves prominently or in great amounts for themselves and others to obsess on, and if they can’t, will try to be in public view often.

4) They idolize or obsess on those whom they believe to be superior in some way, like in beauty, wealth, strength or eloquence or their fame or high status.

5) They are easily offended by criticism against themselves, regardless of whether or not the judgment is right and will be quick to show their annoyance and disapproval even going so far as to say that all judgment is wrong in order to gain the love and support of others who hate being criticized.

6) Narcissists will also, in order to better fit the high status or beauty they do or imagine that they have, try to match it by how they speak, both by their tone and choice of words. For example, they may try to speak eloquently and use rare words like “drek”, “ergo”, “notwithstanding” etc. (or if too mentally lazy or stupid to learn “hard” or rare words, simply call themselves smart, intelligent and wise and tell people that don’t see things as they do as not being able to notice the “obvious” and that they are “ridiculous” or “absurd” if not agreeing with the “obvious” (like in macro-evolution, or how beautiful they are). Because of their impulsiveness and focus on using “smart” words more than making sense when using them, they often don’t make sense or contradict themselves. They may also use royal-sounding or wise-sounding phrases like, “intricate complexities”, “tight co-evolution”, “please do”, “may I suggest”, “me thinks [that] you”, “my dear friend”, including Shakespearean or Shakespearean-like phrases).

7) In addition to or instead of using “high” words or phrases, narcissists behave arrogantly/snobbishly and see that behavior a appropriate and good.

8) Though not necessarily intending to be rude, they will expresses blunt disinterest in whatever disinterests them if coming from a person that they find of little significance to sustaining their life-style, which especially includes persons who won’t pander to them.

9) They crave attention, and if not satisfied with the amount they get may make up imaginary relationships, imaginary close relationships or even imaginary people to get attention from, when they are don’t get the attention that they desire. . They may even go so far as to create false evidence to strengthen their belief in these people (for example may make imaginary Internet user accounts or email accounts supposedly used by these imaginary people and sending email to themselves from these accounts). This is either an insanity or they believe that they can, by their mere will, will things into reality, in other words, “wish” things into reality (including their being right about something).

10) They strongly avoid associating with anyone that they believe is not unique, but is instead common, and will as much as possible only associate with those whom in their minds is being given special attention, for example for business, academic, athletic or altruistic achievements (unless those achievements are done by someone whom they realize is a Calvinist type Christian, more commonly known as a “fundamentalist Christians” (though the phrase “fundamentalist” Christian also includes anti-Calvinist Christians)) or “negative” attention, for example someone being given attention for what they perceive to be some out of the ordinary crime or if a there is excited behavior being made over the crime by the one being investigated or accused or the ones investigating or accusing them.

11) Narcissists will do things that they believe are deserving of praise, but which aren’t. They also exagerrate the help they’ve given and will ven entirely imagine a helpful act they’ve never performed.

12) Though seemingly contradictory to being a narcissist, they may isolate themselves in order to get others to wonder where they are and how they doing (just as a person will or feign harming or killing themselves in order to get sympathetic attention). Instead of going into hiding, they may radically change their appearance (or try to) to keep from being recognized or to restore or enhance their appearance.

A person can be turned into a narcissist by praising whatever that person does, even if it is evil and praising their appearance even if they are ugly over all or praising some part of their body that is ugly as being beautiful, or praising their clothing as being beautiful in appearance when it isn’t, and getting them to focus on their appearance while disregarding more important things like their health, or the well-being of others.

A similar but more dangerous type of psychopath realizes the or great threat that theistic based morality poses to their lifestyle, and attempts to subvert it, even going so far as to pretending to be a moral theist in order to infiltrate moral theistic groups and subvert them by immoral behavior (to ruin their image and discredit them), and by causing in-fighting or by some other type of sabotage like disorganizing, damaging or destroying property.

Psychopaths and narcissists are not necessarily more evil than others (due to their mental handicaps), but are more dangerous and immoral than non-psychopaths and narcissists because of their handicaps. Above all else they are less reliable for telling the truth due to their lack of concern for telling lies for which they don’t believe they will suffer for for telling.

A “normal” well-off person might find a lost wallet with much money in it, but not return either the wallet or money, while an impoverished psychopath and narcissist might not do so out of fear of of some bad consequence, or, without such fear: in the blink of an eye return someone’s lost wallet, even with a large amount of money in it and without expecting anything more than a “thanks” (though rarely deeds that require a great effort or that will cause them to be unable to live comfortably for long, and in my experience, probably not longer than a day). The reason for that is that both a psychopath and narcissist simply aren’t able to correctly emotionally respond to some things, just not all things. But what make both a psychopath and narcissist worse than normal people, is that they are more rude in general, more likely to do greater evil without any concern or effort to make up for it, more simple-minded (therefore much harder to reason with than with someone of normal intelligence) and that combined with their impulsiveness allows them to be easily influenced by those they admire or desire to please into doing something as bad as severely abusing a child or murdering one. Another contrasting example is that a normal person, though a career thief, will strongly limit himself to doing anything but stealing, and only from well-off people if they can, and will be more likely to try and make up for their thefts (unless they believe that they were justified in what they did or are angry at whomever they stole from for immoral acts that they believe those people committed). But concerning who is more immoral: a mentally ill person or a normal person who does evil, ironically, it is probably the normal person, since the normal person is not morally disabled by a mental illness, but doing what is wrong with greater clarity of thought and with greater self control and with a greater emotional understanding of how bad it feels to be wronged.

Basically, psychopaths and narcissists are highly untrustworthy, arbitrary, manipulative, gullible, heartless to nearly heartless, self-centered, contradictory simpletons who avoid doing hard work and thinking and instead, to get what they want, rely on others to do the hard work and thinking.

As a consequence of these things psychopaths may have many short-term relationships (depending on how high the population is where they live) and due to their relentless disrespectfulness, unthankfulness, lack of appropriate emotional responses becoming unbearable and because the psychopath desires and seeks out new experiences to keep from feeling boredom.

There are different degrees of psychopathy and narcissism being that their root cause is, as with any sinful state, hatred of God, and unforgiven people don’t all have the same amount of hatred anymore than a forgiven people all have the same amount of love for God.

A psychopath, like anyone who sins, can, by God only, be cured of their desire to disobey God, their illogical thinking, impulsiveness and imperfect moral judgment.

Train a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not turn from it.
Proverbs 22:6

He who spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 13:24

A lying tongue hates those afflicted by it,
and a flattering mouth works ruin.
Proverbs 26:28

Even a child is known by his actions,
by whether his conduct is pure and right.
Proverbs 20:11

Fathers, do not exasperate your children;
instead, bring them up in the training
and instruction of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:4

Children, obey your parents in the Lord,
for this is right.
Ephesians 6:1

Charm is deceptive,
and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears Yahweh
is to be praised.
Proverbs 31:30

he of whom little is forgiven:
his love is also little.
Luke 7:47

Coast to Coast Host George Noory Promotes Another Deluded Psychopath

Tonight and this morning George had on (repeatedly) self-called “Clairvoyant and historian” Tricia McCannon, who said on the show,

“I think if we go high enough up there is no good or evil, it’s all one.” No: child abuse and child murder is not one with loving children and helping children to live, neither is hate the same as love. Later, at 1:55 A.M., she said, “I personally believe that all the miracles that are attributed to him are true.” At least she obeyed (knowingly or not) Jesus plea to at least believe that his miracles were genuine, but that just condemns her all the more. She also said that her family is made up of conservative Christians (and from her description they seemed to be Pentecostal Arminians), so it’s not surprising to me that she rejected what she thinks is Christianity and turned to fantasy and demons.

Ironically, this clairvoyant when replying to one caller, got her name wrong after the caller said it, and George had to correct her; apparently being psychic doesn’t help correct hearing misperceptions.

George was also rude to Tricia, treating her like a child by telling her in a reverse way that she was wandering off topic, having done that ironically while she was talking about alleged wanderings of Jesus. Way to go insulting your own guest George (which with your experience you surely knew was nervous), and a guest you obviously had on in your usual laziness to have anyone a little more intelligent than someone who thinks they’re the reincarnation of the Queen of Sheba.

George also had on the liar and narcissist Richard Hoagland, who I’ve been planning to post something about for months, but have put off. Maybe I’ll post about him next.

George also mentioned the Vatican exorcist who claimed that the Vatican had been infiltrated by demons very badly. The first time it was mentioned on his show was by George a few days ago, and immediately after he had on the source of this news: the Vatican’s chief exorcist “Father Gabriele Amorth“. This announcement by Amorth conveniently came just after the world wide news of mass abuse against children and young adults by Catholic priests, teachers, monks and nuns. I just looked at that link I linked to Amorth’s name and it too mentions the child-abuse timing of this announcement. This “exorcist”, in a very nutty and anti-social way (apparently he was infiltrated too) told George this news about four days ago. The man was so stupid and bizarre that George immediately moved on to his next news mention without saying “thanks”, it was pretty awkward.

Mexihell Revisted and Updated

I’ve updated what was a lacking article on Mexico’s history of corruption, which about two hours ago I found out WordPress.com didn’t include in their top search results at the very least, if not at all in any of the over 6,000 search results, despite my post having much more information on Mexico then any other post on WordPress. Very suspicious. Now what will be their excuse now that it has even more relevant information?

Europe’s Catholic Churches face wave of sex abuse charges

Europe’s Catholic Churches face wave of sex abuse charges, fear more to come

by Shawn Pogatchnik
3/14/2010/12:43 AM EST

DUBLIN — It often starts as a voice in the wilderness, but can swell into an entire nation’s demand for truth. From Ireland to Germany, Europe’s many victims of child abuse in the Roman Catholic church are finally breaking social taboos and confronting the clergy to face its demons.

Ireland was the first in Europe to confront the church’s worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. Now that legacy of suppressed childhood horror is being confronted in other parts of the Continent — nowhere more poignantly than in Germany, the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI.

The recent spread of claims into the Netherlands, Austria and Italy has analysts and churchmen wondering how deep the scandal runs, which nation will be affected next, and whether a tide of lawsuits will force European dioceses to declare bankruptcy like their American cousins.

“You have to presume that the cover-up of abuse exists everywhere, to one extent or another. A new case could appear in a new country tomorrow,” said David Quinn, director of a Christian think tank, the Iona Institute, that seeks to promote family values in an Ireland increasingly cool to Catholicism.

Quinn noted that stories of systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuse circulated privately in Irish society for decades, but only moved aboveground in the mid-1990s when former altar boy Andrew Madden and orphanage survivor Christine Buckley went public with lawsuits and exposes of how priests and nuns tormented them with impunity.

Floodgates opened for Irish complaints that have topped 15,000 in this country of 4 million. Three government-ordered investigations have shocked and disgusted the nation, which has footed most of the bill to settle legal claims topping euro1 billion (nearly $1.5 billion).

“A lot comes down to: When does that first victim gather the courage to come forward into the spotlight?” Quinn said. “It seems to take that trigger event, the lone voice who says what so many kept silent so long. That’s basically happening now in Germany. It could happen next in Spain, Poland, anywhere.”

In January, an elite Jesuit school in Berlin declared it was aware of seven child-abuse cases in its past and appointed an outside investigator, Ursula Raue, to seek testimony. Within weeks, she had gathered stories of long-suppressed woe from more than 100 ex-students abused by their Jesuit masters, and from 60 molested by parish priests. – <a href=”Europe’s Catholic Churches face wave of sex abuse charges, fear more to come by Shawn Pogatchnik 3/14/2010/12:43 AM EST DUBLIN — It often starts as a voice in the wilderness, but can swell into an entire nation’s demand for truth. From Ireland to Germany, Europe’s many victims of child abuse in the Roman Catholic church are finally breaking social taboos and confronting the clergy to face its demons. Ireland was the first in Europe to confront the church’s worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. Now that legacy of suppressed childhood horror is being confronted in other parts of the Continent — nowhere more poignantly than in Germany, the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI. The recent spread of claims into the Netherlands, Austria and Italy has analysts and churchmen wondering how deep the scandal runs, which nation will be affected next, and whether a tide of lawsuits will force European dioceses to declare bankruptcy like their American cousins. “You have to presume that the cover-up of abuse exists everywhere, to one extent or another. A new case could appear in a new country tomorrow,” said David Quinn, director of a Christian think tank, the Iona Institute, that seeks to promote family values in an Ireland increasingly cool to Catholicism. Quinn noted that stories of systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuse circulated privately in Irish society for decades, but only moved aboveground in the mid-1990s when former altar boy Andrew Madden and orphanage survivor Christine Buckley went public with lawsuits and exposes of how priests and nuns tormented them with impunity. Floodgates opened for Irish complaints that have topped 15,000 in this country of 4 million. Three government-ordered investigations have shocked and disgusted the nation, which has footed most of the bill to settle legal claims topping euro1 billion (nearly $1.5 billion). “A lot comes down to: When does that first victim gather the courage to come forward into the spotlight?” Quinn said. “It seems to take that trigger event, the lone voice who says what so many kept silent so long. That’s basically happening now in Germany. It could happen next in Spain, Poland, anywhere.” In January, an elite Jesuit school in Berlin declared it was aware of seven child-abuse cases in its past and appointed an outside investigator, Ursula Raue, to seek testimony. Within weeks, she had gathered stories of long-suppressed woe from more than 100 ex-students abused by their Jesuit masters, and from 60 molested by parish priests. More here.

Google’s hosted version of this article is much better: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_cfU5TnimDgvhfygQBB2NlzikuQD9EE2MH00

Apparently the Catholic Church decided not to meet my challenge to stop abusing children.

One day God will give this command to those in that “Church” whom he plans to save:

Then I heard another voice from heaven say: ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues’” – Revelation 18:4

I wonder if the heretic Catholic and famous radio show host George Noory, will report this story tonight. Oh wait, I think George Knapp is the Coast to Coast AM host tonight.

Update, 11:07 P.M.:

To my disgust it’s Ian Punnet on tonight, and he said about his guest last night, the heretic and blasphemer Bart Ehrman, “Gosh I liked last night’s show.” On top of that he’s agreeing with Ehrman that there are contradictions in the original languages. What a disgusting jerk. There is no excuse for ignorance on the topic of contradictions in the Bible.

Update, 11:12 P.M.:

Ian is doing the news, but isn’t mentioning this Catholic child-abuse story. Instead his first story was on dog-growling, right now he’s talking about who D.B. Cooper might be yet again, and joking about being him. What an evil idiot.

Update 11:15 P.M.:

Ian didn’t mention anything about the Catholic child-abuse story in his very short list of Coast to Coast featured news stories.

from heraldsun.com:

Catholic schools at center of sexual abuse scandal

by Kirsten Grieshaber of the Associated Press
3/15/2010

BERLIN — It happened for years, again and again. Every morning before class, the boys had to undress and Father Ludger Stueper sprayed them with cold water from the hose, front and back.

The boys also had to lie down on Stueper’s couch where the Roman Catholic priest would take their temperature — rectally for seven minutes.

And then there were the photos.

“One time, Stueper took pictures of a friend and me while we were in the shower. He also made us go outside and we had to pose naked for him, lean against stones and trees in the park, the foam from the shampoo still in our hair,” recalled Miguel Abrantes, a former student at the Jesuit-run boarding school Aloisius Kolleg in Bonn.

Abrantes, now 37 and an actor in Duesseldorf, is one of the few victims willing to speak out about the abuse and humiliation he suffered as an 11-year-old boy at the school.

He is one of at least 150 victims in an ever-widening scandal involving allegations of priests sexually abusing their pupils at several Catholic high schools across Germany. The scandal has spiraled since seven alumni of the prestigious Catholic Canisius Kolleg in Berlin first came forward with allegations of abuse in January, shocking the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI.

While the focus of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church centered on the United States for several years, abuse scandals have in recent years erupted in other countries as well, including Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, Mexico, Italy, Canada and elsewhere. – More here.

Artificial Earthquakes, Biblical Prophecy and the End of the Federal Government

If it’s true that the U.S. government is causing artificial earthquakes, then some people might not think that Jesus prophecy on earthquakes increasing isn’t coming true, because he was referring to so called “natural” or divine earthquakes. The Bible doesn’t say that though, nor did Jesus say that “rumors of wars and wars” would be natural or divine. Rumors are spread by man and man makes wars (and with demons in part provoking them to do evil). The Bible seems to imply in Revelation, that mankind will become aware that such powerful events are acts of vengeance by God, but if speculation and belief that it is the U.S. (Federal) Government causing the earthquakes grows worldwide, then the focus would be taken off God as the one causing them, or at least through someone else supernatural, like an angel or demon. If it is true that this would cause confusion as to who or what is causing the increase in large earthquakes or sway too many people to take their focus off God, then God may destroy or disband the Federal Government so that that speculation or belief stays small or is completely gone. So, it may be that you could roughly determine when the Federal Government would cease to exist based on the rate of increase and speculation on what is causing an increase in major earthquakes and/or what is causing major earthquakes to occur more so in areas with a high population.

Noory’s Numerological Nonsense and More Close Encounters With Ian Punnet’s Stupidity

On March 6, 2010(?), I ended up being wrong about Ian Punnet not cutting off callers in the middle of their stories. He did so recently for no good reason to a man who said he had had a close encounter in the 60’s with aliens and had never told the story to anyone. The man was elderly sounding, but was telling his story just fine, and he wasn’t rambling or ranting and he hadn’t gone on for long. When this man said he saw a control panel in the UFO he was taken into, Ian, rather than letting the man say if anything had been said to him or ask him for more specific details, cut him off with a distressed voice asking, “but do you have a question for the author?”. HOW ABOUT LETTING HIM FINISH FIRST? He wasn’t giving a story about how boring it is to fast or how he likes to count his fingers or stare at cows all day; he was giving a very interesting out of the ordinary story of the nearly miraculous kind, and of the kinds of stories that Coast to Coast AM is supposed to be covering. Yet you cut him off, saying that the background echo was driving him crazy (which only Ian could hear – well how about asking him to turn off his radio genius?) just so the author can say, “Oh yes Native Americans have encountered UFOs”. And no: Ian wasn’t up against a commercial break as some of you idiot C2C AM worshipers might think: The next caller gave a boring as Hell story about a UFO; a typical colored-lights-in-the-sky story.

And last night into the early morning, the heretic Catholic George Noory wasted the world’s time with about three hours of babble from a regular numerologist who gives people false hope and dread over something as stupid as when they were born and the numerical value of their names. A problem with numerology of the kind that just occurred to me after writing that previous sentence is that Glynis only, and for no logical reason, focuses on the numbers of certain aspects of a person’s life. What about their zipcode, longitude and latitude location, location with respect to certain buildings, how many blades of grass they are standing on, how many clouds are over head, how many cars nearby, how many times they used the same word, how many times they combed their hair that day, how many hairs on their head they have, how many hairs they lost or cut and on what day, how many molecules their body is made up of, how many pounds a person weighs how many people are nearby or far away, how many teeth they have – why don’t any of those matter in Glynis’ or any numerologists explanations for why good or bad things have or will happen in a person’s life, why is the focus mainly on names and dates?

Notice how this numerologist here doesn’t say a thing about why the numerological value of Donald Trump’s name him more successful in business than others or instead why he had success in specific business ventures, but simply asks a pretentious question or two, like, “Well would you pay attention to him if his name was Don?”

The reason for numerologists disregarding numerological factors is because it is inconvenient for them, would take them forever to analyze the numerical value of all things in the universe and it would be too hard for most of them to make money or get praise by doing such a thing, as most people still have enough sense to realize that such a thing is impossible for man and that only an insane person would spend a long time trying.

If you want your child to have a successful life, take the Bible’s advice and choose a good one, not a weird or odd one that suits your personal fancy. What’s a good one? One that doesn’t mean something evil for one, or that sounds evil, or sounds like a joke. People with strange names (in relation to the culture that they are in) have a higher probability of committing more crimes than the average person: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/study-links-unusual-surnames-to-criminality

Scientific Experiments to Prove or Disprove Numerology and Astrology

Set up an experiment in which people with lucky and unlucky names, birth-dates and address numbers are given an equal challenge to find hidden money or something valuable of some sort, which if they can find may keep. Perform the experiment in one place with a lucky address on the same the lucky day and hour. Make sure that each of the participants fell asleep at a lucky hour and woke up eight or nine hours later on a lucky hour before on the day of the experiment, but before performing the experiment (so that everyone is well-rested and didn’t “jinx” themselves by falling asleep and awakening on unlucky hours). Make sure that all your participants are of about equal intelligence. Another thing to make sure of is that what you’ve hidden can be found without taking forever, other wise the experiment may take forever or you may not be able to complete enough of them, especially if the participants have a job to get to on that day or must take care of their family.

Make sure you that have many participants so that you have a significant sample size to come up with statistics on. If lucky names, dates and address numbers are able to affect success, then each of the participants should on average have the same success or failure at finding about the same amount of money or things worth about the same amount of money in about the same amount of time.

After gathering the test results, perform the experiment again, but at that time using unlucky address numbers, sleeping and waking times, and an unlucky day.

An alternative or additional experiment you could hopefully do would be to change the challenge from seeing who can find the most money or things worth the most, to something more simple, like who can burn a hole in piece of paper on concrete using the exact same magnifying glass and same type of paper (without gasoline on the concrete or anything else flammable on the concrete or nearby obviously), and do this on an unlucky and lucky hour, and lucky and lucky day, while the sun is shining bright and there are little to no clouds blocking the sun. If luck really does exist and the number of your name, address, and birth date and date of the experiment influences it, then some people should fail to burn a hole in the paper or have a harder time doing so then others. For example a freak cloud should appear to block out the sun, or an earthquake that scare some of the participants off, or fire ants suddenly biting one or more people and preventing them from having success, or some other incident or incidents getting in the way. And you could even have a experimenter take your place who doesn’t know why the experiments are being performed so that you cannot bias the experiments by interfering with the results somehow either deliberately or accidentally.

These same experiments can be applied to astrology by choosing people born at certain times, and choosing people born in each of the Zodiac sections, and seeing if some perform better then others based on what Zodiac type they fit into. To increase the evidence for your study, perform the experiments on days in which some often used types of astrology predicts a good or bad day or successful or unsuccessful day, etc. and try experiments with a few obscure types of traditional astrology (instead of endlessly testing new methods which I’m guessing, based on my experience, won’t have any evidence for them being accurate either).

What One Numerologist Has To Say About the Influence of Numbers On Luck

Name Numerology : an art full of contradiction ? – Why people with lucky names fail and those with unlucky name succeed.

It is true that numbers influence our life but they are not the decisive factor of our fate. There are many other things (known and unknown), which also influence our life to a great deal along with numbers. Therefore, a complete dependency on numbers, while deciding the future course of action, is neither necessary nor recommended. – Source

The evidence for numerology is absolute zero and it is clearly arbitrary. And once again: When will the Pope or George’s priest excommunicate him for heresy and for promoting the heresies of others and witchcraft? Does anyone agree that Catholics are false Christians?

Related articles which refute astrology:

http://snipr.com/astrology1
http://snipr.com/astrology2
http://snipr.com/astrology3
http://snipr.com/astrology4

Related articles which refute numerology (I haven’t read them yet – let me know if any are good if you want to):

Arguments against Harold Camping’s numerology (or numerical symbolism):
http://refutecamping.com/topics/math_and_numerology.php

John Ankerberg’s refutation of numerology: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 |

Funny Search Engine Queries

Some funny and odd search engine queries I found today:

can randy orton become a muslim
stargate tv series american propaganda
2010 arab teachers guestbooks directorie
where does george noory leave
genesis bible agencies (detective)
george noory is an idiot
simple speech about global warming
what happened to george noory
refuting protestant lies

I thought this one was a little suspicious:

ip address for glenn beck radio

You can find funny queries like this on peoples’ extreme tracker stats, which unfortunteately is a site meter I can’t afford. If you have any funny (but not obscene) ones to show me go ahead and post them in the comments.

Is Every Human in the Flesh Equally Good and Bad?

This isn’t what I wated posted next but I couldn’t hold it back after reading a deadly heresy: I read a blog entry a few minutes ago on Pat Robertson’s Haiti condemnation comment, and part of the entry said:

“What I am saying is that sin in any form is not distinguishable in terms of degrees or reach.”

Are you insane? Murder is equal to pushing someone hatefully, with only the intent of that one push? Severely abusing a child is equal to someone stealing a piece of cheap bread off a rich glutton who have no intention of using the bread except to let it go to waste? Hitler was eqal to Enoch, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha and John the Baptist, Mary the mother of Christ, John Calvin, John Adams or the Salem Witch Trial judge, judge Sewall, who voluntarily stood up to admit his crimes in public, in his church, repenting of them? No way! Are those who practice witchcraft and who don’t obey God are equal to Christians who love and obey God? That’s insulting to all Christians who love God and it damages the faith of whoever believes what you said, because they become confused as to whether they can become more like Christ over time as the Bible says they will, and eventually, reach perfection through God’s direct intervention.

Was the verse that taught that only those Christians who live a God-obedient life unto death get the crown of life not a big enough hint for you? Or how about where God says that he chose Israel of all the nations to bless because they were not as evil as the other races during that time when he chose them to be exalted above the other races?

And don’t you know about the unforgivable sin?

And what good is trying to obey God moreso and “better” if we simply will be the same sinner as usually?

And what the Hell:

This false “we all sin so no one is worse than anyone else” logic is what false Christians, especially when pointed out, use to justify calling themselves Christians, even calling themselves “saved” Christians while continuing to casually disobey God. We’re not all equal and you can know a tree by it’s fruit, and not all trees are equal in quality, which is an evident clear truth and what Jesus reminded us of.

Bill Gates’ Global Warming Propaganda Speech Refuted

In February, 2010, Bill Gates rushed a speech at the TED building which I’ve made evident below. What makes it relevant is that his speech was classic propaganda, and that even with his great riches, “all the money in the world” figuratively speaking, his speech was childish and it showed that his wisdom was shallow, having diminished over the years. Yes, he succeeded in becoming a very rich man, the richest for many years, but that wasn’t all due to his wisdom, and especially not due to any righteous words and behavior, but in large part from having had access to his parent’s riches and being a money-hoarding, pushy schemer (2) and (hypocritical (2)).

Whether he realized he was pitching propaganda or not, I don’t know, but that is what it was. It seems to me that someone coached him in what to say, to help him continue to be on the world stage in a positive light, no doubt to try and dwarf his history of failures (the biggest of which was his, and to this day, for no apparent logical reason, allowing at least twenty-five highly efficiency-sapping annoyances in Windows XP, Vista and 7 (and here is a security major flaw that I just discovered which was recently discovered to affect nearly all Windows OS’s: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-dos-security-flaw,9477.html).

The speech appears to propaganda because it is dumbed down so that even children can understand it, contains simplistic lies (insulting ones), for example that make it appear as if all the top scientists in the world are in agreement with what he’s saying, which is an easily discovered lie.

Now why was his simpleton speech aimed at adults? Perhaps it was to make it look like his speech wasn’t a simplistic one meant for kids, but for adults. The main target audience must have been young adult teens, or a little older than 19, and the elderly being that people in their 20’s and up to 65 already know the line “C02 bad, makes Earth hot, ice melt, polar bears die, penguins drown, world sinks under wadder. Dis is bad.” Teens are usually to busy doing stupid things to care to remember words like C02 and the elderly, suffering from senility often and major fatigue would be likely to forget it to, and being that everyone knows Bill Gates is a billionaire (which is rare and something most people wish they were) and both a failure and a success, would be likely to at least see a partial transcript of his speech passed down by someone who was interested in what he had to say, like me. By the time I realized there was a transcript with the video’s page, I had made my own unique one, but that saves me from having to deal with copyright attacks.

Either he is severely out out of touch with reality (so that he doesn’t realize that most Westerner’s already know the basics), or didn’t realize he was being deceived into targeting teens and the elderly, that is my educated opinion.

He also, as you may have heard by now, seemed to accidentally admit that vaccines were meant to reduce the human population of the world. What would he say to make it appear as if that wasn’t what he meant, or what whoever crafted the speech for him meant. I’m thinking… Ok, now I remember what I was trying to remember: That people who are healthy and prosperous don’t have as many kids because they don’t need anyone to take care of them right away, and vaccines are supposed to make you healthier. However, during the part of that speech that he said that, the audience laughed at an interesting moment, which indicates like I said, that his audience was already informed about global warming and alleged overpopulation, especially being that they laughed at a moment that indicated they were thinking about genocide or something like it. Read and watch the video for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Here were the most relevant parts showing the childish, time-wasting, simplicity, claims without evidence, and the “top scientists are whoever I think they are” lines:

… The climate is getting worse, means that many years, their crops won’t grow. … And that leads to starvation… And so the climate changes, will be terrible for them. … Also, the price of energy is very important to them. … Advanced civilization, uh is based on advances in energy. … But, as we make it cheaper,

(takes a breath and looks worried as he starts to say): we need to meet a new constraint. And that constraint, has to do with, C02. C02, is warming the planet. Aaand, thee equation on C02, is actually euh, uh very straight forward one.

Bill helps us masses of simpleton idiots to finally understand what C02 does with this
simple picture, which is clear scientific proof that much C02 is very negative,
so negative in fact that Earth will turn into Mars in just 40 years,
at which point Windows XP will lose any chance of ever being fixed.

If you sum up, the C02, that gets emitted, that leads to temperature uh increase. And that temperature increase, leads to some very negative effects. The effects on the weather, ump perhaps worse than the indirect effects, in that, uh theih natural ecosystems can’t adjust (said adjust with emphasis) to these rapid changes, and so you get ecosystems collapses. Now the exact amount, of how you map fromuh uh, certain increase in of C02, to what temperature will be and where the positive feedbacks are, there’s some uncertainty there, but not very much. And there’s shertainly uncertainty about how bad those effects would be, but they will be extremely bad.

I asked the top scientists in this several times, “Do we really have to get down, to near zero, can’t we just you know cut in half or in a quarter, and the answer is that until we get near to zero,

the temperature will continue to rise. …

And somehow we have to make changes, that will bring that (C02) down to zero. … So we have to go from rapidly rising, to falling, and falling all the way to zero. … Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. Uh thats… (audience makes long laugh) Uh first we’ve got population. … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. … Now if we do a really great job sooon, new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that perhaps by 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase [in population at the same time] of uh about 1.3 [percent]. (end)

After his stupid speech, he did a Q & A with an ugly middle-aged Irish person with a gay lisp  (no doubt to me so that Bill would be appealing to gays and foreigners and so that his speech would seem to be of worldwide importance). That he chose an Irish person was extremely stupid, because Ireland has one of the smallest populations in the world of any country except tiny islands. It only has about four million people and has an area of 42,712 sq miles: a much population smaller than the poor African country Benin, which has 7.1 million people and is only a little larger in size at 43,483 square miles (771 square miles more). On top of that, Ireland’s population is in severe decline. The last thing they need is Bill’s vaccines.

Here is a plain contradiction that Bill made, showing that he is lying:

Now the exact amount, of how you map fromuh uh, certain increase in of C02, to what temperature will be and where the positive feedbacks are, there’s some uncertainty there, but not very much. And there’s [c]ertainly uncertainty about how bad those effects would be, but they will be extremely bad.

Besides the grammar slips, what matters most is that he said there uncertainty about how bad the effects would be, but in the next half of his short sentence says it will specifically be “extremely bad” not, “but it could be extremely bad”. So which is it: it might be bad or extremely bad?

In addition to that, Bill is either ignorant about nuclear power generators or is lying, since there are nuclear generators that don’t put out weaponizable waste, and are virtually clean power generators.

And what is he talking about when he says that ecosystems could be destroyed by the drastic weather changes: Hello Bill: ever heard of a sunny day suddenly turning rainy, or snow appearing in large amounts where there was no snow? How about giant-sized-hail showers? How about hurricanes, monsoons, floods and large forest fires? Does the plant like all just suddenly disappear never to return because of those things? When a volcano erupts and pours lava everywhere, does it stay barren of life forever? And are any of those events gradual weather changes? Obviously not, and yet he wants us all to worry and spend our hard earned money to prevent GRADUAL whether changes in which the temperature rises one or two degrees over 100 to 1000 years, which according to Darwinists, all living things would adapt to and become more complex allowing them to have greater intelligence! So these Darwinists, like Bill Gates, are blind, confused, liars, and want us to fight against evolution, the very thing they make out to be a god!

He also gave us a deadline, forty years (global warmers think 40 years is sudden?), which was very important since it gives those who are truly concerned about the truth a way to test if whether or not what these false prophets are giving us accurate prophecies, or lies.

Near the end of his speech he said that the “R & D is ridiculously underfunded”. Hey billionaire: put your money where your begging the poor to stop breathing (and in so doing kill off most of the plant life) is. Put up the bulk of your own money and hoarded charity money, then you can preach to the poor masses you believe are beneath you in all their wisdom. They were “smart enough” to buy your Hellish junk weren’t they? Junk you couldn’t be bothered to improve, but fobbed off on idiots who carried over many of the same problems from your older operating systems and introduced new ones from Hell. Here is the video source of Bill’s semi-rant.

So this is the result of turning away from God, the source of truth: believing lies, lying, and until you become insane from the confusion that results in having to filter out your own lies.

A rich man may be wise in his own eyes,
but a poor man who has discernment sees through him.
Proverbs 28:11

Catholic Radio Show Host George Noory Promotes Demons Again

Yesterday night George featured the medium Mary Ann Winkowski. She is used, sadly, but not surprisingly, by the FBI. George allowed people to call in and ask her questions, and she was asked if she believed in the Bible, and she said that she did, and the same caller then told her that the Bible said that “the dead know nothing”, and said that Satan likes to play tricks, but she dismissed it, and instead of saying, “That’s not true” was disgustingly sly by instead saying that not all (human) spirits cross over, and so, negating God’s word in the next breath. A few minutes later another person called in and asked her why not all spirits cross over, and she gave the common, but nonsensical reason, which is that God gave us free will (and by saying this again negated God’s word and which implies that man’s will/what he wants is more important that God’s). Though she no doubt believed that God’s will was that man’s will be done, it’s a clear nonsensical error because mankind has multiple conflicting wills, things like I’m sure, putting God in Hell, or making a visible slave of him on Earth. So how can God do both? Obviously he can’t be in Hell and on Earth at the same time, or have the same woman’s body in two different locations for whatever man would like to be with her. The Bible clearly teaches that it is God’s will that is always done.

On top of that, Mary was implying (and all Arminian Christians, which includes many Pentecostals, and any Christian who believes that man’s will is accomplished over God’s) is implying the insane, the illogical: that man can do anything he wants simply by wanting to, by willing to do so in other words, or some would say, “wishing for it”. How insane is that? It’s against the common sense that everyone on Earth believes, except the severely insane, to believe that you can do whatever you want simply by wishing to. This teaching I just remembered, is more widespread than I realized: ever remember being taught “if you want something enough you can have it” or “if you try hard enough” or “you can accomplish whatever you want if you set your mind to it“? These pretentious cliches are used to encourage kids and young adults in public schools, especially the poor minorities no doubt (and no wonder most of them remain poor and die young being mislead by such stupidity). It was also spread all over the world by “gurus” by people like the super narcissist Tony Robbins.

A little while later, another caller asked Mary if she believed in reincarnation. Mary reluctantly said that she did believe in. When George asked why she was uncomfortable saying that she did, she said that she wasn’t supposed to because, get this: she was a Catholic.

Why doesn’t the Pope, if he is a so called by Catholics, “good man”, “of God”, does he, the leader of the Catholic Church, excommunicate Noory and Catholics worse than him? Some Catholic may say, “Well we don’t believe whatever the Pope says, only if he says it comes from God,” well hello: The Pope didn’t get to be the Pope by accident: he was put there by the other leaders you put yourselves under. And don’t Catholics realize that they are admitting that the Pope is a liar then? Does the Pope say, “It’s my opinion that babies shouldn’t be aborted”? No: he and your leaders state in public that it is wrong. Now if that is merely their opinions, then they are lying by claiming it’s Catholic doctrine, God’s will that it not be done. So Catholics are not justified by simply dismissing things the Pope says as merely his isolated opinions. It’s the same with child sexual abuse that occurs in their church: if it’s epidemic and generated by some sanctioned teaching itself in the church, like that priests should abstain from having a wife and sex at all, than to support that same “Church” is to approve of the child sexual abuse.

An argument against that, which I just realized, that someone might use against that, is “Well aren’t you supporting the evils of the US government or your local ones if you pay taxes to them and you know they will use it for wrong?” My answer is “No”, because the tax money is spread out for many different uses, often good, and are not highly focused in what they are used for, which in the Catholic church is always, supplies for demonic rituals, dogmatizing, setting up situations for secret abuse, church utility bills, with a little help for the poor and needy on the side, and that even is meant to convert/draw people into people to Catholicism. All governments are corrupted with evil men and women in them, so it can’t be helped that some of the tax money they get will be wrongly used. If there was a better government and not hard to live under, and the difference in behavior was great, and it wouldn’t kill you to try and go live under them, then I would agree you should do so. Besides that, God said,

If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials become wicked. (Proverbs 29:12)

And God is trustworthy. Therefore, anyone who accepts the Pope as their leader is very evil and an overall liar, and therefore a person who shouldn’t be trusted at their mere word and especially not for important jobs, especially not with saving someone’s life, unless that Catholic is highly constrained to do what is right.

After Mary, George had Hank Wesselman as his main guest. That man was so annoying, so pretentious, and mixed anthropology, traditional Darwinism and demonism (he said he was communicating with “jinn” (the Arabic word for demons) at one time. He went on and on excruciatingly about his talks with jinn, acting like he was telling the world something profound, and like he was some super holy wise man for having had the experience). Incredibly this man was so hardened, that even though he had read Forbidden Archaeology “for hours”, he still refused to believe the obvious fact that Earth is not older than 7000 years and implied a damaging confusing teaching was that he would have to see the objects himself that were mentioned in the book in order to believe in them. By so doing this evil idiot was teaching that multiple written eyewitness testimony cannot be trusted, but illogically that only him directly seeing and testing the objects is the only way to know (which is the attitude of a narcissist and blind person). Many excuse-makers who don’t want to believe the Bible use his excuse of, “I have to see it myself” yet hypocritically don’t use this standard for other things which they don’t perceive as validating the Bible (like seeing someone on TV jumping on an alligator or a singer at a concert – they just believe those things really happen). Yet if they see video or pictures of things which validate the Bible, they automatically doubt for not logical reason, and can’t be bothered to do a little research on the discoveries, and if they do, and find what merely appears to be a reasonable argument against the evidence, like in some forum or blog, they then automatically write the evidence off, and forget about it.

No wonder the world is devolving into extremely immoral idiots, like Adrianne Curry: they embrace demons. Even police officers and governments themselves are doing so. And this validates the incredible claim in the Bible that in the last days the world will openly accept Satan, calling him “The Beast”, and if not openly accepting him, openly accepting someone whom they know has his character.

Poverty in the UK and Germany

I’m astonished at this: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2682/Poor-in-Developed-Countries-WESTERN-EUROPE-POVERTY-IN-UNITED-KINGDOM-GERMANY.html

It did remind me of a video I watched poor homeless families that kept getting evicted in the UK, but I didn’t know the problem was so bad. From the Internet map I have I figured Britain was doing ok. At least they aren’t in as bad as trouble as countries with little to no Internet access for most of its citizens or worse little Internet access and censored.