What’s in your words?

25 05 2010

Language

We may think that as we can all speak, talk and have a big mouth, that language is easy. But I don’t find it so. It is actually very difficult. It’s difficult to put your own thoughts precisely into words, It’s very difficult to put abstract thoughts into words, and when you finally think you made a good job of it it turns out that people don’t understand what you meant to say.
So back to the brainworks, and trying to find another way to express what you meant to say.

Lying

And then there’s the concept of lying. I never got the concept of lying. Why bother to say something which isn’t true? How can you trust people after you found out that what they say is a lie? What’s the point of language if you cannot rely on what you are being told?
I never lie. I can’t lie. What I can do is swerve around the subject and suggest something else. Which works fine. But if somebody looks me straight into the eyes and asks me point blanc I can only say the truth. (My mum knew this!) Or remain silent. I cannot lie.
But I know people who lie and twist the truth habitually. It’s like they rather tell a lie than the truth. How do they do it? And then why is it that when I speak the truth I get told I am blunt?

The truth

The truth, for some reason, is never welcome. The truth can hurt. Maybe that is where the concept of lying comes in. When you speak the truth, and it is an uncomfortable truth, People who do not want to be confronted by this truth will ignore it, but if they are hurt by it, they will choose attack you instead. As the proclaimer of that truth they want to bully you into silence, and to nullify your opinions and thoughts, and then, in some Intellectual Acrobatics way, they think the truth you so inconveniently spoke will not matter anymore.

I find such behaviour fascinatingly bizarre. I prefer to meet trouble head on, but this really is the head down in the sand approach. Fascinating to see that happen right in front of you.


There is the other side of truth. You sometimes read a blogpost where the writer’s sentiments are shockingly racist or religiously elitist. Like for example, ”Non-religious people, or people from the wrong religion, are not human entities, they are nothing more than a breathing machine” or ”Atheists have no souls” (therefore you can kill them because they don’t count as human) Now nice-minded moral people are shocked by such evil and immoral writings and call on them to stop writing it, but I don’t agree. I think it’s brilliant that people speak out what is really in their minds instead of putting on a mask of respectability and decency. For myself I really want to know if somebody has an opinion which is diametrically opposite from my own. I like to see who people are without their masks. I prefer reading the truth! However unpleasant or inconvenient!

For those who do not not like the truth, the concept of forbidding free speech is the first choice of stopping hearing the truth and making it easier to ignore it.

Misunderstanding

And when you are discussing stuff on the internet, on a blog or forum, it becomes clear that your words have to fit your thoughts like a glove. Otherwise people will definitely not understand you. In this sense blogging is a very good excercise for all who wish to write. And you come across people who are absolutely unintelligible because of the way they write or flatly contradict themselves. Sometimes in a mindboggling manner! Like for example; you read people arguing about a subject with confidence, blaming and attacking others, and then  suddenly, one day, they admit they never had any idea what the concept was they were arguing against, and think it’s completely reasonable to state they never knew what they were talking about in the first place.

Or, and this ties up with The Truth, they willfully misunderstand you because they don’t like to look in a dark place. Especially when religion comes into play: any truth which as a side-effect critices religion cannot be true. But if it is evidently true then what? Well, I found out: They completely ignore the nasty inhumane facts you wrote down, and start attacking you. And when you keep reminding them about what you wrote, they will eventually become silent, or twist your words, and invent another reason why you mentioned some inconvenient facts and crimes against humanity, and attack you on that. It hold a certain kind of fascination. I cannot find out if this bizarre, unfeeling and unlogic twisting of ones words is done by design, out of a sense of self-preservation, or if it is the mindless automatic response instilled by religious indoctrination.

You cannot have a meaningful discussion with people wearing blinders.

Does not compute

Which brings me to ”Does not compute”. You can put your thoughts into simple, baby language. You cannot conceive how anybody on the planet who speaks the same language cannot understand them, but if your words clash with their mental programming they still will not understand them.
This is truly fascinating. Language isn’t as clear as we think. We can be misunderstood for

  • not being precise enough,
  • for using words which have a different content in another part of the world,
  • or when we are upset we misread,
  • or because the other person doesn’t like the concept implied in our words and so willfully misunderstands them,
  • or there seems to be a certain way human brains can get programmed and then no concept, however simply stated, which contradicts that programming, will get into that brain.




The invention of Hell

27 04 2010

Hell is a fairly recent invention. Hell, as we know it, pops up with Christianity, and as it was such a good bit of propaganda and blackmail, it was taken up by Islam when Mohammed learned of it.

Now hell as we know it is plagiarised inspired by the ancient Egyptians’ idea of the things which would happen to bad people after death.

Blackened bodies burning in fire

Let’s not forget we are talking ”religion” here. religion is a form of creed. Religion is a construct by humans to keep control over other people. And religions like to use a kind of emotional blackmail to scare people into adhering to the creed.
One way is the invention of hell.

So after inventing ”Hell” religious people now tell you that you have to believe or else…
And you have to obey or else…
And you have to follow a lot of rules, or else….
And you have to listen to the priests, scholars, or else….

And Christianity had another brilliant idea: Let’s tell people they are already doomed, so everybody should become a Christian asap,
or else…
Now to lure people in and to get them to worship Jesus they also tell you that although you are an awful disgusting sinful person, there’s this bloke Jesus, who was tortured, and died on the cross to wash you clean of all the sins you were born with even if you had not actually done anything. And now you have to worship him as well.

Or else….

So nice you’d think.

But noooo, because that would be giving some really good cards away wouldn’t it? So even though Jesus died for our sins and cleansed us of evil, we are still bad people and we have to believe and worship Jesus!
or else…
And you have to obey or else…
And you have to follow a lot of rules, or else….
And you have to listen to the priests, scholars, or else….

So this is the reason for inventing hell.





sufis

1 04 2010

I like Sufis. They are spiritual and kind. They sing,  make music, dance, and their goal is to come close to God. Music poetry and dance are used to bring one closer to God.
Unlike the Saudi Wahhabi strain of Islam which seems to have as it’s goal to quench all pleasure out of life and make people, and especially women, as unhappy and suffering as possible. It seems to me they think that if your life here, on God’s beautiful planet, is to make it hell, then God loves you and will reward you in Jannah.

Meanwhile all these intolerant deluded scholars have many worldly distractions which taint their teachings, they seem to me to be far to much interested in money, power, influence, etc. Hence the idiotic fatwa’s they give out.
Sufis are usually not rich, but they are happy.

Check out the blog of Irving. A man with a truly beautiful and spiritual soul.
And I can recommend you read his book, ”Master of the Jinn”. It’s an exciting adventure, and at the same time oozes spirituality, and you learn a lot about Sufism. While reading a tale of adventure, magic and friendship.
I wrote a book review on ”Master of the Jinn”, click here.

I just watched this great documentary on youtube. Watch all five parts!





International women’s day

9 03 2010

It’s international women’s day again and I would like to remind all women, especially in the west, that the struggle for freedom and equality of women is not over.
Worse: the freedom our ancestors fought for is still being undermined. Women are too complacent, abuse, suppression and enslavement of women is still practised worldwide. Women are being beaten raped and sold all over the world, be it in the guise of the ”marriage” of a ten year old girls to pedophile who could be their grandfathers, (after suitable payment) or as the trafficking of young women who are then forced into prostitution.

If we take a look at the planet we see inequality and abuse everywhere. Women are not weak, women are not stupid, women are not inferior to men.

Last night, for the first time, a woman got an Oscar for directing a movie.

My selection of rolemodels for this year:

Emily Pankhurst sufragette who fought for the right of women to vote!

Marie Curie, one of the great scientists of all time

Mother, queen and warrior, Boudicca, who kicked the Roman’s asses when they were invincible

Saraounia, her African counterpart: she kicked the Frenches’ asses in Africa in the nineteenth century.

Nujood Ali, was sold into sexual slavery marriage at nine years young and beaten and raped daily until she managed to free herself by divorce at the age of 10

There are so many female role models that i have decided to place a selection every yesr from now on.
Meanwhile, those of you with daughters, I suggest you teach your daughters what women really are, despite the lies told to us by misogynist cultures and religions. A selection of suitable rolemodels for girls in fiction and literature:

Pippi Longstocking (books by Astrid Lindgren) a girl who has taken the virtue of disobedience for girls into a high art

Ororo, or Storm, defenitely one of the coolest X-men, and one of the best leaders they ever had.

Xena, tv-series, always kicks everybody’s ass no matter what God or great warlord they are!

Ripley, (movie: Alien) still ready to kick Alien’s asses after all the tough men in the movie have been killed or put out of action. Saving Newt, who managed to survive while everybody else perished.

You see, if girls grow up with the right education, the right literature,  and movies, they will hopefully grow up to become the generation of women who will be truly able to celebrate women’s day.
Who will be proud of being women, instead of feeling an unnatural and articficial sense of inferiority and shame.
Because it is not true that women are inferior to men, men are in no way more intelligent or more reasonable than women. It is unfair to burden women with a feeling of shame for their bodies and their sexuality.
And any ”tradition”, any ”religion” which tries to tell us differently, is wrong! Any tradition or custom or religion which restricts women, which wants to annul them into non-entities is wrong, is lying to you, to us all. Any custom, traditin or religion which transforms the bonding of men and women in love and support and mutual respect into a bond between master and slave, between prostitute and paymaster, is wrong, is evil!
The selling of very young girls to pedophiles, against their will, maybe condoned by custom or religion, but that doesn’t make it less disgusting and evil!. I read today in a comment on Achelois that ”In return for the wife’s obedience, which includes her making herself available to him for his pleasure, the husband is required to spend on her and provide for her.” The pure essence of prostitution: One person pays up, and the other person has to provide sexual services.
Marriage should be a partnership, a bond of love trust and companionship. Not a master-slave, master-prostitute relationship. And any culture, tradition or religion which transforms marriage into slavery and prostitution is wrong!

These in-equalities are constructs. Modern constructs, because they are only a couple of thousand years old at best.

There are older cultures, older religions, older customs, which venerate women. Cultures traditions and religions which consider women too be sacred. Where women were proud to be women.

So if you feel you truly need a religion to feel safe and happy, why not switch to one where women are given the rights and respect they are entitled to?
Why cling to ”traditions” which are an abomination if you compare them with the older traditions humanity held for tens of thousands of years before these modern misogynist religions poisoned our world?
Instead of having a woman’s day where every year an endless row of crimes, abuses, rapes, atrocities committed against women and children are renumerated ad infinitum, why not work towards a world where women’s day is what it should be? A day , where womanhood and femininity are celebrated, revered and enjoyed!





Religion and the corruption of morality

28 01 2010

As God does not seem to mind me being blasphemous, at least I haven´t been struck down by lightning, Yet…

I will now muse on morality. Unlike the usual comment made by religious people: ”Without religion the world would be in chaos, there  would be murder rape and all kinds of crime… etc.”, I am of the opinion that there is good and bad, and that all sane people know what’s what.
Really.
Truly.
In their heart of hearts.
Everybody just knows, really, really knows what is good and what is bad. For example:

Bad:
Killing somebody else is bad. Torturing people is bad. Raping people is bad. Abusing and/or having sex with children is bad. Marrying close relatives is bad. Eating other people is bad. stealing is bad, hurting people is bad! Lying and backbiting is bad, etc.


Good:
Helping others is good. Looking after orphans is good. Being kind to children and animals is good. Nursing the sick is good. Teaching other people important knowledge is good. Learning and increasing your own knowledge is good. Saving a drowning person is good. Giving is good, speaking the truth is good, etc.

These examples are to me so clear I don’t know how anybody can not see this as well. Unless they are sociopath and/or homicidal maniacs of course. But then they are dangerously, mentally deranged and very, very abnormal.
So why is that religious people think they are really deranged homicidal maniacs and rapists, but luckily God came along and told them what is right and wrong and now they are good people?
And to go into more detail: why do some people tell me that their particular brand of religion has got ”morals” right, and all other brands of religion have got it wrong???
Kindergarten logic: ”My God is better than your God, therefore our morality is better than your morality, nah-nahnahnah-nah”. Hum, I see a post on religion and infantilism coming on…
Back to religion and morality. Because for the most part good and bad are universal truths, most religions get that, and put up sets of rules and write them down as God’s rules. So far everything is fine. But then comes the snag…


Religion actually screws and twists and corrupts our innate morality.

Let’s pick an example of a bad thing to do, let’s take killing people. Most people know that killing other people is bad, but when religion comes into the equation the moral gets corrupted: Killing people is bad unless it’s in Gods name. Killing people is bad but if they don’t believe in God it is good. Actually it gets more and more bizarre as religion gets more powerful and gains more influence on peoples lives. We see often enough now a days especially in Islamic countries: Killing people is bad, except if they are women who do not confirm to God’s rules. (the interpretation of God’s rules differ extremely person to person as God has never made them clear in the first place.)  Killing people is bad but people who happen to be born (made by God) to have a preference for the same gender should be killed because God (who made them so) wants them dead.

Everything which is bad, which we know is bad, is condoned or even ordered by God in one or most religions for one reason or other, but it’s always a religious reason. How about abusing and raping children? Men of God abuse and rape children entrusted to their care all over the world. Safe in the knowledge that the Religious hierarchy of their faith will protect them. Women are unnaturally suppressed and their lives and minds thwarted because some misogynist made it ”God’s rule”. Old man marry by force very young girls/toddlers and have sex with/rape them, and claim that as Islam allows this disgusting crime, it is God’s will.

Devout followers of religion kill and maim indiscriminately innocent people including women and children. Something they would never have done if Religion had not told them God wanted them to kill and maim. Suicide killers wouldn’t blow themselves up in the middle of a marketplace full of innocent fellow humans if the weren’t convinced that in doing so God would reward them with heaven and sex with ”the Black-eyed”.

Men kill their daughters and sisters because they do not wrap their heads in a piece of cloth, or because they want to get out of a marriage which consists of daily torture and rape, or because they have been talking to a boy, or even just because they want their inheritance or another dowry.

No sane person would kill a woman on such trivial grounds, except a religious person. No society would allow and support such heinous crimes, unless it is a religious society. And no society, unless fuelled by the conviction of religion, would consider 50% of humanity as disposable, the killing of a woman as a minor offence, not warranting special punishment.

No, I’m sorry to be so utterly blasphemous, but God, and religion, are the corrupter of our natural morality, God and religion is the root of evil, not the deliverance thereof.

I shamelessly paste-copy this info to the following video:

A Nazi doctor at Bergen Belsen finishes off torturing the last handful of the day’s batch of emaciated concentration camp children in the name of medical research. Without so much as a second thought he fires a shot into the brain of the 13 year old girl whose ability to remain conscious during the terror of non-anaesthetised amputation has failed and she is of no further use to him. He walks calmly back to his comfortable townhouse and asks his wife how the day has gone and how his two delightful children are. She informs him that Hans has ridden his first pony and Ingrid has been practising her clarinet all afternoon. The Nazi doctor wanders through to the music room and quietly opens the door. There is his daughter picking her nose. He tears into the room and slaps her hand so hard that she starts to cry. “Stop that disgusting habit else I will take your clarinet off you for good! Now go to your room!”

A group of Muslim boys and young men drop the last of the breeze blocks on to the head of their 15 year old relative – to some she is the sister, to others a cousin, to one she is the daughter. While she gives her final twitch of life, he skirt rides up on her naked, bruised thigh and everything stops while one of the suddenly disgusted father reaches over and pulls her skirt back down towards her twisted feet. The final breeze stops her from further twitching.

What is moral to one person is not moral to another. But we all possess a moral sense.
A child can be taught that anything is true – anything! Morality is simply one more of the areas of the human psyche, the human family and the human society that is a blank sheet waiting for the writings of dogma or of free thought .
Dogmatic religion does not own morality. I want to engage with you in some common-sense arguments that might make you think a little more widely about where your morality originated.





Religion, blasphemy and evolution 3

30 12 2009

Teaching Evolution at schools


So if thinking a scientific theory is not as good a primitive bronze age myth from a primitive tribe of goat herders isn’t bad enough, the American Creationists want their ”Theory”/myth taught at schools as an equally good alternative to real science. Now there is one thing which can save American schoolchildren: America is not a ”Christian” nation. America is a secular country where everybody is free to practise his/her religion of choice.
As such it is not allowed to put religion into the school curriculum. A very wise decision. At school you learn science. That science has been carefully tested and is peer-reviewed before it is allowed into the school-curriculum. To re-label Creationism into ”Intelligent Design” and exchange ” God the Creator” for the rather insipid ”Intelligent Designer”, does not really change the fact that there is not one scientific proof for intelligent design, a creator, and/or an intelligent designer. It just isn’t science!
As far as Human Design is concerned I think the word ”Intelligent” is completely off-track anyway. Humans are a crap-design. We are weak, we have all kinds of health troubles, with our backs, with our knees, we get cavities, cancer, etc. An industrial design student once told me: ”If I designed the human knee I would be thrown out of College”.
And what about our sad loss of the one enzyme which would allow us to synthesise Vitamin C as all other mammals do? It’s just guinea pigs, fruit bats, and the higher primates who cannot. With the result that we are in a constant state of sub-clinical-scurvy unless we take vitamin C supplements.
And yes, higher primates includes us. You see it was our common ancestor which had the extremely rare mutation and lost the capability of synthesising vitamin C. And as a result so do we humans. Together with our nearest evolutionary relatives, the other higher primates.

To see the attempts of slipping religious doctrine into the American school curriculum, watch this brilliant documentary on Google

And do the Creationists realise that if their pet-”theory” should be taught at school as an ”alternative”, that there are actually quite a lot of other alternatives which then should be taught also? Why stop at the Christian theory? There are many more theories, that we all came out of an egg, or a clam, to name just two.

And the most convincing one is of course that the universe was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster after a bout of heavy drinking. This explains the flaws in the universe. As this is the only theory which actually does explain why the universe is so flawed, I am strongly inclined to favor the Pastafarian theory of creation above all others.
Btw, The Church of the Flying spaghetti Monster is currently the fastest growing religion on the planet.





Religion, blasphemy and evolution 2

29 12 2009

Part 2: Darwin, science and theories


The other side, the people who like scientific, tangible proof, are called, well anything really, ”realists”, ”scientists”, ”Darwinists”.
Or ”sane”.

They think that Darwin’s theory is, has been, and will be, proven to be the truth about the diversity of life on Earth.

Let’s put the two sides side by side, there’s creationism, very strict:

  • the bible is literally the TRUTH
  • God created everything from scratch, in exactly 6 days
  • all life was created exactly as it is now, fish, birds animals, and us (the ”crown of creation”)
    (according to: us)
    (oh, no: according to the bible)
    (written by us though)
  • it stops here because we are perfect, and in the image of God
    (according to us, and what we imagine God to be, eg an old bloke with a beard)
    (which seems silly as I am a beautiful youngish woman without a beard)
  • the earth is 6000 years old
    exactly
  • faith is all the proof we need

and Darwin’s theory of evolution:

  • the Earth is billions of years old, geological fact. This can be scientifically proven, I mean really proven. Has nothing to do with the theory of evolution but supports it.  The Earth is not 6000 years old.
  • life ”evolved” slowly, from the simplest of organisms into more and more advanced organisms, culminating in ultimate perfection: the horse
    (according to me)
  • life forms on earth evolve to fill a niche.
  • The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life forms on earth
  • this ”theory” is proven by… well the whole world really, animals, islands, fossils, genetics, carbon dating, and new science. True to a correct scientific theory, new discoveries in science affirm predictions made by the theory of evolution

Before I go on there is one very important problem I need to clear up before we go on. This is also symptomatic for the utter stupidity of creationists. I am very sorry to call it stupidity, but I have been going through the dictionary and it’s the only word which fits the bill.
The creationists stupidity for me is really represented by their stupid use of the word ”theory”

Theory:

–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

So when we say: ”Darwin’s theory of evolution”  the word ”Theory” is meant in the truly scientific way. A scientific ”Theory’:  Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

For example: the ”Theory” of gravity.
This ”theory” predicts, and that prediction can be proven by experiments and results. For example: if I throw a Creationist from the top of a church tower, he will drop, crash into the ground, and splatter the pavement. This experiment can be predicted, implemented, and verified.
Try it out!

Now the Creationists call ”intelligent design” a ”theory”, but in this case the word means ”guess or conjecture”. Because they don’t understand the nature of the scientific use of the concept of a ”Theory” they think that if they use the same word  for ”Creationism” or ”Intelligent Design” the concepts are therefore equal.
They are not. Darwin’s ”theory” of evolution is a verifiable scientific explanation, predicting events which are proven again and again to be correct. The Creationists ”theory” of Intelligent Design, is a conjecture based on ”faith” in a bronze age creation myth. It is demonstrably wrong in its conception, there is no scientific tangible proof for any of its claims, and it does not predict anything.

Moreover, Genesis, the book on which Creationists base their ”theory” of intelligent design actually gives us two creation myths, the other one is completely ignored by Creationists who claim to take the bible by the letter. The grammar of Genesis is ambiguous as well, it could either mean

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void…” (King James Version), or as “At the beginning of the making of heaven and earth, when the earth was unformed and void…”(Rashi, and with variations Ibn Ezra and Bereshith Rabba). The second reading supposes a pre-existing cosmos which God uses as the raw material for his work. The phrase “heaven and earth”, for example, is a set phrase in Hebrew denoting “everything,” and the word commonly translated as “created” (in “God created the Heavens and the earth”) is commonly associated with molding something from already-existing raw material.

So lets see, creation myth 1:
God created the Earth and the heavens and on successive days fish, birds, animals, culminating with us, created in God’s own image.

And then there is the other creation myth 2 from the very same book of Genesis:
It begins with God creating Adam and Eve who live with God in the garden of Eden until they gain knowledge of good and evil (in Hebrew it was ”knowledge of everything”) and are kicked out. No mention of 6 days.
Now the early church was not literalist and considered these as allegorical anyway.
Choosing one of the Genesis creation ”theories” literally is a recent development.

So what the creationists want is that American schools teach both ”Theories”, so the ”theory” of ”Intelligent Design” should be taught to schoolchildren as an equal to the scientific, proven, and accurately predicting theory of evolution. For the beginning, because the eventual goal is that the bronze age creation myth of faith  should replace the scientific proven and provable and predicting ”Theory” of evolution.

I’m not finished , there will be a part 2 of part 2.





Feminism is a good thing

12 11 2009

we can do it

This post by Achelois, or rather the comments, reminded me of the problems we encounter regarding the word, or concept of ”feminism”. There are nowadays a lot of different interpretations of what it means, and especially there is a lot of shying away from the word itself. Why is that?

It seems to me that here has been a fairly succesful attack on the concept of feminism, with the result that most women who truly are feminists in the original sense, feel constantly compelled to regularly add the comment: ”I am not a feminist”.  Sorry, but all the intelligent women I have met in Blogsphere àre feminists.
Any woman, or man, who insists women have a mind of her own, who does not want women’s intelligence diminished by artificial patriarchal or religious misogynists is a feminist in the true sense of the word.

Feminism stands for women’s rights.
What can be so bad about this that women who also stand for women’s rights have to denounce the suspicion that they too are ”Feminist”?

Let’s recapitulate, feminism  stands for human rights for women.
Such as:

  • the right to vote,
  • the right to be educated,
  • the right over her own reproduction, both having children, or using contraceptives to avoid having children,
  • the right to own property,
  • the right to be an individual,
  • the right of bodily integrity and autonomy,
  • the right to work,
  • the right to be protected against violence, abuse, sexual harassment and rape,
  • the right of equality to men,
  • the right of equal pay for equal work,
  • the right to get medical assistance,
  • the right to be protected against gender-specific discrimination
  • the right to choose religion
  • the right to speak out

These rights are still not fully established in what is generally called ”The West” and the rest of the world is far behind. Because ”The West” happen to be those societies which where most successful towards gaining some of these humanitarian rights for women, people from other societies on the planet like to point out that these basic human rights are not suitable for their cultures or religions, that women’s rights and feminism are some sort of evil, alien ”western” influence,  and that therefore they do not need to heed them.
I beg to differ.
These ”feminist” rights are human rights, which apply to any human, any woman and any culture. When ”culture” disagrees with feminism, culture is wrong. When a religion denies with women’s rights, religion is wrong.
Same way the different cultures and religions of the ”West” were wrong when they disregarded the rights of women. As the misogynist cultures and religions of ”The West” had to give up their misogynist ways to the demands for equality and human rights by strong intelligent and organised women, so can the faults of other cultures and religions be amended by women and men if they are strong enough.

And that’s a good thing. Not a bad thing. Feminism is a good thing.





Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study

19 08 2009

worm bacteria

So, what’s up with the media and all those scientific studies which prove vitamins are a hoax? That they are actually bad for you? That only patented expensive drugs can cure you? Well, there’s an easy way to find out: follow these guidelines when reading a media piece on Swine flu, or any disease, and/or natural healing, vitamins etc.
Because you can’t rely on the truthfulness of financially dependant doctors, scientist and journalists. But what you can rely on is your own!
In other words:

Think For Yourself!

1. Where’s the beef?
How much of the original study is quoted in the media?  Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided?  Has the journalist writing about the subject actually read the original paper?

2. What exactly was studied, and how?
Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture?

3. Follow the Money.
Who paid for the study? Cash from food processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what gets studied, and how.  It is very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence addresses of principle authors are invariably provided. Write and ask.

4. Check the dosages.
Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases.  Large doses cure diseases.

5. Check the form of supplement used.
Was the vitamin used in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic DL-alpha form (instead of far more effective natural mixed tocopherols) is a waste of time.

6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of the study authors.  As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their own work.  Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically motivated. Beware of editorializing.

7. Beware of Pauling-bashers.
If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored.

8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements:

“You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.”
”Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.”
”Excess vitamins are just wasted by your body.”
”More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.”
”There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.”

9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the article

such as:
“Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well.”
”You are better off not popping vitamin pills.”
”Just eat a balanced diet.”
”If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.”

10. Use the media backwards.
The more headlines about a particular study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course.  Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal.

Copyright 2007 and prior years by Andrew Saul. Andrew Saul is the author of the books FIRE YOUR DOCTOR! How to be Independently Healthy (reader reviews at http://www.doctoryourself.com/review.html ) and DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing that Works. (reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html )

Doctor yourself is a very interesting read and I can really recommend it to everybody, especially if you have kids I think you should read this. I am following the advices given and making serious changes to my eating habits myself.
Check out the website, mostly everything is there including thousands of medical studies proving the efficacy of large doses of vitamins which are completely ignored by the established, pharma-run medical establishment.





Vitamin C is a life saver

10 08 2009

swineflu virus3

Vitamin C cannot be produced by the human body, unlike most animals which can produce vitamin C in large quantities. Unlike recent false claims in the media, you cannot overdose on vitamin C, the surplus will be peed out.
You know when you have reached your toplevel-intake when you have reached your ”bowel-intolerance level”, when you have reached that level you will get some dhiarhoea and you have to cut down your intake. This level is considerably higher as you might think, I’m talking grams of the stuff here!
People who are sick have a higher bowel intolerance level as people who are healthy. As you get better, your bowel tolerance level will drop.
This is becasue when your cells are combatting an infection they need and use more vitamin C. As the infection is being vanquished, less vitamin C is used, and therefore the bowel intolerance level drops and you decrease your intake.

I have just started to take a significantly higher amount of vitamin C as a precaution to the flu, swine flu or whatever, but having read up the many, many reasearches done on vitamin C I think I need it for many more reasons.

Now the intake my doctor advised is 4 to 6 grams Asorbic Acid (vitamin C) per day, starting with 1 gram per day and slowly going up one gram every week.
But I am planning to keep upping the dose to see where my bowel intolerance level lies. I will let ya’all know.

So what’s up with the current reports in the media that vitamins are no good?
This is a fabrication of false information, fake research and pressure on journalists to discredit all cheap, non-pharmacutical health medicines, supplements and foods. The pharmacutical companies have a double advantage by discrediting healthy foods, and natural food-supplements: Healthy people don’t need their medicines. And natural medicines cannot be patented (ascorbic acid is cheap) and are therefore not interesting moneywise. As vitamins, natural foodsupplements and ”alternative” medicines are seen as competition for their artifically produced and patenteble medicines, they are using their mega billion dollar budgets to pressure the media and influence the public, eg. us, to distrust the ”competition”.
I’ve allready had people telling me that ”Vitamins aren’t really good for you”.
And when we lookat recent media hypes over the last few years, from SARS to Saddam’s ”weapons of mass destruction” does anybody really believe the media anymore??? Does it surprise you the journalists work for the huge pharmacutical lobbies as well as the warmongering politicians?

Update

I can advice everybody to read this link, it contains some very good information on ascorbic acid and it’s benefits, and dismisses some of the fables grown around it.

You do not get kidneystones from taking ascorbic acid, it’s an old myth there has never been even one medical case where a patient was proven to have grown kidney stones from taking vitamin C.