#he has no efficacy as an individual because he isn’t one | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sepublic · 3 years ago

Text

Willow’s Arc

I love you Amity, but did anyone else lowkey get micro aggression vibes from this? Amity unintentionally yet condescendingly downplaying Willow’s feat as just luck?

And I think that makes sense, and shows how Willow contrasts with Amity in terms of goals and how they were framed by others... Like Luz and Lilith, Amity was someone who was worried about her magic never being good enough, particularly in living up to Odalia’s standards. And like those aforementioned two, Amity accepts that her magic doesn’t need to be strong as a reflection of her self-worth, Amity doesn’t need to be useful, and fittingly she’s the weakest of Luz’s friends, relatively speaking. Amity is content with any power level, and likewise so are Luz and Lilith, who are also among the weaker scale of our protagonists; Again, comparatively speaking.

Willow, on the other hand... As alluded to by Gus saying Willow wants others to see the REAL her, I think Willow is someone who always wanted that skill and power of hers recognized. It’s not that Willow thinks her self-worth is tied to being strong; But at the same time, honing that magic of hers and being recognized for it also means a lot to her as well! For years, Willow was essentially gaslit into thinking her abilities were lesser than they actually were, and her arc comes in reiterating that no; People are wrong. Willow’s assessment of her strength IS real and valid, as is her self-efficacy!

Because I’m sure if someone (say Amity) were to reassure that Willow doesn’t NEED to be strong to be treated as a person... Again, Willow recognizes the kind and unconditional sentiment. But at the same time, it still stems from that misconception that Willow IS weak, and she’s tired of people constantly downplaying and dismissing her accomplishments. Like yes she’s more than that, but it also means a lot to her too, as Willow herself has decided and chosen for herself? At best this evaluation of Willow is unskilled leads to that type of well-meaning yet condescending reassurance, the implicit acceptance that Willow actually isn’t strong.

And that’s a big part of Willow’s motives; Not wanting to be misjudged, as Any Sport in a Storm established! She likes being treated with kindness and dignity but she also doesn’t want to be misunderstood as someone she’s not, either; Gus beats himself up for accepting a portrayal of Willow that’s meek and scared, which obviously there’s a lot of meta about how he knew Willow as that for most of their friendship, and is a naturally trusting person who would believe that type of relapse and not judge.

But as Gus himself reiterated, Willow’s arc is about showing her real self, the self that was always there and people pretended it wasn’t. Hence Inner Willow lamenting that she once WAS Willow, until Amity’s torment skewed with Willow’s perception of herself as a capable individual who just needs to be given the chance to flourish, where she actually would. Willow is chosen by Clover when she states that she wants to be strong and supportive of her friends; It’s very much her chosen goal and not just to prove others wrong.

Again, to bring back that micro aggression comparison. It’s like how people of color and/or women want to be treated with respect and dignity; Speaking personally, it’s not enough for white people to be nice and patient with us, if they still kinda see us as lesser. There’s a reason why the white man’s burden is criticized, why we despise stereotypes. Yeah one might say “It’s okay if you’re not skilled”, but if it’s a white person saying that to a peer of color who very much IS skilled and is only unrecognized due to implicit racial biases... Yeah, that’s not gonna feel great, it’s kinda missing the obvious point.

(And for the love of god I’m not saying Amity is racist because she technically can’t be. Racism doesn’t exist in the isles, so at most this could be meant to invoke similarities as a metaphor, but that’s it. Like how Odalia canonically isn’t homophobic -that also doesn’t exist in the isles- but her disapproval of Luz, in contrast to Alador saying she’s always welcome, is very much meant to parallel coming out stories and the backlash of literal homophobia VS acceptance. And even if Amity was being racist, it’s ultimately fine because she’s called out over this and learning to be better.)

Any kindness will be undermined if there’s still that core underestimation going on, which can also tie into ableism as well! We appreciate the support and patience but at some point, we really need you to believe in us, instead of always seeing us as that weak person who needs help! I don’t care if you don’t judge us for needing help, there’s still an issue in how you see us. This can very much be compared to Luz’s conflict with Eda the very next episode, too;

Luz knows full and well that Eda loves and respects her regardless of talent or skill, she’s made that incredibly clear since the start. But it still hurts to be seen as weak and unable to take care of yourself nor contribute, regardless. There’s that lack of trust and belief in a loved one to take care of themselves, and that in itself is a lack of support; Like yes, Eda is valid in that she’s not doing this to belittle Luz, but because not even the greatest child should handle this. But Luz’s feelings are also valid as well.

She wants to be seen as dependable, and make up for her ‘weakness’ in Grom. She wants support not just in care but in belief that she can do it. And I know I said earlier that Luz is someone who accepts that her magic doesn’t have to be strong, but to reiterate; Luz accepts that she doesn’t have to be the best. But she still wants to be seen as good enough to help, too. And Luz accepted her relative weakness at the start of her journey, because she didn’t need to place pressure on herself when she’s still starting, even if behind others.

But circumstances have changed with Luz managing to grow and become strong as she wanted to, which is why her reaction shifts to seeing Eda as dismissing Luz as still that same old weak kid she once was, and not acknowledging that she HAS grown; Which hurts, because learning magic still means a lot to Luz, and like Lilith excelling in glyphs... Yes you don’t have to be the best but everyone needs a win at some point, too. Your self worth isn’t attached to that but is it also too much to ask to be really good at something just this once, either?

“After years of thinking I wasn’t good enough, I finally found something I can be good at. Something I want to be good at! Switching to the plant track was just the beginning; I’m on my way to becoming the witch I want to be! I can do this!”

And the same applies for Willow but on a larger scale, to bring things full-circle as Luz had said during her episode as well. I find it fitting that Luz and Willow became immediate friends, as was Gus for both girls as well! And I’ve talked a lot about how Gus has self-image issues regarding his magic and his ability, underestimating himself as dumb when he very much isn’t... Which again you can probably see why telling Gus that it’s okay if he’s dumb is very much NOT the solution to this particular example of self-deprecation. Gus also wants to have his magic recognized and meaningful, he doesn’t HAVE to be in order to be treated with respect, but at the same time he doesn’t appreciate people lowballing illusions either!

So to bring it back, Amity and Willow just have a fascinating duality. Amity is someone set up and expected to be the best and the pressure causes her to crack, hence her breakdown when Willow gets Hermonculus’ top student star over her. But Amity eventually realizes she doesn’t want to be the best and finds relief in the humility of just being good enough for herself.

Conversely, Willow is someone constantly labelled as ineffectual, until she believed it and let that affect her self-image, as well as any attempts to grow if she’s never going to succeed; She became resigned to and content with this, never yearning for more. But Willow is eventually reminded that she IS capable in many ways, that people’s misunderstanding of her doesn’t decide who she is nor erase that; And that emboldens Willow to actually try and reach for that greatness she desires and embrace her actual self, finally succeeding in becoming who she wanted to be.

Hence Willow self-actualizing in what she’s actually good at via Plants, instead of being seen as a weak Abomination witch; Which while true is hardly a representation of Willow as a whole. Just as “Willow doesn’t have to be strong to be treated with respect” is true but doesn’t quite capture her goals and arc, but “No matter how others perceive her, Willow’s abilities are real and she CAN accomplish what she sets out to do” does. Willow had bad luck being placed into an ill-fitting environment for her she couldn’t do well in, and her failure in that context made people assume it applied to Willow as a whole, when it really didn’t.

Willow just wants others to see her for who she actually is, instead of focusing on being nice to a version of her in their heads that doesn’t exist; She once lost sight of herself but regained it, symbolically reflected in Willow’s glasses being given a golden trim. She finally found the thing she was good at, instead of letting past failures define her... Willow and Amity both struggled with being someone others saw/expected them to be that they weren’t, and were finally able to reconcile the discrepancy to reiterate who they really are and want to be.

#the owl house #willow park #amity blight #luz noceda #gus porter #augustus porter #character analysis #meta

157 notes · View notes

gothicprep · 3 years ago

Text

Meditations on True Crime: A Very Long Post

In around February of this year, I was researching a potential video related to how true crime media portrays websleuths, contrasted against their efficacy in each specific case. The introduction was a brief primer on the genre’s evolution, beginning with its general association with low-budget LifeTime films, to a hobby with more dignity than that. I remember finding an article talking about Serial, and there was some commentary in there from another large true crime podcast host.

I didn’t think it was particularly useful for my purposes, but it said something to the effect of “true crime as a hobby can help women reconcile the trauma related to being in a world that is so hostile to us.” I rolled my eyes at it. It seemed dishonestly saccharine, like it was giving a sort of post-hoc legitimacy to just enjoying whodunnits. I didn’t think about it again for around seven months after I’d read it.

One of the subjects that I intended to talk about was Elisa Lam’s death and the online reaction to it. The story was adapted into a Netflix series a few months prior, and I was freshly reminded of how poorly it all sat with me. If you aren’t familiar with her name, she disappeared in Los Angeles’s Cecil Hotel in 2013, and her disappearance went viral after the respective police department release footage of her behaving strangely in an elevator. The case attained quick viral status and extensive discussion, due to the nature of the video and the hotel’s morbid history. When her naked body was discovered in a rooftop water tank a few weeks later, speculation exploded. But an autopsy isn’t an immediate followup, and the online sleuths would lose themselves to their imaginations in the time between. Many people wanted the murder solved, but many let their speculation fly off the rails. Shady hotel coverups. Metal musician murderers. Fear of the homeless. Ghosts. Demons. Government tuberculosis research. The gang was all there.

If you weren’t active online back then, it’s difficult to properly convey how huge this all was. Everyone was expecting Elisa to have been murdered. Iron-clad. Beyond the shadow of a doubt. She wasn’t. Her death was ruled an accident. She had a severe case of bipolar disorder and she wasn’t taking her medication. The severity of her illness was also not previously disclosed to the public. The working theory is that she experienced a manic episode with psychotic features, climbed in the tank in this state, to eventually strip out of her clothes in late stage hypothermia and drown there. It’s a horrific and painful way to die. All that’s left of you is water contamination – insult to fatal injury.

People weren’t happy with this, but not out of any sympathy for Elisa. There was palpable rage from many who had been following the case. No, she was definitely murdered. No, her killer needs to be brought to justice. No, this isn’t the real story. I don’t like it. I’m not satisfied. There needs to be an ending better than this.

Tragedy isn’t exactly in the habit of being kind to us.

When news of Gabby Petito’s disappearance was spreading, I noticed a lot of similarities between hers and Elisa’s. A woman in her early 20s vanishes while traveling, under very unusual circumstances. Footage was released during both investigations, which portrayed these women in mentally vulnerable states. The story was viral online. People rifled through Gabby’s instagram in the same way they did with Elisa’s tumblr. Social media detectives established an inappropriate amount of investment. Everyone is sure of a specific outcome. The family deserves answers.

Let’s talk about answers for a second. I’d like you to spitball a comprehensive explanation for this one: how could something like this happen? I’m not looking for a “how” in terms of events or circumstances. In this case, this isn’t a question. It’s a protest of the unfairness of it all. My daughter. My sister. My friend. Someone who meant so much to me. It’s a prayer to a vacant sky. It’s not a question, it’s agony. Nothing shy of resurrection can feel like justice. Even if the case leads to a criminal trial and conviction, it does nothing to fill the void loss burns within us. There is no good answer, because there aren’t answers at all.

Let’s talk about ourselves for a second. I noticed many people draw parallels between what they’d seen on the bodycam footage and their own experience with abusive partners. “This could have been me.” Do you really think this is appropriate? Could have been, would have been – these are statements with hypothetical validity. It has nothing to do with you. To emotionally identify with someone does not evidence anything. You’re here. She’s gone. This isn’t about you. She isn’t in the position where she can co-sign anything you say. If she can’t speak for herself, don’t invoke her.

Let’s talk about true crime for a second. It’s funny how true crime marketed to men has a distinctly different texture than true crime marketed to women. The former seems to involve knocking the perpetrator down a peg. It portrays them as something worth our disgust and ridicule. The latter tends to foster emotional identification with the victim. Podcasts and other media in this category tend to be by women, for women, and generally discuss women. This story is presented as catharsis for women who see themselves as similar to them. This woman is no longer a person, but an idea. And it makes me think of that stupid article quote that I resent myself for not having bookmarked. This is reconciliation. These women, in their passing, can be a motivating factor for us to break up with that one dumbass guy. I’m so happy this was a wakeup call. I’m so happy that this made me think about my own experiences. I’m so happy that this did so much for me. Sure, someone actually died, but what is that when compared to my own self-actualization?

I made a comment on Twitter about how disgusted I was with how people spoke of Gabby in such an evasively self-interested way, and someone who likely was of no relation to her interjected with how the family deserved the truth. Truth? What truth? What peace will grisly details give them? Is there any meaningful difference between knowing your loved one died of murder or collapsed from exposure? Or are you just a nosey person who’s projected an inappropriate emotional dog in this fight? Do you want answers for her family, or for your own curiosity?

I really don’t trust shit like that, nor am I willing to give leniency to people who say such things. I think we’ve been conditioned to relate to dead women in a way that’s completely separate from who they actually were. Alive, they’re deep, multifaceted individuals, with an array of likes, dislikes, quirks, and endless little details. Dead, they’re a concept to serve a purpose. The purpose is generally a form of narrative catharsis. The creep gets thrown in prison. A woman’s abusive partner gets the comeuppance he deserves. The story needs a good ending. The story needs an ending that satisfies me. People aren’t stories. Life is not a novel.

The real trauma of others will never belong to you. This not your therapy tool or plaything. This is real pain that will never be theoretical for plenty of people. Know your place. Keep your distance. Don’t objectify the dead.

#you know i'm going for the jugular if i bother to punctuate my posts #also do take my warning: it is long

41 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 4 years ago

Text

Anonymous asked: I really enjoyed your book review of Sebastian Junger’s Homecoming. Perhaps enjoyment isn’t the right word because it brought home some hard truths. Your book review really helped me understand my older brother better when I think back on how he came home from the war in Afghanistan after serving with the Paras and had medals pinned up the yin yang. It was hard on everyone in the family, especially for him and his wife and young kids. He has found it hard going. Thanks for sharing your own thoughts as a combat veteran from that war. Even if you’re a toff you don’t come across as a typical Oxbridge poncey Rupert! As you’re a classicist and historian how did ancient soldiers deal with PTSD? Did the Greeks and Roman soldiers even suffer from it like our fighting boys and girls do? Is PTSD just a modern thing?

See previous post for Part 1. Part 2 of my answer here below....

But does it mean no Greek or Roman soldier ever suffered trauma or mental illness? Is there nothing we can’t learn from them? Of course not. Both the Greeks and Romans can teach us a lot about suffering.

Both cultures recognised the importance of integrating soldiers back into society that were they had tried to defend on the battlefield. And I think we can learn a lot from them in the regard.

If we are able to accept that PTSD is not a product of mechanised warfare and very likely did occur in ancient societies, then the question should be asked: how did ancient cultures deal with individuals who experienced trauma and suffering? We know that exposure to violence occurred. And we know, too, that homecoming was a common experience, in that some type of military service was a regular feature of the cursus honorum for those in the senatorial class and was an avenue for the lower classes seeking advancement. Valour in combat was respected, and it was not unusual, when in pursuit of higher office or defending oneself at trial, to display one’s scars from battle as a physical witness of character.

Inscriptions inform us that many veterans pursued successful careers upon their return, becoming leading men in their cities. We know that they feared war and respected it, we know that they used ritual to distinguish war from peace, but we do not know how these men fared emotionally and psychologically after long exposure to violence.

While many ancient cultures were able to recognise the significant changes in soldiers following a battle, the precise reasons as to what created these changes were elusive. A common explanation was that the occurrence of (what I describe as) PTSD was caused by the actions of malevolent ghosts or spirits of those who were killed in battle and now sought vengeance on their killer. While it is unlikely that a vengeful spirit explanation is correct, it does contain the insight that the sickness originated from an inward or unseeable wounding, and these invisible wounds could be just as deadly as any outward wound.

Many ancient cultures sought to deal with and create specific rituals to heal the unseeable and drive off the ghosts who caused them. The central purpose of these often culturally unique rituals was to welcome the returning soldier back into society and allow for the release of trauma. The Romans directed the Vestal Virgins to bathe returning soldiers, purging them of the corruption of war.

While the plethora of writings describing PTSD-like signs in ancient veterans indicate that these rituals did not always work, given the sheer numbers of ancient soldiers who went into battle and through these rituals, it would seem likely that for many something about them did work. However, it might not have been the welcome back into society alone that worked.

What might have been even more important, and what is often overlooked, was that the reintegration process would begin in the aftermath of the battle when the survivors began to walk home. Given that ancient soldiers sometimes fought far from their homeland, when the war was over they had to the walk home. The speed of this return was dictated by the pace of the slowest pack animals and the slow pace, while frustrating, may well have given the soldiers much needed time to reflect upon what they had experienced, grieve for comrades lost and perhaps find solace in a shared group experience. The long march back culminated in a ritual cleansing and a return to home, as mentioned above.

One of the reasons this slow decompression might have aided the efficacy of the return rituals can be seen in its complete opposite in contemporary conflict, where the advent of improved transport has made it possible to move troops quickly and efficiently. Perhaps too quickly and too efficiently. While troops might be happy to be back at home far more quickly, there might be a lost opportunity for soldiers to properly process what they have seen and experienced within a like-minded group.

I believe that we must be cautious when we map the past too neatly upon our own experiences or, conversely, our own experiences too neatly upon the past. While there are similarities and continuities, the relationship between ancient and modern must be carefully parsed. All lovers of the classical past are familiar with how the study of the Greeks and Romans awakens profound and contradictory feelings of identification and alienation. With respect to combat trauma, the shock felt by a modern soldier upon seeing a corpse for the first time would have been incomprehensible to both the Greeks and the Romans, who were surrounded by death.

Likewise, modern technology – with its distant, impersonal, and terrifyingly effective weapons, its instantaneous communication between home front and front line, and the speed of return from combat – requires an adaptability and an ability to get one’s head around big spaces and multiple actors that would never have been demanded from a Roman legionary.

My own view is that our soldiers actually face more complicated psychological factors than did the Romans – including a populace that largely avoids the realities of war while still wishing to enjoy the profits of it.

In addition, as our understanding of what causes PTSD grows we may find a paradox: distance weapons, developed to provide overwhelming military superiority and to shield troops from the fear and horror of close combat, may in fact cause more trauma, whether owing to the shockwaves they send through the brain or to the sense of helplessness they engender.

Moreover psychologists believe that modern PTSD cases are the result of the loss of ‘ontological security’ – ‘an individual’s inability to reconcile their traumatic memories with their moral codes, self-concepts, beliefs about human nature and notions of cosmic justice through which they seek to impose what anthropologists call a sense of order and meaning on the world. The psychological conflict arising from trauma ensures that the trauma lives on as ‘a source of socially and psychologically maladaptive behaviour’. But - and here’s the crux of it - the definition of what is a traumatic memory is as variable as the sufferer is individual, and this is culturally dependent even in the most homogenous societies.

Where we can learn from the Greeks and Romans is how they dealt with homecoming and using religious spirituality to balm emotional wounds.

For the Greek warrior, Classical Greek culture, like that of Rome after them, practiced polytheism, the expression of which included confirmatory and transformatory rituals. Ritual purification with water occurred in Greek funeral rites, with indication that pollution associated itself suggest that the cleansing had anything to do with establishing proper relationship to the gods, but may have had a purely “practical” force.

A more important spiritual concept to the Greek soldier than that of pollution may have been that of the necessary separation between the warrior’s life and the domestic life. In ancient and classical Greece, city walls held a religious significance as the separation between the sacred and the profane, for inside the walls are the sanctuary and security of domestic peace, while outside the walls warfare and the domestic life from which the warriors of his tale are separated, evoking pathos in the listener; the Iliad’s action describes the soldierly activities and battles of the Greeks and Trojans, while Homer’s metaphors describe the everyday activities which the Greeks have left behind and with living relatives as well as physical location.

Some Classicists believe there is little evidence to suggest that the cleansing had anything to do with establishing proper relationship to the gods, however. Furthermore, a Greek male’s citizenship was based on his membership in his city’s fighting force, his τιμή, honour, was directly related to his performance in the line of duty, and “a purely predatory attitude toward the lives and possessions of one’s enemies was an essential part of archaic and classical Greek warfare. This attitude toward battle makes it unlikely that Greek soldiers would have felt any sense of pollution either from warfare or the soldier’s association with, or proximity to, death or blood; cleansing rites were likely observed for fallen comrades and camps, but may have had a purely “practical” force.

In the Iliad, Homer makes extensive use of metaphor to juxtapose the world of warfare and the domestic life from which the warriors of his tale are separated, evoking pathos in the listener; the Iliad’s action describes the soldierly activities and battles of the Greeks and Trojans, while Homer’s metaphors describe the everyday activities which the Greeks have left behind and been separated from for ten years, such as women sewing and farmers reaping.

The soldier may accumulate honour in battle, but he is acutely aware of what he is sacrificing, even if only temporarily, to gain that honour. Homer’s Odyssey and Aeschylus’ Agamemnon are explorations of difficulties the Greek warrior faced as he attempted to return to domestic life after long absence in war. The concept of such separation may have had a sacred significance akin to the idea of the separation of domestic and non-domestic spaces established by walls; it was at least culturally significant to the Greeks of Homer’s and Aeschylus’ times.

Though Greek soldiers may not have had purification rituals to cleanse themselves after battle, Shay proposes that warriors of certain Greek societies, at least, had a form of transformatory, religiously-significant ritual which served to reintegrate them into domestic society after long separation in mandatory military service and, for most, exposure to combat. He writes, “The performances of Athenian tragic theatre - which was a theatre of combat veterans, by combat veterans, and for combat veterans - offered cultural therapy, including purification...The ancient Athenians had a distinctive therapy of purification, healing, and reintegration of returning soldiers that was undertaken as a whole political community. Sacred theatre was one of its primary means of reintegrating the returning veteran into the social sphere as “citizen.”

Shay proposes that soldiers hearing or reciting the Iliad would also have experienced a similar sacred catharsis; thus, this might have been one reason for the works’ significance in Greek culture.

What of the warrior of Imperial Rome? What of homecoming and religion? Religion was likewise both a public and private affair during Imperial Rome.

Political leaders and military officials were also religious leaders, and the people considered the emperor god-like, if not a god, within one of Rome’s many public cults. Ritual practices were integral to both state and private religion. The Romans accepted that the safety and prosperity of their communities depended upon the gods, whose favour was won and held by correct performance of the full range of cult practices inherited from the past. Bargaining rituals, in which a specific ritual action was performed or promised in return for fulfillment of prayer, as well as confirmatory and transformatory rituals, were common throughout the Roman Empire’s many public and private religious cults.

Within this cultural context, Rome allowed her soldiers to practice in accordance with individual religious beliefs, and the army took part in public religious activities. Among many other state religious rituals, Roman armies underwent ritual purification (known as lustratio exercitus, translating literally as ‘the purification of the army’), sometimes before battle, sometimes after (or sometimes both). This ritual may also have been performed on the Campus Martius (the sacred field dedicated to the Roman god of war, Mars) at the start and end of the military campaign season.

The Roman practice of leading a victorious army under a triumphal arch may also have been a ritual purification; soldiers decorated themselves and their standards for both rituals with laurel, a plant commonly used for purification in other aspects of Roman culture.

Scholars disagree as to the purpose of the purification ritual and the sacred nature of an army’s triumph. Pritchett suggests that Roman generals conducted the lustratio exercitus in order “to remove superstitious dread” from the soldiers before battle. Some scholars argue that the purification ritual was not merely to remove dread before battle, but may have included the use of laurel to “cleanse the army of its bloodshed.” In common with the Greeks, Roman soldiers were unlikely to attach any moral disapprobation to the act of killing itself, or find war immoral. But the performance of the ritual after battle and at the close of the warrior’s season indicate the Romans may have felt that some incidental, religious pollution attached itself to the army or the soldier from nearness to death or blood.

As some point out, Virgil in his imperial epic poem, The Aeneid, supports the idea that the imperial Romans saw some impurity associated with the individual’s presence in combat - Aeneas, having just taken part in battle, states that he must purify himself before approaching his household gods. Others sees the act of battle as a sacred undertaking; therefore, at the end of the campaign season, the soldiers ritually desacralised themselves and also cleansing themselves for their acts of violence in battle.

This idea further suggests a sacred distinction between the warrior and the non-warrior, as the warrior undertook a particular religious duty by fighting which the non-warrior did not. The ceremony performed at a Roman soldier’s retirement, when the emperor, or his proxy, would perform a ritual releasing the soldier from the religious oath he took upon joining the army, transitioning him back into private life, seems to suggest this as well.

These ritual purifications may also have marked the transition for the soldier from chaos back to order. Roman society placed high value on order and Rome’s citizens saw the empire as a civilizing force against the barbaric chaos of other peoples; for them, Roman conquest brought law public order, and structure to uncivilized barbarians as much as it did land and treasure to Rome.

The division between what was civilised (Rome) and was chaotic (barbarians, and thus anyone Rome was at war with) was sacred and sharp, and it was the Roman army which crossed that line to carry order to the peoples of the world. The presence of the ritual after battle and after the campaign season may mark a restorative or transitional moment in which the soldier’s association with chaos in battle against an uncivilized enemy ends and he returns to the orderly world of Roman civilisation.

While no absolute solution can be drawn from the experiences of ancient soldiers, there may be sufficient clues to warrant studying what benefits might be gained from delaying the return of groups of individuals from conflicts in a structured manner, thereby lessening the propensity for PTSD to occur. Particularly, if it were possible to enact rituals of our own - rituals which recognise and free returning soldiers from their traumas and assuage any sense of guilt and culpability - and reinforce that society values them for what they did, we may be better able to deal with PTSD.

Indeed whatever the causes or effects of PTSD suffered by returning service personnel, homecoming is crucial to integrating that person back into his/her family, community, and society. Earlier I talked about research done on British, European and American returning soldiers and the wide discrepancies between the European and the American experience of dealing with PTSD and reintegration.

I think one reason why British soldiers fared better than our American brethren is we had more effective mental health tools and mechanisms in place. I’m sure your brother as he was with the Parachute regiment would have gone through the TRiMS and TLD programme as a way for returning British soldiers to process their tour experience before being allowed back into the fold. It doesn’t work for everyone but certainly catches more in the supportive net who otherwise might have profound difficulties ‘coming home’.

For those who don’t know since 2007 the British armed services have been using the Trauma Risk Management program (TRiM) and the practice of soldiers spending time in a “third location decompression” (TLD) to help the process of homecoming as well as detect early warnings of PTSD. Both have been important tools for British soldiers to process their emotions and experiences.

The good thing about TRiM is that it’s a peer support system designed to assess trauma experienced by soldiers and encourage them to seek help if needed. TLD requires its participants to spend 36 hours in a location away from combat before returning home, often on the bases in Cyprus within the British Sovereign Territory there. Both of these mitigation measures focus on unit or regimental cohesiveness, which is has been well proven to be associated with lower levels of common mental disorders and PTSD. The aim of decompression is to ensure everyone gets a proper mental health briefing and that they are able to speak informally to each other without being judged. In the end it’s an invaluable opportunity to access the social support needed and begin the reintroduction to ‘normal life’.

Of course no system is perfect - look how sprawling the British veteran charities are for instance (Royal British Legion, Poppy Scotland, Combat Stress, Connect Assist, the Ministry of Defence, SSAFA etc) with over 2000 registered veteran charities which leads to confusion about services and support. No measure that is put in place can treat every single soldier but every little bit helps more than it hinders a soldier’s return ‘home’.

In the end to wheel back to your question, the issue of whether the Romans suffered PTSD is probably unanswerable, because the problem itself exposes many of the challenges posed by the historical study of the past. I do know that the view that the Graeco-Roman world knew PTSD is fast becoming dogma because of popular culture and trendy lefty academic fads in English departments. I find that troubling speaking as both a combat veteran and as a Classicist.

In this debate of nature versus nurture it can hardly be reasonable to conclude that a legionary would have experienced trauma in the same way as a modern day combat veteran – surely his vastly different upbringing, cultural background and combat experience would have resulted in a culturally unique variant of response to that trauma? So to state that the legionary *must* have suffered PTSD seems simplistic and poorly evidenced. Saying a Greek or Roman soldier’s exposure to close combat and the fact that war is hell wherever and whenever it is fought is not enough. Some men would undoubtedly have experienced trauma induced psychological disorder but what that response was, its nature, causes, symptoms, is simply impossible to know, given the current paucity of relevant sources.

Perhaps when we understand PTSD better we’ll have an ability to interpret that thin evidence and put it into a cultural and medical frame of reference - despite wildly different causal factors and conditioning to meet the unique stressors in each of the ancient and modern soldier’s experience of warfare - that will get us close to a definitive answer. Indeed, as we learn more about concussive brain injuries and slowly unravel the various causes of PTSD, I suspect that we may find the evidence will point to a lower frequency of PTSD in the ancient world than that experienced by our troops in the present day. Until then, to be honest, it’s a game of grim conjecture.

If your brother needs more help please DM me and we can discuss ways in which we can help him find the right fit. You already know about the paras own charity for its veterans, Support Our Paras, so nothing I can add there that you don’t already know. My one recommendation would be to reach out to ex-Para and UK SFSG (special forces operator), Dave Radband. Radders is good egg and has used social media to become an outstanding mental health advocate for ex-British veterans.

Once again my apologies for the long answer in two parts but it’s an issue that’s very close to my heart when I think of my own fortunate homecoming from war and I remember those who didn’t come home...and those still fighting the war after they come home.

Thanks for your question.

95 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 4 years ago

Text

Pandemics and peak indifference

When I think about our historical, profound shifts in attitude and discourse, the model I apply is "peak indifference."

Say you have real, existential problem. More often than not, these are systemic problems, and those are the hardest problems.

https://locusmag.com/2016/07/cory-doctorow-peak-indifference/

Not just because systemic problems involve collective action (you can't recycle your way out of climate change), but because the cause-and-effect relationships of systemic problems can't be easily known, so it's hard to know what you need to do to avert the problem.

Systemic problems pose a third difficulty: they enrich small minorities, and those minorities can exploit causal ambiguity to deliberately sow doubt.

To make that more concrete: think about cancer-tobacco denial.

Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. When it does give you cancer, the tumor comes years after the puff that damages your genes. There's lots of social pressure to smoke, and getting your friends to quit is even harder than quitting yourself.

And on top of all of it, the tobacco industry made tons of money from giving us cancer, and they could use some of that to fund doubt-merchants who deliberately worsened the difficulty in linking smoking and cancer.

https://timharford.com/2015/04/cigarettes-damn-cigarettes-and-statistics/

But denial doesn't make problems disappear - it just incurs policy debt, and the interest on that debt is human suffering. Climate inaction, tobacco inaction, and inequality inaction only delay the day of reckoning, and make it worse when it arrives.

That's where peak denial comes in. Over time, the mounting harms from policy debt make it harder and harder to deny the problem, At a certain point - long before we take action - the number of people who deny the problem starts to decline.

This happens naturally, without any need for activist urging. The problem is that the natural peak denial point is often several steps beyond the point of no return. And that's when denial slides into nihilism:

Here's what nihilism looks like:

"Well, I guess these things *did* give me stage 4 lung cancer after all. No point in quitting now."

"You were right, rhino populations are in danger! But since there's only one left, let's find out what he tastes like?"

That's why we can't wait for peak denial to arise on its own, why we must hasten its arrival - because we want people to engage with systemic problems *before* the point of no return.

That's where storytelling comes in.

Stories are a fuggly hack, an illusion played on our empathy, wherein we're fooled into caring about the literally inconsequential fate of made-up people (your breakfast yogurt's death was more tragic than Romeo and Juliet's, for it was once alive).

https://locusmag.com/2014/11/cory-doctorow-stories-are-a-fuggly-hack/

But still, made up stories that make vivid and visceral the consequences of inaction can spur us into action, can create a vocabulary for discussing the lived experience of people in a future that has not yet arrived.

Even better than stories, though, are *histories*, the real stories of real people who really suffered through real experiences comparable to those that we face on our horizon. Hence "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

We're very good at forgetting history. The arrival of the covid pandemic was filled with stories of the dimly remembered 1918 influenza pandemic. Our failure to heed those warnings triggered tales of its brutal second wave the following winter.

Herp derp.

Starting in 1968, successive US presidents began to dismantle Glass-Steigel, a corrective put in place after a horrendous finance sector collapse that triggered the Great Depression and WWII. Not one president heeded historians' warnings about the consequences.

Derp.

Dismantling the checks on finance led to successive, worsening crises followed by crushing austerity a deepening inequality. Historical warnings about how this cycle ends with guillotines and Reichstag fires were ignored.

Derp derp derp.

The ideology of finance is a subset of right-wing thought, defined by Corey Robin (in "The Reactionary Mind") as the belief that some people are born to rule, while the rest are born to be ruled over.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-reactionary-mind-9780190692001

This belief has many guises (Dominionism, imperialism, racism, monarchism, fascism, libertarianism) but they all boil down to one thing: eugenics.

It's one thing to believe that markets are meritocratic during a moment of dynamism, when the low-born can rise to riches.

But when their offspring pull up the ladder and social mobility halts, "meritocracy" becomes hereditary: markets elevate the best people, and the best people are all descended from the wealthy, so the wealthy must be of better stock (cue Trump and his talk of "good blood").

Eugenics was once a mainstream American doctrine, and American eugenicists inspired Nazi "race science." But after the Holocaust, eugenics fell into disrepute and we dropped it down the same memory hole that the 1918 flu disappeared into.

But eugenics made a comeback under another guise: the "human capital theory," which holds that markets reward us in proportion to our value to society, and thus the CEO is paid 10,000x more than the janitor because the CEO provides 10,000x more value to the human project.

Eugenics isn't just repugnant, it's also wrong. To understand why, you have to understand how desirable traits are social, not isolated in individuals.

Blair Fix's essay on the link between eugenics and human capitol theory is a must-read:

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2021/01/14/the-rise-of-human-capital-theory/

By way of illustration, Fix describes geneticist William Muir's experiments with improving chicken egg-production through artificial selection, in which he only bred the best layers. The result? A disaster. Egg-laying plummeted.

It plummeted because laying isn't an isolated trait. Chickens that produced the most eggs did so by bullying other chickens out of *their* feed and resources. Selecting for laying selected for bullying and aggression and led to endless chicken-fights and no eggs.

When Muir bred another flock of chickens based on a *group*'s ability to lay, THEN he got his eggs. Egg-laying is a social process.

This story will be familiar to anyone who's worked in a stack-ranked software development shop.

Software managers have long noted that some coders can turn in 10X or even 100X more code than their median colleagues. But attempts to build "superstar" teams that fired all the median programmers end in chaos and destruction.

If your 100X programmer is such a dick that no one can work with them, then their aptitude is irrelevant - you'll never ship.

I assume there are analogies to this in the sporting world, but I am vastly unqualified to discuss sports of any kind.

Despite the bankruptcy of human capital theory, the systemic dangers it posed, and the obvious fact that it was just eugenics dressed up as economics, the theory festered for decades, poisoning our worlds.

The C-suites of every major company are filled with hens whose egg-laying prowess is the result of their suppression of their peers' efficacy - while others whose social integration make them far more productive are relegated to worse jobs or forced out altogether.

The lockdown provoked squeals of outrage from the world's wealthiest people, who insisted that the factories be re-opened. As the slogan of the day went, "If a billionaire needs you to go to work to maintain his fortune, then you are the source of that fortune - not him."

We can't afford to be indifferent to any of our systemic problems any more: not climate science, nor inequality, nor monopoly, nor the lurking eugenics that justifies it all.

#pluralistic

53 notes · View notes

mammonslefttoe · 5 years ago

Text

One Brain Cell Theories: Chapter 17 & 18

There are a few things that may confirm my suspicions and the new chapters have reinforced it.

SPOILERS AHEAD, please click at your own risk and any input/more theories are welcome! I’m going to try and make this a series.

This is also a relatively long read so grab some snacks! We diving in boys!!

(This is one of my many theories. One day, I’ll be able to write down what’s happening in my head.)

TLDR; HUNNY we have to talk about the other human

A few things to remember before I dive in:

Solomon has a pact with Barbatos. Solomon has a ring of wisdom and is known to make a pact with larger and more powerful demons. We all know he lowkey wants a pact with Lucifer.

Lucifer told us not to trust Solomon in Chapter 2

There’s a possibility Barbatos has tried to poison us with tea, a Mandragora blend. Mandragora has the potential to be fatal, one of the most notable symptoms are hyperactivity and hallucinations.

When Barbatos sent us back in time, we found out he is extremely OP. He even has the power to look into the past and future.

Okay now onwards to the only viable explanation I can think of: Barbatos and Solomon are scheming a takeover. (or this really is a messed up “prove yourself” challenge from Diavolo)

Let’s begin to when shit started to get real.

A sorta shortened (?) recap of everything that has happened thus far, please feel free to skip if you don’t need it:

After almost confessing your love to Lucifer and dying in the process Belphie comes down the stairs and its the big reveal, everyone essentially gasps in shock. Beel, Belph, and MC run away to Luke’s joint only to get busted by Dia & Barbatos and they drag away Belphie to throw him in jail for treason (and its implied he gon’ die). Lost and afraid, Beel and MC run back to the House of Lamentation. There we have a really heartfelt scene with all the demon boys and we are determined to storm into Dia’s castle and solve the situation.

Arriving at Dia’s castle, the pair say they were expecting us. Lucifer stood up to Diavolo & he says please, LOUD AUDIENCE GASP. No matter how much we try to reason, the only way Belphie will be released is if MC goes back into the past alone and figure out who actually opening Belphie’s door. No reason is truly given to this. Diavolo explains that Barbatos has multiple abilities, some of this includes viewing the past & future and, most importantly, time travel.

As we continue to Barbatos’ room, he is super happy (and creepy) but gives us a very dire warning - do not interact with the past in any way or it will alternate the current timeline. This includes speaking to anyone or being involved in any type of action. If we want to come back to the present, we have to go through the same door that we end up entering through. Then off we go and we land in the middle of Mammon’s room with ALL OF THE BROTHERS sans Lucifer and Belphie. And things go haywire.

As we are running to go up to the attic, we are forced to hide in Lilith’s room, where we have a flashback (or hallucination) of playing hide and seek. Flashback Levi reminds us to go find Belphie. During this time, it is revealed that MC may have been the one to open Belphie’s door and tldr; Belphie kills MC.

As we lay dying, we are somehow saved by Lilith (our long lost aunt twice removed apparently) and we are outside of our own body...in another one. Dia and Barbatos stroll in saying they knew this would happen & Barbatos did us a favor and revived us using an alternate timeline MC (what). Everyone is pumped we have like 1/10,000,000 genes related to human Lillith and this is their closure.

Everything seems to be looking up and MC patches things up between Belphie and the other brothers. They throw her a joint party with Diavolo’s birthday party & give her the sweetest gifts. At the end of Chapter 18, Belphie creates a pact with MC.

This is all fine and dandy but...is it really?

A few things really popped out during these two recent chapters:

Belphie is by our side the entire two chapters. Whether this is supposed to signify a new start or something else, it isn’t entirely clear.

Beel and Belph are the only ones that text us during this time. Belphie texts us after every chapter moment.

Solomon runs into Belph and MC while shopping, randomly asking Belph if he plans on making a pact with MC. Then brazenly offers to make a pact with him instead. Belph refuses vehemently but looks at MC for a reaction. Solomon notices this.

As Belph gives us a gift of himself (lol same), he mentions how he’s doing this for us and not because of Lilith.

In the game itself, there’s a completely different game style. MC has more options to speak and the dialogue options have become more brazen. Almost as if...this is a different personality (or could signify MC is more comfortable with them in general). It felt off playing the last two chapters though, for me at least.

Now onwards to the theory: Solomon is our main antagonist.

In Chapter 2, we are formally introduced to Solomon, the other exchange student. Although the interaction is rushed, we can sense out two things: he’s insanely smart and he’s already comfortable around demons. As he runs off to class, MC runs into Lucifer and we learn a bit more about this mystery boy.

Apparently, Solomon is a wizard and has a ring of wisdom, which makes him incredibly dangerous. He has pacts with more than 70 demons (I think the exact number was 78 but I might be wrong). Among these demons are Asmodeus and Barbatos. At the end of Lucifer’s explanation, he adds that MC shouldn’t trust Solomon.

Historically and culturally, Solomon is most known as the “Wise King.” He is also regarded as a fantastical figure, someone who is known to have powers over both angels and demons.

“According to the Rabbinical literature, on account of his modest request for wisdom only, Solomon was rewarded with riches and an unprecedented glorious realm, which extended over the upper world inhabited by the angels and over the whole of the terrestrial globe with all its inhabitants, including all the beasts, fowl, and reptiles, as well as the demons and spirits. His control over the demons, spirits, and animals augmented his splendor, the demons bringing him precious stones, besides water from distant countries to irrigate his exotic plants. The beasts and fowl of their own accord entered the kitchen of Solomon's palace, so that they might be used as food for him, and extravagant meals for him were prepared daily by each of his 700 wives and 300 concubines, with the thought that perhaps the king would feast that day in her house.”

Additionally, he was given a ring, known as the “Seal of Solomon,” which gave him the ability to trap demons under his control.

A magic ring called the "Seal of Solomon" was supposedly given to Solomon and gave him power over demons or Jinn. The magical symbol said to have been on the Seal of Solomon which made it efficacious is often considered to be the Star of David. Asmodeus, king of demons, was one day, according to the classical Rabbis, captured by Benaiah (my note: Benaiah is a human, he was a soldier that helped Solomon rise to power) using the ring, and was forced to remain in Solomon's service. The Seal of Solomon, in some legends known as the Ring of Aandaleeb, was a highly sought after symbol of power. In several legends, different groups or individuals attempted to steal it or attain it in some manner.

And this is a potential plot in our story.

MC is, of course, the main protagonist of the story. We typically are. But there was never a clear antagonist. Or maybe he was playing along with our situation, a wolf in sheep's clothing?

We all know Levi’s strangely long anime names are a strange foreshadowing of the future. We have:

Though all titles seem to have a connection with our current plot, I’m going to focus on the first one, which seems to have the most implications regarding our current situation. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the second image with the two titles might be a backstory for Barbatos but that’s another story that I cannot fully prove yet. The third title also refers to a legend regarding Asmo and Solomon.

The first title seems...has quite obvious implications when recounting the events of chapters 15 - 18. Halfway through our journey, here we are, thrust into an alternate timeline, alone and scared but we end up making a pact with...our sixth demon? And this isn’t just a regular demon, this is one of the deadly sins. So now we have 6/7 demon brothers under our power, some of the most powerful demons in Devildom. It’s alarming how quickly MC is able to gain the trust of these demons, effectively creating pacts in the course of...maybe a few months?

What alarms me the most is how fast Belphie turned from, quite literally, killing us to making a pact with us in a course of 3 chapters. This brings me to my first suspicion in SoloBarb’s plot: This timeline is the only timeline where MC is able to make a pact with Belphie. All other timelines do not reflect this. This placement was 100% intentional from the start.

It is a known fact that Barbatos is able to view time and its events. It’s revealed this extends to alternate timelines when saving MC. If he is this powerful, wouldn’t he be able to simply look back in the past and find out who opened Belph’s door without the need for MC? This would be the easiest and most direct solution.

SIDENOTE: Keep in mind, part of the reason Barbatos could not stop the Belphie situation from happening is due to Diavolo’s restriction. Barbatos states that “Diavolo has forbidden him from using his powers freely.” HOWEVER, it then leads to the question: who really has the most control over Barbatos, Diavolo or Solomon? Traditionally, when pacts are made, it means that the demon is completely under the control of the individual but does it outweigh an authority figure? In my opinion, Solomon technically has the most power fo Barbatos. Solomon’s pact with Barbatos = a magically restrictive bond while Diavolo’s rule over Barbatos = a matter of respect of authority. There is no physically restrictive bond Diavolo has on Barbatos.

Also considering how cunning Solomon is, he could have easily manipulated Diavolo into this entire plan as well.

In addition, Solomon’s strangely direct question, asking Belphie if he was going to make a pact with MC, was alarming. It was as if he was proving his own theory: the demon brothers will make a pact with MC and never him. He seemed almost satisfied with this answer and didn’t seem to protest against it too much. Couple this with Solomon’s constant approval when MC makes pacts with the demon brothers during her stay, its...disconcerting.

Omg he even says “If you change your mind” what kind of creepy

If we consider all of this, it truly does seem as if Solomon is our potential antagonist. It seems to me that everything is pointing at him. He’s quiet enough for us to overlook and disregard as a side character, though he seems to have a certain unnerving edge to him. My god, the demons are even wary of him. If that wasn’t the biggest tip-off, idk what is.

Also physically, we have yet to hear his entire backstory in the game or have a chapter dedicated to him. So far, in terms of side characters, we have ample interaction with Diavolo and Luke (still waiting on Simeon) but no deep dives into Solomon and Barbatos. (Which means >.> we’ll get them in later chapters)

This brings me to the next question: so how is MC a chess piece in his plot?

Hey, remember that RANDOM moment Solomon lent out his power during Diavolo’s house party. AND NO ONE QUESTIONED IT. Honestly, what the hell was that all about?

In regards to this, why did he do this? Some answers include: he did it for shits and giggles, he wanted to test out the theory of us having powerful magic in our bloodline, or he wanted a test run. Yeah. You heard me. A test run.

Prior to this, MC was unable to truly summon a demon on their own. The most she could do was give out a pretty strong verbal command and the demon (Mammon lol) must carry it out. However, MC cannot fully utilize the pact’s potential due to her lack of innate magic ability.

This is both an affirmation and leverage for Solomon’s situation. On one end, it’s confirmed that MC has huge magic potential and can properly use it when needed. On the other end, this can be a bargaining tool for the future...

Which could lead to a large plot development: Once MC gains all seven pacts (c’mon, it is going to be impossible to not make a pact with Lucifer), what will they use it for?

MY PREDICTION: Solomon will attempt to manipulate MC into his control. Magic is powerful in this game but so are humans. A human was the reason Lilith was going to be punished by God. Solomon, a human, has power and control over 70+ demons. Belphegor was set on destroying only the human world. MC has pacts with the, arguably, the strongest demons in Devildom who are also formerly fallen angels.

From what I’ve seen so far, nothing is more powerful than a pact. And nothing is more powerful than human manipulation.

What will he use MC’s powers for? ...I have a sneaking feeling it might be to overthrow Diavolo based on Solomon’s cultural legend. Solomon famously has power over Asmo, the king of demons. Of course, we know the Asmo in our game is not the king but Diavolo is. Obey me! has a funny way of interpreting these legends in a unique way. Who knows if they split up Asmo into two different entities.

but who tf really knows what’s going on

BUT

I guess we’ll have to see what happens in later chapters. Of course, this is all really a far fetch theory but there seem to be so many underlying connections to Solomon in the game. I mean ffs, he’s the only other human here and he’s SOLOMON. The very character itself is so suspicious.

THIS ENTIRE THING COULD ALSO BE A MESSED UP CHALLENGE FROM DIAVOLO

OR SOME CRAZY HALLUCINATION CAUSED BY BARBATOS GIVING US THAT SUS TEA BLEND

But tbh who really knows what’s happening. The only confirmed thing is that we’re still on this alternate timeline (that MC totally messed up) and we haven’t returned to our OG timeline. lucifer please pick me up I’m scared

If you made it this far, you are SUCH A TROOP. I hope this actually has a consistent flow and it makes sense. If you have any questions or observations I didn’t include please feel free to message me! I’m open to discussion!

A big s/o to wikipedia for the quick info on Solomon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Seal_of_Solomon) and a thank you to @the-orizon for the screenshots & amazing info! Love you!

636 notes · View notes

uncloseted · 3 years ago

Note

my mom believes in homeopathy and i don't know what to do. our town homeopath died not so long ago so she won't be recommending him to people anymore, but she still believes in the system. apparently he cured my brother's hyperthyroidism and my nephew's alopecia. she says that he went to tons of real doctors and the only thing that worked was homeopathy. that left me speechless. im still skeptical but how do you explain that? and if it's a placebo but it works, then why shouldn't we use it?

This answer is going to be a long one, so I apologize in advance. Apologies also for how long this has taken for me to write and publish. As always, I want to make sure that I answer every part of this question with thought, care, and sources. To make it easier to navigate, I'm going to add headers for each section. What are Homeopathic "Remedies"? The first thing I want to do is clarify what homeopathic "remedies" actually are and what the theory behind homeopathy is. Often, I think we imagine that homeopathy is just herbalism- using "natural" plants as "medicine". By itself, doing that is kind of a dubious approach to treating illness, but it can be at least somewhat effective. It's important to understand that that's not what homeopathy is. Homeopathy is an alternative "medicine" practice created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann as a reaction to the mainstream medicine of the late 18th century. Hahnemann's homeopathy is based on the doctrine that "like cures like"- that a disease can be cured by a substance that produces similar symptoms to that disease in healthy people. In order to prevent those symptoms from occurring as a result of the "remedy", homeopathy also subscribes to something called the “law of minimum dose”—the notion that the lower the dose of the medication, the greater its effectiveness. This is inconsistent with what science knows about dose-response relationships, where the effect of a dose is reliant on the concentration of the active ingredient. Many homeopathic products are so diluted that no molecules of the original active ingredient remain. Modern advocates of homeopathy have suggested that water "remembers" the substances mixed in it, and transmits the effect of those substances when it's consumed. This isn't consistent with our scientific understanding of matter. Homeopathy also traditionally includes the concept of "miasms" as the "infectious principle" behind illnesses (including illnesses like epilepsy, cancer, deafness, and cataracts). Miasms are a negative force (imagined to be kind of like a cloud or fog) that serve no purpose other than to make humans miserable and ultimately kill them. Traditionally, homeopaths believe that individual symptoms should not be alleviated, since it will only drive the miasm deeper and the miasm will "manifest itself as diseases of the internal organs". They believe that in order to cure illness, the miasm must be removed from the "vital force". The concept of miasms have become less popular in modern times, but there are still homeopaths who base their practice around it. It's important to know that none of these ideas are backed by the scientific method, nor have they been shown to be effective when subjected to the scientific method. That said, you can kind of see concepts in homeopathy that are 18th century explanations for phenomena that are real. For example, "like cures like" and "law of minimum dose" is actually kind of how vaccines work: you give a very small bit ("a minimum dose") of a disease-causing microorganism or an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism ("like cures like"), which trains the body's immune system to recognize that agent as a threat. Another example is airborne infectious diseases. It is possible to get certain illnesses (such as COVID-19, measles, chickenpox, the flu, and norovirus) if you encounter a "miasm" (what we now call droplets of an airborne infectious disease). The problem with homeopathy is that it's not the 18th century anymore. Science has moved on from using "like cures like" and "miasms" as explanations for illness. We know that "like cures like" is not an effective treatment for every illness, and we know that not all illnesses are "miasms" (airborne). We have a better grasp of things like genetics, viruses, infections, and environmental factors that allow us to more effectively understand what causes illnesses and how to provide effective, reliable treatments for those illnesses. What's the Harm? Problems with Homeopathic "Remedies" Moving on, I want to start with

your last question first. If homeopathic "remedies" are a placebo and they work, why shouldn't we use them? What's the harm? There are three main problems with using homeopathic "remedies" that I want to discuss. The first and most important answer is just that they don't work. I'll do a deeper dive on the evidence against homeopathic "remedies" and why homeopathic "remedies" don't work in a second, but for now, just know that the first problem is that homeopathy can't fix the health problems people are looking to solve. The placebo effect is pretty limited in its scope; it generally works for subjective, patient-reported outcomes such as pain and nausea, but it doesn't usually affect the actual disease. For example, when the placebo effect is used to treat insomnia, patients perceive that they've slept better, but it doesn't actually improve the amount of time it takes a person to fall asleep. The second problem is that homeopathic "remedies" aren't always harmless. While they're generally "unlikely to provoke severe adverse reactions", there have been cases of those "remedies" being taken off of the market because they've caused serious symptoms such as seizures. In the US, homeopathic "remedies" aren't overseen by the FDA in the same what that medications are. As a result, there's no assurance that the substance you think you're getting is what you're actually getting. Frequently, "remedies" are a waste of money because they don't have enough of the active ingredient to work at all. This is especially true if the product you're getting is a "dilution", which intentionally gets rid of the molecules of the original material as a result of the "law of minimum dose", but it can even be true of things like nutritional supplements that you can buy at CVS or Walmart. In the US, there's no group tasked with objectively testing the claims made by companies that sell "remedies", and there's no group making sure that "remedies" don't have ingredients in them that are unsafe. Belladonna, arsenic, and poison ivy have been found at detectable levels in homeopathic "remedies", and cases of arsenic poisoning in particular have occurred. But because homeopathic products are marketed as if they're "drugs", many people assume they wouldn't be allowed to be sold if they weren't good, if they didn't work, or if they were advertising falsely, and so they keep buying them. If you see an individual homeopath, this problem is compounded. "Homeopath" is not a protected term in the US, meaning that anyone can claim to be one. In turn, this means that there's no licensing board that oversees their work, no professional association or government agency that keeps them accountable for their mistakes, and no educational credentials that they need to begin practicing. Your local homeopath may have no background in biology, medicine, chemistry, pharmacology, or even homeopathic or alternative medicine practices. They can literally just be a person, one who you're trusting to cure your ailments and to not accidentally poison you in the process. The last issue I want to bring up is that homeopathy is often (although not always) viewed as being an acceptable replacement for evidence-backed medicine. This means that often, people who see a homeopath aren't seeing a medical doctor, and their symptoms aren't being treated by evidence-based medicine. By not taking an evidence-based approach to intervening in illness, outcomes are significantly worsened, especially for serious, life-threatening conditions such as cancer. Patients have died as a result of opting to take a homeopathic approach to illness instead of receiving proper treatment for diseases that could have been easily managed by evidence-backed medicine. This becomes an even bigger problem when it comes to public health issues. People who view homeopathy as being equal to or better than evidence-backed medicine are more likely to be anti-vaxxers and to not vaccinate their children. Reductions in vaccination rates have led to resurgences of diseases that had previously

been close to elimination. The US has seen a resurgence of whooping cough, measles, and tetanus as a result of anti-vax sentiment. Those resurgences directly endanger people who cannot be vaccinated due to chronic health issues, people with allergies to ingredients in vaccines, and people who cannot choose to be vaccinated, such as children. How Effective Are Homeopathic "Remedies"? Next, let's talk about studies that look into the efficacy of homeopathic "remedies". Government level reviews of homeopathic "remedies" have been conducted by the UK, Australia, and the European Academies' Science Advisory Council. The UK's study found that there was "no compelling evidence of effect". Australia conducted a meta-analysis of 1800 papers, and found that "there were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective." EASAC found that there was a lack of evidence that homeopathic products are effective, and raised concerns about quality control. Additionally, there have been systemic reviews and meta-analyses of the efficacy of homeopathic "remedies" from doctors, universities, and medical researchers. In 2005, The Lancet (one of the world's oldest, best-known, and respected medical journals) published a meta-analysis looking at the efficacy of homeopathy. Basically, that means that they looked at data from 110 homeopathy trials. These trials were included in the study because they had a completely randomized set of patients who don't know whether they were getting a "homeopathic treatment" or a placebo pill. This type of "blinded" study allows researchers to see how effective the intervention (in this case, a homeopathic "treatment") actually is. Their findings were, "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects". Meta-analyses have also been conducted on the application of homeopathy for individual diseases, including cancer, ADHD, asthma, insomnia, fibromyalgia, dementia, IBS, osteoarthritis, migraines, ecchymosis and edema, and dermatological conditions, and all have found the same result. The UK's NHS, the American Medical Association, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Health Service and Medical Research Council of Australia, the World Health Organization, the American College of Medical Toxicology, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and even the acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have all come out against the use of homeopathy, saying that there's "no good quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as treatment for any health condition", recommending that no one use homeopathic "treatments" for disease or as a preventative health measure, and noting that there is evidence that using these treatments can produce harm and indirect health risks. But it Seems Like it Works! What Else Could Have Happened? In terms of what happened with your brother's hyperthyroidism and your nephew's alopecia, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I have no idea. I don't know what the homeopath gave them or what else they were taking or what else they were doing during that period of time that might have changed their health status. I can offer you some hypotheses (and I will in a second), but I don't know, and that's okay. What I do know about is the current state of research on homeopathic "remedies" overall, and how it holds up when subjected to the scientific method. There are a few common culprits for why homeopathy may seem to work. I'm going to go over those now, and then I'll dig into some theories for what may have happened with your brother and nephew. These culprits include:

Placebo effect- we talked about this one earlier, but essentially, if people believe that a "treatment" will work, they're also more likely to believe the "treatment" worked after taking it. As a result, they will report feeling better on subjective measures such as pain.

Natural healing- with time, the body can sometimes heal itself without medical assistance. This is most common for things like viruses.

Therapeutic effect of consultation- care, concern, and reassurance from a compassionate caregiver can have a positive impact on the patient's assessment of their well-being, even if objective assessments of their well-being stay the same.

Regression towards the mean- many conditions and diseases are cyclical. The patient may notice a decrease in symptoms that they attribute to homeopathic "remedies", but are actually just a result of moving to a different stage of the disease cycle.

Cessation of unpleasant treatment- a homeopath may suggest that patients stop receiving medical treatment. Medical treatments can sometimes have unpleasant side effects, and so halting those treatments can make the patient feel better in the short term. The patient attributes the decrease in symptoms to the homeopathic "remedy" but it's actually that they stopped taking a medication that has side effects. In the short term, this feels good, but in the long term it is destructive because the disease isn't being treated.

Non-homeopathic treatment- the patient is also receiving medical care, and the medical care is responsible for the decrease in symptoms, not the homeopathic "remedy".

Unrecognized treatments- an unrelated food, exercise, environmental agent, treatment for a different ailment, etc. is also treating the patient's medical condition and is responsible for the decrease in symptoms.

For alopecia areata (hair loss in patches on the scalp), spontaneous remission is actually more common than you might expect. In most cases that begin with a small number of patches of hair loss, hair grows back after a few months to a year. It's possible that your nephew's hair just... grew back, especially if time had passed. It's also possible your nephew's parents were treating his alopecia other ways (minoxidil, contact immunotherapy, corticosteroids, a gluten free diet if the alopecia was associated with celiac disease) and just didn't tell you or your mum. Hyperthyroidism is a bit more difficult to guess at. It could be that your brother's medical doctors switched him to a different medication that did work or changed his dosage. If you're sure that's not it, it could be that he switched his diet to one that's low iodine and low in caffeine. Research suggests that, although a low iodine diet cannot cure hyperthyroidism, it can reduce or alleviate the symptoms in some people. If your brother went vegetarian, vegan, or stopped eating fish, that could be the culprit. If he stopped taking a multivitamin that contains iodine, that could be it. If he started eating a ton of foods high in goitrogens (soy, cassava, cabbage, cauliflower), that could also contribute to what happened, since goitrogens interfere with the uptake of iodine in the thyroid. It's also possible he was misdiagnosed, but if it's true that he went to "tons of real doctors", that seems fairly unlikely. Again, all of these are just guesses for the purpose of illustrating what confounding factors may have been present. I think the bottom line with stories like these are that you're hearing them secondhand. You don't know how many doctors your nephew or brother saw, or the quality of those doctors, or what they diagnosed, or what they prescribed, or how many different lifestyle changes they tried. You don't know what the homeopath prescribed them, or if they took it. You're hearing a story of miracles through the mouth of a believer, and that can make it difficult to know what is and isn't true (in a medically accurate kind of way). It's possible that your mum's homeopath has stumbled upon a treatment for alopecia and one for hyperthyroidism that work better than traditional medicine. I hope that's true. We can always use better treatments, especially for difficult-to-cure conditions like alopecia. But I think it's more likely that there's just some piece of information you weren't given. What do I do? Getting to your original question, there's not a ton of evidence-backed research (that I could find, at least) for how to change people's minds about homeopathy, but there is data on changing people's minds with regard to vaccines, and I think using those tactics may work in both cases. What to do about your mum's beliefs in homeopathy depend on where those beliefs come from, how entrenched they are, and how it's impacting her life. If she's just someone who tries lifestyle changes and supplements from CVS first before going to a doctor and if she believes in vaccination, homeopathy is a waste of time and money, but it's probably not too big of a problem. In that case, it may not be worth pushing her about it, especially if she hasn't found a new homeopath after her old one passed away. If she's anti-vax and/or refuses to see medical doctors, that's a bigger problem, and it's worth having a conversation about. Changing her views is likely to take time, so be prepared to have at least a few conversations about these topics. And be prepared to step away from the conversation and resume it at a later time if it becomes too contentious. Start by asking her about her fears with regard to evidence-backed medicine. Do your best to be curious rather than judgmental in those conversations and to be a good listener. Respect is the most important tool in changing a person's mind, so try not to interrupt, be dismissive, or combat her beliefs off the bat. Affirm her right to have questions (but not the validity of the actual concern), and

try to say positive things about her in the conversation (for example, "I can see you really want to do everything you can to keep yourself healthy and safe"). Focus on her feelings, not facts. By trying to understand where she's coming from, you can begin to understand where her hesitations are and how those fears might be remedied. For example, a lot of people who believe in homeopathy do so in part because they feel like homeopathic practitioners listen to them, respect them, and care about them more than medical doctors do. They've usually had a bad experience with medical doctors. Knowing where her fears lie gives you a better idea of what she needs in a medical context, and can help you figure out how to dispel misconceptions she has about medicine or find alternatives that actually work. In the case of feeling like medical doctors don't respect her, you may be able to help your mum find a medical doctor who will spend longer with her and really listen to what she has to say. You can try asking her follow-up questions that allow her to investigate her own beliefs. For example, you might try asking about Hahnemann's ideas of "like cures like", "the law of minimum dose" or "water memory" and see how she reacts. Many people, even those who use homeopathic "remedies", don't know the principles that it's based on, and will eventually express skepticism when asked to explain them. It's tempting to try and combat pseudoscience with facts, but studies suggest that presenting facts makes people more likely to cling to their original beliefs. It's better to let people investigate their beliefs on their own through asking the right questions. You might also try this technique. Ask her how likely she would be to see a medical doctor/get a vaccine, on a scale of 0-10. If she says 1 or 0, this strategy isn't going to work. But if she says 2 or 3, then you can ask her why she's not a 0. Why is she not fully saying she won't see a medical doctor or get a vaccine? This forces her to explain what she thinks the positives of medical doctors/vaccinations are. Now you're on the same side; you both think there are some positives to the medical profession. Reinforce those ideas when you talk to her. From there, you can ask what would make her more likely to see a medical doctor/get a vaccine, and when she answers, you can point to the places where those things exist in the medical field. If nothing else works, you could try finding ways to make evidence-based medicine and vaccination compatible with her beliefs. Perhaps you could try using the language of homeopathy to explain medical issues and their treatments. For example, with COVID, it might work to tell her that COVID is a miasm, and that researchers used "like cures like" and the “law of minimum dose” to create a vaccine to remove the miasm from the "vital force". All of that is technically true, at least in a sense. It's just not the language scientists would use to describe what happens. To Sum It Up The medical establishment definitely has issues it needs to work on. The lack of compassionate, respectful care in many medical settings is a real problem, and it has real consequences. There are some situations in which a placebo is a potentially valid approach to treatment. But the answer is not to encourage homeopathy. It's to do more research, develop better drugs, and change the ways that doctors interact with their patients. Homeopathy doesn't work, and it does potentially have harmful side effects, both on a personal and societal level. The way we can combat homeopathy is to be curious and respectful, to help people identify and work through their concerns, and to offer them solutions to their medical problems that take those concerns into account.

3 notes · View notes

adrianodiprato · 4 years ago

Photo

+ “Whose voice is missing and how is that impacting our understanding of the world?” ~ Pernille Ripp, Series Two | Game Changers guest

Game Changers | Series Six Reflection

For Series Six, we turned our attention to A New Story: human-centred, technology enriched, people and place conscious and intentionally purposeful as we attempted to unpack the provocation So, what’s hope got to do with it?

In Series Six of the Game Changers Podcast, we once again had ten remarkable educators and entrepreneurs – a Learning Director, an Australian Educator of the Year, a global thought leader, a highly accomplished Equity Expert, the Executive Director of Catholic Education (Parramatta Diocese), the Head of Education (ABC), a Film Producer, a Teen neurodiversity champion, a global Research Officer and a Top 10 Finalist in 2020 Global Teacher Prize. Each challenged our binary thinking and inspired us with this new hope – all Game Changers who continue to light the torch for us and show us the way to build schools (and even society) differently.

Each Series Six Game Changers guest reminded us that all revolutionary ideas begin with a far-fetched dream, grown from the hope for a better world someday, somewhere. And that we were remined that the fierce urgency of now relates to the imperative that we connect our purpose to the needs of our COVID Children and all those that follow. That we now need a new story, a new social contract, a new hope - one that reimagines schooling and all of society - one that is deeply human-centred and highly inclusive, technology enriched, people, place, and planet conscious, and intentionally purposeful. And one that is daringly hope-filled.

Today, we should make this type of learning ecosystem our difference. Our audacious hope-filled aspiration. Our own great adventure. The great adventure of truly becoming – for self, place and the other.

Episode One | Tim Barrett

We started Series Six with Australian educator and leader Tim Barrett.

Key learnings – Tim’s educational philosophy and leadership as a Director of Learning highlighted the need to foster character dispositions of adaptive expertise, emotional competency, and self-efficacy via a dynamic experiential learning framework in today’s schooling, with each helping us to pay attention to the needs of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, in serving our people and place through enacting our purpose in our intentional practice. Our chat also emphasised the value of social justice learning and immersion opportunities in our learning communities, positioning the aspiration of an active responsible citizen. All in the wheelhouse of remaining forever hope-filled, that society sees and values all, through the lens of humanity first.

Episode Two | Eleni Kyritsis

Key learnings – Our conversation with the dynamic award-winning Australian educator Eleni, brought into sharp focus the value of learner agency and self-determination in school communities. She provided us with practical expressions of creative and critical thinking, via how design thinking protocols can lead to greater student autonomy and independence, better preparing them for the reality of a world in constant flux. That good design can be a source of empowerment, a way of delivering value to everyone. And how excellent STEM programs are fundamentally about adopting a futures thinking paradigm, creating a generation of hope-filled solution architects and continuous learners and unlearners.

Episode Three | David Price

Key learnings – David reminded us about the urgency of now and why it is imperative that we seize this moment to re-imagine education and schooling for today and tomorrow. Our conversation with David amplified the Otto Scharmer quote I shared in the Series Six | Prologue, “Our society must move from ego-system to eco-system economics. This requires that we shift from ego-system silos to eco-system awareness that considers others and includes the whole.” David invited us into this ecosystem space and intentional tuning-in journey. Representing our capacity to imagine the world with fresh eyes and to suspend the legacy of old habits of thought and practice. It is deeply hope-filled, as it requires us to begin to act with care and empathy, not just for ourselves, but our planet and every living “other”. Calling all school leaders into the space of future builders.

Episode Four | Aiko Bethea

Key learnings – This conversation was an insightful example of why we should always be asking Pernille Ripp’s powerful question “Whose voice is missing…?” When we started to explore the notion of belonging Aiko challenged our thinking. The best way I can explain this is via a line in the book “You Are Your Best Thing” edited by Tarana Burke and Dr. Brené Brown, where Aiko is a contributing author, she says, “You walk into every room at a deficit. Unacceptable. Unaccepted.” Profoundly powerful insight. And she also said this in our episode and in the chapter from the book I just quoted, Aiko invited us into the profound space of creating new prevailing narratives, that amplify self through the notion of “I’m speaking” and why we need to accept all before us, on their own terms stating, “Even if this white supremist society never agrees to see us on our own terms, we’re creating our own spaces. Pulling up a chair to a table setting of white supremacy? No thanks.” I remain hope-filled because of good people like Aiko.

Episode Five | Gregory Whitby AM

Key learnings – Greg is an important figure in education. Not just because he leads an entire system of schools across the Parramatta Diocese, NSW, but because he is a cathedral thinker. Inspired by authenticity and faith, Greg has the reflectiveness, sensitivity, and strength to manage complexity by honouring the legacy of yesterday, attending to the needs of today, and looking forward to what tomorrow will require of us. School leaders prepared to incorporate a cathedral thinking mindset can spark new life in education, provoking a shift from a focus on the status quo of what’s comfortable and familiar, to a long-term shared creative value proposition that truly realises education systems that promotes excellence and equity of opportunity for all – including for those not yet born. It’s all part of taking the big step forward and up into the new social contract of education that connects our purpose with our practice through a greater understanding of our people and our place.

Episode Six | Annabel Astbury

Key learnings – I kept asking myself this question during our conversation with Annabel, Head of Education at the ABC, When will the Australian education system realise the importance of digital literacy in today’s schooling? Digital literacy is the doorway to other literacies, that we must wrap our heads around, to ensure that technology serves all our best interests. As we step through that door, we can develop deeper understanding of Algorithmic literacy, Data literacy, Political and economic literacy, and, as Annabel rightfully points out, Media literacy. Annabel highlighted to us that literacy, in its traditional definition, isn’t just the ability to read or write – it’s about the capacity to reflect, analyse and create. It’s about taking a book, a newspaper or magazine article, a fictional story or a media article and reflecting on what’s behind it, who wrote it, what their assumptions were, what world they were a part of and what other information there might be on a similar subject.

Episode Seven | Ted Dintersmith

Key learnings – Ted Dintersmith is a highly successful venture capitalist and father of two who is devoting most of his time, energy, and millions of his personal fortune to education-related initiatives that call for a radical remaking of what and how students learn in today’s schooling and education systems. So much of Ted’s work has remined us that most teachers are motivated by a passion to transform the lives of the children and young people in their care. And how do we allow students and teachers the permission, space, and trust to define their own approach to learning. A narrative consistent with the work of a School for tomorrow and the mission of Game Changers.

Episode Eight | Shadia Hancock

Key learnings – In this episode Phil referenced the famous E. E. Cummings quote, “The hardest challenge is to be yourself in a world where everyone is trying to make you be somebody else.” Our chat with Shadia amplified the notion to be nobody but yourself in a world, is all that truly matters. And that we, in schools, should imagine a school developing from the inside out, that was the aggregate of the many lived experiences and personalised journeys of each individual, rather than the imposition of an ill-fitting average of everybody else, that often comes with the standardised education, that far too many have become accustomed. Shadia showed us the feeling of empowerment through the running toward, not away, from our uniqueness, our different minds and our inherent worth. And that all of us are part of a neuro diverse community, with each bringing something different to the table. Truly Inspiring.

Special Series | Santiago Rincon-Gallardo & Hà Ánh Phượng

Key learnings – Both Santiago and Ha Anh reminded me of Proverbs 11:25 “A generous person will proposer; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.” Santiago and Ha Anh shared with us the importance of being authentically seen by creating safe spaces for all learners to enter – to learn, to lead, to live and to work, from a fully flourishing personalised context. Two remarkable globally recognised educators, both deeply passionate and generous about young people, who continue to find opportunities to help others, particularly their students, to understand the place within and outside of themselves, to shine in this new world environment.

From each of our Series Six Game Changers guests, we learnt the significance of learning communities that deeply tune in to the importance of psychological safety. Each of our guests reminded me to encourage teachers and school leaders to consider Timothy R. Clark’s four stages of Psychological Safety in which you feel:

Inclusion safety - a deep sense of belonging,

Learner safety - safe to learn and take risks,

Contributor safety - safe to use learner agency, voice & contribute, and

Challenger safety - safe to challenge norms & conventions — all without the fear of being embarrassed, marginalised, or even punished in some way.

This authentic and intentional connectedness of people to place and planet, linking our purpose to our practice, where all are seen and valued, was most pronounced with our Series Six guests, each left be feeling deeply hope-filled.

Thank you to Tim, Eleni, David, Aiko, Gregory, Annabel, Ted, Shadia, Santiago and Ha Anh for sharing your story and passion. And thank for reminding us all that each person in our learning communities is home to a life. It is as simple and complex as that. Born from the construct of love – of self, for place and the other.

Listen to our Series Six: Epilogue via streaming platforms - SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Play.

#permissionistriumph #game changers #courageovercomfort #a school for tomorrow

2 notes · View notes

tinyshe · 4 years ago

Text

Pure, Unalloyed Evil Masked as a Pandemic Analysis by Mike Whitney

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare, The Tempest

Mike Yeadon is a soft-spoken microbiologist and a former vice-president of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer. He spent 32 years working for large pharmaceutical companies and is a leading expert on viral respiratory infections.

He is also a man on a mission, and his mission is to inform as many people as possible about the elite powerbrokers that are using the pandemic as a smokescreen to conceal their real objectives. Here’s Yeadon in a recent interview:1

“If you wanted to depopulate a significant portion of the world, and to do it in a way that wouldn’t require destruction of the environment with nuclear weapons, or poisoning everyone with anthrax or something, and you wanted plausible deniability, whilst you had a multi-year infectious disease crisis; I don’t think you could come up with a better plan of work than what seems to be in front of me.

I can’t say that’s what they’re going to do, but I cannot think of a benign explanation for why they are doing it.”

“Depopulation?” Who said anything about depopulation? Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to go from a mass vaccination campaign to allegations of a conspiracy to “depopulate a significant portion of the world?” Indeed, it is, but Yeadon has done extensive research on the matter and provides compelling evidence that such a diabolical objective may, in fact, be the goal.

Humans Are Capable of Unimaginable Viciousness and Cruelty

Moreover, it is not for lack of proof that people are not persuaded that Yeadon is right, but something more fundamental; the inability to grasp that men are capable of almost-unimaginable viciousness and cruelty. Here’s Yeadon again:2

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it.

And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil …

But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on … We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this.

They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale. But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face.

They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back … That’s how close we are. And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.”

People ‘Cannot Imagine Anything so Demonic’

He’s right, isn’t he? Whereas, a great many people know that the government, the media and the public health officials have been lying to them about everything from the efficacy of masks, social distancing and lockdowns, to the life-threatening dangers of experimental vaccines, they still refuse to believe that the people orchestrating this operation might be pushing them inexorably toward infertility or an early death.

They cannot imagine anything so demonic, so they stick their heads in the sand and pretend not to see what is going on right beneath their noses. It’s called “denial” and it is only strengthening the position of the puppet masters that are operating behind the scenes. Here’s more from Yeadon:3

“… In the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus.

That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.”

Many readers may have noticed that this interview appeared on a small Christian website called Lifesite News. Why is that? Shouldn’t the informed observations of a former Pfizer vice president appear on the front pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post? Wouldn’t you expect the big cable news channels to run a hot-button interview like this as their headline story?

Of course not. No one expects that, because everyone knows that the media honchos reflexively quash any story that doesn’t support the “official narrative,” that is, that COVID is the most contagious and lethal virus of all time, which requires a new authoritarian political structure and the wholesale evisceration of civil liberties.

No One Is Allowed to Refute the Official Propaganda

Isn’t that the underlying storyline of the last year? COVID skeptics and naysayers, like Yeadon, are not allowed to refute the official propaganda or debate the issue on a public forum. They’re effectively banned from the MSM and consigned to the outer reaches of the Internet where only a scattered few will read what they have to say. Here’s more:4

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong. But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy.

Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism.’ That is, a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So, it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.

I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.”

Let’s pause for a minute, and ask ourselves why a modest, self-effacing microbiologist who operated in the shadows for his entire professional career has thrust himself into the limelight when he knows, for certain, he will either be ridiculed, smeared, discredited, dragged through the mud or killed.

In fact, he openly admits that he fears for his safety and assumes that he could be “removed” (“assassinated”) by his enemies. So, why is he doing this? Why is he risking life and limb to get the word out about vaccines?

A Moral Obligation to Warn People

It’s because he feels a moral obligation to warn people about the danger they face. Yeadon is not an attention-seeking narcissist. In fact, he’d rather vanish from public life altogether.

But he’s not going to do that because he’s selflessly committed to doing his duty by sounding the alarm about a malign strategy that may well lead to the suffering and death of literally tens of millions of people. That’s why he’s doing it, because he’s an honorable man with a strong sense of decency. Remember decency? Here’s more:5

“You can see that I am desperately trying not to say that it is a conspiracy, because I have no direct evidence that it is a conspiracy. Personally, all my instincts are shouting that it’s a conspiracy as a human being, but as a scientist, I can’t point to the smoking gun that says they made this up on purpose.”

Many of us who have followed events closely for the last year and have searched the internet for alternate points of view are equally convinced that it is a conspiracy, just as Russiagate was a conspiracy. And while we might not have conclusive, rock-solid proof of criminal activity, there is voluminous circumstantial evidence to support the claim.

By definition, a “conspiracy” is “an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.”6 What is taking place presently across the western world meets that basic definition.

Just as the contents of this article meet the basic definition of a “conspiracy theory,” which is “an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.”7

We make no attempt to deny that this is a conspiracy theory, any more than we deny that senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA, DOJ and U.S. State Department were involved in a covert operation aimed at convincing the American people that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

That was a conspiracy theory that was later proven to be a fact. We expect that the facts about the COVID operation will eventually emerge, acquitting us on that account as well. Here’s more from Yeadon:8

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’ … Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide.

And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.”

Mass Vaccination a Pathway to Absolute Social Control

So mass vaccination is actually the pathway to absolute social control by technocratic elites accountable to no one? Are we there yet? Pretty close, I’d say. Here’s more:9

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky ‘variants’ — (but) ‘don’t worry, there will be ‘top-up’ vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Is he right? Is the variant hobgoblin now being invoked to prolong the restrictions, intensify the paranoia and pave the way for endless rounds of mass vaccination? Judge for yourself, but here’s a sampling of articles that appeared in recent news that will help you decide:

1. Reuters — South African Variant Can ‘Break Through’ Pfizer Vaccine, Israeli study says10

“The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can ‘break through’ Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found, though its prevalence in the country is low and the research has not been peer reviewed …

We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection,” said Tel Aviv University’s Adi Stern. (So, according to the article — the vaccine doesn’t work.)

2. The New York Times — Rise of Variants in Europe Shows How Dangerous the Virus Can Be11

“Europe, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic last spring, has once again swelled with new cases, which are inundating some local hospitals and driving a worrisome global surge of Covid-19.

But this time, the threat is different: The rise in new cases is being propelled by a coronavirus variant first seen in Britain and known as B.1.1.7. The variant is not only more contagious than last year’s virus, but also deadlier.

The variant is now spreading in at least 114 countries. Nowhere, though, are its devastating effects as visible as in Europe, where thousands are dying each day and countries’ already-battered economies are once again being hit by new restrictions on daily life …

Vaccines will eventually defeat the variants, scientists say. [So, they don’t work now??] And stringent restrictions can drive down cases of B.1.1.7. [So, don’t leave your home.] …

‘We’ve seen in so many countries how quickly it can become dominant,’ said Lone Simonsen, a professor and director of the PandemiX Center at Roskilde University in Denmark.

‘And when it dominates, it takes so much more effort to maintain epidemic control than was needed with the old variant.’” [In other words, we are effectively dealing with a different pathogen that requires a different antidote. It’s an admission that the current crop of vaccines doesn’t work.]

3. Cell — SARS-CoV-2 Variants B.1.351 and P.1 Escape From Neutralizing Antibodies12

“… our findings indicate that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants might be able to spread in convalescent patients or BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals and thus constitute an elevated threat to human health.

Containment of these variants by non-pharmaceutic interventions is an important task.” [Note — In other words, the new vaccines don’t work against the new COVID strains, so we might need to preserve the onerous lockdown restrictions forever.]

How can people read this fearmongering bunkum and not see that it is designed to terrify and manipulate the masses into sheeplike compliance?

Variant Being Used to Fuel COVID Hysteria

There’s no denying that the variant is being used to fuel the COVID hysteria and perpetuate the repressive social restrictions. So, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether we can trust what we are being told by the media and the public health officials?

And the answer is “No,” we cannot trust them. They have repeatedly misled the public on all manner of topics including masks, asymptomatic transmission, immunity, infection fatality rate, social distancing and now variants. According to Sunetra Gupta, who is professor of theoretical epidemiology in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow:13

“… some of these variants could be more transmissible, but the truth is … even with a marginal increase in transmissibility … that does not have much of a material effect or difference in how we deal with the virus. In other words, the surge of the virus cannot be ascribed to a new variant …

The other question is are these variants more virulent, and the truth is we don’t know, but it is unlikely because the data don’t seem to say so despite the scary headlines … Pathogens tend to evolve toward lower virulence … because that maximizes their transmissibility … It is much more probable that these strains will not be materially so different that we would have to alter our policies.”

So, according to Gupta, even if the new strains of COVID are more transmissible, it is highly unlikely that they are more lethal. Here’s more on the topic from diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, who provides a more technical explanation:14

“SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence has ~30,000 letters. Alterations in a handful of letters will not change it’s shape much — if it did it wouldn’t function properly anyway. Fear mongering about immune escape is not needed and is irresponsible especially when no evidence to support the claims.”

In essence, Craig is saying the same thing we said earlier, that the slight mutations to the infection will not impact the immune reaction of people who already had the virus. Thus, the current crop of “variants” should not be a cause for alarm. If you have already had COVID or if you already have prior immunity due to previous exposure to similar infections, (SARS, for example) the new strain should not be a problem.

It should also not be a problem if the new vaccines provide the type of broad-based immunity that one should expect of them. Again, the mutations represent only the slightest change in the composition of the pathogen (less than 1%), which means that — if the vaccines don’t work — they are, in effect, useless.

Media Misstating Science to Terrify the Public

Here’s a longer explanation that some readers might find overly technical and perhaps tedious, but it’s worth wading through in order to see that the media is deliberately misstating the science to terrify the public. This excerpt is from an article by Yeadon. Here’s what he said:15

“The idea is planted in people’s mind that this virus is mutating in such a way as to evade prior immunity. This is completely unfounded, certainly as regards immunity … (that is) gained naturally, after repelling the virus … It’s important to appreciate that upon infection, the human immune system cuts up an infectious agent into short pieces.

Each of these short pieces of protein are presented to other cells in the immune system, like an identity parade … These have a range of functions. Some make antibodies & others are programmed to kill cells infected by the virus, recognized by displaying on their surface signals that tell the body that they’ve been invaded.

In almost all cases … this smart adaptive system overcomes the infection. Crucially … this event leaves you with many different kinds of long-lived ‘memory’ cells which, if you’re infected again, rapidly wipe out any attempt at reinfection.

So, you won’t again be made ill by the same virus, and because the virus is simply not permitted to replicate, you are also no longer able to participate in transmission … The general ‘direction of travel’ (for viruses) is to become less injurious but easier to transmit, eventually joining the other 40 or so viruses which cause what we collectively term ‘the common cold.’

What generally doesn’t happen is for mutants to become more lethal to the hosts (us). But the key point I wanted to get across is just how large SARS-COV-2 is. I recall it’s of the order of 30,000 letters of genetic code which, when translated, make around 10,000 amino acids in several viral proteins.

Now you can see that the kinds of numbers of changes in the letters of the genetic code are truly tiny in comparison with the whole. 30 letter changes might be roughly 0.1% of the virus’s code. In other words, 99.9% of that code is not different from the so-called Wuhan strain.

Similarly, the changes in the protein translated from those letter code alterations are overwhelmed by the vast majority of the unchanged protein sequences. So your immune system, recognizing as it does perhaps dozens of short pieces … will not be fooled by a couple of small changes to a tiny fraction of these.

No: your immune system knows immediately that this is an invader it’s seen before, and has no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with it swiftly & without symptoms. So, it’s a scientifically invalid …

… even if mutations did change a couple of these, the majority of the pieces … of the mutated virus will still be unchanged & recognized by the vaccine-immune system or the virus-infected immune system & a prompt, vigorous response will still protect you.”

Why Are Public Health Officials and the Media Lying?

Let’s summarize: We have presented the informed views of three reputable scientists all of who explicitly refute the idea that the so called “variants:”

Are more lethal

Have the potential to reinfect people who have already had COVID

Have mutated enough to reinfect people who have already been vaccinated (unless, of course) the vaccine does not provide broad-based immunity to begin with (which is possible since Phase 3 long-term trials were never conducted).

So, why are the public health officials and the media lying about this matter, which is fairly clear-cut and uncontroversial? That is the question.

Yeadon concludes that there is something flagrantly diabolical about their denial. He thinks they are lying in order to dupe more people into getting injected with a substance that will either render them infertile, cause them great bodily harm or kill them outright. Take your pick. Here’s more:16

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power?” Has Yeadon gone mad?

Has the pressure of the global pandemic pushed him off the deep end or is he “on to something” big, something that no one even dares to even think about; a plan so dark and sinister that its implementation would constitute the most grievous and coldblooded crime against humanity of all time; the injection of billions of people with a toxic elixir whose spike protein dramatically compromises their immune systems clearing the way for agonizing widespread suffering followed by mountains of carnage?

There are others, however, who see a connection between the current vaccination campaign and “the eugenicists.” In fact, Dr. Joseph Mercola points to the link between the lead developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, and the Eugenics movement. According to Mercola:

“Hill gave a lecture at the Galton Institute (which was known as the U.K. Eugenics Society) in 2008 for its 100-year anniversary. As noted in Webb’s article:17

‘Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement.

The latter organization, named for the ‘father of eugenics’ Francis Galton, is the renamed U.K. Eugenics Society, a group notorious for over a century for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to ‘improve racial stock’ by reducing the population of those deemed inferior.

The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with [Sarah] Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth …

Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David J. Galton, whose work includes ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century.’

David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project… had ‘enormously increased … the scope for eugenics … because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.’

This new ‘wider definition of eugenics,’ Galton has said, ‘would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.’ In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to ‘whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.

… The Wellcome Centre regularly cofunds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with … a foundation (name withheld) that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the widespread distribution of injectable long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to ‘improve uptake’ of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda…’ LARCs afford women in the Global South ‘the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.’

Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they ‘leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.’

… Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa … Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to ‘improve the biological stock of the human race.’”

Does Eugenics Factor Into the mRNA Vaccine?

So, how does “eugenics” factor into the creation and distribution of the mRNA vaccine? Is there a link or are we grasping at straws? We can’t answer that question, but a recent article by Mathew Ehret at Off-Guardian provides a few interesting clues. Here’s what he said:18

“The fact that the organizations promoting the rise of this eugenics policy throughout Nazi Germany and North America included such powerhouses as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment … which have all taken leading roles in the World Health Organization over recent decades is more than a little concerning.

The fact that these eugenics organizations simply re-branded themselves after WWII and are now implicated in modern RNA vaccine development alongside the Galton Institute (formerly British Eugenics Association), Oxford’s AstraZeneca, Pfizer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should give any serious thinker pause as we consider what patterns of history we are willing to tolerate repeating in our presently precarious age.”

We’ll end this piece with an excerpt from a 2010 article by Andrew Gavin Marshall at Global Research, who presciently noted that:19

“Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity … (particularly) population control …

The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of ‘Social Darwinism,’ which was ‘the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act.’

This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege.

Francis Galton later coined the term “eugenics” to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the ‘genetically unfit’ ‘would have to be wiped away,’ using tactics such as ‘segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia — and ultimately extermination’ …

Sir Julian Huxley was also a life trustee of the British Eugenics Society from 1925, and its President from 1959-62 … ‘Huxley believed that eugenics would one day be seen as the way forward for the human race,’ and that, ‘A catastrophic event may be needed for evolution to move at an accelerated pace’ … It is much the same with ideas whose time has not yet come; they must survive periods when they are not generally welcome.

The 21st-century technologies are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups.

They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them … I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.

… Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system.

If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite …

A horrifying vision indeed; but one which builds upon the ideas of Huxley, Russell and Brzezinski, who envisioned a people who — through biological and psychological means – are made to love their own servitude. Huxley saw the emergence of a world in which humanity, still a wild animal, is domesticated; where only the elite remain wild and have freedom to make decisions, while the masses are domesticated like pets.

Huxley opined that, ‘Men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.’”

We must ask ourselves whether the current mass vaccination campaign is a science-based effort to relieve sickness and disease or a fast-track to a dark and frightening dystopia conjured up by evil men seeking to tighten their grip on all humanity?

SOURCE

2 notes · View notes

ecocel · 4 years ago

Text

EcoCel Reviews – Real EcoCel Results or Fake Customer Reviews?

EcoCel is really a system which reduces your own car or truck's fuel consumption up to 55 percent. Can EcoCel work? How can EcoCel work? Continue reading to discover whatever that you want to learn concerning EcoCel and its own effects.

What's EcoCel?

EcoCel can be really a fuel efficacy apparatus sold exclusively on the state site . The system asserts to decrease the fuel consumption of vehicles as much as 55 percent. Simply install Ecocel Buy into your car or truck, then reduce gas consumption without even changing your driving habits.

Other vehicle efficacy apparatus plug to a obd ii port, a little port into the low left of your tyre.

Now, everyone can purchase the apparatus on line. After installing these devices into your automobile, it monitors your driving customs for about 150 miles. Afterward, EcoCel makes subtle alterations to a own vehicle's power draw, supposedly fostering fuel efficiency by 20 percent to 55 percent.

Just how Can EcoCel Work?

The manufacturers of Ecocel Buy are convinced their apparatus works as promoted to not merely improve fuel efficiency but lower emissions and enhance horsepower.

The manufacturers of Ecocel Buy assert the device May Lead for the following advantages:

Saves cash at the petrol pump

Boosts the fuel efficiency of Your Car or Truck by 20 percent to 55 percent

Easy Plugandplay installation

Works in almost any vehicle with an additional power outlet (a Cigarette-lighter )

Allergic emissions

Improves horsepower

The apparatus is intended to become as easy as you can use. Rather than altering your vehicle's electronic equipment or changing your driving habits, then you only plug EcoCel in your cigarette lighter, and allow these devices run.

EcoCel can not do the job instantly. You want to operate a vehicle for approximately 150 kilometers with EcoCel on your auxiliary power socket.

Accordingto customer reviews on the state site, 1 individual improved the fuel efficiency of the 1-2 +-yearold vehicle from 3-5 into 47mpg after installing EcoCel.

What Exactly Does EcoCel Do?

The manufacturers of EcoCel provide limited details in what EcoCel will to a motor vehicle. Similar apparatus use your obd ii port to subtly correct the way your car or truck employs power. The manufacturers of EcoCel create similar claims in their apparatus, even though the web site doesn't have any information concerning the tech supporting EcoCel, exactly what it's to a vehicle throughout your auxiliary power socket, and the way that it corrects your car or truck's behaviour at all.

Other cigarette-lighter automobile optimisation techniques adapt the power draw of one's car or truck.

Your car or truck's obd ii interface is on the computer in your vehicle. Every vehicle produced within the previous 30 years comes with an obd ii port. Once you would like to tune your automobile, you also use your obd ii port.

Your automobile's auxiliary power socket, nevertheless, is only an electric socket. It uses your automobile battery to give power for your motor vehicle. You're able to control a smartphone run a electricity cable from the auxiliary power socket. It's potential that this additional power socket links to your computer or processor inside your car or truck. But it shouldn't work to be an obd ii port.

After installing Ecocel Buy on your power socket, the lighting onto the system works. Beyond this, nevertheless, it's uncertain what the apparatus does. The manufacturers of EcoCel assert it monitors your driving customs more than 150 kilometers and leaves subtle alterations to a own vehicle's power draw. Nevertheless, the manufacturers of EcoCel do not explain just how the gadget monitors mileage throughout the power socket.

Inspite of the dearth of signs, the manufacturers of Ecocel Buy assert their product was featured in major websites such as Lifehacker, Wired, automobile and Driver, and Popular Mechanics. We achieved to those sockets and discovered no signs of any guide, feature, or even narrative covering EcoCel.

Inspite of the dearth of signs, the manufacturers of Ecocel Buy insist that their apparatus increases fuel efficiency with at a minimum of 20 per cent and no more than 55 percent on almost any motor vehicle.

It's correct you could maximize fuel efficiency during your car's cigarette lighter. Cigarette-lighter automobile optimisation apparatus are sold on the web for more than ten decades ago

But most devices can't maximize fuel efficiency by 55 percent. The 20% minimum promoted about the Ecocel Buy internet site appears unrealistic.

Here is how Cigarette-lighter vehicle optimization apparatus operate:

To stabilize the electric present, apparatus such as Ecocel Reviews supposedly mitigate electric interference against the stereo, lighting, Air-conditioning, along with other regions; electric interference from these areas can adversely affect the ECU's capability to maximize fuel efficiency and gas injection

Other cigarette-lighter vehicle optimization apparatus sold on the web have promoted fuel-efficiency boosts up to 18 percent. But, EcoCel blasts out these claims out from their water, asserting users may improve fuel efficiency by 20 percent to 55 percent after installing EcoCel.

The manufacturers of EcoCel even assert their apparatus improves horsepower and enhances emissions -- something which many additional automobile optimisation apparatus do not assert to accomplish.

That sounds good -- but there isn't any signs which EcoCel and also other cigarette-lighter vehicle optimization methods act as advertised. Contemporary vehicles are highly efficient. Electric disturbance doesn't substantially decrease fuel efficiency, also there isn't any signs you are able to improve fuel efficiency by correcting the electric current of one's car or truck via your cigarette lighter.

In general, we're doubtful EcoCel has some affect fuel efficiency, fuel useage, or auto functionality as promoted about the EcoCel earnings page.

As stated by the EcoCel internet site, drivers can enhance their automobile efficiency by 20 percent to 55 percent after installing EcoCel. The site also asserts that you are able to lower emissions and enhance horsepower.

The manufacturers of EcoCel do not clarify the way the gadget works or what it really does to your motor vehicle. The business also doesn't supply some evaluations, evaluations, or studies demonstrating it works as advertised.

It's uncertain whether the manufacturers of Ecocel Reviews have analyzed the apparatus onto almost any vehicles to verify that it works. But they seem optimistic it enhances the efficacy of most sorts of vehicles.

1 customer offered around the EcoCel earnings page asserts he increased fuel efficiency out of 3-5 into 47mpg after installing EcoCel. Nevertheless, the web site provides no additional facts about mpg progress.

In general, there is limited advice on the web demonstrating EcoCel works as promoted.

EcoCel Reviews: Just What Do Clients Have To Say?

Broadly speaking, clients have good stuff to say concerning EcoCel. Most clients agree it works as promoted to greatly improve fuel efficiency. Folks claim to possess raised fuel efficiency to sets from petrol guzzlers to smaller cars.

Because EcoCel can be actually a brand new apparatus, you can find just a few reviews out the state site. Here Are Just Some of the testimonials on EcoCel from the State site:

1 individual asserts his 2009 Honda-Accord had a normal mpg of approximately 3-5. He required to enhance that, therefore he also installed EcoCel. That man maintains he left no additional improvements to his car or truck. He assessed the pressure from his tires, but he failed to assert to switch the pressure of his own tires. To put it differently, EcoCel alone improved his fuel-efficiency out of 3-5 into 47mpg.

1 mechanic mentioned about the EcoCel earnings page asserts Ecocel Reviews works as promoted to enhance the overall fuel efficiency of vehicles. He asserts EcoCel works"by accentuating his car's fuel strategy," allowing drivers to"simply pay to the fuel that you have."

Yet another woman clarifies EcoCel whilst the very best purchase she made, asserting she conserves countless at the pump annually after refueling her"gas guzzler."

1 man asserts EcoCel is still an effortless solution to conserve money at the pump. He asserts you might simply take your vehicle into a mechanic to get a tuneup, however EcoCel will enable one to accomplish a higher degree of fuel optimisation than you'd get with a mechanic tuneup.

EcoCel prices

EcoCel is priced approximately $40 each unit, together with discounts available if ordering multiple components.

Here is how pricing Reduces if purchased by the State Site:

The business asserts this warranty protects your gadget for a couple of decades, however in addition they assert it"means that your product is protected for lifetime " It's uncertain whether or not it's really a two-year warranty or even a life warranty.

The business also asserts it requires upto 2-9 days to send your own Ecocel Reviews.

The manufacturers of Ecocel Reviews usually do not disclose their own refund policy upfront. Nevertheless, the Provider claims to provide some Kinds of refunds over 30 days:

Nevertheless, the organization claims it requires 2-9 days to send Ecocel Buy to a speech. In the event the 30day re-fund window starts your day you order your own EcoCel, then you're going to not be able acquire a refund.

In general, EcoCel seemingly has a remarkably strict refund policy in contrast to additional automobile optimisation apparatus sold on the web today.

Around EcoCel

The manufacturers of EcoCel provide limited details regarding themselves, their own manufacturing location, or even so their own team. But you can contact the manufacturers of EcoCel through the next:

EcoCel Buy is actually a vehicle optimization apparatus sold on the web. The system asserts to improve the overall fuel efficiency of your vehicle using at least of 20 per cent and no more than 55 percent.

1 customer mentioned on the state internet site claims to have increased fuel efficiency out of 3-5 into 47mpg after installing EcoCel. The manufacturers of EcoCel additionally assert their apparatus was featured in Auto and Driver, Popular Mechanics, along with other big media.

There isn't any evidence anybody has improved fuel efficiency by 55 percent after installing Ecocel Buy, and also the refund policy looks remarkably strict in contrast to other services and products sold on the web now (you have thirty days to reunite Ecocel Buy nevertheless the item carries 2-9 weeks to send ). There is no signs EcoCel was featured in major science or automotive outlets.

Ecocel

Ecocel Reviews

Ecocel Buy

Buy Ecocel

https://ipsnews.net/business/2021/06/09/ecocel-fuel-saver-reviews-scam-alert-pros-cons-uses-complaints-and-price/

https://bit.ly/3iPsjBm

https://sites.google.com/view/ecocel-fuel-benefits/

https://sites.google.com/view/ecocel-fuel-saver-review/

https://buyecocel.blogspot.com/2021/06/ecocel.html

https://full-spectrum-cbd.blogspot.com/2021/06/ecocel.html

https://essentialketopills.blogspot.com/2021/06/ecocel.html

https://ketonowbuy.blogspot.com/2021/06/ecocel.html

https://evianne-creamuk.blogspot.com/2021/06/ecocel.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3n9zyHE3DA

https://sites.google.com/view/ecocel-reviews-scam-or-legit-f/

https://vimeo.com/561736798

https://kit.co/ecocel/ecocel

https://www.facebook.com/Ecocel-105181708468639

https://www.inkitt.com/ecocelbuy

https://influence.co/ecocel

https://missions.me/ecocelreviews

https://gumroad.com/ecocel/p/ecocel-reviews-scam-or-legit-fuel-saver-device-really-works

https://linktr.ee/ecocel

https://www.feedsfloor.com/profile/ecocel

https://dribbble.com/shots/15827855-EcoCel-Reviews-Cars-Fuel-Saver-Gadget-Official-Website

https://soundcloud.com/ecocel/ecocel

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/65710825/ecocel

#Ecocel #Ecocel Reviews #Ecocel Buy #Buy Ecocel #Ecocel Car Fuel Saver #Ecocel - How To Save Car Fuel?

1 note · View note

c-ptsdrecovery · 5 years ago

Text

Cults and Dysfunctional Families

The techniques of control used by cults (here meaning social groups that exert excessive and abusive control over their members) are also used by domestic abusers and child abusers. I’ve posted before about the commonalities between cults and dysfunctional families. Well, I was just looking back over the notes I had for a talk on cults that I gave in my Bible study group a couple of years ago... and there are definitely characteristics there that sound like my family. So here are some notes with my commentary added.

• Cults displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader (whether he is alive or dead), and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. [My dysfunctional family wasn’t quite the zealous, but yes, questioning my parents’ assumptions about the world is not popular with them.]

• The leadership induces feelings of shame and guilt in order to influence and control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. [My mom’s major forms of control are guilt trips and passive aggression.]

• The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members. ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality. This discourages members from listening to the rational criticisms of the group by their loved ones. [The assumption in our home was that where other families or individuals differed in their practices from us, their practices were inferior. The way we did it was automatically the right and sensible way to do things. This constant, unspoken assumption made me think that kinder, more open families were somehow doing it wrong. This made me not only NOT question my family, but look at healthier families and practices as alien and stupid.]

• Members are encouraged or required to live or socialize ONLY with other group members. They are required to cut ties with family and friends. This means that they rarely hear any criticisms of the group from the outside, and also means that they have no social support network to help them after they leave the cult. [While my family isn’t totally isolationist, they ARE very selective about the people they hang out with. For instance, when I was a kid, my birthday parties were almost always with extended family, not with friends. I was not permitted to invite friends to them. A couple of times i managed to get my best friend invited however: because she was a second cousin. If she wasn’t, I doubt my parents would have let me invite her. Also the fact that my best friend was my cousin should give you some idea of my family’s idea of socializing. I rarely went to friends’ houses (except my cousin’s) or had friends over, yet we spent almost all Sunday, every Sunday, with extended family (very lonely for me, as cousins my age were rarely there). My parents rarely socialized outside the home except at church or with a few VERY select friends. I also lived in the country, and almost all my neighbors were relatives, so I didn’t have outside people to play with outside of school. I always knew, as a child, that it was pointless to run away, because there was nobody and nowhere to run TO. Unfortunately, while studies have shown that having even one person in your life that can nurture you can hugely decrease your trauma as a result of childhood emotional neglect, I didn’t have that one person.

The group is often preoccupied with money. [I have a lot of anxiety around money, partly because my parents mocked me for spending any of it on myself as a child. There is definitely an air of monetary preoccupation with my parents.]

“love-bombing”: Potential recruits are overwhelmed with attention which makes them feel special, loved, and an important part of the new group. Aspects of this technique include, but are not limited to flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually non-sexual touching, and lots of attention. Love-bombing can produce a social high. Recruits can come to feel dependent on this feeling and the safety net of belonging to a close-knit group of people. It also makes them feel loyal and dedicated, as they now may feel they owe the group some attention in return.[like many abusers, my mom blows hot and cold. For almost a year now she’s been REALLY NICE: it dates from when she found out that I blamed their parenting for my PTSD. She’s clearly trying to convince me she’s a GOOD mom, a NICE mom, and not to tell anybody otherwise. What this has mostly convinced me of is that she COULD have been nice to me all along if she’d actually cared, but she decided she’d rather be abusive.]

In order to keep a member trapped in a cult, the group establishes a threat of some kind. This threat of death can be literal, but usually refers to spiritual death, loss of afterlife, loss of purpose, loss of identity, or the loss of important ideals and attributes. [If my family is right and everybody else is wrong, then disagreeing with my family would mean I was wrong and bad and worthy of contempt. Also, my family worked hard to wear down my self-esteem (see below) so that I believe that if I alienate my family, I won’t be able to handle myself in the outside world and something terrible will happen to me, like failure, unemployment, homelessness, and poverty.]

• Standards for thoughts and behavior are held impossibly high, so that members are never able to reach the goal of what they “should” be, and as such, they never feel as if they measure up. The goals themselves are presented as possible to attain, and thus the standards never become suspect, only the member who is not meeting them. Perfectly normal things like the desire for leisure time, the desire to be alone, or the desire to sleep are depicted as evil. Cult members are therefore tormented by their inability to reach the group’s standards, and can be manipulated through their low self-esteem. And just when they can’t stand the emotional abuse anymore… the leader will praise them for something they did well and they’re so grateful that they stay.

Creating dependency: A member comes to depend on the group for physical, emotional, social, spiritual, or other needs. The member has a high stake in continuing to stay loyal to the group. [see above]

• Cults encourage Black and white thinking: Broad spectrums of thought and morality become reduced to two options: Good vs. Evil, Love vs. Hate, Weak vs. Strong, etc. This stops cult members from seeing other options for their lives. [VERY MUCH THIS. But then if you express criticism of the family using this vocabulary, they can gaslight you by pointing out that “we didn’t do that EVERY time!”]

A persecution complex may exist whereby reasonable criticism is reframed as an attack. [This is a portrait of my mother.]

• Many kinds of abuse occur in cults. Cults mentally abuse their members by making them doubt their own ability to make decisions or live outside the group. They emotionally abuse members by tearing down their self-esteem in order to further control them. Cults sometimes physically or sexually abuse members. They almost always economically abuse their members by requiring or encouraging them to give most or all of their money and labor to the cult. Cult leaders frequently form cults in order to gain admiration, adulation, control of others, money, and/or sex. [My parents have never physically or sexually abused me, but the rest of this is true. My parents even tried to get me to use up $8,000 of my savings so that I could apply for SSI, which would MAYBE have given me an income of a couple of hundred bucks a month? A program of making me economically dependent on them as well as emotionally dependent.]

Why people don’t leave cults

· Sunk cost fallacy

· Fear of reprisals or shunning [yep]

· Fear of loss of identity [somewhat]

· Fear of death or damnation outside of group

· Leaving behind family members who are still in the cult

· Practical problems: no support system, no money, no education, no home, no job, custody of children [yep]

· Poor self-esteem and self-efficacy [definitely]

#dysfunctional family #cults #emotional abuse #childhood emotional neglect #abusive parents

66 notes · View notes

aulearneskills · 4 years ago

Text

Workplace Training

Workplace Training is the act of creating specific knowledge, proficiency and improved efficiency in the current work environment. Employers conduct various kinds of workplace training depending on their specific requirements, the priority of their requirements as well as the available resources. In accordance with this, organizations have particular workplace training programs that are designed keeping in mind different objectives. Some of these objectives may be the improvement of productivity, better customer service, development of new abilities of the workers and others.

There are a number of benefits of workplace training. The main one is that the development of new abilities that will help the worker do his job better. New and improved skills to permit the employee to do his job more efficiently and thereby raises the total productivity of an organization. There are several different types of skills developed through this program that can consist of different kinds of communication and social abilities. Employees get trained in a variety of kinds of management and leadership abilities that prove to be very valuable in their career and also at their office.

Employers who are offering office training applications have realized the value of this activity on the part of the workers. A well-developed workplace training plan contributes significantly towards the achievement of a organization's human resources department. It contributes towards the employee development process by improving employee relations. This also promotes the creation of a wholesome work atmosphere where workers are relaxed and enjoy working. Besides all this, office learning also has many other advantages that could prove to be extremely useful to any provider.

There is a clear improvement in job satisfaction when a firm adopts an effective workplace training regime. A good training program leads to an higher degree of job satisfaction among those workers. It produces a further growth in the employee development rate. When an employee feels happier at work, he will apply for more tasks and perform better thus increasing his odds of upward advertising.

It creates a safe and healthy work environment. When employees are given the necessary skills on the right tools and methods to execute their jobs, accidents do not take place because they're aware of the several forms of safety equipment available in the office. Employees become trained in utilizing these tools and thus perform their tasks with increased confidence and dedication. Moreover, employees who are given the necessary security training and abilities tend to perform their tasks with greater efficacy due to increased job satisfaction levels.

Workers are not as likely to get injured in the workplace. The risk of getting injured in a workplace depends upon the tasks that an individual is doing. As an example, if an individual is working on a scaffold, then the risk of an accident is a lot greater than if he were working at the desk. Moreover, when an employee undergoes office training, there's a decline in the stress levels of their workers. They become less likely to panic under certain situations and therefore handle themselves better.

Employers benefit a lot from corporate training. When employees of a business experience corporate coaching, they are more faithful to the company. Loyalty helps employers in developing stronger business relationships with their customers and peers. Employees assist employers in promoting their goods and services because they know the importance of the situation. Therefore, when employees understand the significance of the workplace training program they undergo, they're more likely to apply for the application or attempt to enhance their participation in the application. This leads employers to greater employee retention levels which help them retain their valued employees.

Some development managers may think that workplace training programs are just beneficial for new hires or people who have recently begun working in a business. However, this isn't the case. Employees who have been at the organization for quite some time could be asked to go through this training to boost their job prospects. Those who have recently left may also need this training to assist them find new avenues for advancement. Thus, corporate coaching will help employees enjoy a better work life balance and contribute more to the development of the business.

#Training

1 note · View note

litterpuffin2 · 4 years ago

Text

Does Fat Freezing Work?

Fat Freezing & Coolsculpting In Cambridge & Suffolk.

Content

Every Little Thing You Require To Find Out About Cryolipolysis (fat Freezing) Treatment Of The Chin.

What Takes Place If I Put On Weight After Coolsculpting?

Cryotherapy (cryolipolysis) Training.

" I was very nervous before my therapy yet I need not have actually been. Emma was fantastic at placing me secure as well as the process was pain free. " Emma was able to help me eliminate my podge on my belly that I had not been able to change with years of diet programs or workout. It's not just the news as well as celebrity evaluations that back up the advantages of cryolipolysis. The scientific principles behind cryolipo were uncovered by Dermatologists Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD and R. Rox Anderson, MD, of the Wellman Facility for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Healthcare Facility in Boston, a training associate of Harvard Medical Institution. The High Cliff Residence Clinic is a completely independent facility and not associated with any rival Laser Lipo Clinics or service providers.

The chance for rejuvenation - Western Advocate

The chance for rejuvenation.

Posted: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:00:00 GMT [source]

" Through fitness center job and also dieting, it is exceptionally difficult to target particular locations to reduce weight, like, as an example, attempting to make your internal upper legs a little smaller sized. " Promptly after treatment, the location will obviously really feel colder however it seldom ices up solid," Alice says.

Whatever You Require To Find Out About Cryolipolysis (fat Freezing) Treatment Of The Chin.

CoolSculpting innovation utilizes regulated cooling down to target as well as kill only these fat cells. In addition to being FDA removed, CoolSculpting ® has as reputable safety and security and efficacy account, which is sustained by over 60 peer-reviewed papers on the CoolSculpting ® product.

The skin is safeguarded by a specifically designed cloth/ pad which has anti-freeze residential properties to ensure that the surface of the skin is securely protected. She described every little thing that was happening with my treatment prior to, during and also after. Various other services consist of inch-loss cavitation, laser lipolysis, skin tag/milia elimination as well as radio frequency skin tightening up. " We had a 74-year-old gentlemen from Yorkshire for treatment on his belly - he also travelled back once again to have actually even more treatment done," Alice tells. " Fat cells are impacted yet the skin isn't. Skin is very flexible, as well as is able to fit adjustments similar to this, so it does not leave a saggy pocket. The charm of this treatment, according to Alice, is that negative effects are really minimal as well as just include pinkness that lasts as much as an hour after the therapy.

What Occurs If I Gain Weight After Coolsculpting?

In other circumstances skin removal may be necessary to accomplish the most effective results. Cryolipolysis results Witney may entail tummy tuck where coolsculpting is unsuitable. In areas such as the internal arms and also upper legs, lipo with or without skin removal might be more suitable such as an arm lift or thigh lift. Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia-- a very rare negative effects which can cause a boost in fat in the cured location. Initially the therapist will certainly locate the location, paste the antifreeze membrane and also start with treatment for one hour, After the treatment you'll be able to leave as well as continue with your normal life. There are likewise possible fatal problems and negative adverse effects related to having liposuction.

We guarantee that all our new clients get the very same welcome as well as caring interest, whatever their individual demands. As the only additional component of our specialist solutions, we are also pleased to supply expert suggestions on nutrition as well as practical exercise routines. Your skin can feel numb for numerous days (a bit like if you have actually got a dead arm when you have actually been pushing it for too lengthy) yet the feeling will certainly return.

Cryotherapy (cryolipolysis) Training.

Cryolipolysis is a clinically tried and tested therapy with many clinical researches to verify its efficiency. Because we are relying on the body to remove the cells, customers can take anywhere between 6-12 weeks to start seeing the distinction. Adhering to the aftercare as well as way of life advice offered to you by your practitioner, customers obtain a typical outcome of 20% -45% reduction in the cured area. Patients frequently return to deal with the very same day after a CoolSculpting therapy is finished. Our skilled clinical team, led by specialist Paul Reddy, has supplied greater than 2 million treatments, a quantity that has actually enabled us to offer our solutions at obtainable as well as economical rates.

Our treatments are executed by trained professionals in over 100 facilities across the UK and numerous thousands extra worldwide. I ultimately plumped to have my top and also lower abdominal areas treated, where the fat that rests there giggles in the face of planks, crunches, as well as the TV-watching I do rather than either of those points. exhausted your other choices for diet and workout as well as still can't change specific pockets of fat, CoolSculpting can aid do the remainder of the work for you. Treatment time takes mins where you will certainly continue to be on the treatment bed. A clean and sterile gel pad is positioned over the treated area to protect the skin. The areas being dealt with are marked up and after that you will pick the treatment bed.

At Essex Laser Lipo our consultants are knowledgeable at using cutting-edge innovation to attain the body forms which our customers desire. Outcomes will certainly start to be noticeable after 2 or 3 weeks with the outcome in between 6-10 weeks. most popular LA Lipo Cryolipolysis Northamptonshire established customers is drawn from both sexes and across the board old, histories, and needs. Whilst we certainly give a particular niche solution, our clients themselves come from the broadest array.

Can you freeze your fat off at home?

CoolSculpting is known for “freezing” fat cells, but there's much more to the process. DIY CoolSculpting often involves ice cubes or other frozen materials. It's done in an effort to freeze fat cells. However, applying ice at home only freezes your skin and doesn't get rid of any fat cells.

Fat freezes at a higher temperature level than water, so there's no hiding from the fact that whichever area you're targeting with the treatment, it's going to feel a little cool. " You wont actually see or really feel fat in the toilet bowl. Although it's irreversible there is no damages to the surrounding cells". " Although it's long-term there is no damages to the bordering skin, it's simply a way of speeding up what is an all-natural procedure. You can also ask for an examination by means of video or face to face utilizing the Request an Examination switch below. An individualised costing will be supplied at the first consultation. You can consume as generally before, throughout as well as following the treatment. At first throughout the vacuum process people will certainly experience a sharp yank as well as stress.

https://wallingford.la-lipo.co.uk/before-after-cryolipolysis include swelling excruciating bruising, pain feeling numb minimal mobility as well as allergic reaction. The greatest results show up on clients with a BMI of 30 or below. To find out more on the advantages of CoolSculpting ® or to book a consultation, call.

New Harvard study fights fat with salty, icy injections - New Atlas

New Harvard study fights fat with salty, icy injections.

Posted: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:00:00 GMT [source]

#cryolipolysis cost uk #cryolipolysis treatment near me #cryolipolysis at home #cryolipolysis before and after #cryolipolysis near me #cryolipolysis reviews #fat freezing reviews #fat freezing at home #fat freezing treatment #fat freeze near me #does fat freezing work #fat freezing before and after #fat freeze review #coolsculpting near me #coolsculpting reviews #coolsculpting before and after #coolsculpting at home #does coolsculpting work #coolsculpting stomach

1 note · View note

diallokenyatta · 5 years ago

Note

Bro Diallo can you chart how Umar Johnson aka Jermaine Shoemake went from being a respected public speaker and advocate of Black issues and agendas, to the butt of jokes on the internet regarding Black consciousness? There are dozens of youtube channels dedicated to either clowning him or exposing him. On twitter he's little more than a meme. Some say he's on drugs, others say he's a crazed con-man. What happened?

I don’t know anything about him doing drugs. I would call him a ConMan because he’s actively engaged in the deception of the public to get them to contribute money to him under false pretenses, and I believe he’s still actively engaged in the Con by giving false updates about the FDMG Academy. But my issue with Dr. Umar isn’t really centered around the ongoing School Con he’s pulling, my beef with him is ideological, and I think his flawed ideology & Demagogary are at the root of all of his other issues; so that’s what I’ll speak on.

Dr. Umar was ultimately self-defeating. He built up a moralist, puritanical persona and failed to embody the very principles of manhood, family, and the discipline he advocated for and falsely told the Black community were the paths to empowerment and freedom. Dr. Umar only rose to prominence by engaging in what I have come to call Black Puritanism. Black people are primed by the Dominate System to have certain core beliefs about sex, gender roles, family, work, material value, education, and morality. Many Militant Black Leaders who claim to not only oppose White Western Culture but to be African Centered or Pan-African fully embrace the core practices and beliefs of White Western Culture, they simply infuse it with Black Militant Rhetoric and African esthetics, but at the core, it’s Western, Judeo-Christian ideology; that’s Black Puritanism.

Umar exploited the fears and indoctrination of the Black masses, he didn’t educate our people, he encouraged our people to be more regressive, not Revolutionary. If you remove all of the Black Militant Rhetoric and the African Aesthetics from his teachings you will have an ideology that is identical to Racist organizations like the Republican Party, Focus on the Family, the Proud Boys, & most other Neo-Fascist & Far-Right organizations. Also, just like the Far-Right Demagogues he mimics; he does the opposite of what he professes and teaches. From lying about celibacy to failing to marry the women he impregnates, to pursuing sex with the very type of women he rebukes (strippers, women with perms, etc.). Dr. Umar shuns Christianity and other “Slave Religions,” but his rebuke of homosexuality is drawn directly from those Slave Religions. Dr. Umar is a Ph.D., but fails to give an academic, evidence-based source for his claims about the harm homosexuality is doing to the Black community or Black manhood. I personally have been asking him, his supporters, and the larger Black Straight Pride Movement for a secular, rational, evidence-based support for their claims and condemnations for years. They call me a homosexual for simply making the inquiry. Dr. Umar’s methods and positions are an easy, quick, and profitable way to prominence and power within the Black community, but it’s a circular path, not a progressive one, it causes the Leaders who do this to take us in a circle where we always end up where we started. Many of his defenders like to point out the areas where Umar has been correct like in the over-drugging of Black youth for “behavioral issues,” and the criminalization of Black youth; and he should be commended for that, but when you use the accolades and attention you gain for accurate teachings to manipulate and fleece the public while trying to erect a cult following you deserve to be called out. Again, it’s Umar’s own misdeeds and lunacy that detracts from the good works he’s done, not his opponents and critics. As Dr. Umar or any Black Demagogue remains prominent and their views and teachings become better known outside their core followers they always evolve into caricatures of Black Militancy because their teachings can’t stand up to critical analysis or any form of intelligent scrutiny. Since hey can’t fight back academically or intellectually they start ranting and raving, making wild accusations about their challengers, threatening detractors, and a develop a Martyr Complex; in nutshell: They Go Crazy. Dr. Umar isn’t the first to go through this spiral, nor will he be the last. At this stage some Black Demagogues fade into obscurity, others manage to hold on to some level of prominence but their influence is greatly reduced, some Demagogues like Minister Farakahn constantly morph their positions and adopt new (still irrational, but new) positions to remain relevant. But the more rigid the Demagogue is the more insane they appear and the smaller their circle of influence becomes.

If you want to help Dr. Umar here are some suggestions, it won’t be a complete list but it’ll go a long way towards Dr. Umar actually making a Positive Contributions to the Just Aspirations of African People, and truly advancing the Pan-African Struggle: 1. Don’t center yourself when it comes to educating, uplifting, or leading the community; make the ideas and agendas the core. Men are flawed and we’ll all eventually fall, but the ideology and mission should be beyond any individual. Pan-Africanism doesn't need a “Prince,” it needs rational, committed organizers. 2. Don’t tout your personal morality as a reason anyone should follow you; especially if you don’t actually follow that personal morality! Your analysis, the viability of your agendas, your commitment to the protracted struggle should be what you offer and be used to measure your worthiness, not who you have (consensual) sex with or how you have sex, or any of the other shit Umar lied about. If your personal “outlets” don’t detract from the movement, then keep it to yourself. No one would have given a damn about Umar’s relationship with a Stripper if he hadn’t sold himself as the embodiment of sexual morality and restraint; he made it an issue, not his detractors. 3. If you can’t defend a position, rework or abandon it. Be teachable. 4. Everyone who criticizes you isn’t your enemy. Never threaten anyone online, never threaten or commit violence against another Black person based on verbal or ideological disagreements. 5. Stop competing with other public figures, and only debate the merits and efficacy if their ideas, conclusions, and agendas. 6. Stop attacking the mothers of your children on social media! Stop attacking Black women. Stop...just stop. 7. Stop projecting your insecurities with your own masculinity onto Black women and LGBTQAI+ community. 8. Let go of the Alpha Male persona, there’s no value to be found within it. 9. Stop giving yourself titles of esteem, if the community wants to bestow titles upon you accept them with humility & live up to them. 10. Open the school, redirect the funds you raised to another project of equal value to the community, or return the funds to your supports. Set a hard deadline for doing one of the three listed here. Finally; I can’t be too hard on Dr. Umar, cuz I held many of the views and engaged in some of the behaviors that I criticize him for (I never dupped the Hood outta $500Gs, nothing that horrible). But I had people who were patient with me and willing to educate me, if not I’d probably be spewing the same BS as him well into my 30s and beyond. So, I always try to root some real insights and guidance in my criticisms and mockery of Dr. Umar in the hope that he can learn and grow. www.diallokenyattta.com www.patreon.com/diallokenyatta #BroDiallo

6 notes · View notes