On the Continued Worship of Brain Damaged Morons

In the past, I have written about the arbitrariness of social definitions for what constitutes sane and insane behavior. I have also pointed out that behavior and attitudes considered insane today were once seen as hallmarks of sanity, and vice-versa.

To put it succinctly, definitions of sanity and insanity other than those associated with easily measurable physical or biochemical brain damage are almost entirely subjective.

But it gets worse.. Throughout human history, most so-called “normal” people have actually followed, revered and worshiped people who likely had measurable brain damage. Don’t believe me? OK, let us take a cynical and critical look at the founders, prophets and saints of almost all traditional religions. Have you ever noticed that a lot of their so-called revelations, visitations by non-human deities, mystical or cosmic experiences and voices in their heads have a lot more in common with the symptoms of serious brain disorders such as schizophrenia, temporal lobe seizure, assorted brain tumors, episodes of hypomania and even the effects of hallucinogenic drugs than anything remotely paranormal.

I would go so far as to say that all traditional religions are largely based on creative interpretations of the rantings and ravings of a few people, who were lucky to have the right amount and type of brain damage at the right time. A person who seriously believes in any religion, especially of the traditional ‘revealed’ variety, is therefore basing his or her life and worldview on the selectively edited experiences of a few brain-damaged people. Given the role and importance of traditional religions in shaping human history, customs and behavior- it is fair to say that the world we live in today was largely shaped by the minds of brain-damaged people. Maybe that is why all civilizations, past and present, are so bizarre, irrational, dystopic and generally fucked up.

But it does not end there.. In the last 200 years, we started replacing traditional religions with secular ones such as capitalism, communism, randism, consumerism, neo-liberalism etc. While these newer religions might appear to be different from each other, they do have a few peculiar common characteristics. One of them is their obsession with money.

All secular religions are really about the “right” way to create, distribute and circulate money.

While they all try to cloak the true nature of their obsession through the use of rhetoric, philosophy, logic and reason- it is easy to see through their smokescreen by posing one simple question.

Does the ideology in question mean anything in a world without money?

The idea of a world without money might seem odd, most transactions in human history and prehistory did not involve the exchange of money. Even after the concept of money was invented, most people did not use it as they had little or no money to exchange for goods or services. Yet for some peculiar reason, the world did not stop nor did humans go extinct. Money as we know and use it today came into being in the post-renaissance world, especially the last 200 years.

Now, some of can grasp the idea that all forms of money are notional and therefore not real. The ability to create, lend, spend and transfer money is therefore based on the ability of institutions to enforce rules and regulations which favor a few people over everyone else. Money appears to be real only because almost everybody is a willing participant in the mass delusion.

But what does all of this have to do with worshiping and revering brain-damaged people?

The answer lies in how we perceive, rate and treat other people. In most parts of the world, the behavior and attitudes of people towards others are largely based upon how much money one participant in the interaction estimates the other one has or can demonstrate possession of via some proxy display.

Therefore almost everyone wants to have as much money as they get their hands on, preferably by depriving everyone else of it.

This zero-sum behavior might sound irrational to some since the utility of money is directly proportional to the level of function (or dysfunction) in that society. That is why even a dollar millionaire in India has to put up with inconveniences which somebody with a decent job in a developed country would never have to. Similarly, rich people in many western countries can go about their lives without worrying about kidnappings and the level of violence routinely seen in South and Central American countries. But why is that so? Why are most developed countries reasonably safe, functional and relatively nice places to live in? and were they always like that?

The answers to these questions lie in numerous large changes to the social, economic and legal structures of these societies within the last 100-odd years. Prior to that, the quality of life in these countries was pretty low and comparable to what is seen in many parts of the ‘third world’. Most rivers and lakes in developed countries were once toxic open sewers, epidemics of infectious diseases were common, malnutrition was rife, high level of day-to-day violence and brutality were seen as normal and the rich also suffered the consequences of living in such dysfunctional societies. Then a lot of events (various labor movements, communist revolutions, WW1, WW2) happened and forced the rich in developed countries to accept a more equal distribution of wealth. This trend went on until the late 1970s when an extended period of peace let the old ways and ideas creep back into societies. Popularly called neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism, it is really a form of neo-feudalism.. one with far fewer downsides and many more upsides to an increasingly international class of moneyed people.

But what does any of this have to do with people still worshiping and revering brain-damaged morons?

The answer to that question requires us to understand an important but often ignored shift in the nature of religiosity in developed countries. Most of the populace no longer believes in traditional religions, especially the ones who claim to be pious. However the desire to believe in scams.. I mean religions has not changed and most people now believe in one or more of the many secular religions such as free-market capitalism, libertarianism, feminism etc. But as I said a few paragraphs ago, all secular religions are really about to who gets to control creation, distribution and circulation of money. It is therefore fair to say that most people are actually worshiping various socio-economic models, none of which have much to do with reality. And all this to get some sort of secular salvation.

Which finally brings us to what the past 1,100 words were leading up to..

Are the founders of secular religions any less brain-damaged than those who founded the older ones? Is somebody who claims to perceive the ‘invisible hand of free market’ any less delusional or sophistic than the guy who heard an ‘angel speaking from within a burning bush’? Is the concept of ‘homo economicus’ any more real than ‘original sin’? Is somebody who believes in making money at all costs that different from some guy who wants to save the souls of heathens or convert infidels at any cost? Is a priest who justified the rants of a greedy sociopath that different from an academic who shills for some ideology.. any ideology that will pay him enough to afford a comfortable life? Are people who are willing to destroy the lives of thousands and millions so that they can have a couple of billion dollar really alright in the head?

And what about all those morons who worship, revere, follow and obey banksters, managers, businessmen and other rich people who just got lucky? and why do these morons listen to the priests.. I mean academics who are slavish turd polishers? Believing in models of the world that clearly diverge from observable reality is always a bad idea and it never ends well, yet most people don’t seem to care. But why?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. exactely
    May 2, 2013 at 5:25 pm | #1

    you should read the manifesto of forbidden truth

    http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/Richard-Ramirez.html

    the best book ever,he shares many of your ideas.

  2. P Ray
    May 2, 2013 at 5:53 pm | #2

    Maybe the brain damaged rich in violence-wracked societies derive and can easily and cheaply control most of their wealth in such places.
    That’s why they stay on there.
    Moving to a new country means they have to respect new laws or pay a new set of people.
    So it’s more about keeping what they have, than actually becoming better or fairly competing against other people.

  3. WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
    May 3, 2013 at 1:18 am | #3

    “I would go so far as to say that all traditional religions are largely based on creative interpretations of the rantings and ravings of a few people, who were lucky to have the right amount and type of brain damage at the right time. A person who seriously believes in any religion, especially of the traditional ‘revealed’ variety, is therefore basing his or her life and worldview on the selectively edited experiences of a few brain-damaged people. Given the role and importance of traditional religions in shaping human history, customs and behavior- it is fair to say that the world we live in today was largely shaped by the minds of brain-damaged people. Maybe that is why all civilizations, past and present, are so bizarre, irrational, dystopic and generally fucked up.”

    How do you explain the fact that supposedly brain damaged religious “prophets” managed nonetheless to arrive at conclusions which, when followed diligently, are conducive to cohesive societies?

    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. When most people mindlessly followed this advice,the idea of someone hoaxing a hate crime against themselves was unthinkable. And any instance of it that was discovered would be met with swift,angry,and virulent condemnation instead of lauded as heroic or “calling attention to important issues”.

    Does that sound like the workings of a disordered mind to you? Perhaps the “prophets” were crazy like foxes.

    After all, if some greater knowledge of human nature was not present,why forbid the practice of bearing false witness against one’s neighbor? If done anonymously, there are no repercussions to be had whatsoever for the person doing it. Only society at large suffers, and that only in the long term.

    How do you explain the coincidence of all these hate crime hoaxes at a time when the church is less influential and more secular than ever before?

    My theory is that while the dogmas of religion are irrational and sometimes contradictory or self-contradictory, following them as though they were a guidebook keeps morons from dong things that harm society at large better than laws or police.

    I don’t buy all this “religion is a mental illness” b.s. Why would nature make the majority of our species mentally ill? Maybe we are mentally limited in that our logical brains can be overridden by irrational impulses,towards violence,lust,greed,you name it, a remnant from our animal ancestors. Perhaps religion is a coping mechanism to keep people following a code or rulebook,even when they would otherwise deviate into anti-social behavior.

    As to your conclusionary questions, I would say that the secular religions are LESS valid than the traditional ones, as someone who has practiced both. Secular religions teach conformity for its own sake, a trait prized by members of the political left. Secular religions invent “morals” for their followers that are not only not necessarily healthy for society,but downright UNhealthy in many cases.

    How does encouraging people to abort their lineages,make false police reports, and trade liberty for the illusion of security ensure a group’s long-term survival? It’s poisonous to a healthy society,whereas the benefits of teaching people not to lie,steal,murder,envy the material possessions of their neighbors,sleep with their neighbors’ wives,etc. are self-evident. Traditional religion teaches people to be responsible for themselves, or to transfer their irresponsibility onto a fictional sockpuppet who tells them what they want to hear.In the end, they must still be responsible for themselves,unless you believe god is real. Is that not cheaper and more efficient than teaching people to be irresponsible and paying people thousands of dollars a year to perform the same function as “god”? At least people who are talking to “god” can’t get any new or possibly harmful input,just recycle things they already know. An inept or agenda-driven psychologist can royally fuck someone’s thought processes up;think “diversity” seminars.

    • P Ray
      May 3, 2013 at 3:43 am | #4

      “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. When most people mindlessly followed this advice,the idea of someone hoaxing a hate crime against themselves was unthinkable. And any instance of it that was discovered would be met with swift,angry,and virulent condemnation instead of lauded as heroic or “calling attention to important issues”.
      http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4731
      for the TL,DR crowd: Woman makes rape threat against herself. Then responds to it.

      “Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified and deserves not to be held accountable for her accusations we stand behind you sister,” reads that page’s description.

      So much for your thoughtless statement And any instance of it that was discovered would be met with swift,angry,and virulent condemnation instead of lauded as heroic or “calling attention to important issues”.

      You’re welcome!

    • P Ray
      May 3, 2013 at 3:44 am | #5

      An inept or agenda-driven psychologist can royally fuck someone’s thought processes up;think “diversity” seminars.
      You can turn this into a rap:
      “Don’t miscegenate? Get ethnic hate!”

    • hoipolloi
      May 5, 2013 at 8:37 am | #6

      @WhiskeyTan

      You make excellent points with some concrete examples in defence of religion. Blaming religion for past historical wrongs is easy. I wonder sometimes if whatever little humane behavior is seen in todays society is very much because of the vision of the religious idealogues. It is entirely possble that humans would have been extinct without the driving force of religion. Biology text books tell us that nature in the evolutionary context did not endow humans with many survival advantages in the jungle when compared to other strong ferocious animals.

      A great river irrigates your land mass but also causes havoc during yearly flooding time. It is upto you to know the high tides and save yourself. The answer to your problems is not necessarily the absence of the river. So is the case with religion or monarchy or modern day governments with elected individuals.

      I heard Salman Rushdie once say in some interveiw, the answer to bad religion is not absence of religion. May be a better religion or a reformed religion. He is the one who went through living hell due to religious fanaticism. He should know what he is talking about.

      Regarding brain damage and religion. All human progress came from so called “brain damaged” individuals. Common people rarely make a discovery or organize a movement. It is the excessive activity of one part of the brain at the cost of the rest produces discernable creativity in human societies. It is axiomatic that the difference between genius and insanity is very little to none.

      I do believe though, the present day organized religion should shed a lot of baggage and reform itself and update their view points in the light of easily verifiable knowledge in so many fields.

  4. Webe
    May 3, 2013 at 5:23 am | #7

    You’re covering a lot of ground here in one post.
    “The invisible hand” is a metaphor (originally) postulated by somebody quite rational and was meant “in a manner of speaking”, so I think it’s a poor example, at least with respect to the original author.
    It’s true that almost all economic theory and ideology stems from a failure to adequately distinguish money as an abstraction and the “real” value it refers to. The same holds true for most science as well: failure to distinguish the instrumental role of models to unify and draw together data from the notion that they are (a representation) of the real world.
    But a lot of what you bring up is not germane to the question: Why put so much stock in models of the world that diverge from experience? I would say it’s simple: The need to attach a narrative to the course of events and the maelstrom of experiences, and even more the need to justify/rationalize one’s actions trumps the need to wrap up any details which threaten such handy account; it seems for most people it’s a life or death matter.

  5. May 3, 2013 at 6:16 am | #8

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    I am a brain damaged moron. Worship me!!!
    (Yes, I am an aspie, I get welfare for that. Still, I am a tainted genius)

  6. May 3, 2013 at 4:20 pm | #9

    Reblogged this on murderbymedia.

  7. IamMarktoo
    May 7, 2013 at 3:04 am | #10

    I understand that there are 2 or 3 new religions each year. You’ve broaden the definition. If this was always so, then practicality and luck makes the odd one successful beyond the dreams of the brain damaged. Attracting all sorts of opportunists and management types to further it down the path.

  8. Alan
    June 12, 2013 at 12:34 am | #11

    My thoughts? That this was a disorganised rant that attempted to shock or stir reaction more than it meant to convey anything of substance or value. Only the 2nd of your articles I’ve read and if the 3rd is no better it will be the last.

    (For the record I’m a libertarian, and proud of the fact that libertarianism is based on unshakable logic and proven experience, while cheerfully acknowledging the fact most people don’t understand that. However most people don’t write articles dissing it either…)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: