FA+
Shop
The Ark
Posted a year agoThe Ark of the Covenant was constructed to contain remote viewing technology. Where is it now? I keep trying to remote view its current location, I keep coming back to Turkey, and it's heavily guarded...
Hallucinations
Posted a year agoI featured the Ford GT-40 because they say the cameraman agent next to me was a hallucination. Can anyone else see him in the car reflection? I can almost see myself...
Artificial Shootings
Posted a year agoSchool shootings are inside jobs and completely artificial. Most shooters are either on anti-depressants or anti-psychotics. Their psychiatrists usually use the computer to program video games into their victims' imaginations to provoke them into going on a shooting. It's part of an MKULTRA operation to promote gun confiscation as America falls to its enemies from within. Without psychiatry, we wouldn't have these shootings. They need to use the computer to synthesize this behaviour. They can even get an entire school on board with the grooming process, they simply refuse to talk to their victims, preventing them from being let in.
The First Exorcism
Posted a year agoJesus Drives Out an Impure Spirit [Luke 4 NIV]
31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.
33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.
36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits and they come out!” 37 And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.
31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.
33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.
36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits and they come out!” 37 And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.
Meta Just Achieved Mind Reading Using AI
Posted a year agoScroopy Noopers
Posted a year agoMission Log 2552-03-16 // RESTRICTED
Scroopy Noopers is more than just a character or a grunt. Jackal's Journey was meant to be a playable autobiography about schizophrenia. Through Scroopy Noopers, I have uploaded my consciousness into the computers, and thus, Scroopy Noopers will outlive me as my ghost in this literal machine.
Scroopy Noopers is more than just a character or a grunt. Jackal's Journey was meant to be a playable autobiography about schizophrenia. Through Scroopy Noopers, I have uploaded my consciousness into the computers, and thus, Scroopy Noopers will outlive me as my ghost in this literal machine.
Zombies
Posted a year agoZombies are an allusion to evil spirits. Zombies are an infection of the mind that makes the dead into the living. If only I could be more eloquent on this subject...
Memories
Posted a year agoFrom: Why memory is more about your future than your past [Big Think]
https://bigthink.com/the-learning-c.....t-newtab-en-us
[For instance], we’re constantly taking pictures and then throwing them on social media. But this is the ultimate form of electronic amnesia. You’re cheating your experiencing self because you don’t connect with what’s happening, and you’re cheating your remembering self because you’ve deprived yourself of a great memory.
So instead of taking pictures of every moment of your vacation, pay attention to what makes a particular moment distinctive. Ask yourself: What is going to be most memorable in each picture I take? How can I compose the picture to focus on the vivid details that will bring me back to this time and place?
That’s when pictures become valuable — when they force you to pay attention to the things that are important to you in that moment.
https://bigthink.com/the-learning-c.....t-newtab-en-us
[For instance], we’re constantly taking pictures and then throwing them on social media. But this is the ultimate form of electronic amnesia. You’re cheating your experiencing self because you don’t connect with what’s happening, and you’re cheating your remembering self because you’ve deprived yourself of a great memory.
So instead of taking pictures of every moment of your vacation, pay attention to what makes a particular moment distinctive. Ask yourself: What is going to be most memorable in each picture I take? How can I compose the picture to focus on the vivid details that will bring me back to this time and place?
That’s when pictures become valuable — when they force you to pay attention to the things that are important to you in that moment.
Communism and Robots
Posted a year agoCommunism has never existed. Various stages of attaining Communism have existed, such as Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Czech language gave us their word for slave: robota. During Communism, there would be so much robots, or so-called automated workers, that there won't be enough work for the entire population. Because of automation, costs plummet due to lack of human labour, and therefore everything manufactured by factories owned by the State becomes free to everyone. At one point technology will make Communism a necessity and money will no longer need to exist. But before that, we all need to work to build up a technological utopia. This is what we were taught in the Soviet Bloc.
Doctrine of Discovery
Posted a year agoThe Doctrine of Discovery emanates from a series of Papal Bulls (formal statements from the Pope) and extensions, originating in the 1400s. Discovery was used as legal and moral justification for colonial dispossession of sovereign Indigenous Nations, including First Nations in what is now Canada.
https://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploa.....scovery-EN.pdf
How is it possible that any Pope, King or Queen, or explorers from Europe could “discover” lands in the New World if
Indigenous Peoples were already occupying such lands, according to our own laws and legal orders?
The Doctrine of Discovery emanates from a series of Papal Bulls (formal statements from the Pope) and extensions,
originating in the 1400s. Discovery was used as legal and moral justification for colonial dispossession of sovereign
Indigenous Nations, including First Nations in what is now Canada. During the European “Age of Discovery”, Christian
explorers “claimed” lands for their monarchs who felt they could exploit the land, regardless of the original inhabitants.
This was invalidly based on the presumed racial superiority of European Christian peoples and was used to dehumanize,
exploit and subjugate Indigenous Peoples and dispossess us of our most basic rights. This was the very foundation of
genocide.1 Such ideology lead to practices that continue through modern-day laws and policies.
The Assembly of First Nations remains deeply concerned about the contemporary ramifications of the doctrine of discovery
and other discriminatory practices. Now is the time for Canada to finally and formally end any reliance on the doctrine of
discovery. The AFN recommends that Canada take the following steps:
• Acknowledge that this doctrine has had and continues to have devastating consequences for Indigenous peoples
worldwide, including First Nations in Canada;
• Reject doctrines of superiority as illegal and immoral, and affirm that they can never be a justification for the
exploitation and subjugation of Indigenous peoples and the violation of human rights;
• In full partnership with First Nations, examine how Canadian history, laws, practices and policies have relied on
the doctrine of discovery;
• Repudiate all doctrines of superiority in a legislative framework for implementation of the United Nations
Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples, developed together with Indigenous peoples;
• Reinterpret Canadian law in a manner consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous
Peoples and other contemporary international human rights standards;
• Ensure that the violation of First Nations’ rights to lands, territories and resources that were taken without their
free, prior, and informed consent are effectively redressed; and
• Ensure that the doctrine is not in any manner invoked in contemporary court cases or negotiations.
Legal Background
Cases in Canada, such as St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen, relied upon early U.S. Supreme Court
cases such as Johnson v. McIntosh that are based on the discovery doctrine. It is worth noting that in these and other
relevant legal cases, the Indigenous Peoples affected were not included as direct parties. Such breaches of natural justice
serve to further discredit these rulings and the doctrine on which they are based.
Discovery was used as a tool to attempt the “exclusive power to extinguish” Indigenous rights on an ongoing basis.2 The pre-
existing inherent sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples was not considered. Scholar Robert J. Miller summarizes this history, the
ongoing contemporary ramifications, and the urgency of addressing discovery:
Europeans, and later the colonial countries, believed they possessed the only valid religions, civilizations, governments,
laws, and cultures, and that Providence intended that their institutions should dominate Indigenous peoples.
... As a result, the governmental, property, and human rights of Indigenous peoples were almost totally disregarded as
Discovery directed European colonial expansion. In modern times, these assumptions remain dangerous legal and
historical fictions.
The common understanding and application of the international law of colonialism was and is potent and lethal to
Indigenous peoples and nations. Correcting and erasing the vestiges of Discovery from the modern-day laws and lives of
settler societies ... is a task that must be undertaken and that must succeed if the legal and human rights of Indigenous
nations and peoples are going to be honored around the world, and if Indigenous peoples are going to have equal rights
to self-determination.
Modern court rulings continue to interpret the law relying on the doctrine of discovery. As recently as 2012, the BC Court of
Appeal not only validated such destructive acts, but also attempted to extinguish Indigenous rights through judicial ruling:
European explorers considered that by virtue of the “principle of discovery” they were at liberty to claim territory in North
America on behalf of their sovereigns ... While it is difficult to rationalize that view from a modern perspective, the history
is clear.
In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed: “Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came,
and were never conquered.” Under Canada’s constitutional framework, Crown sovereignty and legislative power are not
absolute. In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court highlighted: “Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty
with assumed Crown sovereignty”. Yet such reconciliation has not taken place.
The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of “such matters as colonialism displacement and residential schools”, which
demonstrate how “assumed” sovereign powers were abused throughout history. The root cause of such abuse leads back to
the doctrine of discovery and other related fictitious constructs. These legal fictions must therefore be addressed.
Tsilhqot’in Nation Victory at Supreme Court of Canada
Interveners in the landmark Tsilhqot’in Nation case, dealing with Indigenous Peoples’ title to land, called for the Supreme
Court of Canada to formally repudiate the doctrine of discovery: (Also the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group intervention.)
“Finally, the “principle of discovery” cannot be relied upon in formulating an approach to Aboriginal title, and must be
firmly rejected. The principle of discovery is a “continuation of colonialism” that amounts to a “violation of the Charter of
the United Nations ... and the principles of international law.”
While the unanimous ruling did not name discovery directly, the Court did address the related doctrine of terra nullius. In
referring to the “pre-existing” land rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Supreme Court ruled: “The doctrine of terra nullius
(that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal
Proclamation (1763)”.
This is because there are equitable principles in the Royal Proclamation that have applied throughout Canada since its
creation and such principles preclude any unjust, discriminatory doctrines. Just as the Supreme Court concluded that
the Proclamation confirms that the doctrine of terra nullius never applied in Canada, the same must be true in regard to the
doctrine of discovery. Both these doctrines are also inconsistent with the constitutional principle to uphold the honour of
the Crown.
It is the Crown’s responsibility to demonstrate on what basis it can validly claim Crown sovereignty and where such
sovereignty would apply. Such claims must be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and
other international human rights law.
The big question remains: how did the Crown obtain title and how does the Crown continue to assert sovereignty? As scholar
John Borrows reminds us, “Canadian law will remain problematic for Indigenous peoples as long as it continues to assume
away the underlying title and overarching governance powers that First Nations possess.”
United Nations on Discovery
Many Human Rights bodies within the UN system have strongly commended all racist doctrines of superiority. The United
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has extensively studied the issue of the doctrine of discovery and the impact
of Indigenous Peoples. The Forum has produced two major studies on the topic. The first study concluded:
... International human rights law … demand (s) that States rectify past wrongs caused by such doctrines, including the
violation of the land rights of indigenous peoples, through law and policy reform, restitution and other forms of redress
for the violation of their land rights ...
… the Permanent Forum emphasized that redefining the relationship between indigenous peoples and the State as
an important way to understand the doctrine of discovery and a way to develop a vision of the future for reconciliation,
peace and justice. ... The Permanent Forum encourages the conduct of the processes of reconciliation “in accordance
with the principles of justice, democracy, and respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance
and good faith”.
The second United Nations study was completed by Grand Chief Edward John. His study went beyond the history, to deal
with redress in a contemporary framework. His study illustrates the critical need to “examine how Crown sovereignty and
underlying title could ever have legitimately crystallized through the “discovery” of indigenous peoples’ lands and territories.
The Doctrine must be unmasked so its manifestations are made visible.” Grand Chief John’s study concluded:
…fundamental changes must be reflected through constitutional and legislative reforms, policies, and government
negotiation mandates in regard to indigenous peoples. … Decolonization processes must be devised in conjunction
with indigenous peoples concerned and compatible with their perspectives and approaches. Such processes must
be fair, impartial, open and transparent, and be consistent with the Declaration and other international human rights
standards.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) called on all faith bodies to repudiate the concepts used to
justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, and
the reformation of policies within their institutions that continue to rely on such concepts.18 Many faith-based groups are
responding to this Call to Action by examining discovery and issuing formal statements repudiating. The World Council of
Churches has also done so.
The TRC has also called for Canada to jointly develop with Indigenous Peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation to be
issued by the Crown. The proclamation would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764,
and reaffirm the Nation to Nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. The proclamation would include
a commitment to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples such as the
Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.
During the closing events of the TRC in Ottawa, June 2015, the AFN co-hosted and participated in “Dismantling the Doctrine
of Discovery: The Road to Reconciliation”, an expert panel on the doctrine of the discovery, the ongoing ramifications of the
colonial legacy, and suggestions to dismantle the ongoing modern components.
Canada needs to formally renounce Discovery
While it does not change past injustices, the federal government should formally renounce discovery. This would
acknowledge responsibility and recognize the obligations Canada has in the present to First Nations. It would be more than a
merely symbolic gesture as it would lay to rest an offensive legal justification based on racial superiority for the subjugation of
First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples.
Repudiating discovery and interpreting Canadian law in a manner consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples and other contemporary international human rights standards will allow a fair and equitable settlement
of outstanding issues surrounding lands, territories and resources. Rather than taking an adversarial position against
First Nations, Canada must uphold the honour of the Crown and engage in a resolution of land rights that does not seek to
minimize our rights to our lands. First Nations should not have to engage in protracted, expensive litigation to have our lands
and rights respected.
https://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploa.....scovery-EN.pdf
How is it possible that any Pope, King or Queen, or explorers from Europe could “discover” lands in the New World if
Indigenous Peoples were already occupying such lands, according to our own laws and legal orders?
The Doctrine of Discovery emanates from a series of Papal Bulls (formal statements from the Pope) and extensions,
originating in the 1400s. Discovery was used as legal and moral justification for colonial dispossession of sovereign
Indigenous Nations, including First Nations in what is now Canada. During the European “Age of Discovery”, Christian
explorers “claimed” lands for their monarchs who felt they could exploit the land, regardless of the original inhabitants.
This was invalidly based on the presumed racial superiority of European Christian peoples and was used to dehumanize,
exploit and subjugate Indigenous Peoples and dispossess us of our most basic rights. This was the very foundation of
genocide.1 Such ideology lead to practices that continue through modern-day laws and policies.
The Assembly of First Nations remains deeply concerned about the contemporary ramifications of the doctrine of discovery
and other discriminatory practices. Now is the time for Canada to finally and formally end any reliance on the doctrine of
discovery. The AFN recommends that Canada take the following steps:
• Acknowledge that this doctrine has had and continues to have devastating consequences for Indigenous peoples
worldwide, including First Nations in Canada;
• Reject doctrines of superiority as illegal and immoral, and affirm that they can never be a justification for the
exploitation and subjugation of Indigenous peoples and the violation of human rights;
• In full partnership with First Nations, examine how Canadian history, laws, practices and policies have relied on
the doctrine of discovery;
• Repudiate all doctrines of superiority in a legislative framework for implementation of the United Nations
Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples, developed together with Indigenous peoples;
• Reinterpret Canadian law in a manner consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous
Peoples and other contemporary international human rights standards;
• Ensure that the violation of First Nations’ rights to lands, territories and resources that were taken without their
free, prior, and informed consent are effectively redressed; and
• Ensure that the doctrine is not in any manner invoked in contemporary court cases or negotiations.
Legal Background
Cases in Canada, such as St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen, relied upon early U.S. Supreme Court
cases such as Johnson v. McIntosh that are based on the discovery doctrine. It is worth noting that in these and other
relevant legal cases, the Indigenous Peoples affected were not included as direct parties. Such breaches of natural justice
serve to further discredit these rulings and the doctrine on which they are based.
Discovery was used as a tool to attempt the “exclusive power to extinguish” Indigenous rights on an ongoing basis.2 The pre-
existing inherent sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples was not considered. Scholar Robert J. Miller summarizes this history, the
ongoing contemporary ramifications, and the urgency of addressing discovery:
Europeans, and later the colonial countries, believed they possessed the only valid religions, civilizations, governments,
laws, and cultures, and that Providence intended that their institutions should dominate Indigenous peoples.
... As a result, the governmental, property, and human rights of Indigenous peoples were almost totally disregarded as
Discovery directed European colonial expansion. In modern times, these assumptions remain dangerous legal and
historical fictions.
The common understanding and application of the international law of colonialism was and is potent and lethal to
Indigenous peoples and nations. Correcting and erasing the vestiges of Discovery from the modern-day laws and lives of
settler societies ... is a task that must be undertaken and that must succeed if the legal and human rights of Indigenous
nations and peoples are going to be honored around the world, and if Indigenous peoples are going to have equal rights
to self-determination.
Modern court rulings continue to interpret the law relying on the doctrine of discovery. As recently as 2012, the BC Court of
Appeal not only validated such destructive acts, but also attempted to extinguish Indigenous rights through judicial ruling:
European explorers considered that by virtue of the “principle of discovery” they were at liberty to claim territory in North
America on behalf of their sovereigns ... While it is difficult to rationalize that view from a modern perspective, the history
is clear.
In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed: “Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came,
and were never conquered.” Under Canada’s constitutional framework, Crown sovereignty and legislative power are not
absolute. In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court highlighted: “Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty
with assumed Crown sovereignty”. Yet such reconciliation has not taken place.
The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of “such matters as colonialism displacement and residential schools”, which
demonstrate how “assumed” sovereign powers were abused throughout history. The root cause of such abuse leads back to
the doctrine of discovery and other related fictitious constructs. These legal fictions must therefore be addressed.
Tsilhqot’in Nation Victory at Supreme Court of Canada
Interveners in the landmark Tsilhqot’in Nation case, dealing with Indigenous Peoples’ title to land, called for the Supreme
Court of Canada to formally repudiate the doctrine of discovery: (Also the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group intervention.)
“Finally, the “principle of discovery” cannot be relied upon in formulating an approach to Aboriginal title, and must be
firmly rejected. The principle of discovery is a “continuation of colonialism” that amounts to a “violation of the Charter of
the United Nations ... and the principles of international law.”
While the unanimous ruling did not name discovery directly, the Court did address the related doctrine of terra nullius. In
referring to the “pre-existing” land rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Supreme Court ruled: “The doctrine of terra nullius
(that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal
Proclamation (1763)”.
This is because there are equitable principles in the Royal Proclamation that have applied throughout Canada since its
creation and such principles preclude any unjust, discriminatory doctrines. Just as the Supreme Court concluded that
the Proclamation confirms that the doctrine of terra nullius never applied in Canada, the same must be true in regard to the
doctrine of discovery. Both these doctrines are also inconsistent with the constitutional principle to uphold the honour of
the Crown.
It is the Crown’s responsibility to demonstrate on what basis it can validly claim Crown sovereignty and where such
sovereignty would apply. Such claims must be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and
other international human rights law.
The big question remains: how did the Crown obtain title and how does the Crown continue to assert sovereignty? As scholar
John Borrows reminds us, “Canadian law will remain problematic for Indigenous peoples as long as it continues to assume
away the underlying title and overarching governance powers that First Nations possess.”
United Nations on Discovery
Many Human Rights bodies within the UN system have strongly commended all racist doctrines of superiority. The United
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has extensively studied the issue of the doctrine of discovery and the impact
of Indigenous Peoples. The Forum has produced two major studies on the topic. The first study concluded:
... International human rights law … demand (s) that States rectify past wrongs caused by such doctrines, including the
violation of the land rights of indigenous peoples, through law and policy reform, restitution and other forms of redress
for the violation of their land rights ...
… the Permanent Forum emphasized that redefining the relationship between indigenous peoples and the State as
an important way to understand the doctrine of discovery and a way to develop a vision of the future for reconciliation,
peace and justice. ... The Permanent Forum encourages the conduct of the processes of reconciliation “in accordance
with the principles of justice, democracy, and respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance
and good faith”.
The second United Nations study was completed by Grand Chief Edward John. His study went beyond the history, to deal
with redress in a contemporary framework. His study illustrates the critical need to “examine how Crown sovereignty and
underlying title could ever have legitimately crystallized through the “discovery” of indigenous peoples’ lands and territories.
The Doctrine must be unmasked so its manifestations are made visible.” Grand Chief John’s study concluded:
…fundamental changes must be reflected through constitutional and legislative reforms, policies, and government
negotiation mandates in regard to indigenous peoples. … Decolonization processes must be devised in conjunction
with indigenous peoples concerned and compatible with their perspectives and approaches. Such processes must
be fair, impartial, open and transparent, and be consistent with the Declaration and other international human rights
standards.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) called on all faith bodies to repudiate the concepts used to
justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, and
the reformation of policies within their institutions that continue to rely on such concepts.18 Many faith-based groups are
responding to this Call to Action by examining discovery and issuing formal statements repudiating. The World Council of
Churches has also done so.
The TRC has also called for Canada to jointly develop with Indigenous Peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation to be
issued by the Crown. The proclamation would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764,
and reaffirm the Nation to Nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. The proclamation would include
a commitment to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples such as the
Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.
During the closing events of the TRC in Ottawa, June 2015, the AFN co-hosted and participated in “Dismantling the Doctrine
of Discovery: The Road to Reconciliation”, an expert panel on the doctrine of the discovery, the ongoing ramifications of the
colonial legacy, and suggestions to dismantle the ongoing modern components.
Canada needs to formally renounce Discovery
While it does not change past injustices, the federal government should formally renounce discovery. This would
acknowledge responsibility and recognize the obligations Canada has in the present to First Nations. It would be more than a
merely symbolic gesture as it would lay to rest an offensive legal justification based on racial superiority for the subjugation of
First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples.
Repudiating discovery and interpreting Canadian law in a manner consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples and other contemporary international human rights standards will allow a fair and equitable settlement
of outstanding issues surrounding lands, territories and resources. Rather than taking an adversarial position against
First Nations, Canada must uphold the honour of the Crown and engage in a resolution of land rights that does not seek to
minimize our rights to our lands. First Nations should not have to engage in protracted, expensive litigation to have our lands
and rights respected.
The Mysterious Man in White
Posted a year agoThe Colleen recording came true, I got an exorcism in the basement of a psychiatric ward under the table. This is what he said to me:
-You are not Adrian
-Adrian is not you
-It is not your job
-I'm talking to all of them
-It's just a small group of people
-You don't deserve this
-You cannot be blamed for another person's suicide
-Leave means leave
-Your mind cannot process these pictures that are bothering you
-We need to slow the brain down to allow the mind to process these images and place them where they belong
-Now lie on your back and let the NOS leave your system
Very rare paranormal experience, it worked on Adrian but his friends are still here ... the cross on his neck was reinforcing to my faith, he knew what he was doing, just as I teach in my journal here. I protected his name from entering the camera. I'd thank him personally but am afraid to reach out to these people, this was a 1% of a 1% shot in the dark. I think when he checked the computer [I asked him to] he realized how serious Adrian's possession and demonization I live with is, and helped me beyond their job description just like a true Christian would in a true Christian manner. The question is why did the other MKULTRA social worker aid my hallucinations with a computer before this? She added more pictures that I need to let go of. I needed help, not to have my life destroyed by a hallucinogenic antipsychotic - yes, it's demonic technology too. "The medications work on the brain implants." -Neurologist. They can lace medications with demonic technology, but you don't need medications, you just need to quote Luke 9:42 and Mark 1:27.
Derek Prince said, "God delivers you from your enemies, not your friends."
I remember the one girl said the voices are real, and she talks to them for information. But when I overheard her muttering to herself [a symptom of mind control and the use of the computers] she mentioned they wanted to break up with her. Another man was reacting to internal stimulus, and I thought he spoke to me, but when I commented he said, "Sorry, I was speaking to the ghost." These people know they're real, but more importantly, so do the professionals and administration behind closed doors.
-You are not Adrian
-Adrian is not you
-It is not your job
-I'm talking to all of them
-It's just a small group of people
-You don't deserve this
-You cannot be blamed for another person's suicide
-Leave means leave
-Your mind cannot process these pictures that are bothering you
-We need to slow the brain down to allow the mind to process these images and place them where they belong
-Now lie on your back and let the NOS leave your system
Very rare paranormal experience, it worked on Adrian but his friends are still here ... the cross on his neck was reinforcing to my faith, he knew what he was doing, just as I teach in my journal here. I protected his name from entering the camera. I'd thank him personally but am afraid to reach out to these people, this was a 1% of a 1% shot in the dark. I think when he checked the computer [I asked him to] he realized how serious Adrian's possession and demonization I live with is, and helped me beyond their job description just like a true Christian would in a true Christian manner. The question is why did the other MKULTRA social worker aid my hallucinations with a computer before this? She added more pictures that I need to let go of. I needed help, not to have my life destroyed by a hallucinogenic antipsychotic - yes, it's demonic technology too. "The medications work on the brain implants." -Neurologist. They can lace medications with demonic technology, but you don't need medications, you just need to quote Luke 9:42 and Mark 1:27.
Derek Prince said, "God delivers you from your enemies, not your friends."
I remember the one girl said the voices are real, and she talks to them for information. But when I overheard her muttering to herself [a symptom of mind control and the use of the computers] she mentioned they wanted to break up with her. Another man was reacting to internal stimulus, and I thought he spoke to me, but when I commented he said, "Sorry, I was speaking to the ghost." These people know they're real, but more importantly, so do the professionals and administration behind closed doors.
Remote Viewing Enemies Live on the Battlefield
Posted a year agohttps://youtu.be/uMn2hp78oNg
Halo Protogen RAM Wars - Remote Viewing Enemies Live on the Battlefield
This technology will become a reality in the near future - REMOTE VIEWING and AUGMENTED COGNITION are already a reality for UAP and alien technology.
Name Change for Schizophrenia
Posted a year agoName Change for Schizophrenia
https://academic.oup.com/schizophre...../2/255/1944451
Psychiatric disorders carry a stigma that usually leads to discrimination and resulting problems in many walks of life. People with mental illness thus have difficulties getting a job, finding housing, and making (or keeping) friends or partners. The stigma adds misery to the life of persons with a mental disorder. It affects their families as well as professionals and others who provide them with care.
A number of studies demonstrated that people with mental disorders avoid seeking help because they are afraid of stigmatization and its consequences.1–3 If they come to a service and their condition is given a diagnosis, they hide it. Doctors hesitate to tell their patients a diagnosis because it is stigmatized, linked to notions of dangerousness; incurability and unpredictability, which makes patients feel that there is no hope and that there is no point in following recommendations concerning their lifestyle or the treatment of their illness.
In recent years, several countries in which psychiatric diagnoses are used in their local language form decided to change the name of 2 most severe mental disorders: schizophrenia and dementia. This in turn should lead to better collaboration in treatment, facilitate rehabilitation, and enable the inclusion of patients in their community and other social networks.
It was accepted that a change of name must be accompanied by an updating and revision of the concepts of diseases: thus for example, the notion that schizophrenia inevitably leads to poor outcome would have to be replaced by available and accepted evidence that many people with schizophrenia who are given appropriate treatment recover and can lead a normal life4 and that the condition of those whose disease is resistant to treatment can be improved to a significant degree. This article describes changes and proposals for change in several Asian countries. Proposals to change the name of schizophrenia have been made by user groups in Europe5,6 and by scientists (eg, salience disorder), but these seem to have advanced considerably less fast to the acceptance of any change by European psychiatrists or nongovernmental organizations of patients and their family than was the case in Japan and other countries in the Far East.
Japan was the first country to change the previously used name of schizophrenia, “Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo” (mind-split-disease) into the new name of “Togo-Shitcho-Sho” (integration disorder). The change of the name was accompanied by a shift from the Kraepelinian “dementia praecox” tradition to a concept based on the vulnerability to stress model. The process of renaming had been started by a formal request of the National Federation of Families with Mentally Ill in Japan (NFFMIJ) to the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology (JSPN). The change of name, it was hoped, would remove stigma carried by persons who were labeled with the old term. JSPN decided to change old term into new one, provided that (a) the change did not result in any disadvantage to the patients and (b) the term conveyed the concept that schizophrenia is a disorder defined by a clinically significant syndrome, but not a disease defined by a specific etiology, symptomatology, clinical course, and pathological findings. After consultations about the appropriateness of the new term and a public hearing, the new term was approved as new medical term by the JSPN General Assembly and announced at the WPA Yokohama Congress in 2002. One month later the Japanese Government approved the use of the new name as the official term. A survey carried out 7 months after the official approval of the use of the new term showed that 78% of psychiatric practices used the new term.7
The JSPN introduced the term Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo for Kraepelin’s dementia precox in 1937. The concept of Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo was almost the same as Kraepelin’s concept of dementia praecox and described schizophrenia as a mental disorder characterized by severe mental deterioration, lack of volition, and incompetence in social and personal roles. The condition was described as hereditary and untreatable without a chance of recovery. The exclusion policy expressed by the “Seishinbyosha-Kango-Ho” (Act to keep people with psychosis under observation [1900–1950] and the Eugenic Protection Act [1940–1996]) marked the old name for schizophrenia with severe stigma, which was also attached to people who had the disease and contributed to the inhumane treatment of patients with Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo.
The new Togo Shitcho-Sho name for schizophrenia was introduced with a new concept of the disorder that was defined by a characteristic cluster of symptoms that are amenable to treatment so that patients can expect full and lasting recovery if treated with modern pharmacotherapy and given psychosocial care.7,8
An early effect of renaming the disorder and of the introduction of the new concept was an increase of the percentage of people who were informed about their diagnosis (from 36.7% in 2002 to 69.7% in 2004: n = 1944). Moreover, 86% of psychiatrists of the 136 psychiatrists working in the Miyagi prefecture found that the new term makes it easier to inform patients and family about the diagnosis, which in turn facilitated education about the illness and psychosocial interventions.4
It also appears that the introduction of the new terms leads to realistic optimism of mental health professionals as well as consumers. People with schizophrenia now visit mental health specialists more easily and often open the session by referring to the new term of schizophrenia. Many people who experienced schizophrenia participate in spreading the modern concept of schizophrenia in society.
A recent web survey of 500 citizens (Sato et al, in preparation) reported that the new term was known to 56% of the participants and the old term to 63% of the subjects. Younger participants (>30) knew the new term significantly more often than the old term, while those aged 50 or more knew only the old term. The image of the disorder and social distance measures rated by people who knew only new term or only the old term were sharply different. Those who knew only the new term found it easier to imagine the illness (76% vs 24%), considered that the disease was less severe (23% vs 87%), felt that patients should disclose the diagnosis (93% vs 7%), and did not feel that the relationship with people with schizophrenia should be stopped (51% vs 37%). Social distance measures also showed that those families with the new term had much less of a distance from people with schizophrenia than those families with the old name.
The new term for schizophrenia with the updated concept of the disorder may in the opinion of Japanese mental health specialists change the public image of schizophrenia from a concept marked by fatalistic pessimism to one characterized by realistic optimism and thus promote recovery reducing public stigma and self-stigma.
In Korea, the term for schizophrenia was “Jeongshin-bunyeol-byung, Jeongshin (‘mind’)-bunyeol (‘splitted’)-byung (‘disorder’).” The previous name of schizophrenia, which means “split-mind disorder,” stigmatizes the patients with schizophrenia, their caregivers, and mental health professionals.9 In addition, people confused this name with “dissociative identity disorder.”10 The new term for schizophrenia is “Johyun-byung (attunement disorder),” which implies that patients with schizophrenia need to “tune” their mind as they would do with strings of violin or guitar. Renaming the split-mind disorder as attunement disorder is expected to result in a reduction of prejudice and discrimination against patients with schizophrenia.
In Hong Kong, the old Chinese name of schizophrenia “Jing Shen Fen Lie” (精神分裂) meant literally “splitting of the mind” and was associated with stigma. A new name “Si Jue Shi Tiao” (思覺失調) was introduced for psychosis some 10 years ago. This new Chinese name denotes “dysfunction of thought and perception” and there is an implication of reversibility and potential for treatment. This new name is well accepted by the public and the professionals because it is considered to be less stigmatizing.11To date, there are no local studies to establish whether this new Chinese name decreases stigmatization and helps in the early detection of psychosis.
In Singapore, the Chinese term for schizophrenia is also “jing shen fen lie zheng” (精神分裂症) or “splitting of the mind.” This literal translation of the word schizophrenia has ominous implication for the patient, who bears the brunt of mockery. Psychiatrists in Singapore often explain to the patient and family that schizophrenia is a “disorder of thinking” and not “madness” or “spirit possession.” This approach encourages adherence to treatment and allays anxiety about poor prognosis. There is no formal proposal to change of name of schizophrenia as yet.
In China, the name of schizophrenia (精神分裂) has not yet been changed. Just like Japanese 1500 years ago brought Chinese characters into Japan, Chinese just borrowed Kanji (漢字) from Japanese when they translated English books. It was estimated that there were more than 1000 Kanji pictograms brought into modern Chinese, particularly in medicine. Therefore, a lot of medical terms used in China are actually from Japan, including those of schizophrenia and dementia: the Chinese name of schizophrenia and dementia are exactly the same as the Japanese Kanji.
Although, in China, professionals and patients as well as families believe that the Chinese language term for schizophrenia is a stigmatized name, there are no proposals thus far from either side to change it. In part, this is because the renaming process is very complex: the psychiatric society would have to submit the application to the Chinese Medical Association for review and approval. The Chinese Medical Association would then submit this application to the Chinese Association of Science and Technology (CAST). After the approval by CAST, the application would go to the China National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies, which the Chinese government authorized to review and release technical terms for general use.
In Taiwan, the traditional Chinese term for schizophrenia was based on the concept of “mind splitting disease,” which was translated as “精神分裂症” (original complex form of Chinese word, pronounced “jīng shén fēn liè zhèng,” mind splitting disease). Unfortunately, the Chinese word “分裂,” with the denotation of “splitting” in Taiwan made the original complex form of Chinese term for schizophrenia more stigmatized than those used to label other mental disorders in Taiwan. Renaming schizophrenia has been discussed for the past 20 years by several opinion leaders and during meetings and 5 years ago Professor H. G. Hwu, several senior psychiatrists, social workers, other professionals, patients, and their families initiated a movement to change the original name for schizophrenia. Public advocacy and educational campaigns regarding the importance of renaming schizophrenia have been launched. Several potential terms were proposed. Finally, 3 most popular/appropriate terms were selected as candidates for the next term vote based on the poll of the Alliance for Mental III of the R.O.C., Taiwan. In October 2012, the new Chinese term for schizophrenia (sī jué shī tiáo zhèng, 思覺失調症, disorder with dysfunction of thought and perception) was chosen by Taiwanese psychiatrists at the 51th Annual Meeting of Taiwanese Society of Psychiatry (TSP), held in Tainan, Taiwan. The TSP announced the new Taiwanese term for schizophrenia and it is expected that the government will accept the new name for schizophrenia. TSP hope the term “思覺失調症” will be used in the Chinese version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. A survey regarding attitude changes after the introduction of the new term from the public viewpoint is envisaged.
Preliminary findings indicate that the changes of names of mental disorders, particularly, if accompanied by changes of the concepts of the disease by an appropriate education of medical staff and by the provision of evidence to the patients, their families, and their communities can be very helpful.
Changing the names of diseases and accompanying this by a reformulation of concepts of disease may thus be a way to reduce the stigmatization that the currently used diagnostic labels seem to facilitate and perpetuate. The changes that have been introduced in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Singapore are a major social experiment, which will produce data that should be assembled and studied. If the changes that have been introduced do reduce or revert stigmatization, as the preliminary findings seem to indicate, a new avenue of fighting stigma will be opened. It will then be useful to proceed to similar reforms and reconceptualization of other terms used in psychiatry—in other countries of Asia and elsewhere—because that could make the life of patients and families better and the image of psychiatry more positive. Eventually this might also lead to a more general exploration of stigmatizing terms still included in the International Classification of Diseases and to the increase of attention to the use of words that might hurt in medicine. The positive results of the introduction of the concept of recovery as the goal of treatment is an example of such a change, which has revitalized thinking about rehabilitation and helped efforts leading to inclusion of people with a mental illness into society.
Stigma related to mental illness is undoubtedly the main obstacle to the improvement of mental health care. It is attached to the disorders, their names, people who are seen as being mentally ill, services which are developed to help them, and families of people with mental disorder. Stigma is related to ignorance about mental illness—providing more information and knowledge can help in the reduction of stigmatization and its consequences. Diagnoses used in psychiatry are heavily loaded with stigma and changing the name of the mental disorder provides an opportunity to say that we have learned a great deal about the disorder and that therefore it is time to also change its name. It is clear that the change of the name alone is not enough: it must be seen and experienced as part of a change of the health system, which is necessary not only to better protect human rights of the mentally ill but also because new knowledge opened new vistas and new avenues of dealing with mental illness.
The change of the name of schizophrenia in Japan went hand in hand with an effort to present an update of the concept of schizophrenia—its origin, pathogenesis, course, and methods of treatment. The first results of the change were most encouraging—seen in the relationship of patients and doctors. It will be of great importance to continue assessing the effects of the change of the name for schizophrenia. If it turns out that the early positive results are confirmed, it might be useful that psychiatric societies—such as the American Psychiatric Association—and patient associations and governmental and intergovernmental organizations, such as the World Health Organization, consider taking the same course that Japan and other countries in South East Asia have taken.
https://academic.oup.com/schizophre...../2/255/1944451
Psychiatric disorders carry a stigma that usually leads to discrimination and resulting problems in many walks of life. People with mental illness thus have difficulties getting a job, finding housing, and making (or keeping) friends or partners. The stigma adds misery to the life of persons with a mental disorder. It affects their families as well as professionals and others who provide them with care.
A number of studies demonstrated that people with mental disorders avoid seeking help because they are afraid of stigmatization and its consequences.1–3 If they come to a service and their condition is given a diagnosis, they hide it. Doctors hesitate to tell their patients a diagnosis because it is stigmatized, linked to notions of dangerousness; incurability and unpredictability, which makes patients feel that there is no hope and that there is no point in following recommendations concerning their lifestyle or the treatment of their illness.
In recent years, several countries in which psychiatric diagnoses are used in their local language form decided to change the name of 2 most severe mental disorders: schizophrenia and dementia. This in turn should lead to better collaboration in treatment, facilitate rehabilitation, and enable the inclusion of patients in their community and other social networks.
It was accepted that a change of name must be accompanied by an updating and revision of the concepts of diseases: thus for example, the notion that schizophrenia inevitably leads to poor outcome would have to be replaced by available and accepted evidence that many people with schizophrenia who are given appropriate treatment recover and can lead a normal life4 and that the condition of those whose disease is resistant to treatment can be improved to a significant degree. This article describes changes and proposals for change in several Asian countries. Proposals to change the name of schizophrenia have been made by user groups in Europe5,6 and by scientists (eg, salience disorder), but these seem to have advanced considerably less fast to the acceptance of any change by European psychiatrists or nongovernmental organizations of patients and their family than was the case in Japan and other countries in the Far East.
Japan was the first country to change the previously used name of schizophrenia, “Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo” (mind-split-disease) into the new name of “Togo-Shitcho-Sho” (integration disorder). The change of the name was accompanied by a shift from the Kraepelinian “dementia praecox” tradition to a concept based on the vulnerability to stress model. The process of renaming had been started by a formal request of the National Federation of Families with Mentally Ill in Japan (NFFMIJ) to the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology (JSPN). The change of name, it was hoped, would remove stigma carried by persons who were labeled with the old term. JSPN decided to change old term into new one, provided that (a) the change did not result in any disadvantage to the patients and (b) the term conveyed the concept that schizophrenia is a disorder defined by a clinically significant syndrome, but not a disease defined by a specific etiology, symptomatology, clinical course, and pathological findings. After consultations about the appropriateness of the new term and a public hearing, the new term was approved as new medical term by the JSPN General Assembly and announced at the WPA Yokohama Congress in 2002. One month later the Japanese Government approved the use of the new name as the official term. A survey carried out 7 months after the official approval of the use of the new term showed that 78% of psychiatric practices used the new term.7
The JSPN introduced the term Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo for Kraepelin’s dementia precox in 1937. The concept of Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo was almost the same as Kraepelin’s concept of dementia praecox and described schizophrenia as a mental disorder characterized by severe mental deterioration, lack of volition, and incompetence in social and personal roles. The condition was described as hereditary and untreatable without a chance of recovery. The exclusion policy expressed by the “Seishinbyosha-Kango-Ho” (Act to keep people with psychosis under observation [1900–1950] and the Eugenic Protection Act [1940–1996]) marked the old name for schizophrenia with severe stigma, which was also attached to people who had the disease and contributed to the inhumane treatment of patients with Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo.
The new Togo Shitcho-Sho name for schizophrenia was introduced with a new concept of the disorder that was defined by a characteristic cluster of symptoms that are amenable to treatment so that patients can expect full and lasting recovery if treated with modern pharmacotherapy and given psychosocial care.7,8
An early effect of renaming the disorder and of the introduction of the new concept was an increase of the percentage of people who were informed about their diagnosis (from 36.7% in 2002 to 69.7% in 2004: n = 1944). Moreover, 86% of psychiatrists of the 136 psychiatrists working in the Miyagi prefecture found that the new term makes it easier to inform patients and family about the diagnosis, which in turn facilitated education about the illness and psychosocial interventions.4
It also appears that the introduction of the new terms leads to realistic optimism of mental health professionals as well as consumers. People with schizophrenia now visit mental health specialists more easily and often open the session by referring to the new term of schizophrenia. Many people who experienced schizophrenia participate in spreading the modern concept of schizophrenia in society.
A recent web survey of 500 citizens (Sato et al, in preparation) reported that the new term was known to 56% of the participants and the old term to 63% of the subjects. Younger participants (>30) knew the new term significantly more often than the old term, while those aged 50 or more knew only the old term. The image of the disorder and social distance measures rated by people who knew only new term or only the old term were sharply different. Those who knew only the new term found it easier to imagine the illness (76% vs 24%), considered that the disease was less severe (23% vs 87%), felt that patients should disclose the diagnosis (93% vs 7%), and did not feel that the relationship with people with schizophrenia should be stopped (51% vs 37%). Social distance measures also showed that those families with the new term had much less of a distance from people with schizophrenia than those families with the old name.
The new term for schizophrenia with the updated concept of the disorder may in the opinion of Japanese mental health specialists change the public image of schizophrenia from a concept marked by fatalistic pessimism to one characterized by realistic optimism and thus promote recovery reducing public stigma and self-stigma.
In Korea, the term for schizophrenia was “Jeongshin-bunyeol-byung, Jeongshin (‘mind’)-bunyeol (‘splitted’)-byung (‘disorder’).” The previous name of schizophrenia, which means “split-mind disorder,” stigmatizes the patients with schizophrenia, their caregivers, and mental health professionals.9 In addition, people confused this name with “dissociative identity disorder.”10 The new term for schizophrenia is “Johyun-byung (attunement disorder),” which implies that patients with schizophrenia need to “tune” their mind as they would do with strings of violin or guitar. Renaming the split-mind disorder as attunement disorder is expected to result in a reduction of prejudice and discrimination against patients with schizophrenia.
In Hong Kong, the old Chinese name of schizophrenia “Jing Shen Fen Lie” (精神分裂) meant literally “splitting of the mind” and was associated with stigma. A new name “Si Jue Shi Tiao” (思覺失調) was introduced for psychosis some 10 years ago. This new Chinese name denotes “dysfunction of thought and perception” and there is an implication of reversibility and potential for treatment. This new name is well accepted by the public and the professionals because it is considered to be less stigmatizing.11To date, there are no local studies to establish whether this new Chinese name decreases stigmatization and helps in the early detection of psychosis.
In Singapore, the Chinese term for schizophrenia is also “jing shen fen lie zheng” (精神分裂症) or “splitting of the mind.” This literal translation of the word schizophrenia has ominous implication for the patient, who bears the brunt of mockery. Psychiatrists in Singapore often explain to the patient and family that schizophrenia is a “disorder of thinking” and not “madness” or “spirit possession.” This approach encourages adherence to treatment and allays anxiety about poor prognosis. There is no formal proposal to change of name of schizophrenia as yet.
In China, the name of schizophrenia (精神分裂) has not yet been changed. Just like Japanese 1500 years ago brought Chinese characters into Japan, Chinese just borrowed Kanji (漢字) from Japanese when they translated English books. It was estimated that there were more than 1000 Kanji pictograms brought into modern Chinese, particularly in medicine. Therefore, a lot of medical terms used in China are actually from Japan, including those of schizophrenia and dementia: the Chinese name of schizophrenia and dementia are exactly the same as the Japanese Kanji.
Although, in China, professionals and patients as well as families believe that the Chinese language term for schizophrenia is a stigmatized name, there are no proposals thus far from either side to change it. In part, this is because the renaming process is very complex: the psychiatric society would have to submit the application to the Chinese Medical Association for review and approval. The Chinese Medical Association would then submit this application to the Chinese Association of Science and Technology (CAST). After the approval by CAST, the application would go to the China National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies, which the Chinese government authorized to review and release technical terms for general use.
In Taiwan, the traditional Chinese term for schizophrenia was based on the concept of “mind splitting disease,” which was translated as “精神分裂症” (original complex form of Chinese word, pronounced “jīng shén fēn liè zhèng,” mind splitting disease). Unfortunately, the Chinese word “分裂,” with the denotation of “splitting” in Taiwan made the original complex form of Chinese term for schizophrenia more stigmatized than those used to label other mental disorders in Taiwan. Renaming schizophrenia has been discussed for the past 20 years by several opinion leaders and during meetings and 5 years ago Professor H. G. Hwu, several senior psychiatrists, social workers, other professionals, patients, and their families initiated a movement to change the original name for schizophrenia. Public advocacy and educational campaigns regarding the importance of renaming schizophrenia have been launched. Several potential terms were proposed. Finally, 3 most popular/appropriate terms were selected as candidates for the next term vote based on the poll of the Alliance for Mental III of the R.O.C., Taiwan. In October 2012, the new Chinese term for schizophrenia (sī jué shī tiáo zhèng, 思覺失調症, disorder with dysfunction of thought and perception) was chosen by Taiwanese psychiatrists at the 51th Annual Meeting of Taiwanese Society of Psychiatry (TSP), held in Tainan, Taiwan. The TSP announced the new Taiwanese term for schizophrenia and it is expected that the government will accept the new name for schizophrenia. TSP hope the term “思覺失調症” will be used in the Chinese version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. A survey regarding attitude changes after the introduction of the new term from the public viewpoint is envisaged.
Preliminary findings indicate that the changes of names of mental disorders, particularly, if accompanied by changes of the concepts of the disease by an appropriate education of medical staff and by the provision of evidence to the patients, their families, and their communities can be very helpful.
Changing the names of diseases and accompanying this by a reformulation of concepts of disease may thus be a way to reduce the stigmatization that the currently used diagnostic labels seem to facilitate and perpetuate. The changes that have been introduced in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Singapore are a major social experiment, which will produce data that should be assembled and studied. If the changes that have been introduced do reduce or revert stigmatization, as the preliminary findings seem to indicate, a new avenue of fighting stigma will be opened. It will then be useful to proceed to similar reforms and reconceptualization of other terms used in psychiatry—in other countries of Asia and elsewhere—because that could make the life of patients and families better and the image of psychiatry more positive. Eventually this might also lead to a more general exploration of stigmatizing terms still included in the International Classification of Diseases and to the increase of attention to the use of words that might hurt in medicine. The positive results of the introduction of the concept of recovery as the goal of treatment is an example of such a change, which has revitalized thinking about rehabilitation and helped efforts leading to inclusion of people with a mental illness into society.
Stigma related to mental illness is undoubtedly the main obstacle to the improvement of mental health care. It is attached to the disorders, their names, people who are seen as being mentally ill, services which are developed to help them, and families of people with mental disorder. Stigma is related to ignorance about mental illness—providing more information and knowledge can help in the reduction of stigmatization and its consequences. Diagnoses used in psychiatry are heavily loaded with stigma and changing the name of the mental disorder provides an opportunity to say that we have learned a great deal about the disorder and that therefore it is time to also change its name. It is clear that the change of the name alone is not enough: it must be seen and experienced as part of a change of the health system, which is necessary not only to better protect human rights of the mentally ill but also because new knowledge opened new vistas and new avenues of dealing with mental illness.
The change of the name of schizophrenia in Japan went hand in hand with an effort to present an update of the concept of schizophrenia—its origin, pathogenesis, course, and methods of treatment. The first results of the change were most encouraging—seen in the relationship of patients and doctors. It will be of great importance to continue assessing the effects of the change of the name for schizophrenia. If it turns out that the early positive results are confirmed, it might be useful that psychiatric societies—such as the American Psychiatric Association—and patient associations and governmental and intergovernmental organizations, such as the World Health Organization, consider taking the same course that Japan and other countries in South East Asia have taken.
Could Jesus Read?
Posted a year agoJesus was a real person in history, no doubt about it. But he was unusually well educated and literate for a carpenter. A hick carpenter could not read that much of scripture to compete directly with the Jews. He needed to have been trained and educated throughout his early life.
The notion that Jesus learned to read and write in synagogue as a child, and 'like other Jewish boys,' is rampant in scholarly works on Jesus.” The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate (most estimates put the number between 85 percent and 95 percent).
Could Jesus Read and Write?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/could.....read-and-write [The Daily Beast]
For Christians it seems almost obvious that Jesus was literate. After all, an incarnate deity who can raise people from the dead, walk on water, and multiply foodstuffs could surely do something more pedestrian like read and write. But the Bible itself is not as clear on the matter and recent research suggests that things aren’t as straightforward as they seem.
The Gospels present conflicting evidence on the subject. In a story in both Mark and Matthew Jesus is rejected as a synagogue teacher in Nazareth by the people from his home town because they know that he isn’t qualified for the task. Their rejection hinges on the fact that he (or in Matthew’s version, his father Joseph) was a carpenter and, thus, wasn’t from the educated class that would have learned these skills.
In Luke 4:16-20, which is based on the Gospel of Mark, Luke sharpens the portrait of Jesus as educated reader. A scroll is handed to Jesus; Jesus is able to locate the specific passage, reads it, and returns the scroll. In other words, Luke is making the point that Jesus can do more than simply repeat a story he knows verbatim (anyone who remembers learning to read or has taught their own child to read knows that this can be done.) He can actually read. Interestingly, Luke makes sure to omit the reference to carpenters, thereby removing evidence that would raise the question "how did he learn to read?"
Chris Keith, research professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary’s University, London and author of several books on the subject including Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee told me that, “What we have in the first-century tradition is a variety of opinions on whether Jesus was the kind of teacher who could read in the synagogue.” John 7:15 offers evidence of this kind of confusion when the audience ask themselves, “How does this man know letters since he was never taught?”
Keith told me that the reason that most 20th-century readers of these stories assumed that Jesus could read was “that people who care about Jesus and his life often think about him on their terms. So, especially in the 20th century, biblical scholars simply assumed that Jesus attended an elementary school (usually described as the Nazareth synagogue, and so similar to Catholic and Anglican elementary education in the 20th century) in his youth, where he learned to read and write. The notion that Jesus learned to read and write in synagogue as a child, and ‘like other Jewish boys,’ is rampant in scholarly works on Jesus.”
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate (most estimates put the number between 85 percent and 95 percent). Those who could read were from wealthy, elite, upper class families. And every piece of the biblical evidence we have about his social status suggests that Jesus was a craftsman. Jewish literature that was composed around the same time explicitly mentions that carpenters were not part of the scribal elite and thus would not have been able to read in great detail (Sir. 38:27). Of course there was a scale of literacy. Some of these people might have been able to sign their name, for example, but this didn’t mean that they could write or read long textually difficult documents like the Bible. At the time of Jesus, most people were functionally illiterate and could not read or write at all.
In his work on the subject Keith recognizes that, “Just because the majority was illiterate doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus would have been.” In conversation with The Daily Beast he cited Frederick Douglass as an example of this phenomenon. “History is full of exceptions,” he said, but these kinds of exceptions demand an explanation. To accept that Jesus was literate “we would need clear evidence for why and how Jesus was an exception, how he attained an education that was generally not available to people in his class.”
And the Bible doesn’t provide us with this. The story in the Gospel of Luke 4 does not count, Keith says, because it is a clear attempt to fix the implications of the same story in Mark. Other than an appeal to supernatural powers, there’s no way to account for why Jesus would have been able to read.
That said, Keith does not think that the Gospels are "lying" about Jesus. Keith explained that part of the misunderstanding about Jesus’s skill set stemmed from the variety of forms of literacy in the ancient world and the ways in which Jesus’s actions would have been understood by people who occupied different positions on the literacy scale. The Gospels recount instances when Jesus debated the Pharisees on the interpretation of Jewish law. Someone who saw this taking place and was illiterate might easily assume that Jesus was an educated teacher. A member of the scribal elite, on the other hand, could watch exactly the same thing and recognize that— while Jesus was holding his own—he was no expert.
As Keith summarizes “I think Jesus was actually scribal-illiterate, but I equally think that lots of people who saw him teach probably thought he was scribal-literate.” He was the kind of teacher whose charisma and innate talents could confuse people.
Helen Bond, a professor of Christian Origins at the University of Edinburgh, agreed and told The Daily Beast “If Jesus was a carpenter/mason, as we generally suppose, then it's not impossible that he had some rudimentary grasp of letters and/or numbers for the purposes of his trade, but I think it very unlikely that Jesus could read or write.”
The method Keith is employing here is broadly known as social memory theory. He is among a cluster of New Testament scholars who, following the lead of German academic Jens Schröter, use the theory to try and account for the sometimes conflicting traditions about Jesus that we find in the New Testament. In many ways this is the newest form of scholarship into who Jesus was, historically speaking. Whereas earlier generations of scholars interested in this question used to dismiss parts of the Bible as inaccurate, scholars like Keith try to “to propose a scenario that explains why we have the images of the past that we have.” It’s not about "getting to the truth behind the Gospels," but about theorizing the past on the basis of the Gospels.
One of the problems with this methodology is that some scholars try to use it to claim that the Gospels preserve the accurate memories of the apostles themselves and, furthermore, that the stories in the New Testament are true and historically correct. As a result they have been vigorously criticized. These kinds of religiously motivated arguments, Keith told me, “miss the point” of social memory theory because they don’t recognize that some things in the New Testament are “historically inaccurate, but nevertheless in continuity with what many people around Jesus probably thought about him.”
Regardless of the methodology employed here, there are many people who are deeply opposed to the idea that Jesus wasn’t as well educated as the scribes. The reason for this is because in our modern first-world context in which the vast majority of people receive an education, literacy and intelligence are virtual synonyms. Calling Jesus illiterate sounds to some like an accusation of stupidity. In response, Keith notes that “This is a thoroughly first-world perspective, though, and an ethnocentric insistence to hold Jesus to our cultural standards. In antiquity, as well as outside the first world today, intelligence and literacy are not tied together.”
In fact, we could choose to interpret Jesus’s literacy positively: there’s something particularly impressive about a man who was not scribal-literate but nevertheless could hold his own among those who were. As Keith put it, “I have no doubt that Jesus was a powerful and effective teacher; he was, in fact, so effective that he managed to convince some people that he was a scribal-literate teacher even though he likely wasn't!”
The notion that Jesus learned to read and write in synagogue as a child, and 'like other Jewish boys,' is rampant in scholarly works on Jesus.” The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate (most estimates put the number between 85 percent and 95 percent).
Could Jesus Read and Write?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/could.....read-and-write [The Daily Beast]
For Christians it seems almost obvious that Jesus was literate. After all, an incarnate deity who can raise people from the dead, walk on water, and multiply foodstuffs could surely do something more pedestrian like read and write. But the Bible itself is not as clear on the matter and recent research suggests that things aren’t as straightforward as they seem.
The Gospels present conflicting evidence on the subject. In a story in both Mark and Matthew Jesus is rejected as a synagogue teacher in Nazareth by the people from his home town because they know that he isn’t qualified for the task. Their rejection hinges on the fact that he (or in Matthew’s version, his father Joseph) was a carpenter and, thus, wasn’t from the educated class that would have learned these skills.
In Luke 4:16-20, which is based on the Gospel of Mark, Luke sharpens the portrait of Jesus as educated reader. A scroll is handed to Jesus; Jesus is able to locate the specific passage, reads it, and returns the scroll. In other words, Luke is making the point that Jesus can do more than simply repeat a story he knows verbatim (anyone who remembers learning to read or has taught their own child to read knows that this can be done.) He can actually read. Interestingly, Luke makes sure to omit the reference to carpenters, thereby removing evidence that would raise the question "how did he learn to read?"
Chris Keith, research professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary’s University, London and author of several books on the subject including Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee told me that, “What we have in the first-century tradition is a variety of opinions on whether Jesus was the kind of teacher who could read in the synagogue.” John 7:15 offers evidence of this kind of confusion when the audience ask themselves, “How does this man know letters since he was never taught?”
Keith told me that the reason that most 20th-century readers of these stories assumed that Jesus could read was “that people who care about Jesus and his life often think about him on their terms. So, especially in the 20th century, biblical scholars simply assumed that Jesus attended an elementary school (usually described as the Nazareth synagogue, and so similar to Catholic and Anglican elementary education in the 20th century) in his youth, where he learned to read and write. The notion that Jesus learned to read and write in synagogue as a child, and ‘like other Jewish boys,’ is rampant in scholarly works on Jesus.”
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate (most estimates put the number between 85 percent and 95 percent). Those who could read were from wealthy, elite, upper class families. And every piece of the biblical evidence we have about his social status suggests that Jesus was a craftsman. Jewish literature that was composed around the same time explicitly mentions that carpenters were not part of the scribal elite and thus would not have been able to read in great detail (Sir. 38:27). Of course there was a scale of literacy. Some of these people might have been able to sign their name, for example, but this didn’t mean that they could write or read long textually difficult documents like the Bible. At the time of Jesus, most people were functionally illiterate and could not read or write at all.
In his work on the subject Keith recognizes that, “Just because the majority was illiterate doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus would have been.” In conversation with The Daily Beast he cited Frederick Douglass as an example of this phenomenon. “History is full of exceptions,” he said, but these kinds of exceptions demand an explanation. To accept that Jesus was literate “we would need clear evidence for why and how Jesus was an exception, how he attained an education that was generally not available to people in his class.”
And the Bible doesn’t provide us with this. The story in the Gospel of Luke 4 does not count, Keith says, because it is a clear attempt to fix the implications of the same story in Mark. Other than an appeal to supernatural powers, there’s no way to account for why Jesus would have been able to read.
That said, Keith does not think that the Gospels are "lying" about Jesus. Keith explained that part of the misunderstanding about Jesus’s skill set stemmed from the variety of forms of literacy in the ancient world and the ways in which Jesus’s actions would have been understood by people who occupied different positions on the literacy scale. The Gospels recount instances when Jesus debated the Pharisees on the interpretation of Jewish law. Someone who saw this taking place and was illiterate might easily assume that Jesus was an educated teacher. A member of the scribal elite, on the other hand, could watch exactly the same thing and recognize that— while Jesus was holding his own—he was no expert.
As Keith summarizes “I think Jesus was actually scribal-illiterate, but I equally think that lots of people who saw him teach probably thought he was scribal-literate.” He was the kind of teacher whose charisma and innate talents could confuse people.
Helen Bond, a professor of Christian Origins at the University of Edinburgh, agreed and told The Daily Beast “If Jesus was a carpenter/mason, as we generally suppose, then it's not impossible that he had some rudimentary grasp of letters and/or numbers for the purposes of his trade, but I think it very unlikely that Jesus could read or write.”
The method Keith is employing here is broadly known as social memory theory. He is among a cluster of New Testament scholars who, following the lead of German academic Jens Schröter, use the theory to try and account for the sometimes conflicting traditions about Jesus that we find in the New Testament. In many ways this is the newest form of scholarship into who Jesus was, historically speaking. Whereas earlier generations of scholars interested in this question used to dismiss parts of the Bible as inaccurate, scholars like Keith try to “to propose a scenario that explains why we have the images of the past that we have.” It’s not about "getting to the truth behind the Gospels," but about theorizing the past on the basis of the Gospels.
One of the problems with this methodology is that some scholars try to use it to claim that the Gospels preserve the accurate memories of the apostles themselves and, furthermore, that the stories in the New Testament are true and historically correct. As a result they have been vigorously criticized. These kinds of religiously motivated arguments, Keith told me, “miss the point” of social memory theory because they don’t recognize that some things in the New Testament are “historically inaccurate, but nevertheless in continuity with what many people around Jesus probably thought about him.”
Regardless of the methodology employed here, there are many people who are deeply opposed to the idea that Jesus wasn’t as well educated as the scribes. The reason for this is because in our modern first-world context in which the vast majority of people receive an education, literacy and intelligence are virtual synonyms. Calling Jesus illiterate sounds to some like an accusation of stupidity. In response, Keith notes that “This is a thoroughly first-world perspective, though, and an ethnocentric insistence to hold Jesus to our cultural standards. In antiquity, as well as outside the first world today, intelligence and literacy are not tied together.”
In fact, we could choose to interpret Jesus’s literacy positively: there’s something particularly impressive about a man who was not scribal-literate but nevertheless could hold his own among those who were. As Keith put it, “I have no doubt that Jesus was a powerful and effective teacher; he was, in fact, so effective that he managed to convince some people that he was a scribal-literate teacher even though he likely wasn't!”
Pythons
Posted a year agoConstriction is not an injury incompatible with life. The animal can be resuscitated after the process. I saw this on old school Discovery Channel. Shame on modern media for oversensationalizing violence, rather than ethically sourced documentaries like this one. Fuck you, I want that documentary. Sorry, I meant the remote viewer recording of it.
Protogen RAM Wars - Remote Viewing in Action
Posted a year agohttps://youtu.be/H6AqVxp93ao
Using the remote viewing computer to check on enemy locations in real time. #protogen
God the Creator
Posted a year agoThe etymology of God is 'creator'
The etymology of angel is 'messenger'
If God created the Universe, then God can be reduced to a mathematical and logical algorithm that equates the mathematical formula for subatomic Universe creation. This is supported by the theory of relativity, that everything is quantized, and follows mathematical laws. God is that mathematical law of creation, from photons to quarks to atoms to molecules, that is the algorithm roughly. The logic graph as well can be quantized.
The etymology of angel is 'messenger'
If God created the Universe, then God can be reduced to a mathematical and logical algorithm that equates the mathematical formula for subatomic Universe creation. This is supported by the theory of relativity, that everything is quantized, and follows mathematical laws. God is that mathematical law of creation, from photons to quarks to atoms to molecules, that is the algorithm roughly. The logic graph as well can be quantized.
Dream Junkie
Posted a year agoI've heard of lucid dreaming, I know some techniques I can post here eventually. The fundamental problem I've run into: dreams are artificial, and I have to wait for a UFO, spirit, or computer operator to use demonic dream technology on me in the first place. They don't do that anymore since the nightmare fightoff.
I've never heard of individuals who would willingly SWAT themselves to go to hospitals, jails, and prisons to experiment and see if they have the computers, and do live human experimentation on unwitting victims in those institutions. They use the computers to talk into your head, and thus give you a dream.
I've never heard of individuals who would willingly SWAT themselves to go to hospitals, jails, and prisons to experiment and see if they have the computers, and do live human experimentation on unwitting victims in those institutions. They use the computers to talk into your head, and thus give you a dream.
Buy me a Kofi
Posted a year agohttps://ko-fi.com/kasperz3r0
Here's the new link. I'm not going to push this because I feel like a bum, but I'm in a lot of financial trouble right now over an incident in 2020. I was instructed by a neurologist to preform a ritual where I had to create a concoction in a bottle and throw it in the garbage. The bottle contained valuables estimated to be around $30,000 to help me let go of both Adrian and Jewish curses. In theory, it should have done nothing to my mental health, but instead of curing my hallucinations it made them worse. The neurologist was an MKULTRA agent who walked me through the entire process behind closed doors and then backed down when confronted with it.
Here's the new link. I'm not going to push this because I feel like a bum, but I'm in a lot of financial trouble right now over an incident in 2020. I was instructed by a neurologist to preform a ritual where I had to create a concoction in a bottle and throw it in the garbage. The bottle contained valuables estimated to be around $30,000 to help me let go of both Adrian and Jewish curses. In theory, it should have done nothing to my mental health, but instead of curing my hallucinations it made them worse. The neurologist was an MKULTRA agent who walked me through the entire process behind closed doors and then backed down when confronted with it.
Use the computer to check.
Posted a year agobeLIEve
Posted a year agoI would never lie to my fans, especially here. You may see me bluff elsewhere, but here, this is my most honest persona here.
No Subject
Posted a year agoThey keep asking for the shooter's manifesto. Here's my manifesto as to why I won't shoot up the school because I was groomed, recruited, and hired by both Jesuits and Black Arts Society. They murdered all my childhood friends. I walked you all through this process, from the training, through to psychiatric involvement to hearing artificial voices... all the way to REMOTE VIEWING. My mom said I need a journal lol this is it. I'm going to shit on Black Arts Society and the Jesuits here. If anyone calls me a terrorist it's true, but I was hired and it is not a choice.
No Subject
Posted a year agoIt's true he called me out live on air, but it took me years to realize he was talking to me over the false allegation... I was blatantly groomed by Black Arts Society.
UFO // UAP
Posted a year agoMilitary pilots must be briefed on UAP // UFO activity before they fly. Apparently UAP is turning into a crisis beyond nuclear war, but all behind closed doors. The big secret, we have them, and are committing crimes with their technology. Their technology includes REMOTE VIEWING brain implants, AUGMENTED COGNITION brain implants, and other potentially illegal operations such as MKULTRA.
ALL MODERN POLICE FORCES HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY. USE THE COMPUTER TO CHECK.
ALL MODERN POLICE FORCES HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY. USE THE COMPUTER TO CHECK.
Will we discover extraterrestrial analogue?
Posted a year agohttps://youtu.be/j2QsJ9rwbCo
Will space probes in the next century discover extraterrestrial analogue?
Will space probes in the next century discover extraterrestrial analogue?
Will space probes in the next century discover extraterrestrial analogue?
Will space probes in the next century discover extraterrestrial analogue?
https://youtu.be/qYZPfgrmQ4Q
NASA reveals UFO sightings in Middle East in first ever public meeting on UFO and UAP sightings [DailyMail]
