Russ Dizdar, Are Christians Less Wrong About Ritual Abuse? |440|

Me too. This is hard work. Exhausting, actually. How is the process going for you?
This was nice to read, and thanks for asking. I think it’s good to talk about such things. I agree, exhausting. If it weren’t for our homestead and not having a ‘real job’ I’d not be able to manage it actually, emotionally or physically, so I’m really incredibly grateful for the tough work I’ve done in the past, and for my hubby of course, to put me in the position that I can do this now. What aspect of it do you find most challenging? For me it is, hands down, the isolation. I’m estranged from my entire FOO because of this work. I can’t talk to any of my ‘real-life’ friends about it either, no one is even remotely interested in any of it. Still, I will never give it up and I knew it would never be over when I started, that it’s a life path. I’m also rely quite a bit on a few podcasts/forums in order to feel less alone, (and learn a lot! I) so I’m grateful for Alex and y’all!
:)
 
Several. 1) Medicare for all would help them and a lot of others in untold ways. All of us would be able to be more free and mobile in terms of career selection. If one is being abused or taken advantage of in the workplace, you could leave and seek other work without fear that you'd incur medical costs you couldn't afford. I am a straight man, but that didn't stop me from being both sexually harassed (by both men and women) and otherwise subjected to a hostile workplace on more than one occasion. I would have been able to leave if it weren't for my (and my wife's) healthcare having been tethered to my continued employment.
For the very poor there is medicaid. It existed before Obamacare. I've been on it for since 2002 when I retired. I'm pretty healthy and I haven't been to the doctor much so I can't say if it is a good program or not.

And I'm not sure I understand your issues with the current health insurance system. How is Obamacare not working? I thought it covers preexisting conditions?

I am leery of medicare for all because of the long wait times in countries like the UK and Canada. I keep hearing stories about how people in Canada come to the US for health care. I'm not saying we don't need a health care system that takes care of people just that I think we should avoid systems with known problems.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care
Crossing the Border for Care​
Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatment.​
I've heard Singapore has a great system. I'd rather see the US adopt something that works well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
Healthcare in Singapore is supervised by the Ministry of Health of the Singapore Government. It largely consists of a government-run universal healthcare system with a significant private healthcare sector. In addition, financing of healthcare costs is done through a mixture of direct government subsidies, compulsory savings, national healthcare insurance, and cost sharing.​
According to global consulting firm Towers Watson, Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes". This has been attributed to a combination of a strong reliance on medical savings accounts, cost sharing, and government regulation.​

2) Medical debt forgiveness which is self-explanatory in how it would be helpful. 3) Tuition-free college would make higher education accessible to the rural poor, which would assist them in individuating out from under the patriarchal sword and cross egregore that keeps them feeding it with their precious scarce life-force. Their current worldview can only be dismantled with education.
What is their world view?
Without that education there is no hope of overcoming the fear-based adherence that keeps them working against their own best interests (this is a hard sell and will come off as patronizing, and I don't know how to get around that - recall Obama's comment that these folks cling to their religion and their guns and you'll see how pointing it out makes them cling all the harder).
What exactly does it mean "cling to their religion and their guns" and why is it a problem?
What is the evidence that pointing it out made them cling harder? Did church attendance go up?
Did you mean this:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/index.html
Obama is the best gun salesman in America​

Religion has many benefits to the individual:

Andrew Sims, past president of Royal College of Psychiatrists: "The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. ... In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html#lennox_individual

Research shows that belief in the paranormal and religion can be conducive to the health and well being of people. These beliefs can help people cope with grief, divorce, job loss, the fear of death, particularly in the terminally ill, and can deter suicide. Furthermore, research also shows that having meaning in life is necessary for people to thrive.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/skepticism-big-lie-activist-skeptics.html
 
Last edited:
This was nice to read, and thanks for asking. I think it’s good to talk about such things. I agree, exhausting. If it weren’t for our homestead and not having a ‘real job’ I’d not be able to manage it actually, emotionally or physically, so I’m really incredibly grateful for the tough work I’ve done in the past, and for my hubby of course, to put me in the position that I can do this now. What aspect of it do you find most challenging? For me it is, hands down, the isolation. I’m estranged from my entire FOO because of this work. I can’t talk to any of my ‘real-life’ friends about it either, no one is even remotely interested in any of it. Still, I will never give it up and I knew it would never be over when I started, that it’s a life path. I’m also rely quite a bit on a few podcasts/forums in order to feel less alone, (and learn a lot! I) so I’m grateful for Alex and y’all!
:)
I'm also very glad for forums like this precisely because it allows for a sense of community where, otherwise, there wouldn't be any. The internet is funny in that way - it both breaks and makes communities of shared experiences, perspectives, and values. Becoming your own person with your own ideas in your head is a painful business!
 
I'm also very glad for forums like this precisely because it allows for a sense of community where, otherwise, there wouldn't be any. The internet is funny in that way - it both breaks and makes communities of shared experiences, perspectives, and values. Becoming your own person with your own ideas in your head is a painful business!
I think it's great that the internet allows people widely separated geographically and maybe socially to meet and discuss and form communities. But I think there is also problem in our current civilization in that people don't meet face to face as much as we should. When people communicate over the internet they more easily forget about the feelings of other people because they don't hear the tone of voice or see body language and facial expressions. So the internet is making civilization much less civil. And the internet is really harming people mentally in other ways too.

Any internet app or web site (inducing skeptico) with those red alert notifications is making people compulsive.

https://higginswar.blogspot.com/search/label/tech_companies
Internet applications are designed to make you use them compulsively because the more the apps are used, the more revenue they generate for the tech companies[Greenwald]. But internet apps can reduce your attention span and harm your intellectual capacity.[Hill] Having captured users' attention, internet applications can be used to manipulate public opinion through targeted advertising[Madrigal] and biases in what they show in search results, suggestions, feeds and monetization[Barrett]. Compulsive use of apps is causing mental illness, self-harm[Chuck] and suicide[Twenge]. Computer games designed to make users play compulsively are also killing people who play until they drop dead.[Spragg] There are an increasing number of injuries and deaths from people using their cell phones compulsively while driving or walking.[Stock et. al.] And tech companies have provided terrorist groups with the use of their compulsion inducing platforms for "'spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits'" which has led to the murder of innocent victims.[Carbone] The tech companies are culpable because their apps are designed to make you use them compulsively in order to generate more revenue. The tech companies have blood on their hands.​
 
Religion has many benefits to the individual:

Andrew Sims, past president of Royal College of Psychiatrists: "The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. ... In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html#lennox_individual
Hi Jim,

I'll try to share my perspective on as many of your responses as possible. I agree with the idea that spirituality is likely a very helpful thing for most people and a protective factor against physical and mental health issues. I consider myself a spiritual but not religious person. In my experience, religion (Calvinism specifically), has actually caused me mental health difficulties. I'm originally from a rural area and come from rural poor and middle class stock. All of my recent ancestors were of varying Calvinist backgrounds and nearly all of them still had many of the issues Dr. Sims might think religion would have protected them from. Literally every negative item included in Dr. Sim's list is something several members of my family have endured or experienced in a significant manner.

My particular focus, for myself, is breaking free from the fear-based adherence to the paternalistic power structure of my own faith background so that I can think and act as free as possible of its influence. I have found that, ultimately, the Christian religion as it exists today is a frightening thing once you scratch beneath the surface (many don't do this, I suspect, which is why they benefit from some of Dr. Sim's listed effects). For instance, you have concepts of a (vaguely specified) unpardonable sin; eternal damnation in a terrifying, torturous, everlasting hell; condemnations of our natural sexual being; extremely difficult to maintain forms of moral and behavioral purity; thoughtcrimes that are very easily committed, etc. I could go on a long time here. I worked hard for many years to figure out how to remain a Christian and keep my sanity but, ultimately, I've had to consciously go on a journey to dismantle my default Christian worldview in order to live my life with a little less fear and terror. The sayings and behaviors of Jesus as recounted in the NT are not all sweetness and light, either. He kills a fig tree because he's unhappy about it not producing fruit (out of season). He tells people to cut off their limbs and gouge their eyes out rather than remain in danger of sinning. He tells us to hate our mother and father. He talks about eternal damnation as just punishment for finite behaviors. (My view now is that these are the statements of various budding faith communities put into the mouth of a two-dimensional Jesus in order to enforce cohesion amongst the believers, but I once shook with trepidation at reading them and worried earnestly for my eternal soul, unable to get on with the business of my day to day life because how do you care about the dishes when you're going to be tortured for all eternity?).

Your question re: "What is their worldview?" includes much of the above. I'll call it the Wizard of Oz god. It's sheer power backed by shock and awe. Keep in mind I'm 37, the oldest of millennials. In my hometown, as a child, I was spanked by my public school teachers and principal with large wooden paddles with holes in them to facilitate swifter, more painful spankings and subjected to other punishments such as standing with my nose against a brick wall for the duration of recess. I'd receive additional spankings at home after receiving these spankings and be left alone crying afterward, intentionally left isolated when I most needed to be consoled and reassured. I have seen many of my old classmates defending spanking on FB, saying things like, "I was spanked and I'm OK!" Well, I was spanked and I'm NOT OK. This Wizard of Oz god, a powergod, is an authoritarian who looms over us like a sinister Santa Claus, watching if we're naughty or nice, and we better fall in line - or else! We don't get to ask questions about fairness or justice. The powergod has that all wrapped up. Our role is to be obedient, do as we're told, and raise our children to do the same. Ad infinitum. This makes for good sheep for both the religious and political authorities. In my family it made it possible for several generations of coal miners to die young of black lung while going into debt at the company store. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" after all. You'll get your pie in the sky when you die.

I'm out of time for now and have to leave it here. I hope this sort of clarifies my position.
 
I have seen many of my old classmates defending spanking on FB, saying things like, "I was spanked and I'm OK!" Well, I was spanked and I'm NOT OK. This Wizard of Oz god, a powergod, is an authoritarian who looms over us like a sinister Santa Claus, watching if we're naughty or nice, and we better fall in line - or else! We don't get to ask questions about fairness or justice
Thank you for these poignant details and I feel much empathy for that boy of the past and am so glad you’ve been able to come to such cogent conclusions and move toward sanity. I’ve heard this many times also about spanking and I consider it physical abuse, just as I consider the whole ‘hell and damnation’ thing to be mental abuse and the hyper-materialism to be spiritual abuse. We are swimming in a toxic sea of abuse, so it’s no wonder to me that evil is in hog heaven!

I understand there’s loads of criticism about psychology, but I think that like everything else, once institutionalized it gets weaponized. As an example, there’s the normalization of perversion we see escalating in our culture. There are also bad apples in the profession, just like in every profession. Overall though, I see it as highly beneficial in the ‘know thyself’ sort of way, working with the archetypes, forcing deep introspection, and lately the big push to recognize malignant narcissism and family roles and toxic relationships.
 
I guess we are not on topic here, but just to clarify b/c I’ve said they are ‘one group’ and then contradicted that a bit. What I mean to say is they are one based on their position at the top of they pyramid, I do understand they are not one as in one big happy cooperative family unit.

If you’ve not read U.N. Agenda 21/2030/2050 and the plans of ‘the oligarchs’ for the Smart regions and cities that explains a lot about the plans they have for the corporation called the U.S. The works of Rothkopf, like Superclass, mentioned above, as well as the now well-known classics by C.Quigley demonstrate unequivocally the cooperation happening at that level of the global game and resource grab. When capitalism falls they will be well-positioned to never have to fight the peasants again.
These Agenda 21/30/50 agreements are NOTHING new. They are simply the UN's retelling of neoliberal policy throughout the globe, much like the policies of the G8 or World Bank. Agenda 21/30/50 and its NON-BINDING recommendations are NOT the drivers of these agendas. They are simply the victim of it. The UN agendas simply reinforce the BINDING forces already in place that is carried out by the U.S. foreign policy and military establishment (and others). Focusing on the UN in regards to what is coming is to MISS what is already taking place by the Transnational Capitalist Class which seeks to sack public budgets and contain the marginalized and poor most likely to rebel against such policies. They continue to do this, sometimes in the name of environmentalism and human rights as to appeal to, and trick, the left end of the political spectrum. We should instead focus on policy-making organizations like the World Economic Forum, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger Group, Group of 30, Atlantic Council. We should focus on transnational institutions such as the World Bank, G20, International Monetary Fund, etc as they attempt to strategically impose their strategies on states and institutions throughout the world. The above-mentioned groups, and not the UN, is who creates these instructions to the world.

And if ANYONE wants a list of these people -- the true Global Power Elite -- may I suggest the book GIANTS by Peter Phillips. It names the names and shows the boards and organizations they sit on and work for. It shows how these people invest in each other and create the policies we see in the world around us. It is privatized wealth that buys policies, government, law enforcement, military goals, privacy, personal freedoms, black ops projects, PR, propaganda outlets, and the ideologies that shape the world. Some would say they have bought our thoughts or at least our framework of how we view the world.

And yes, this comment may be part of a tangential discussion going on BUT is extremely related to the subject at hand. I hope people can see this.
 
Last edited:
And if ANYONE wants a list of these people -- the true Global Power Elite -- may I suggest the book GIANTS by Peter Phillips.
Great, thanks, will check it out for sure, right up my alley. The reason I bring up the U.N. is because it’s what people see, this is the ‘scapegoat’ perhaps, a ‘front group’. If I name any one of those above-listed groups, no one has clue who I’m talking about or where to find info on them. I get called a conspiracy theorist if I mention Bilderberg, not that this bother me anymore.

So, if you understand how tight are the relationships of those in elite circles and how much influence they have, what makes you so skeptical of the global pedophilia/trafficking issue and how this is being used in controlling power brokers and why it would be in their best interest to raise children, as in multi-generational abuse, in order to fulfill these crucial social ‘tasks’?
 
Interesting synchronicity I wanted to share with you all. I was just reading an article on the Harvey Weinstein case: https://nypost.com/2020/02/16/harvey-weinsteins-case-might-be-too-weak-to-convict-devine/

The article references an Elizabeth Loftus, whose name seemed familiar to me, but upon Googling her I think I was thinking of John Loftus, an ex-Christian minister whose book I’ve read.

Anyway, Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and expert witness on all things related to memory - and she has had run-ins with SRA stuff in the past:
HarassmentEdit

After criticizing the theory of recovered memory and testifying about the nature of memory and false allegations of child sexual abuse as part of the day care sex abuse hysteria, Loftus was subject to online harassment by conspiracy theorist Diana Napolis, who believed Loftus was engaged in satanic ritual abuse or assisted in covering up these crimes as part of a larger conspiracy.[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus (See: Harassment)

Just wanted to throw that out there. The Diana Napolis/Curio thing is new to me (as is a lot of this SRA stuff).
 
Anyway, Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and expert witness on all things related to memory - and she has had run-ins with SRA stuff in the past:
Haven’t heard of her, thanks, will check it out. Interesting synchronicity.
I often wonder why dreams are given so much more attention than memories. I had a very intense experience with memories this past spring, after a tornado, and I very much had the sense that these exist in the same territory somehow. Yet, we hear so much about Edgar Cayce (sorry if I spell that wrong, never really looked into him) in popular culture, but I can’t really think of anyone ‘popular’ who was into memory. I think of Proust, but that’s not really the same. We hear of remembering past lives, channeling I guess. Of course I’ve read about the psyche idea of ‘false memory syndrome’ but is there a researcher, say on the level of a Jung or Freud, who is famous for focusing on the role of memory in the same vein as they focused on dreams? I’d be interested to explore that.
 
Interesting synchronicity I wanted to share with you all. I was just reading an article on the Harvey Weinstein case: https://nypost.com/2020/02/16/harvey-weinsteins-case-might-be-too-weak-to-convict-devine/

The article references an Elizabeth Loftus, whose name seemed familiar to me, but upon Googling her I think I was thinking of John Loftus, an ex-Christian minister whose book I’ve read.

Anyway, Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and expert witness on all things related to memory - and she has had run-ins with SRA stuff in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus (See: Harassment)

Just wanted to throw that out there. The Diana Napolis/Curio thing is new to me (as is a lot of this SRA stuff).
I will read the NY Post article when I get a chance, but please say that Miss Napolis/Curio is NOT back in the public eye. She is absolutely nuts (in my opinion). Amateur tech-savvy sleuths eventually tracked her down because she was making NUMEROUS accusations of SRA that she could not back up with proof. To be fair, she may have been one of the very worst of the SRA accusers, but a lot of people took her seriously.
 
B

Baccarat

No, it is NOT one group. It is many different groups that sometimes work together and sometimes not. Since they have accumulated so much wealth and power they often agree because it is in their best interest to do so. But I promise you that there is not one-world government/military like so many think in the conspiracy realm (today we see the John Bircher trope that one-world gov't via the UN is the attempt, which is just silly, sloppy, emotional thinking). Oligarchs tend to hate one another but support policy that makes sure they keep their power (like those massive tax cuts for super-rich enacted by Trump admin) .
This makes the most sense, these families or whatever you want to call them are playing this world like is a big grand chess board
 
I will read the NY Post article when I get a chance, but please say that Miss Napolis/Curio is NOT back in the public eye. She is absolutely nuts (in my opinion). Amateur tech-savvy sleuths eventually tracked her down because she was making NUMEROUS accusations of SRA that she could not back up with proof. To be fair, she may have been one of the very worst of the SRA accusers, but a lot of people took her seriously.
No, Napolis isn’t back in the public eye. It’s Loftus, who Napolis harassed, who is in the public eye. However I learned of Napolis by looking into Loftus’ background when I was trying to figure out why her name was familiar to me. Weird coincidence. Another weird coincidence I had regarding this SRA stuff was listening to this episode of Skeptiko in my car, walking into a store, and hearing INXS “Devil Inside” playing. How bizarre, right?
 
sadly though... articles like this pop up -

Q: The Silent War Continues

One quote within the article -
I’d dismissed Q, but now with all the public interest and arrests, maybe it’s pretty effective.
Saw this, which sounds like good news on the surface I guess, but makes me irritated that all they have to do is file chapter 11 to get everyone off their back, and then it will be back to business as usual.

“The Boy Scouts are just the latest major American institution to face a heavy price over sexual abuse. Roman Catholic dioceses across the country and schools such as Penn State and Michigan State have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years.”

https://time.com/5785605/boy-scouts-bankruptcy/
 

Alex

Administrator
IMO, "the good" and "the evil" reside within us and are determined by us subjectively. The moment someone suggests there's an objective good or objective evil, they are actually making an argument for an implementation of an authoritarian structure to make final calls about what each are and to enforce violations of such, all too often in the name of some "God" thingie which always results in casualties - something I subjectively conclude as evil.
yeah, but you could also argue that there is no avoiding this judgment... in this world... and maybe not in the extended realms either.
 
thanks to both of you... yes I was unconvinced going in but now ( and at this point I'm a few interviews ahead of the feed) I find the reality of SRA undeniable... and more importantly unprocessed... if you know what I mean. so, on one hand, we have people like former guest Dr. Hugh Urban and other academics I've spoken with who are required to see this is nothing more than anomalous psychology... and that's not to pick on Hugh, because I think he's a really small guy who's made some very good contributions, and I even think he knows that this Paradigm he's forced to work in is idiotic... but he has to hold the line or he'll lose his job. but the net net is the same... the official position ( and this works its way into the mainstream media as well but maybe for different reasons) is it none of this stuff is real.

And I guess that's where I was going with the "less wrong" stuff regarding Russ Dizdar. I mean, it's kind of a shame we have to turn to an apocalyptic evangelist preacher for a reality check :)
I have to acknowledge that this conversation was way more sensible than I feared. I do not dispute the reality of SRA. I am simply profoundly suspicious of many of the claims I have come across. It's not that I don't want to believe. I just don't take claims on face value. I don't believe because somebody has spun a story, but has presented no supporting evidence at all. It may be true. But then again.

The fog of denial at an official level is just another mask of materialism seeking to channel our attention into an illusion. As usual we are struggle between extremes of untruth - denial and delusional fantasy. its a sobering struggle to navigate that strait.
 
Top