what kind of group would I myself want to join?

9:20 PM 3/4/11

Yes, just as I thought, watching '10,000 BC' again without a stomach virus is much more enjoyable.

It's getting warmer outside. I should be able to function better now and feel physically healthy enough to do stuff, like clean the house, and open the windows, very soon.

Common themes and similar feelings:

-Amish, intentional communities, ecovillages, groups that live without things that the mainstream takes for granted. (I'm slightly opposed to the idea of ecovillages after reading Julian Simon and valuing the idea of having a dozen children, while most environmentalists are anti-children. I want to advocate our group having lots of children.)

-RDL talking about living a somewhat ascetic life, not having a car, not having an internet connection at home, his wife writing letters by hand and mailing them through snail mail (I've talked about handwritten notes many times because of the hackers intercepting my emails).

-The link I just posted in the previous post about the great escape from forum addiction or internet addiction.

-The books I read in, I guess, college? In American Literature class. The Transcendentalists. I got this feeling of manic excitement and energy, a desire to live life. Like on Dead Poets' Society, the 'barbaric yawp,' or whatever, which came from one of those authors and I can't recall which one. I remember I enjoyed Thoreau and Walt Whitman and some of the others, and I felt this desire to break free and live differently than I was living, this feeling that there was more to life than this.

-The 'right now' moment, which I haven't had enough of, and need more of. Doing something or changing something right now.

I don't want to completely reject the internet - not at all. I have found very useful things on the net that cannot be found anywhere else. There is great music published for free on the internet, not for sale anywhere, not on CD, not in the stores, and the net is the only place to find this music. That's just one example. There are also beliefs and ideas and knowledge that I can't find in the mainstream world around me, and things that might possibly be found in books but it would be very hard. If I had tried to find out about 'hearing voices' from the mainstream world around me, then I would be stuck in mental hospitals taking drugs for the rest of my life, because that is the ONLY interpretation and solution the mainstream world offers. For that particular problem, there is *NOTHING* available in the mainstream world around me. Nothing. The only place to find out about electronic harassment is on the internet.

So I am not rejecting the net. I want to restrict its use. I don't want a government law forbidding people to use the net. (Every time 'we' talk about a religious belief, an agreement in a group of people, to do something or not do something, 'they' start pushing the idea that 'this ought to be a law applied universally to everyone.' It is NOT universal to everyone!) I want people, like myself, to voluntarily choose to restrict access somehow, by making it harder to reach the net, so that when you do go use it, you use it briefly, with a purpose. It means you publish less junk, and more high quality material. It means you try to accomplish a specific, limited goal. It means you know what that goal is before you go do it.

There could be a good side to using my new netbook at wi-fi places: it means that I would be taking more photos with my real camera instead of my phone, because that camera connects to the netbook and it's easy to upload photos that way. I have a technical problem where I can't hook my camera to the PC at home and it's a hassle to upload photos, so if I use the netbook more, I will get back to taking real pictures instead of crappy cell phone pictures. I don't like paying for those cell phones - it's $30 a month and I don't use them enough. I was using Samsung's phones on a 'Straight Talk' connection, which means you buy a card for $30 or $45, once a month, and I barely used them.

***
What is the order? It's something that resulted from talking with 'them,' and being urged to do something that I partly agree with, but no, it was not something that I initiated on my own.

It is a group that I myself must want to join. I fight battles with 'them' over the content of the rules, over what the rules are. I am an SLI, and the order must be something an SLI would like to join. 'Do what you're best at' must be the approach. I don't want to create a religion like Christianity, which is better for other types, not for me. This is something where, if it existed today, I would happily walk into it and join, because it gives me what I need.

I was thinking about how the system handles people leaving. 'Turnover ratio' is something inevitable with all groups. People come in, people stay forever, people leave. This is constant and inevitable in all groups. There's no need to be shocked and surprised about the fact that people want to leave.

So my group's system is designed to give you some kind of 'halfway house,' a support system for leaving. It is built into the system. We happily encourage you to leave. If you aren't happy here, then you need to go be happy someplace else, if we can't give you what you need. We encourage you to build your own group, which will hopefully remain friendly with our group, so that we can exchange goods and services and knowledge and people and so on. There is a channel to help you leave.

I read about 'escape from the Amish,' somewhere online - a woman who left the Amish and wrote a book about how hard it was to leave. They never learn how to drive a car. So when you leave the Amish you have to learn that kind of thing, all the things you were never taught to do. It's a transition. I want my people to know that they can safely leave and be supported while leaving and after leaving, so that they are not afraid to leave the group. I love the Amish but I am also interested in the idea of helping people to leave a group if they want to.

There are things that I know already, know for sure, that I want a group to do. I want a group of people who eats the diet I want to eat. I want it to be very easy to go out and get help to eat this diet. It's as simple and easy as going through the drive-thru at McDonald's. You go out to the group and go eat at a dining hall or something. The people cooperate to make sure that everyone in the group is eating the diet. This is the strongest way to guarantee that large numbers of people are eating healthy foods every day forever.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a dining hall. That's only one particular idea. There are other ways to support the members as they eat their diets. The group must make it so easy to eat this diet that it's effortless and we don't have people accidentally getting back into the habit of a bad diet. I don't want to see single people living alone and cooking prepackaged microwave TV dinners instead of eating real food. (Note, this only applies to people in the group. It is NOT a 'force everybody in the world to eat the diet whether they want to or not' attempt.)

I'd like some support to find chemical-free places to live. The group puts a high priority on protecting members against chemicals like pesticides, because one of our main goals is to produce children who do not have the deformities. We need to find houses and apartments and land areas where nobody will use pesticides near us, and any other chemicals that we want to avoid. I need an apartment where the landlord doesn't do pest control, but it's probably required by law, so we need a way around that. This is something that members need help and support to accomplish. It's hard to find chemical-safe areas on your own, while it's extremely important for you to do so. We don't just give our members rules that they can't follow. We give them support to follow the rules. That is the purpose of the group, to make everything easier.

Also, from time to time 'they' push the idea of 'making long hair more acceptable.' I guess they are just testing how I react to that idea? I'm not sure why they keep pushing that and testing that idea. Whenever they do, there is always an immediate 'no' sensation during and after that idea. I don't know if the 'no' comes from within myself, or whether they are pushing a button to artificially induce the 'no' reaction. But for whatever reason, I get a 'no' on the idea of 'making long hair more acceptable.'

I don't care what is acceptable to the mainstream society, as long as they do not physically attack us and force us to change the way we look, at which point, I care. They can accept or not accept whatever they want. They don't have to like our hair. The only people who matter are the people in the group. The people in the group stay in the group because they like the way we look to each other. They are free to leave. They are also free to join the group. If people like our looks, they can join. If they don't like our looks, they can stay out. That is how I feel. I would want to attract people who like that hairstyle, but anyone who doesn't like it probably never will, and I'm not spending my energy trying to convince them, or force them, to accept it.

There is one respect in which I would be 'making long hair more acceptable to the public.' One purpose of the group is to help make sure members are able to support themselves materially, financially, and that might mean that they need to get jobs while also growing long hair and beards. When there is a conflict with an employer, we can do a couple of things. We could make a list of employers who tolerate the hairstyle, and then go work at those places. We could also have a discussion with the people who are in conflict with the hairstyle, and tell them that we are a religion and that the hairstyle is very important to us, and it's not just something that your employee is doing merely to annoy you. We could also start our own businesses and hire our own group members, or find ways to support ourselves without being employed at official 'jobs,' and other things. So one of the purposes of the group is to support you when you have a conflict with your employer about your hair.

(I myself enjoy the idea of starting my own business and then making a rule requiring all employees to stop cutting hair and beards and eyebrows. If other employers can require their employees to look neat and tidy and shave every day and all that, then why couldn't I make a rule saying the opposite? If I am paying you to work for me, you will groom the way that I tell you to groom. And I can just imagine the people getting all upset about this and not caring about the double standard! I can just imagine the response - OH MY GODDDDDD!!! THIS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!! And so someone will go out and write a law saying that it's okay to require your employees to shave every day, but it's illegal to require your employees to STOP cutting and shaving. I can just imagine this! This is typical of their type of response to these things.)

What else must the group do, if it were a group that I would happily walk into today if it already existed?

Support for childrearing. They must share breastfeeding if necessary, with wet nurses, because breastfeeding is required to protect the health of the body. It is one of the most important rules. We also need support for homeschooling, and support for not vaccinating. Quitting vaccines, and quitting school, might possibly go together, because vaccines are required for school in some places. This is another area where it helps to have a group backing you up whenever you need to tell people, 'Vaccines are against my religion.' You don't just say that all by yourself. You say it with a whole bunch of other people at the same time. I don't mean simultaneously, I mean, in case there is a conflict over this, you have lots of people who will help protect you and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

Social nudity. It turns out that actually people don't mind nudism very much - it's not very controversial. I imagine we can find enough people to do this.

It isn't an anti-sexual religion. We also allow polyamory. We do not require monogamy. We don't require polyamory either. It is something that will be accepted. People automatically think that if it's a religion, it's anti-sexual, but that is not this kind of religion.

We accept members who are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, however we are also here for the purpose of having children, so we can find ways for homosexual people to have children. They join us because they want to. So we support family arrangements that help homosexual people have children.

Anti-circumcision, and anti-removal of other body parts, such as teeth.

I see this as a drug-free group. Some religions like to use drugs to have visions and hallucinations, but I don't like that. I am interested in physical health. If a group already existed, and they were drug-free, I would feel much more comfortable with them. I wouldn't want to walk into a group of people who used drugs or alcohol. The idea is, which group would I walk into and join if it already existed.

The group must anticipate government attacks. I'm not talking about 'stockpiling weapons.' I'm talking more about something like, inviting the government to visit us and inspect our community so that they can see that we aren't doing anything evil here, and that our people are happy and healthy. They won't be able to see that, if we are breaking some cherished rule of theirs, and it won't matter how happy and healthy we are - the rule will matter more than anything - their rule will matter more than sanity and reality.

I am thinking about the Yearning For Zion genocide where they took all the children away on buses. Someday, that kind of thing might happen to our group, so I want to talk about how to prepare for it, how to prevent it, how to negotiate with the government so that they don't do that. If we get into a conflict with the media and the government the way the YFZ ranch did, then they outnumber us by the millions, and they will be able to do whatever they want to do to us, raid the community and take all our children, or whatever horrible thing they decide to do.

Most of those things I've said so far will be relatively popular enough, but the one rule that hardly anyone will 'get' is the acceptance of the reality of electronic mind control. This is the one rule that only a teeny, tiny minority of people already agree with. If I told a lie and said 'we believe in ghosts,' then plenty of people would be happy to join, but these are not ghosts, they are humans pushing buttons on electronic weapons. We insist that's what they are. I'm not going to call them ghosts or demons or anything paranormal or supernatural. So that will be the least popular rule, to acknowledge the reality of mind control.

However, acknowledging mind control is central to the group, because it is something badly needed that can't be found anywhere else in the mainstream world. You can't find anyone anywhere who can help you with mind control and electronic harassment. No one supports you. You can get thrown into mental hospitals and force-drugged for complaining too much about it. You can't find shielded areas anywhere when you're in a crisis and being severely attacked. You can't find devices to detect and track down where the attacks are coming from. You can't find anything at all, anywhere, from anyone.

But yet, this phenomenon exists, these machines have been created, and they will not forget how to build them. Now that they exist, they will exist forever into the future. The future is a very long time. The religion sees this, even though it's too early for the rest of the world to see it. The religion wants us to know ourselves, to be ourselves, to develop ourselves, to be happy and healthy and comfortable, but we can't be ourselves or make our own choices when we are being controlled and attacked, when we can't sleep a single hour without being forced awake every single night for decades at a time, when we can't dream our own dreams, feel our own feelings, think our own thoughts, sense our own sensations, or speak our own words.

It is central to the group that we see this long future where mind control continues to exist, and our goal is to continue to live in that world somehow, no matter how hard it is, no matter how 'dystopian' that future might seem, no matter how unthinkable and horrible and unimaginable it is to look at the long long future and see a world where electronic mind control gets worse, not better. We choose life, no matter how scary and unbearable and horrible that is to imagine. So we are here to cope with that. Other religions want you to make 'moral choices,' but when you aren't the one making your own choices, when you are being controlled, you are no longer responsible for your own moral choices. It doesn't do any good to just tell them over and over again to make moral choices. They can't. They physically can't. They are puppets, not in control of themselves. So this is a non-Christian religion where we acknowledge that, as unpleasant as this is to imagine, you aren't totally responsible for your own actions.

It's funny that I see this as a breakthrough, and not a backsliding. I read books by Nathaniel Branden where he said that the popular mainstream culture was disintegrating and that 'lack of personal responsibility' was a big problem. Lots of people complain about the lack of personal responsibility, people blaming others instead of taking action themselves, people starting lawsuits to win millions of dollars, and that kind of thing. So it seems like I would want to advocate personal responsibility, instead of saying, once again, like everyone else, that, unfortunately, we're not entirely responsible for our own actions. You'd think I'd want to say the exact opposite of that: be more responsible, make better choices, take responsibility. I read all those Nathaniel Branden books, and, before I discovered that I was being attacked, I believed in all of it, and strongly desired to take more responsibility for my actions and goals.

Every time in recent years that I have tried to use any kind of self-help book at all, I have been severely attacked by voices trying to control me every second of every day. For instance, if I am reading a Nathaniel Branden book, and I'm trying to fill out his 'sentence stem' exercises, where they give you an incomplete sentence and you are supposed to fill out the second half of the sentence as fast as you can, from your so-called 'subconscious,' what happens is I get attacked constantly every time I try to do this, and they force words into my head instead of letting me, and my subconscious, speak for myself.

That's only one example. Other things that happen are: they attack me during my daily activities if I violate or fail at some rule or goal that I said I would accomplish, like if I say that I'm going to focus on communicating better, or something, then they will nag me about that 24 hours a day, every second of every conversation I have, so that I feel this painful pressure constantly instead of feeling the effects of the self-improvement book naturally integrating into my mind. I get into direct conflicts with them about exactly how to implement the rules and behaviors that I am trying to learn.

I recognized something in the person who wrote 'the great escape' in the forum that I quoted a blog or two ago. She said that she was now automatically typing everyone she looked at, every hour of every day, instead of seeing them as people. This is probably not because of socionics. It is probably because of electronic harassment. I have experienced it too. It is EXTREMELY damaging to clarity of thought. They have these morons putting wrong ideas into my head constantly, as they wrongly and inaccurately type people while I'm looking at them, to mislead me away from clear understanding.

I actually hear voices forcing me to whisper subvocal speech, in my throat and mouth and sinuses - I can't describe exactly where the subvocal voices are located because I don't know enough about how they work, and it's hard to describe, and every time I try to describe this, the murderers attack me severely later on, trying to 'demonstrate that they can do this thing,' so they do some extreme, brutal, disruptive, damaging kind of attack to show that 'I can force your voice box to make a sound' and that kind of thing, if I've written a blog about how subvocal speech forces my voice box to make whispers, simply because I have a hard time accurately describing exactly what it is that they are doing.

I don't know for sure if it comes from the voice box, the mouth, the throat, the sinuses, or where. But even so, that is my attempt to describe it. They force some part of my physical body, some part of my speech mechanisms, to whisper things, which is a substitute for real thinking and real understanding. And they do this to me constantly when I look at people, or at least, I have gone through phases when this type of attack was particularly bad or worse than usual (but lately it hasn't been too bad). So whatever she was experiencing, I'm guessing it's the same as what I was experiencing: forced thoughts, designed to lead you away from clear understanding, to fill you with stupid messy ideas so that you can't see anything more deeply and can't make any original observations.

The thoughts that they give you are very stupid, very shallow, and very wrong, and I get into terrible fights with them when I catch them doing this to me. Imagine the worst of the worst quality forum posts, where people argue about what type someone is - imagine the worst posts you've ever seen, the muddiest thinking, the shallowest and most impulsive observations, and then imagine being forced to hear this crap all day long instead of observing something yourself, and being forcibly silenced from using your own brain. That is what I experience. You get forced to hear stupid people constantly telling you things that are blatantly wrong, and you can't fight back against them. All original observations are totally destroyed.

If I tried to describe this experience in terms of socionics functions, it reminds me of a conflict between a J type and a P type, a rational/irrational conflict. The P wants to continue observing something more deeply, but the J type wants to tell you what it is, right now, even if it's wrong, just to tell you SOMETHING instead of continuing to observe. Their way of doing things, when I experience this, is: they make a statement which is like a statement a J type would make, and then they force you to hear it and react to it, so that they can find out whether it is true or false by watching your body's reaction to the statement. I get bombarded with 'true or false' attacks constantly, all day long, instead of being allowed to observe without judging. They want to know right now what the answer is, based on whatever limited information I have right now, and they don't care whether it's deep or shallow, right or wrong, they just want to get some kind of immediate yes or no answer. That is the conflict that I experience when they control me.

So instead of letting me look at something, see it, and absorb my impressions of it, they will allow me to look at something for a second or two, and then I get zapped with an attack which makes some kind of true/false statement - let's give a hypothetical example, something like 'That person is an ENFp,' and my body will respond with 'yes' or 'no' by becoming physically tense somewhere. I wasn't ready to decide whether that person was an ENFp or not, but they think it's okay not to be ready, because my 'intuition' supposedly should know this already, and it should already have all the right answers - they trust it too much, and they don't trust observation enough. They want to know my first impression hunch of what someone is.

So I will get flooded with stupid, moronic, wrong dialogue for a couple of minutes while they give me a bunch of different statements and get to my opinion by the process of elimination - 'that person is an ENFp - no - ESFp - no - ESTJ - no,' and so on, for many minutes, over and over again, and then they'll start over from the beginning and do the whole damn stupid thing again, until the 'official answer' gets stronger and stronger with repetition. That is not the best way at all to decide what type someone is. Just trusting that some hunch, deep inside my mind, already knows the answer and can give a true/false response, is NOT a reliable way to get to 'the truth!' Meanwhile all the original observations and deeper understandings are destroyed while using the function that way.

They also do that with rehearsed speech. They force me to rehearse ahead of time something I might say to someone. They want to force me to go talk to this person and express something - for instance, when Martin was working at Weis, they would bombard me for hours, while I was working, with a rehearsed speech of me walking up to the front desk, in front of everyone, and shouting at him 'WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING MY EMAILS?' (the emails that they were forcing me to send to him while I was on drugs). This is something *I WOULD NEVER DO.*

So they constantly try to get a 'yes or no' response to things that they want to force me to say, and they bombard me with a dozen different possible ideas for what to say, and get a 'no' on all of them, and then start over at the beginning and go through the whole thing again, supposedly trying to look for something that I could possibly agree with, but all of it is totally as wrong as wrong can be. It's like they are trying to force me to use my weakest function, my most unnatural way of behaving.

They tried rehearsing this fantasy ('WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING MY EMAILS?'), over and over and over again, for hours, as though they believed that I would get used to it if only I practiced it for hours, but no, I never did, and I always resisted and refused to do this unnatural thing. I was physically unable to think about anything else. If I tried to direct my mind to some other thought process, something I actually wanted to think about, they would zap me and start up the unnatural rehearsed conversations again. This is a socionics function conflict. I don't know which particular functions are in conflict, but they were forcing me to behave in a way that was totally unnatural for my personality type.

It is not always like that for me. It has been more peaceful lately than it was at times in the past. When I am using St. John's Wort I get into more direct, severe conflicts with them. I am not using it now, except for occasional drug residue exposure incidents, at a low level microdosage.

When you hear a song playing in your head all day long, that's a really common experience, isn't it? Everyone complains about that. I've got this annoying song running through my head. How many people have ever said that to you? Tons and tons of them. It is totally common and normal to have a song running through your head, and often, it's a song you don't like, a song that annoys you. Guess what? That's fake. It's the result of an attack. Your brain is not freely playing that song to you of its own accord. Something is causing it to happen, and it comes from outside yourself. I don't know the details of how this attack is done. It is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It affects HUGE numbers of people. Everyone has experienced this. I don't know why they do it. It prevents deep thought and original observations and it reduces the level of your mental energy and focus. It keeps you in kind of a trance.

I wandered off topic while complaining...

Anyway, that particular requirement, of acknowledging the reality of mind control and the need for a group of people who will help you cope with it and survive, in the long future where the phenomenon will only get worse - that will be one of the hardest requirements to satisfy, one of the least popular rules and beliefs. I can imagine people getting together to do a lot of the rest of the things, but this one is a difficult one.

I finished 'watching' 10,000 BC while also writing this blog, so I was halfway paying attention to two things at once, and not completely to either of them. But I was right, the movie was more tolerable the second time around, although I don't think I will want to watch it much more than that.

connection between body and soul

2:48 PM 2/27/11

'They' have been asking me about my religion. I did not have an official religion at first, but instead it resulted from being questioned by 'them' about what kind of religion I would want, what kind of intentional community I would want to create. The intentional community is meant to last a very, very long time, like hundreds, or thousands, of years, and so it must be designed as a stable belief system with enough abstraction that it can respond to future changes. It must have some principles that are abstract enough that they will be universally applicable even in different situations.

One example of something they were asking me about recently is, How important is it to follow the 'quitting Christmas' requirement of this religion? Is that a what's-the-word, a deal breaker? (I forgot the word. It means: something you absolutely won't be flexible about. I was reading Diana Leafe Christian again recently. Non-negotiable.)

Well, they were asking why I required 'quitting Christmas' in my religion. And we looked forward into the future, when we might need to quit some other new holiday that somebody might create in the future, because things do change over time. We would need a more abstract, general rule to follow, not just something as specific as 'quit Christmas.' I didn't want to make a rule that would become too huge and restrictive and out of control, you know, quitting all holidays, being opposed to everything that could ever be fun, forbidding people to get together and have some kind of recurring ritual on a particular date every year - I am not opposed to all holidays and all rituals as such. Christmas is the one that offends me, and this is because I read a particular book about it (The Trouble With Christmas) and because I myself had negative feelings about it for a long time.

The idea was that in the future, what if Halloween got out of control? (This is just an example.) What if Halloween became like Christmas? You would be expected to buy expensive treats and presents not just for your own family, but for all the kids on the entire block, who would come knocking on your door. And if you failed to do this, you would be 'tricked' in some way, and socially stigmatized as a failure (the same way you are stigmatized as a failure if you can't afford to buy tons of expensive Christmas presents). Through the entire month of October, you would be forced to hear Halloween music playing on the overhead Muzak at every store where you went shopping and on every radio station.

So what general rules or principles lead to quitting Christmas? And how could that rule be defined so that we would, for instance, quit Halloween in the future too, but only if Halloween became a huge and obnoxious all-encompassing monster like Christmas? And how could we do this without being extreme in a bad way and forbidding everyone everywhere to ever have fun or enjoy any holidays at all together?

One of the ideas behind quitting Christmas was that we want to distinguish ourselves as a non-Christian religion. That's not the only idea behind it, it's just one of several ideas.

So, the other thing they were asking me about is: How important is it to include the rule that all members of the order must acknowledge the existence of electronic mind control? This is similar to joining a church: it's hard to join a church if you don't believe, at least slightly, that your soul is being saved by going to church, and that otherwise, something terrible will happen to you - you will go to hell. You can enjoy the community, the company of the people at church, but if you don't at least slightly agree about this particular 'irrational belief,' this belief that your soul lives on after your death and that it must be saved from going to hell, then you won't really feel the *need* to go to church, even if you somewhat enjoy being with the people.

So I have a similar belief. It is like an irrational belief. It is something specific, something strange, something esoteric and technical. It is something that not everybody believes. Not everyone agrees about it. Not everyone has observed or experienced this. To become an official member of the order you are required to accept the belief that electronic mind control and mind reading is real. That is very similar to joining a church and stating that Jesus Christ is your savior, that he died for your sins, and because of him, you can go to heaven if only you accept Christ. It is an irrational belief, and some people simply cannot say it. I can't say that (about Jesus) while also telling the truth. It is very uncomfortable. I am strongly an atheist, and I can't say that Jesus Christ died for my sins and I'm going to heaven because of him. There will be people who, like me about Jesus, 'can't say it.' People who can't say that electronic mind control is real. For whatever reason, they absolutely can't imagine, even after having someone explain it to them, that it could ever, possibly, be real or important, in any universe, that it could ever matter to them, matter for the future, that it could ever be anything but a crazy person's delusional belief. This belief is very much analogous to stating that Jesus Christ has saved your soul from going to hell. 'Mind control' is an 'irrational belief' that I arrived at through sensory observation, using my senses, having physical experiences of attack, reading articles about electronic weapons. It is an irrational belief. So if I ask other people to believe that along with me, that is a non-negotiable requirement of joining the order.

(I feel a clench of anxiety in my stomach when I say 'the order.' The Order does not yet exist. It is only an idea, only a plan. It is something that I have created reluctantly and unwillingly as a result of being attacked and as a result of having discussions with 'them.' However, if this religious order already existed on earth, and if they opened their doors and invited me to join them, I would strongly consider it. I just haven't ever seen anyone who already had all of the particular rules and beliefs that I like, so I have to create the intentional community myself. There might be similar communities out there, and if there are, then I might befriend them, but I haven't found them. The Order does not exist. It is an imaginary intentional community that I am making because I cannot find an existing community that meets my needs.)

About electronic mind control, where does this concept go in the future? What is the general rule behind it, the assumption, the principle, the belief?

This is based on a belief that your soul, your mind, is strongly connected to your body. Your soul is not 'someplace else.' It is not floating in some other universe where souls exist away from the body. (This all applies to the idea of 'mind' as well.) It is not an abstraction. It is part of your physical body and it has a finite life. Your soul dies with your body after a few decades (around a century if you are lucky).

An abstraction lives on after your death, but it isn't YOU. In the abstract, you can see other people in the world who are just like you, except they are born in different places under different names, after your death. It's like you were reincarnated, except you don't remember anything about the specific person who died. Those are people who have the same personality type you had. Their 'style' is the same. They 'feel like you.' If one of your friends or family met that person, they would recognize that person as being very similar to you, in the same spirit, as though you had been brought back to life. In that abstract way, your spirit lives on after your death.

You also live on after your death through the impact that you have on the world. Whatever consequences, whatever effects, resulted from your life, will forever affect the future of the world.

But aside from those things, we assume you die at the end of your life, and everything dies, all of you, including your soul. This is an atheist belief.

Because of this, we say it matters greatly what happens to you in your life. It is a tragic shame if someone suffers misery their entire life and never experiences fulfillment. So our goal is to do the best we can to make future lives better (in addition to our present lives), so that fewer people will have miserable and unfulfilling lives. We must take specific actions to bring this about. This is an atheist morality, a belief that it's good to do something.

Electronic mind control is part of the belief that our soul is inside our physical body. If our mind and soul are something that results from our physical body, then it seems believable that physical, mechanical things could influence our mind and soul, in good ways and bad ways. Our body's physical health directly affects our spiritual health, because if you are sick and in pain all the time, you can't be a very pleasant person, your mind doesn't function well, you can't achieve goals, and so on. Most people can accept the idea that our physical health influences our spiritual health if you explain it like that. If you explain that physical sickness affects the body so badly that it ruins your functioning, ruins your social life, ruins your relationships, makes you less able to think clearly and achieve goals, most people will agree with you at least somewhat.

Make the leap to electronic mind control. There are devices that are able to affect the physical body with radiation, radio waves, sound waves, electromagnetic fields. You don't have to believe in, or know about, which specific devices do what, and you don't have to know about or believe that these devices already exist and that unknown people are already using them on innocent victims (which is what I experience). You don't have to accept those things. Just the first one, that some devices exist which are able to affect the physical body by using radio frequencies, and so on. If you accept that this is true, then it can lead you to see that if that happens, then it can affect your behavior, your mood, your thoughts and feelings, your social life, your functioning, your job, your love relationships, and so on. Anything that affects the physical body affects the mind and spirit and social life and everything. If you can accept that devices exist which can do such things, and that maybe, possibly, some people might USE them to attack other people, then you see that it's important that they be included in a religion where part of your goal is to know your true self, to be yourself, and to improve the quality of your life and your relationships.

This wouldn't be important - it wouldn't be more important than any other specific health problem or crime, like, for instance, kidnapping. Kidnapping is a crime, and it matters, and it ruins lives, and if I wanted to, I could focus on nothing but the evils of kidnapping, and what we must do to rid the world of kidnapping and end the practice of kidnapping. Because I agree, kidnapping people of any age is an evil, life-ruining thing to do. And I could complain that governments all around the world, including the USA, are doing it to people. Putting people in jail is a form of kidnapping. We can argue about which particular 'crimes' they are accused of, for instance, 'victimless crimes.' I could focus on that and complain about that particular crime. Electronic mind control - is it somehow 'more important' than kidnapping? They are both crimes. Why am I focused strongly on that and not on other crimes?

It is important, because it's happening to ME, and I am the person creating this community. It is important because I believe it's being done to large numbers of people, secretly - unlike kidnapping, which is highly visible and noticeable when it happens. When kidnapping happens, everyone agrees that it's a crime and something bad is going on. (I realize that sometimes the police are slow to respond, etc, or someone might blame the victims or blame the family or whatever, but in general, people believe that it's real.) When electronic mind control happens, people don't notice it and they don't know that anything is wrong, unless the attackers make themselves obvious and attack very severely, and they only do that to some people, not everyone.

I believe that this behavior will continue into the distant future, and that it is now permanently a part of our society and it always will be, unless all of the paperwork and all of the computers are burned and destroyed forever and all of the scientists are killed who have any memory of how to make these devices, and any knowledge of all the sciences leading up to them. Since that isn't going to happen, and since I don't *WANT* that to happen, then, I must accept that electronic mind control will exist forever into the future. It has been created and it will not go away. So we need an ethical system that acknowledges that it is real and we need a way to respond to it.

I want my community of people to see this along with me. That is the only way we can help each other, if large numbers of people cooperate on building countermeasures to protect us against the attacks, and doing research to understand and reverse engineer how the attacks are done, while not intending to USE the attacks against anybody. There will be rules about how we are allowed to defend ourselves against this, just as there are rules about how you may defend yourself when someone initiates any other kind of attack against you. It is part of a religion, part of an intentional community, that we all agree about a particular belief in something, belief that it exists, that it's real and important, that it's OUR PROBLEM (instead of obscure and esoteric and unimportant and 'somebody else's problem'). It is part of the religion or community that we agree about what is appropriate, moral, ethical behavior when we need to respond to and defend ourselves against these attacks. I do not want to see a war going on with groups of people shooting each other forever and ever.

This is all part of the set of beliefs that says our soul is part of the body, that our life is short and finite and temporary, and that it matters very much what happens to your body during this lifetime. I also want to de-emphasize 'dying for a cause' behavior. I need to think more about this question, because I can imagine that there would be situations where people would want to die for a cause. But I don't want to encourage that at all in my religion. I want this to be a life protecting religion where everyone feels valued. 'You're worth more to me alive.' I want this to be a pacifist religion, but not the type of pacifism where you can never defend yourself at all against anything. This needs to be clarified, and it hasn't been yet. I only know that it's very important to accept the belief in the reality of electronic mind control, and that is a non-negotiable idea in the religion.

This is something that has resulted from having discussions with 'them.' I myself wasn't planning to try to create a religion. I was planning to leave the country and go to a hopefully better part of the world.

Obama Special Olympics Bowling - Puppet Incident

I just saw a news article mentioning Obama, who accidentally blurted out a joke about his not-so-good bowling ability. He compared his bowling to the Special Olympics. Immediately afterwards, he made a public apology.

This is a typical 'puppet' incident of being forced/urged to blurt out something cruel, insulting, and thoughtless, especially something that makes fun of somebody. Handicapped people, people in wheelchairs, and mentally disabled people are one of the typical targets or 'sources of humor' in these incidents.

The incident discredits Obama, ruins his good reputation, makes him look like a jerk, makes him look like a shallow person, when in fact, he is a strong person with high self-esteem who is considerate and empathic to others and himself.

In this situation, Obama is the 'highest-ranking' person in the country. It seems like a great opportunity to make him look bad, to make fun of him, to make him seem 'down on himself,' and also to make him look like a shallow jerk. They usually aim to humiliate and discredit high-ranking, high self-esteem people, or talented people, or intelligent people.

These blurt-out incidents happen during casual conversations. Somebody gave him the idea that it was funny that he wasn't good at bowling. In reality, Obama himself would be self-accepting: you accept your own faults and weaknesses, and it's no big deal.

Another signal that it's a puppet incident is that he was highly conscious of people's uncomfortable reactions to the 'joke.' He immediately apologized afterwards. The article said that his 'joke' hadn't even been aired on TV yet whenever he apologized.

That is my theory. I will continue watching Obama and interpreting his behavior. I feel convinced that he is not the type of person who would naturally make a comment like that of his own free will.