I have examined the codependence movement as a sociologist. It is a very American movement. It has turned the concepts of freedom and libertarianism into issues of psychological health and well-being.

The term codependence originated when the wife of Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, developed the concept of a co-alcoholic, which eventually gave rise to Alanon and ACOA (Adult Children of Alcoholics). The idea was that the spouse of the alcoholic, usually assumed to be a woman at the time, enabled the alcoholic by constantly forgiving bad behavior. It later expanded to include people in any dysfunctional relationship, as seen in the group CoDA (Codependents Anonymous). However, most authors treat codependence as social criticism, as when John Bradford has said that the vast majority of Americans are codependent.

Hinduism (the Vedas) and Buddhism (the Sutras) are both text-based religions. The popular image of Hinduism as a peaceful, tolerant religious category basically goes back only to the 19th century with Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. The religious sects of India have had long histories of bitter sectarian battles.

There are theistic groups in Judaism (such as the ultra-orthodox), Christianity (such as the Christian identity movement and the KKK), and Islam (like al-Qa'ida) which are not viewed too positively by many other Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The same is true with Buddhists. In other words, I question the claim that nothing is worse than the monotheistic religions. IMO, that is a sweeping generalization which has no empirical support.

The Internet magnifies everything. A single person with a huge website can appear like a large company. Aspies and other autistics who previously would have been nearly totally isolated, or consigned to pen pal clubs, have now formed entire subculures. It has been similar for conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones. If he had started his career a generation ago, almost no one would have heard of him.

If you believe that biblical monotheists represent the ultimate in rigidity, you might want to read about the Nichiren Shoshu movement in Nichiren Buddhism. They are, like most Buddhists, nontheists. However, they are, in Japan, an almost militant religious sect. They even have their own political party.

Conspiracies, especially the illuminati conspiracy, are like a lot of religions. To the true believer, the fact that others do not see "the truth" is almost incomprehensible (or is attributed to the power and influence of those involved in the conspiracy). To the outsider, the conspiracy sounds like complete silliness.

When it comes to empirical claims, I think that the scientific method, with its emphasis on inductive reasoning, is the best approach to take. However, although I find dialoguing with conspiracy theorists entertaining, I have never seen anything come of it. People who believe in conspiracies are not generally susceptible to evidence which does not fit with their metanarratives (grand schemes of things).

If Bush is "a puppet of the UN," quite a remarkable claim IMO, then why did he ignore the Security Council? You made a statement without providing any supporting evidence.

I am not sure who you mean by "these people." There is no such thing as "these people." There are only people. In terms of social polity, I would prefer to see power concentrated on the local level, with higher levels only intervening in cases of abuse.

Big businesses are not the main proponent behind what I am advocating, which would collectivize their wealth and turn it over to workers. Once again, you are reading me through the eye of your own preconceptions, not focusing on what I am saying. I do not accept the bogeyman (illuminati) factor as more than a conspiratorial metanarrative.

Most researchers work for universities which are run by boards of regents or trustees. Your postulate that they are connected with a supposed illuminati is pure speculation and selective perception.

One of the trends in contemporary liberal and progressive religious expressions is toward narrative theology (also called postliberal theology), which is treating ancient religious texts or scriptures as stories grounded in the time periods in which they were written. The objective becomes deciphering the stories, not rigidly applying ancient propositions to the 21st century.

Darwin rescued natural selection from Spencer's reified survival of the fittest.

For what it's worth, I operate a large nominalist website:

http://structurization.com

Here is another good one (if you are not already familiar with it):

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/nominalism_contents.htm

There has been quite a bit published on the subject of the origins of intelligence testing in Prussia. However, I was going on memory. It was the Prussian civil service system, not the Prussian army. This article contains some background. There are probably better ones out there, but I am, right now, constrained on how much time I can spend on it. Most discussions I have seen on the web focus on the Stanford-Binet construction, but it had predecessors:

http://www.benwilbrink.nl/publicaties/95...tEARLI.htm

Karl Marx, who in 1848 said:

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

-- Karl Marx, 1848

Marx did not support free trade because he liked it. On the contrary, he despised it. He supported it because he saw it as producing more alienation among the proletariat and, consequently, hastening revolution.

I see globalism and discussions of world government to be extremely promising developments. Moving from tribes, clans, and consanguineal (extended) familes, as central loyalties, to nation states also met with resistance. My only concern is that the collectivization of transnational corporations accompanies globalization.

Not all Jews are Zionists, but to say that "Zionism isn't a Jewish thing" is simply inconsistent with history. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, was a European Jew, and almost all Zionists have been Jewish.

I agree that one can criticize Zionism, just as one might criticize any nationalist system, without engaging in antisemitism. However, your idea that Judaism is being used as a cover for Zionism simply makes no sense. Considering that most Zionists are Jews, who is using it?

Commercial media are out to make a profit, not to be accurate purveyors of information. It is one of the reasons I oppose corporate capitalism.

The fact, regrettable in my view, that "globalism" has been vilified by proponents of illuminati conspiracy ideas is of no consequence to me. I support political unification and socialist globalization, not global capitalism and the corporatocracy.

>>As I have said before, it is not the principle of a world government that is the problem, but the plans of the undeserving and sinister powers that be.<<
But that is conspiratorial thinking, not critical thinking. Supporting socialist globalization is not equivalent to supporting capitalist globalization. Supporting global democratization is not the same as supporting global authoritarianism. Each of these are distinct analytical categories. The illuminati conspiracists simply introduce an additional, "bogeyman" category, into the proposition, a category which I reject.

Now, admittedly, I have sometimes responded to the illuminati conspiracists, too. However, I actually see no real need to do so.

Those who believe in the illuminati conspiracy will, likely, continue to believe it. Criticisms can be taken as evidence of involvement or support.

From personal experience, when I have strongly challenged the illuminati conspiracy, and have said that my ethnic background is Jewish, I have often been accused of being a member of the illuminati myself. Criticizing a conspiracy, especially by a person who is believed to be a member of a group implicated in it (Jews in this case), is just fodder for the "true believer."

Although I sometimes respond, as I am doing now, I generally feel that the best approach is to simply let the postings by the illuminati conspiracists stand on their own. Most people recognize the silliness of these postings anyway.

I do not accept the legitimacy of the various versions of the illuminati conspiracy. To me, it is analogous to an Internet virus. Through critical thinking, it is easy to find a continual stream of logical fallacies (even without dealing with fact content).

Copyright © 2002- Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.