Keep the dream alive without making none of us sad, that is the goal. Eyes without a face without humanity is pointless.
With all my heart, I wish for all of you to be happy, content, and without pain.
Keep the dream alive without making none of us sad, that is the goal. Eyes without a face without humanity is pointless.
With all my heart, I wish for all of you to be happy, content, and without pain.
Nothing makes sense anymore. No wonder many of us retreat to conspiracy theories and evil entities. How else can we explain the evil that humanity does to other species and to itself?
With permission from
By Julie Alexander
May 23, 2017
We are being attacked from all angles, each and every one of us, every single day of our lives.
How clever the powers that shouldn’t be are, they have brainwashed us completely. We cannot even see that we are being culled.
People have strong feelings about many things; they may have thoughts in the back of their minds, thoughts that won’t go away.
Things just don’t seem right but they can’t quite put their fingers on what is actually wrong, they can’t quite grasp it.
Then the thought fades as everyday life takes over.
They may feel that governments aren’t doing anything to help them and whoever is in power nothing ever seems to change. Why is that?
They may see religion as a control system that is fundamentally flawed and causes more harm than good.
They do not believe in war and yet there are wars going on all the time.
They may not really understand why fluoride is added to water.
They may feel chemtrails are normal, aren’t they?
They may see that vaccination regulations are getting out of hand and people are being brainwashed to vaccinate at every opportunity for every little thing and that mandatory vaccinations can’t be right.
They may feel GMO crops are not good for us and the chemicals used on these crops are toxic.
They may think healthcare has become far too expensive and that it is being controlled by large pharmaceutical companies and there should be a better way.
They may believe we are now in a nanny state with too many rules and regulations that are not really beneficial to humanity.
They may see too many legal controls in place that do not benefit the general population they seem to benefit large corporations instead.
They may feel banks are ripping us all off, not really helping us. Banks seem to want us to get deeper in debt.
They may see the breakdown of family traditions and wonder why?
They realize work has become too important and is gradually taking attention away from their loved ones.
They may feel the world has gone mad and chaos is all around.
They may see injustice all around them, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
They may see health services failing; they may see family and friends succumb to drugs and alcohol addictions.
They see people becoming more and more stressed and miserable with their daily lives.
They see homeless people living on the streets and they try to avoid them.
They see nature slowly being destroyed and manipulated.
They keep losing more and more freedom every day and there always seems to be a logical explanation for it, it’s for our safety after all.
All this new technology is for our benefit it’s all to make our lives much easier isn’t it?
They see all these things and more, day in day out.
Slowly these ideas seep into their subconscious minds.
Somehow they cannot gather all of their feelings together, they see them as disconnected events all engineered by different sections of society.
They feel that they must be wrong, if all these areas of concern are opposed to their internal intuition and feelings. They get a sick feeling in their stomach and they try not to think about it all.
They feel that it must be them that are on the wrong track, so they slowly and silently forget about their feelings. Push them to the back of their minds.
They lack trust in themselves, they have been conditioned, manipulated, controlled into being obedient, they are frightened to speak up, no one else seems to be concerned, why should they be?
If something was really wrong wouldn’t someone be doing something about it, wouldn’t someone be telling everyone?
They continue watching these events unfold before their eyes. They do nothing.
They feel as if they are in a movie and everything is out of control.
They cannot seem to connect the dots.
The truth is too unbearable to imagine.
Could something be out there trying to destroy mankind as we know it? Could we really be in danger? Could all these events be controlled by the same source?
Denial takes over it is all too ridiculous to believe. No, this can’t possibly be happening. Can it?
They switch on the television and slowly fall back to sleep.
By Julie Alexander, HumansAreFree.com
About the author: I realized what was really going on in the world in 2013. Since then I have been trying to make sense of it all and help others along the way. I am still learning more each day. You can visit my Facebook here and my website here.
Einstein lived a life that was often cerebrally detached, which paid off in terms of career success, but strained his family to the breaking point.
May 16, 2017
Ask people what Einstein did and they’ll say “Relativity.” (Ask them what relativity is and you’ll get an awkward silence. All most people understand about it is that you’re supposed to know it’s important.)
As Walter Isaacson said in his wonderful biography, Einstein “devised a revolutionary quantum theory of light, helped prove the existence of atoms, explained Brownian motion, upended the concept of space and time, and produced what would become science’s best known equation.”
His work was so impactful that everyone knew he would one day win a Nobel Prize—but he had achieved so much that people weren’t sure for which breathtaking accomplishment he would get it.
When he finally did win the prize in 1921, ironically, he didn’t get it for relativity theory.
And the bulk of the work he was celebrated for he accomplished in one year, 1905, when he was twenty-six years old. (Not bad for a guy who was rejected for military service because he had sweaty feet.)
Unlike Newton, Einstein was charming, committed to social justice, and had a family and children.
But similar to his reclusive predecessor, he lived in a world of ideas, in his own head.
Obviously, he was a genius, but his real superpower was the incredible time and focus he put into his work. Though surrounded by fame, friends, and family, he still lived a life that was often cerebrally detached, the better to explore his ideas.
Einstein said, ‘I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire.’
Predictive behavior technology is all the rage in everything from advertising to policing to medicine, and is something that we have covered extensively at Activist Post (see our archives here). Technocrats everywhere believe that the supreme being of the universe should be a computer algorithm; because, after all, in its perfection it knows us better than we know ourselves.
The following research from the University of Southern California is a chilling example of how the State could easily employ this technology for literal interventions where potential violence could occur. Beyond the micromanagement of adult relationships, note the final direction at the end of the article: parent-child relationships.
Are we really this lazy to turn over our most intimate interactions to the advice of a computer and hope that it can help manage our every emotion? Are we really that eager to completely eradicate human free will?
Mobile sensing system developed by joint USC Dornsife and USC Viterbi team could give couples the power to anticipate each other’s emotional states and adapt behavior
Your partner comes in and slams a door. What was that about? Something you did? What if you knew to anticipate it because you were notified in advance from an automated text message that he/she didn’t have a great day at work? Might that change the dynamic of your interactions?
You had a bad day. The last thing you need is to get into an argument when you get home because your partner also had a bad day. What if technology could automatically send you a notification advising you to do a short meditation module to restore your mental state? How might this affect the quality of your interactions with your partner?In the near future, researchers from the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and the USC Dornsife College of Arts, Letters and Sciences believe technology might be employed to help de-escalate any potential conflicts among couples. In a collaboration between the Signal Analysis and Interpretation Laboratory (SAIL) in the Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering and the Family Studies Project in the Psychology Department at USC Dornsife, researchers employed multi-modal ambulatory measures to develop a system in order to detect if conflict had occurred between a couple—a sort of seismometer of the shakes, rattles and rolls in a relationship.
The research, documented in “Using Multimodal Wearable Technology to Detect Conflict among Couples,” by Adela C. Timmons, Theodora Chaspari, Sohyun C. Han, Laura Perrone, Shrikanth S. Narayanan, and Gayla Margolin, is published by the IEEE Computer Society this month.
In order to detect intra-couple conflict, the researchers with support from the National Science Foundation, developed algorithms to assess whether conflict was present among couples. This algorithm pulled together data from various sources including wearables, mobile phones, and physiological signals (or bio-signals) to assess couples’ emotional states. Data collected included body temperature, heart activity, sweat, audio recordings, assessment of language content and vocal intensity. The algorithm analyzing this data has proved to be up to 86 percent accurate in its ability to detect conflict episodes (based on participants’ hourly self-reports of when conflict occurred). The authors of the study believe it is the first instance in which passive modal computing is being collected and employed to detect conflict behavior in daily life.
Theodora Chaspari, an Electrical Engineering Ph.D student in Shri Naryanan’s SAIL lab at USC Viterbi, speaks of why this particular collaboration appealed to her and the SAIL group: “We could help beyond pure engineering domains, providing a more quantitative measures of human behavior.”
Lead author Adela C. Timmons, a psychology Ph.D student in Gayla Margolin’s Family Studies Project team at USC Dornsife, together with Chaspari runs the USC Couple Mobile Sensing Project with “the eventual goal of developing interventions to improve couple functioning.” In addition to the notion of helping couples who can’t often replicate the interventions and behavioral strategies they learn and practice in therapist’s office, Timmons spoke about the importance of this research in detecting and perhaps having couples minimize conflict in their relationships. She indicates that negative relationships (or the absence of positive relationships) have long been recognized as a health risk. The quality of relationships, Timmons said, can provide health benefits. Further, she indicates that research has shown that those with healthy relationships have less stress and that chronic stress is known to cause “wear and tear” on the body.
The authors say that the next step in the research is using such unobtrusive, passive technologies to anticipate conflict —perhaps five minutes before it might occur, by letting computer software determine the likelihood that conflict will occur. The other part of anticipating conflict is developing early interventions—possible real-time interventions or behavioral prompts such as text notifications of a partner’s psychological state or to guide an individual to meditate before bringing that conflict home.
Chaspari acknowledges that this is not a one-fits-all approach. Machine learning software can learn what is most useful in an individual. For example, for any given person, certain factors might have more weight in predicting conflict.
Once this system has been proven, the authors anticipate that it can be employed to other important relationships such as a parent-child dynamic.
Source: USC Viterbi
Source: University of Würzburg.
Social networks are an ideal stage for narcissists to showcase themselves. Accordingly, a lot of people with narcissistic traits are drawn to these platforms as a new study conducted by psychologists from Würzburg and Bamberg shows.
Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become an important part of the lives of many people worldwide. Around two billion users were active on Facebook at the end of 2016; 500 million regularly post photos on Instagram and more than 300 million communicate via Twitter.
Various studies conducted over the past years have investigated to what extent the use of social media is associated with narcissistic tendencies – with contradictory results. Some studies supported a positive relationship between the use of Facebook, Twitter and the likes, whereas others confirmed only weak or even negative effects.
Most comprehensive meta-analysis so far
A new study from scientists from the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories Bamberg and the University of Würzburg reports there is a weak to moderate link between a certain form of narcissism and social media activity. When taking a differentiated look at specific forms of behaviour or at the participants’ cultural background, the effect is even more pronounced.
The study was lead by Professor Markus Appel, who holds the Chair of Media Communication at the University of Würzburg, and Dr. Timo Gnambs, head of the Educational Measurement section at the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, Bamberg. For their meta-analysis, the scientists summarized the results of 57 studies comprising more than 25,000 participants in total. They published their findings in the Journal of Personality.
Forms of narcissism
They think of themselves as being exceptionally talented, remarkable and successful. They love to present themselves to other people and seek approval from them: This is how psychologists describe the typical behaviour of people commonly referred to as narcissists. “Accordingly, social networks such as Facebook are believed to be an ideal platform for these people,” says Markus Appel.
The network gives them easy access to a large audience and allows them to selectively post information for the purpose of self-promotion. Moreover, they can meticulously cultivate their image. Therefore, researchers have suspected social networking sites to be an ideal breeding ground for narcissists from early on.
The recently published meta-analysis shows that the situation does not seem to be as bad as feared. The scientists examined the truth behind three hypotheses. Firstly, the assumption that grandiose narcissists frequent social networking sites more often than representatives of another form of narcissism, the “vulnerable narcissists”. Vulnerable narcissism is associated with insecurity, fragile self-esteem, and social withdrawal.
Secondly, they assumed that the link between narcissism and the number of friends and certain self-promoting activities is much more pronounced compared to other activities possible on social networking sites.
Thirdly, the researchers hypothesized that the link between narcissism and the social networking behaviour is subject to cultural influences. In collectivistic cultures where the focus is on the community rather than the individual or where rigid roles prevail, social media give narcissists the opportunity to escape from prevalent constraints and present themselves in a way that would be impossible in public.
The meta-analysis of the 57 studies did in fact confirm the scientists’ assumptions. Grandiose narcissists are encountered more frequently in social networks than vulnerable narcissists. Moreover, a link has been found between the number of friends a person has and how many photos they upload and the prevalence of traits associated with narcissism. The gender and age of users is not relevant in this respect. Typical narcissists spend more time in social networks than average users and they exhibit specific behavioural patterns.
A mixed result was found for the influence of the cultural background on the usage behaviour. “In countries where distinct social hierarchies and unequal power division are generally more accepted such as India or Malaysia, there is a stronger correlation between narcissism and the behaviour in social media than in countries like Austria or the USA,” says Markus Appel.
However, the analysis of the data from 16 countries on four continents does not show a comparable influence of the “individualism” factor.
So is the frequently cited “Generation Me” a product of social media such as Facebook and Instagram because they promote narcissistic tendencies? Or do these sites simply provide the ideal environment for narcissists? The two scientists were not able to finally answer these questions.
“We suggest that the link between narcissism and the behaviour in social media follows the pattern of a self-reinforcing spiral,” Markus Appel says. An individual disposition controls the social media activities and these activities in turn reinforce the disposition. To finally resolve this question, more research has to be conducted over longer periods.
Source: University of Würzburg
Image Source: NeuroscienceNews.com image is in the public domain.
Original Research: Abstract for “Narcissism and Social Networking Behavior: A Meta-Analysis” by Timo Gnambs and Markus Appel in Journal of Personality. Published online March 23 2017 doi:10.1111/jopy.12305
Researchers have said human sacrifice in the ancient world was performed in order to keep the ruling elites in power, similar to the War on Terror
March 22, 2017
In societies, such as those in the South Pacific, ancient Japan, early Southeast Asia, ancient Europe, certain Native American cultures, Africa, Mesoamerica, as well as the great civilizations of the ancient world — Babylon, Egypt, China, Greece, and Rome — there are folklores and documentary evidence pointing to human sacrifice once existing.
In ancient Egypt and China, slaves were often buried alive alongside the body of their master. The belief was that slaves would serve the masters in the afterlife. Of course, the justification for committing such heinous crimes was said to please the gods of the land. Gods and goddesses were believed to be the protectors of the people, and therefore, they were to be obeyed, even if human blood was required.
However, over the years, researchers have tried to discover if human sacrifice was performed to please the gods or if there were darker reasons for these heinous crimes.
After many years, researchers have now discovered their answer. And guess what? It isn’t far removed from what we know today of the elites’ manipulation of the masses. Arguably, we’re living in the past as it’s come back to haunt us.
A new study published in the journal Nature has revealed how ritual human sacrifices in the ancient world were carried out as part of a broader, sinister way to keep the ruling elites in power. According to the study, the elites in these societies used ceremonial killings to consolidate their stay in power.
The researchers said they employed the “social control hypothesis” to arrive at their findings. The logic was very simple: The ruling class claimed to be the mouthpiece of the gods. By electing themselves to this ‘mysterious’ position, they claimed to know what the gods wanted. Therefore, emperors, priests, and others of high social stature legitimized their power in the minds of the people, elevating themselves and installing fear among the people they governed. Is there any link to the so-called war on terror in this modern world? Well, if you’re still uncertain, look up “Fear Factor: Terrorism, Bush, The Media, Post-9/11” by two Stanford researchers, Selena E. Harper and Professor Bruce Lusignan.
Lead researcher Joseph Watts, a doctoral student of cultural evolution at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, said he and his team found evidence supporting their fear factor hypothesis after embarking on the study. Other researchers from Victoria University in New Zealand also helped with the study.
The researchers said they evaluated 93 Austronesian cultures, a seafaring people originating in Taiwan, who came to populate parts of ancient Australia, Southeast Asia, and Polynesia. Over time, their societies differentiated dramatically. 40 distinct break offs were found to practice human sacrifice at some point in the distant past. Watts and his team wanted to know what, if any effect, ritualized killings had on the societal makeup, particularly in terms of social stratification and class structure. The researchers separated these societies into three groups: egalitarian, moderately stratified, and highly stratified. They evaluated each depending on with what ease social mobility took place, and how rigid the social hierarchy was.
The researchers revealed they found anecdotal evidence that human sacrifice was a power grab, as well as a way to maintain social control. Researchers employed a technique called phylogenetic analysis in the study. Phylogenetic is a technique used by sociologists to follow the twists and turns of evolution in a species. The researchers used the technique here to plot relationships among the different cultures being studied. This helped the researchers to recognize whether certain traits in one culture were present in another, and determine what relationship human sacrifice might have on social stratification.
The researchers derived their data from both historical and ethnographic records. Though the methods differed and a variety of reasons were used to justify the heinous act of sacrifice, the results were always the same — the solidification of power. People used in sacrifices were found out to be of the same social ranking — those with very low social status, such as a slave or prisoner of war. The phylogenetic analysis also showed that human sacrifice started in egalitarian societies, but after it was introduced, it became social hierarchies. The study concluded that ritualized killings helped leaders in those days to assume greater control and/or consolidate their stay in power.
We acknowledge sourcing part of the article from Big Think.Com.
Er, don’t try this at home?