A Jungian take on sin


Perfection can only be arrived at from what is conventionally thought of as sin – which must truly have to do with the energy created by the friction of opposites – If I’m right, only the clash of destructive forces can create something new.
The sexual drive is a demonic and destructive force at the same time a creative force in the sense that it can produce out of the destruction of two individualities a new being – But the individual must always overcome resistance because of the self-annihilating nature of the sexual act.

– via David E

A Dangerous Method

“My definition of a devil is a god who has not been recognized. That is to say, it is a power in you to which you have not given expression, and you push it back. And then, like all repressed energy, it builds up and becomes completely dangerous to the position you’re trying to hold.” – Joseph Campbell


Reason & rationalization


A person‟s early social environment from one‟s youngest age, contains factors that determine one‟s original response to the developing knowledge of the distinction between „self‟ and „not- self‟. Society presents the first response to the existential crisis created by this as it imposes a set of moralistic doctrines designed to impel the individual to acquiesce to its own ends.

Its role in this situation is to institute laws and behavioral patterns that are considered to be characteristic and expected of the individual. One‟s adherence to the moral structure is enforced by both brute force; jail, persecution and its religious institutions, giving us classical conditioning and crude forms of behavior, laying solid foundation for governmental and religious legislation. Indeed, the prison system doesn’t rehabilitate, but punishes; and hell exists for the court of God. The idea is to change human behavior without appeal to reason. And in the absence of reason, there is rationalization.

The intellect can provide rational explanations for ideas and convictions that were internalized since childhood. These ideas are perceived so deeply and intensely that they seem as natural law providing strong conviction due to the unconscious or subconscious claims to authority that they hold. Yet our conscious minds provide much more elaborate explanations creating the illusion that one consciously and intelligently arrived at the beliefs one holds. Only a thoroughly deep philosophical introspection can address this issue.

This rationalization is all too common and explains why well-educated people can still accept the ridiculous notions of Christianity. This behavior also extends itself outside of religion; for example, a way to explain why we bought that expensive sports car. An example of this was an experiment where Freud had hypnotized a patient and gave the suggestion to carry an umbrella around on a sunny day. When asked why he was carrying the umbrella he provided a rational explanation and believed it was his ‘choice’. The ideas impressed on our ‘blank slate’ minds from infancy forwards share an operative effect and function as a deep hypnosis that is our innate conditioning; a process not so easy to reverse as is hypnosis. Yet we may begin by questioning our thoughts and checking to see whether or not they are actually our own thoughts; by following knee-jerk reactions to thinking chain of thoughts that brought this automatic response.

Religious preaching, indoctrination, and moralizing serve to shift the direction of the individual‟s behavior away form personal, selfish goals toward those ends that are necessary to perpetuate society. Our religious beliefs and experiences are then initially determined by our social environment, which also continues to nurture, shape these into a system of values. The individual gets his or her religion through a graduated social process of reinforcement by means of reward and punishment. Hence, compliance becomes a means of securing reward and avoiding punishment and religion takes on a righteous moral tone.

– Paul Joseph Rovelli, Religious Experience & the Existential Crisis

Establishing boundaries


Healthy psychological boundaries, consistently and consciously applied are our first fight for liberty and self-awareness. So for example, if an acquaintance of mine crosses a boundary, such as in using physical violence, even though he or she calms down later, I learn that this kind of person should not be in my life. And no matter how much I enjoy his or her company in other situations, the fact that they are willing to cross my personal boundary in a given situation is intolerable for me. Marcelo Ramos Motta wrote that one should lose ‘racial consciousness’ and what he meant was family heritage. In other words, the idea that ‘blood is thicker than water’ is a foolish notion that allows our families to hold us in certain cyclic ruts as they can tap the deepest buttons on our psyche; buttons that won’t be undone and that are embedded in our psyche from our earliest moments in infancy. […] They would not expect to keep from transgressing our boundaries as they have the life-long habit of doing so. And so clinging to one’s nuclear family is literally clinging to one’s unconsciousness and choosing to remain asleep, but for the comforts of family. Hold everyone in your life to your boundaries; if a relative transgresses them, act in the same way you would a new acquaintance in your life. You will find this a very hard thing to do, especially at first, but growth is almost always painful. In this process, you will wake up to your dignity and your liberty and at least this tiny part of the work will be done. But note, this process must become a permanent fixture in your actions and responses to life and living situations. The act of employing this ‘reason’ is an on-going process that you will meet with over and over again.

– Paul Joseph Rovelli, Morals & Magickal Integrity

Ayn Raynd on the creator


The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.



The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.


Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.






No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane, or a building–that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.


His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.


The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power– that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself.

And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

poem about the feminine (found online)



قالـــــــــــوا عنها يوماً

هي أصـــــل كل الشــرور

وعند كل جريمــــــــــــــة

إبحث فيهـــا عنهـــــــــــــا

وصفــــــــــها شاعر بأنهـــــــا

مدرســــــــــة لخير الأمــــــــم

كأس من أناملــــــــــها

تســــــــــقط عروش

ومــا من رزيلــــــــــة

إلا وتربعــــــت على عرشهــــــــا

رب الشــــــرور ضعيف في كيده

ولرب الخلائق..فكيدها

كان عظــــــــيما

أي كيد تنهار بجرحه الدموع لكلمة

وبكلمـــة تملك بها الحياة؟؟؟

أوليست هي أمي..وهي إبنتي

وكم من رحم أنجب رسل وأنبياء؟؟؟

لعمــري الأنـــــــــــا هي أصــل الشرور

وما الأنت إلا قربان

على مذبح الخطايا


One day they said
She was the source of sin

She’s a suspect
In every crime

The poet called her
A school for every nation

One glass off her fingers
Destroys entire thrones

Each and every vice
Sits there on her throne

The lord of terror is weak, it seems
So God framed her guilty as charged

A tear from her kills
A word from her, brings back to life…

Isn’t she my mother? My daughter?
Didn’t her womb deliver your disciples and prophets?

I verily swear, yes, she’s the source of sin
And you’re just the sacrifice, on the alter of sin

Identity politics & freedom of choice


“If identity is held as a given, it is off-limits to criticism or analysis. If, for example, I hold catholicism as my identity rather than my choice then I avoid moral accountability for the various beliefs and political stances go along with it. And if I demand that other people respect my identity as a catholic, then I demand that they accept without protest the policies that I choose along with my catholic identity, even while I pretend my catholicism is not a political choice, only a matter of identity. Identity politics is a stealth maneuver that demands, in the name of tolerance, that others do not challenge my politics.”
“It becomes easy to see how something as positive sounding as freedom of choice can be inherently supportive of privilege and power when we look at economic libertarians (who, by the way, tend to identify more closely with republicans than democrats). Economic libertarianism calls for freedom from undue governmental imposition on economic matters, so that strict libertarians oppose income tax, the minimum wage, indeed any constraints whatsoever on economic transactions. This means those who have money would not be constrained in any way from engaging in unfair work practices, and could pay laborers $1.00 a month if the laborers entered freely into the arrangement. Such “freedom” empowers those with power and prevents measures to empower the disempowered, like labor laws, fair wage laws, maternity or sick leave, and overtime pay. If an individual needs a job to survive, what power does she have to bargain with a corporation for a Iiving wage without labor laws or unions? It is easy to see how economic libertarianism empowers those with money and power to exploit those without.

Poor women have long criticized the freedom of choice argument about abortion as being fundamentally liberal: it retains the rights of those already empowered to have children to choose when to have their children, but does nothing to address those who are too poor to ever be in a position to care for the children they have or want to have.”

A screenplay for a short film for 3 actors


by Wooden Thomas (Thomas J Haywooden)

Elizabeth is walking down a road in Winfield Park.

Soon Micheline comes up to her walking an invisible dog.

Elizabethbends to one knee greeting the dog, who is licking her face , she giggles lifting her face up ward”.

“What kind of a dog is that”? Elizabeth asks.-”It’s an invisible dog, replies Micheline.


They walk on down the street together in beautiful Winfield Park. Then they come upon Harry in a wheel chair with a Ukulele singing an old Nat King Cole Classic:

“Look at me, I’m as helpless as a kitten , up a tree”!

“Can you girls please help out my cause?” Harry Asks from his wheel chair.

“What is your cause today?” Asks Elizabeth .

“There is a terrible virus effecting the local wild parrot population”

Micheline says “Parrots”? “I don’t see any wild parrots”.

Harry: “Exactly! But you will if you donate what ever you can right now”.

As Micheline goes into her purse to look for cash her invisible dog gets loose.

“Oh No Pepito!” “Come Back!”


Elizabeth Barker then says to Harry”What was your cause the other day?, werent you trying to save bees from cell phone distortion a few days ago?”

“I did” replied Harry. “And it’s an ongoing cause and it’s working!”

Elizabeth: “Well, good for you man, I don’t have any money on me”

“Well, it’s always great to speak with you any way says Harry.


Micheline comes back holding Pepito . Elizabeth Barker: “What was he chasing?”

-”his own shadow” Micheline replied.

Harry: “How does an invisable dog cast a shaddow?”

Micheline: “It’s probably a spiritual thing , like an Illusion.

Harry ” An Illusion of the self!”

Elizabeth: “ Someone ought to start a cause , a campaign to fight against the shaddows casted by such a misleading self perception that runs away like that”.


Micheline then cleans up some invisable dog poop.


Elizabeth (suddenly) “Oh my God!” I see a couple of red parrots over there”!

She walks off screen.


Micheline gives Harry five dollars and walks away.


Harry waits about 20 seconds folding the five dollar bill into his wallet and then gets up out of his wheel chair and walks away.