by Sam Fryman
Thus, it has been known over thousands of years by these yoga type traditions – mocked and ignored by modern science without any proper investigation – that the control of the sex energy is the path to changing consciousness.
So we said to readers – mock this if you wish. But first carry out an experiment. For a few days or weeks or months, reduce your sex activity and see if your life and state of mind changes, look at the change in frequency of morning erections – a symptom of the upward flow of sex energy to the brain.
So we know this likely sounded unbelievable and crazy to some readers, and likely a good number also found that their sexual habits were so fixed, that they couldn’t actually carry such an experiment out in any case.
Well fine, then don’t.
But don’t mock this information unless you have tested it out, because that is certainly not rational, it’s certainly not logical, and it’s certainly not scientific, is it, to claim a “theory” is nonsense, when you haven’t even done the experiments?
Your author has detailed in a basic fashion his own experiences. He has pointed out that due to meditation practices over many years, he experienced a sudden awakening of this kundalini energy, and went through a kind of “second adolescence” in his late 30s – this Gopi Krishna says is the typical time for such an awakening – as have many others worldwide, some of whose accounts are available on the Internet – and he experienced a number of unexpected and shocking things such as spontaneous non-genital orgasms lasting up to twenty minutes, and a speeding up of his thought processes, and enhancement of his literary ability, just as these ignored yoga scriptures had said.
So this is your author’s actual experience.
To the reader, to you, the critic, this may appear fantasy or lies, like a rumour of a country you don’t believe exists because you have never travelled there.
Well, your author has been there.
To him it is fact. So you can accuse him of being a liar if you wish, but of what benefit to him is that, to lie about such a thing?
He has expressed he has no intention to be famous, which is also why he has made virtually zero efforts at getting any of his works published, which also invalidates the arguments of the other critics who said “this guy has got nothing mainstream published.”
Are they so foolish they imagine that any mainstream publisher would publish any of this material that is so deeply against every kind of establishment entity that there is, so deeply against the present worship of women, sex and over confidence in science and materialism in general?
Some said “Ah, but they published David Icke, didn’t they?”
Oh yes, they published David Icke, because he was a nationally famous TV presenter who “flipped” and they just saw him as a money making vehicle, and to begin with he was not attacking the establishment.
But that soon changed. Once they saw he had it in for the establishment they have campaigned to mock and discredit him ever since, and he now self-publishes just like every other anti-establishment figure like Roy Masters.
So once again, we are not going to waste our breath further defending that petty accusation, whose only purpose is to try to persuade potential readers not to take our works seriously, to prevent them thinking for themselves and discover the truth.
So even if there are those who doubt our works on kundalini, and say “this is garbage”, because it is so foreign to all that “the establishment” has told them, surely they should at least appreciate that we have placed this information on as logical and scientific a footing as possible, we have not asked anyone to blindly believe?
So that is our defence, and that shall be our last defence of our works in a general way.
From now on, we will make no more “apologies”, we are just going to publish regardless, despite the totalitarian protests of those who are clearly counter freedom of thought, speech and spiritual or religious speculation and belief.
Those who can see the truth of what we are saying will do so, those who don’t, won’t or can’t, should be advised that there are a million other web pages to visit which will not create conflict in them and challenge their presumably unready brains.
Suffice it to say, that those who cannot even cope with what we have written so far without entering some kind of state of mental hysteria would be best advised not to read on as their inner conflict would likely only intensify.
Dawkins – The Blind Mischief-Maker
Sam Fryman
We are here going to take a final look at Richard Dawkins’ work The God Delusion to clear up any doubts that any reader may still have lurking that this is an authentic work of science, but rather a cynical attempt to demonise and mock those who would take any serious interest in religious or spiritual matters, and moreover, a tyrannical attack on freedom of thought and expression.
First, as some critics seem to imagine this is an isolated, fanatical point of view we are holding, let us have a quote from a feted fellow academic and biologist, himself in his prime a best seller, Steven Rose:
“Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is – assumptions that he and I of course share.”
So these are the words of a committed secularist biologist: he is puzzled and uncomfortable why Dawkins is attacking religion so uncompromisingly he think he is some kind of “scientific crusader” who goal is to beat the religious “infidels” into submission for all time.
Though perhaps we were unduly mischievous in our use of a kind of comic strip conversation between a theoretical (if not to say heretical) Richard Dawkins and his hypothetical son, we felt it was far less mocking and insolent than Dawkins’ own never-ending insults on the likely 4 billion or more religious believers in the world and the likely 1 billion agnostics, but either way we can assure the reader, we are not laughing at Richard Dawkins, we are taking him deadly seriously, just as would a careless wanderer in a strange land who suddenly found himself confronted with a cobra snake.
That is, let us have a small biology lesson.
In Nature animals have two reasons for killing. The first is for food, the second is in a quarrel over mating rights or defence of territory.
So Dawkins is taking an almost genocidal position against the enormous class of people on the planet who are to some degree religious believers or agnostics at least. He seeks to “kill” not to defend territory or for food or for mating rights, but simply because he is intolerant to the rights of other animals of his kind to think differently than he does.
For those who think “genocidal” an exaggeration, let us give another real life example. On one website, one poor chap tried to defend our earlier work Time for Dawkins to Retire, and was eventually told he had no right to be a father, he was “deeply offensive” and that this critic dreaded the thought he might even already have children.
Incidentally, in defence of this critic, our guess is that these statements were likely made in the heat of the moment, and subsequently regretted, so we would not wish this person demonised or attacked in any way.
However, this is surely a clear indication of where this mentality being encouraged by Dawkins is going.
It is creating an intolerance to religious belief, which is on a par with the Nazi persecution of the Jews.
This critic said the guy who defended our views had no right to be a father, and how far away from that is “you have no right to exist” and therefore “it is my right to exterminate you for not believing as I do” ?
THAT is the logical outcome of what Dawkins is doing. Genocide.
And do our readers still doubt that?
Well is that not precisely what we are seeing in front of our eyes now – genocide taking place against the Muslim world?
In the Nazi era there were mocking cartoons about the Jews. Now there are mocking cartoons about Mohammed and mock
ing jokes about the traditional Muslim dress.
Dawkins himself, as the king of all mockers, calls one section of his God Delusion book, The Mother of All Burkas.
In this section, rather than offering us 100% bona fide science, he as usual tries to pull the heartstrings, and paints the image of the Muslim woman cowering in submission beneath the unending cowardly beatings and enforced marriages of Muslim men.
But in the UK this year, British Home Secretary Jack Straw demanded that a Muslim woman who attended his political surgery remove her veil, against her will.
The truth emerged that many Muslim women wore the veil out of choice when there was no actual insistence from their priests that they did so.
The equally totally overlooked truth that Dawkins and his kind never mention, is that millions of attractive Western women, unless they have no choice such as attending work or college, rarely even venture alone outside their homes, due to the never-ending lecherous glances and fears of unwelcome attention from the general run of unnaturally sex-obsessed Western men.
Is this any less an imprisonment of Western women as that which is alleged of Muslim women, who can at least generally speaking walk the streets without fear of molestation or attack?
It is astounding to your author how many “respectable” Western men will allow their daughters and wives to work as barmaids and so on, knowing that such women will become the constant focus of sexual obsession by countless lecherous, drunken men, and thus likely to become objects of molestation at the least, and occasionally even rape and murder, as newspaper reports frequently confirm.
(actually, it isn’t astounding, the reason the Western men don’t object is that they can’t stop them, due to feminism their authority is gone).
This Dawkins doesn’t cry over. He doesn’t cry over the four pre-teen girls who got raped by a teenage boy in a town park one afternoon last year in the UK, due to the West allowing the continual false depiction of women of all ages as raunchy, hot sex objects who are always craving for sex all the time. He doesn’t cry over the five prostitutes who were murdered by a sex-crazed Western man in England in less than a fortnight, just before Christmas 2006.
Your author is not of course in favour of burkas. But he is in favour of women’s right to wear them if they want to. He is in favour of women’s right to be able to move around in public being able to see out at the world, without the world being able to see in and start assessing their value as sex objects, just as a woman in ancient times would travel in a carriage with a curtain in order to protect herself from such greedy and lecherous eyes.
This is the positive aspect of the veil that Dawkins never mentions. He never mentions the constant fear of sexual attack that millions of Western women live in, due to the constant unashamed promotion of women’s sexuality in the West, which effectively just reduces women to a mere bundle of enticing and molestable body parts. THAT is real dehumanisation, real abuse, to which by comparison, the wearing or non-wearing of a veil is a trivial consideration.
In the UK last year it was legally decided that a Muslim woman wearing her veil was unfit to be a teacher on the flimsy and ridiculous grounds that “the pupils couldn’t see her face.”
So does that mean that blind children are unable to learn from their teachers, because they also cannot see their teacher’s face?
And on the other hand, once we get that veil off the teacher, as depicted in countless soap operas, we find out what getting women teachers undressed a little is really all about. Once we can get the lady teacher stripped down a little we can then make her into an object of sexual fantasy for her pupils, out of which situation countless teacher-pupil sexual liaisons arise.
Once again, no respect of women, no respect of children, and certainly no respect of parents for the authorities to let their children be drawn into sex with their teachers, which situation has been going on every decade in the West since the 1960s, and never changes despite whatever laws they do or don’t make pretending to stop it.
So we are now going to take one last look at Dawkins’ latest book to show that this is about as much “hard science” as the assertion that the Moon is made of green cheese.
One of our accused us of making an ad hominem attack on Dawkins.
We want to so much thank that particular critic for pointing out what an ad hominem attack is.
i.e. this is when one discredits the person who makes the arguments, rather than discrediting the arguments themselves, as if the two things were equivalent.
In short, that is exactly the basis that most if not all the critics of our works made in attacking us.
So now let us explain why we appeared to do that to Dawkins.
Our point was that what Dawkins said could only be interpreted in the light of understanding his psyche, understanding what gave his life meaning or an anchor, when for the religious majority, it was their religious or spiritual belief.
So we had to point out that the only reason he could psychologically take such an irrational, death denying position was because he was under the spell of his glamorous wife.
We had to point out to the reader that it was a strange kind of scientist who in the process of carrying out his work should have to be “coached through his fears and doubts” by his wife, which Dawkins freely confesses in his preface to be the case.
You know – can we imagine Einstein stopping amidst his formulation of the relativity theory to ask his wife if she felt he was going about things the right way? Can we imagine Beethoven or Mozart asking their wives if they had any suggestions to improve their concertos or symphonies?
So that was why we had to point out his emotional immaturity, his dependence on his wife, because this was to us clear evidence that this was not a self-possessed man who was being true to himself, but on the contrary was clearly a servant of feminism, which will become clear as we proceed.
Our wider point was and remains, you cannot separate a man’s psyche from his beliefs.
The question of religious belief is not a rational one as is claimed, made on the basis of science or hard facts, because otherwise how do you account for the fact that two equally bright biology graduates come out of university and one is a religious believer or at least agnostic, and the other one is atheist?
It is the stance the believer or non-believer is psychologically predisposed to take.
Blind religious belief is not rational. Blind religious disbelief which is what Dawkins is doing – whilst hiding it behind the mask of science – is also not rational.
Dawkins says the burden of proof is on the believer to prove a God exists, or else he doesn’t.
Dawkins saying that doesn’t make it so. That is propaganda, that is not science.
Of course, he is correct as regards the 100% undoubting, totally intransigent “blind believers.”
But the rest of us in the middle, i.e. the vast majority who are neither blind believers in a God, nor blind disbelievers like Dawkins, require no such proof, because we are making no such 100% certain, solid gold, guaranteed claims.
But even to such moderates as we, Dawkins allows no quarter, revealing the kind of brow-beating intellectual bully he really is.
He says – “Oh no, we cannot allow moderate believers. Because they justify the fanatics.”
So once again, if we follow this line of reasoning to its conclusions, we cannot allow any kind of religious believer in Western society. Religious people must be made to skulk in fear for expressing religious belief, the same way that Catholics in Henry VIII’s England were made to carry out their rituals in secret, for fear of being burnt at the stake like Guy Fawkes, or beheaded like Sir Thomas More.
Thus again, we see this kind of religious intolerance is an entrée to genocide, this demonisation of any group in society, such as in this case the religious believers, begins with intolerance, and ends in genocide, which as we have said, is what is happening now to the Muslims, and has been the same battleground in various countries across t
he world.
Let us look at some more of Dawkins’ delusions about “religion” or “spirituality.”
He says in Chapter One:
In another time and place, that boy could have been me under the stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and trumpet flowers in an African garden. Why the same emotion should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer.
The “religious” experience of at least 5,000 years of prophets, saints and mystics is not an emotional one. It is a completely unexpected “bolt from the blue” vision which allows them to see behind the veil in a way that almost none of us ever can hardly any of the time.
People who cry at the sight of the stars at night are not “religious” or “spiritual” people, they are emotionally unbalanced people.
In all matters in life there are the true bona fide items and experiences and the fake, just as there is real gold and fool’s gold, and real diamonds and fakes which in both cases look superficially the same.
A true spiritual experience as per Dr R M Bucke’s 1902 work Cosmic Consciousness gives a sudden flash of insight into the underlying nature of reality, just as did Gopi Krishna’s experiences detailed in his 1970 work, Kundalini – the Evolutionary Energy in Man.
Your author has had a small number of brief experiences of this kind, mainly when he was younger, as have a good number of Westerners, many of them scientists according to Gopi Krishna, who was in a position to meet many scientists, and unlike Dawkins who merely had a talented science fiction writer as a friend ( i.e. Douglas Adams) claimed a leading figure in the founding of quantum physics, Niels Bohr, as a friend. Niels Bohr said to him on the subject: “We physicists do not have a problem with your claims of higher conscious states, and the existence of a God. It’s the biologists…”