Wednesday 28 February 2018



“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”  Ursula K. Le Guin

Usury is a crime against God.
When we discuss usury we usually refer to it in reference of capitalism.
Usury is not only about money. Capitalism is not only about Money.
It is a mindset based on exploitation.
A trap, a noose, to capture into one more energy than one is exerting.
It is not an equality based strategy.
It is however a sin against God.

Non-monetary capitalism requires an example.

There are so many possible examples that we take it for granted as ‘normal’. These examples are invisible to us and when highlighted by being pointed out to us and having it explained, people react defensively by shouting down any perception that we might be erroneous in our behaviour. 

People attempt to decry and debase anybody who is pointing out that they have made a compromise with society to endorse the assumption that the way we do things is not wrong. A hundred years ago it was normal and acceptable to own slaves. So ingrained into a cultural mindset that anyone who spoke about how wrong it was, that it was inequality, was regarded as crazy and dangerous to the infrastructure.

Example: She desires Attention from friends and strangers. Attention is energy.

She tells a story about how upset she is that the man she fell for turned out to have been schizophrenic and therefore, with his mental difficulties, unsuitable as a life partner. She still cares for him but not with the same hope that she once did they might settle together as a family unit. Her story is based on a real person. He is not there to defend himself against the allegation that he is schizophrenic.

People believe her and gave her sympathy, tell her that she has a good heart for caring about such an unfortunate soul as the man who she had a brush with and a narrow escape from. Degrade the dirty, sweep it under the carpet, we live in a better society than one where crazy people l even exist. Good people pity unfortunates but do not wish to entangle with them. Social stigma against the mentally ill.

The guy is being capitalised upon. She is capitalising on him. She is exploiting others by exploiting him, by slandering his reputation. She gains from it. He is the fall guy.

She requires validation from others who tell her that she is a good person. Why? Were she, she would not need such validation. She would know it from inner connectivity with divinity. Good people do. She is imbalanced, living in sin (without divine connection). Seeking to fill in the painful hole in her, the missing thing, she requires others to temporarily reward her by listening to her problem and rewarding her with pretty words. They comfort her. It distracts her from the suffering. It might help her to reconnect with divinity by persuading her that she deserves such connection. Equally it might further distract her from achieving that connection. Balanced union within self.

The other people later encounter the man she had described to them. They recognise him from the visual description and are wary, making excuses to leave fast because they do not want to be contaminated by involvement with a crazy person. From his perception, he has no knowledge that he has been victim of slander. He finds their behaviour unusual, their attitude toward him derogatory. People who, had they bothered to get to know him on a one on one basis, would find him normal, pleasant, interesting and intelligent, with many shared interests. Instead he is left feeling lonely, a little confused about the anti-social attitude of people around here, and he decides not to visit this particular community centre again because the people there are creeps.

This is commonly called gas-lighting, a term named after a 20th century movie where a man persuades his wife that she is going crazy by altering the amount of gas going into the lights, so that the light level varies. He tells her that there is nothing wrong with the lights, that it is all in her imagination, that she is delusional. Once she begins to question her own sanity and believes that she is delusional, instead of trusting her own senses, she is no longer fully functional as a reliable person. After that that point, not before, she is technically insane (insanitary, it means dirty, polluting, toxic).

The problem stems from the singular point where a person puts their faith into trusting words by other people to be the reality, instead of trusting your own senses to be the reality. If a person can persuade a majority that blue is red, they will see blue and call it red. They will reaffirm to one another that blue is red by collectively agreeing that to be the case. Books, movies, educational systems, will be built to strengthen the indoctrination, all the time undermining the reality, the truth. They will call that delusion ‘normality’. Anyone who says, “no thats not red; thats blue”, they will describe that person as antisocial, insane and a problem maker. Compromising with Society necessitates that we do this all of the time. Society can not function without it. 

Humans however, can function without society. The historical precedent is that we function better without delusion. When the delusion becomes mainstream, that is the zombie apocalypse. You are in the middle of it. That you do not recognise this to be the case is a symptom of it, proof that you are one of them. Your initial reaction will be to laugh and reject it because the foundation of your reference system is not connectivity with the divine harmony. Your internal reference system is the delusion arising from compromise with society. It has turned you into one of its zombies. You are an agent for it. To undo that level of indoctrination requires a lot of work. Society if it can get away with it will turn against you and label you as insane, as a dissident.

“If you are not part of the solution, you are the problem.”

The Questioner of Loaded Questions.

He requests evidence from anybody at all that he is schizophrenic.
Nobody can provide this.
His actions are not those of a schizophrenic.
Other people say that he hears voices.
How would they know such a thing? He makes no such claim.
Other people pressure him and demand to know more about what it is like for him to hear voices. So he tells them that voices pressure him and make him feel uncomfortable. That they try to control him.

What he means by this is that the person asking the question spoke using their voice. He did not want to reply because it is a loaded question, an assumption, they are projecting onto him their fallacy that he hears voices and demanding to know about it. They are demanding he play their game, a game called “I say you are crazy, verify it.” He does not want to play that game with them. But they are pressuring him and attempting to control his reaction.

Hearing the voice asking the question he replies; ‘the voice is pressuring him and making him feel uncomfortable’.

Nobody has mentioned whatsoever that these are hallucinatory or figments of his imagination. They assume that by their not explaining this distinction, he will also make the logical jump that they are all agreeing they are discussing about the same undisclosed thing which they are goading him into. The questioner does this because of a social convention in which when discussing these matters it is normal to use the key phrase “hearing voices” to indicate “hallucinations” as opposed to the technically correct phrase “hearing imaginary voices.” These are two distinct entities. He replies directly to the words actually asked, because he does not accept to replace one with an undisclosed other. To do that would be insane.

The questioner goes away from the meeting feeling verified that the guy they have just spoken with is delusional and hears imaginary voices. He however goes away from the meeting knowing this  about the whole situation laughing at the delusion within which the aggressive questioner lives without them even recognising it. He has told it straight and told the truth. It is the questioner who has changed the context of the conversation from what was actually said to mean something different from what was actually said. That is manipulation. That is capitalism.

They have gone away having achieved more from it than was actually occurred at the time, because of their fiction, to the detriment of his reputation. This is why he does not trust these people. He does not accept modernity because he is spiritual and intends to align with the actual truth. He is not responsible for their confusions. Although when they do communicate with him, he does not further their confusions by conceding to put energy into a delusional version of the world. He tells it straight.

Their books say this: his lack of trust in modernity is a form of psychosis.
The book he is reading says this:
To know truth you must be truth.
To be truth you must align with truth.

There is a lot of guidance in the holy texts regarding how to behave when dealing with sinners. Sin literally means without; without ‘god’, without holiness, without spirituality. In essence; without Truth. You do not have to believe in ‘god’ to accept the wisdom of this. You do not have to believe in ‘god’ to recognise what is meant by it. It applies whether you believe in ‘god’ or not.  The very first question you should ask is “what is God?” Best answer so far: that Truth is the fundamental harmonic of the universe, of Life.

So many people compromise with society that they lose their connectivity with the divine. It is not always a conscious choice, although at some level you face up to it. Right here and now, face up to it. Am I going to go onward in Truth or in Sin? To accept confusion over reality, or to accept truth over socially re-affirmed delusion. This is not to persuade you that reality is god and sell you a religion. Far from it. It is the opposite. To sin is not a specific act of sin (and there are many healthy activities commonly described by society as sinful) but rather to go about ones activities from a godless base, an unholy frame of reference. To act in accordance with that mind which is without spiritual awareness.

Usury is the major common sin. 

Protective mantra to memorize:  

“That’s in YOUR world.”

Saturday 24 February 2018

Sex Check List

Checklist For Sexual Compatibility


 Have you/they had an STD check 
since the last time you/they had a sexual encounter? 


First three simple questions.

1. Do you want sex ?  y / n

2. Could you fancy this person ?  y / n

3. Would you have sex with this person ?  y / n

Three “yes” ’s = do it
Two or less “yes” ‘s = do not do it

1 If No: there is something wrong with this person, they are disconnected from their Humanity.
2 If No: no problems, biological instinct is what it is.
3 If No: (when 1 & 2 are “yes”) this person is inhibited by a psychosis.

That’s it for keeping things simple.


The ‘three yes vs less-than-three-yes’ guide (section one) does not apply to the following (section two) because it gets more complicated.

The following questions are what happens when you start compromising what you want sexually with who you want to be known as in the community. Balancing your internal desire with your external image. Manipulation ‘by you of’ and ‘of you by’ community.

The counterpoise to this situation is the rhetorical question:

X. ’Who is it I am in bed with / closest to / should mean the most to me ?’

This question has not been numbered because it is too personal to include as data for this manuscript, although it is imperative the individual should ask it of themselves regularly. All other questions are simple y / n responses.

4. Would my friends accept me having sex with this person ? y / n

The answer to this is ALWAYS ‘no’ unless you have real friends who do not mix ‘sex and slavery’.

The next two questions are about hypergamy. They balance self-worth with social-status, clinically basing decision-making only on the artifice of social structure while ignoring the complexity of Human needs, personality compatibility, physical preference. Hypergamy reinforces the delusion of class system maintained by active belief in it. Typically this is financial or perceived power thus such relationships are about power and wealth, not about emotional and individual value. That includes yours. Hypergamy elevates manipulation and does not accept emotion as a relevant factor, resulting in strategic yet emotionless or at best shallow sexual relations. That does not result in happiness, it usually results in divorce. This underlaying trust issue categorically defines such relationships.

5. Would sex with this person improve my position in society (is it prestigious) ? y / n
If Yes do it.

6. Would sex with this person decrease my position in society (is it detrimental) ? y / n
If Yes do not do it.

The next question is the main one you need to answer.
It affects every aspect of relationships.

7. Does this person mix up sex with slavery ? y / n

If Yes, either ‘fuck&chuck’ or simply do not have sex with them at all.
If No, keep it going as a long-term relationship.
Hold onto it because true equity/equality is precious and rare, to be treasured.

8. What Slavery Is and is Not

Is slavery: expectancy of undisclosed behaviour ?
Is slavery: expectancy of routine behaviour ? 

If you can not answer these questions (8A and 8B), you are not ready for a long-term relationship.
That does not mean you are not ready to have sex.
Fully answering these two questions SHOULD be an ongoing topic of conversation between yourself and partner/s.
Develop a mutual understanding of what exactly is meant by ‘undisclosed and routine behaviour’.
Discuss and communicate what is meant by ‘communication’.


Tribal Attitudes May Vary.

HUMANITY asks these questions:  1 3 7 8

CULTURE asks these questions:  2 4 7 8

SOCIETY asks these questions:  3 4 5 6

Society represses these questions:  7 8


This manuscript is in no way a complete thesis or is it to be taken as one.
It does not necessarily represent the beliefs of its author.
It is not to be regarded as relationship or life advice.
It is intended for amusement purposes only. 
Self-responsibility is respectability.

©2018    The author is an academically qualified relationship counselor and sex therapist.