Groups, Cults, & the “8 Elements of Brainwashing”: Part 2 – Milieu Control

August 29, 2021

The first of Robert Lifton’s “elements of brain washing” to be considered is milieu control. To recount, here is the brief summary of the process from the introductory post.

Milieu Control — This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

Spiritual teachings offer an entire system– not only a mental world within which a person can live, but also a social network as well. Being in a group of like-minded people reinforces not only the ideas and values of the group, but also the group’s social hierarchy.

Likewise, such a system grants a person a sense of belonging, possibly a new sense of identity, and perhaps most importantly some kind of special status that may have been absent for them in the outside world. All this can be an immense relief for someone whose life previously lacked the various structures necessary for a healthy life. Where a group turns cultish is when the leaders start intervening in the social interactions of its members, both inside and outside the group.

Full blown cults like Scientology control the social contacts of cult members by intervening physically in the lives of its members and preventing contact to those deemed unclean. This is done quite overtly, and is only possible when a member is deeply engaged with, or somehow indebted to the group.

A far more subtle or indirect form of milieu control however, occurs far more commonly than may be suspected. The effects here can be just as damaging as with more overt forms of control, but the processes are much harder to recognise. It may even take place without any deliberate intention to do so on the part of the teacher or group.

It’s worth looking more deeply at this aspect.

Milieu Control as a Built-In Feature of Spiritual Teachings

All scams or swindles start off looking relatively ‘normal’ and then draw the subject step by step deeper and deeper into the net. Spiritual teachings are by their nature well suited to this process. As with a normal pedagogical course, the easier steps come first, which build upon the client’s previous knowledge and expectations. Then new information (and perhaps new behavioural habits as well) are slowly introduced.

First comes Step A, which looks more or less normal. Nothing unexpected. Step B follows naturally from Step A, and likewise is still within a person’s expectations. Step C follows logically from Step B, but it is probably a bit less familiar. Step D follows logically from C, but had it been introduced before A, it would probably have struck the client as odd.

With a confidence trick, the client realises at some point that their money is gone, along with the scammer. With spiritual teachings, unfortunately, such a rude awakening is unlikely to be so sudden or so clear. (Many spiritual ideologies are already prepared to deal with dissatisfaction, routinely instructing customers to “take that which resonates”, and ignore the red flags.)

A common — and easy — scam to fall for is network marketing (or multi-level marketing). These are very popular among spiritual marketeers. People are instructed to sell the product to their friends and often get to attend “free” courses in (manipulative) marketing, specifically dealing with how to pitch a sale to friends, family, and colleagues. This of course interrupts and disturbs the client’s social life — first their closest associates, and finally people they used to know in previous decades receive a call out of the blue inviting them for a coffee and a chat about a “great opportunity”.

Soon enough, the scam burns out, (as it requires, of course, the market population grow exponentially to the point of becoming infinite), which leaves the top one or two percent with a handsome profit and the rest with their former friends crossing the road when they see them.

A more dangerous scam involves “positive thinking” and “motivational speaking”. Here the product is a set of prescribed ideas and behaviours, promising to transform the life of the practitioner. As the client progresses through the graded steps (often in the form of courses or events that are graded by price as well — from the “free introductory seminar”, through to extravagantly expensive “advanced” courses) they become increasingly committed. Accordingly, they begin to limit or eliminate friendships and social contacts with those who don’t measure up to the new behavioural requirements. They begin to implement their own form of milieu control themselves.

Work colleagues, perhaps, notice that the person’s language has altered slightly. For example a person who has taken on board belief in the “Law of Attraction” or “Positive Thinking”, might start insisting that their colleagues “focus on the positive”. Initially it sounds like something anyone might say, but there is an odd tone to it. The ideology behind it is the profoundly manipulative idea that “thoughts become things” — leading people to believe they can magically “attract” the objects and events they focus upon. Embedded in this puerile and egotistical ideology is the impulse to avoid people who are “negative”, and eventually to exclude such people from one’s life, for fear of becoming infected by their “negativity”. Criticism of the ideology itself is explicitly deemed “negative”.

Their former friends find their behaviour suddenly irritating, and attempts to talk to them on points of disagreement simply run into a wall. The member of the in-group has taken so many steps, that any simple point of disagreement strikes against a dozen hidden beliefs all at once. (The member is at Step F or G, while their friends are still trying to talk them out of Step A.)

The swiftly escalating disagreements that result from someone unwittingly blundering into such an ideological cliff-face, function effectively as a form of milieu control.

Friends must decide either to avoid discussing such issues, or to distance themselves from each other. Either way the conflict is not resolved, and the (more or less) cult-ish belief remains intact.

This is one of the most important consequences of milieu control: exclusion of criticism — criticism which could have helped a client retrace their steps and find their way back to their initial “Step A” and figure out from there exactly where things got weird. But with criticism and critics excluded or rendered “negative”, the client is blocked from retracing their steps and reconsidering their current position according to different standards from the ones insisted upon by their in-group leader.

This kind of milieu control is not necessarily deliberate, but it is an inevitable result of ideas that are developed in isolation without reference to an out-group.

Furthermore, spiritual groups often maintain constant attacks on aspects of the out-group, for example against science, or morals, or ethnicities. While not overtly preventing contact between in- and out-group, this nevertheless places limits on the amount and nature of any such contacts. It limits exposure to critical perspectives, and effectively divides believers from non-believers.

Moreover, members of the out-group who find the ideas irritating simply exclude themselves.

Milieu Control Protects a Hierarchy

A cult is not merely a milieu, but above all, a hierarchy. Status inside the in-group is measured differently to outside. Indeed, this is one of the great attractions a cultish group holds. (In political movements of course, this attraction is especially powerful.)

The danger here of abuse of underlings by superiors under the protection of isolation is clear and extreme. Humans, like all other mammals, have a reflexive submissive response to any perceived authority figure. If access to all comparative authority figures has been removed, an authority figure can become seen as a god. The dangers for abuse and exploitation, for public shaming and unnecessary suffering, do not need to be spelled out here.

Less immediately obvious is the likelihood that the in-group will come to see itself as superior to certain out-groups. Sadly, this likelihood increases according to the grandiosity of the in-group’s claims about itself. As noted elsewhere on this website, followers of Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy, for example, consider the “white race” superior to all others, and see themselves as the best of the best.

Likewise, for a great many promoters of “alternative medicine”, modern science is openly demeaned as an inferior out-group. Information from scientists is disregarded due to its “materialism” (or more bizarrely, a supposed failure to include a nonsense version of quantum physics). So too is it common for fanatical religious groups to see the whole of society as inferior, leading to anything from hectoring non-believers in the street, to terrorism.

To sum up, milieu control can be achieved without explicit regulations and without necessarily being intended. The important factor is that an in-group member is in some sense isolated from information or activities that would dis-confirm the in-group’s ideology and power structures.

Red Flags & Consumer Protection

* As noted earlier, joining a spiritual (or political) group can affect one’s perception of one’s own identity and social status. A red flag would be if such changes make membership of other groups more difficult.

* Spiritual groups frequently emphasise a break with the past. This may be done in a manner that is more or less symbolic, but it can also be a pretext can be a pretext for intervening in the social life of members or hindering social connections with the out-group. Any measure that hinders or restricts social contacts should be consciously noted.

* Any special interest group can easily look a bit odd from the outside, with its specialist jargon and various rituals and customs. A warning sign for members of the in-group is when they lose the ability to see their in-group through the eyes of an outsider. Losing the ability to orient one’s self to the values and the out-group — even if those values are questionable — can indicate that the in-group member is now completely dependent on the value system and internal authority figures of the in-group. Normal defense mechanisms and perceptions of personal boundaries and safety may have been breached, leaving the member vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

* Does the in-group perceive the rest of the world as an out-group? This holds the same dangers noted in the previous point, and is especially true in cultish groups dealing with alternative medicine. In this case, the whole of modern science, especially medical and biological sciences, are treated as an ideological enemy. Along with losing the benefits of modern medicine, all standards for critical judgment and consumer protection are also excluded.

* The mere concept of consumer protection is foreign to any cult or cult-like group. For the reasons noted earlier, its members see themselves (and group leaders) as special — and not as customers. Protecting their own special status is no doubt a strong motivation in protecting an authority figure from criticism.

Part 3 will be posted soon.


Groups, Cults, & the “8 Elements of Brainwashing”: Part 1- Introduction, advantages and disadvantages of the terminology

August 15, 2021

The term brainwashing became popular in the 1950s following the work of psychologist Robert Lifton. US prisoners of war in Korea had undergone a forced ‘re-education’ program which appeared to have altered not only their behaviour, but also their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes.

In trying to figure out how such dramatic effects were achieved, Lifton identified eight different processes by which the Koreans appeared to have been using. These processes have been subsequently re-formulated to apply to other forms of manipulation, such as religious cults and other cult-like organisations. I will be considering them especially in the light of various spiritual groups and teachings, but these considerations are clearly relevant to the suddenly emergence of radical political groups in mainstream politics.

The anti-cult activist, Rick Ross gives a useful summary of how each of these eight processes functions in a cult-like setting. Here is a link to the 8 minute video, but a summary of the relevant points appears below. Each of these processes will be considered in a series of blogposts.

Before starting however, it is worth noting a few difficulties with Ross’s approach.

First, these eight processes are not exclusive to cults. In fact many are present in some form in all social groupings, for better or worse– including the family, among friends, sports clubs, businesses. This is because these processes also have advantages and can in many ways be essential to human interaction and psychological health. Similarly, their presence in cults is not necessarily always negative. A cult — even a very cultish one — may well be better for some people than a coercive or manipulative family or institution. (Rick Ross has a tendency to disregard this possibility.)

Second, it is all too easy to write off members of a supposed cult as dupes. The whole idea of a confidence trick is that it is difficult to perceive, especially early on. It is very often simply a matter of chance, rather than gullibility that determines whether or not one gets drawn into a cultish group. Skeptics tend to assume that falling for a con is merely due to a failure to apply the list of logical fallacies. They forget that if people are under stress or in a situation where they feel powerless or helpless, they are more likely to trust a stranger, or hope for a sudden radical improvement in their lives. Skeptics also tend to forget that not everyone trusts science to the same degree that they claim to, and also forget that in many crises, a rational scientific or statistics based approach is not always useful.

Similarly, a skilled con-artist is one who can mimic all the signals that indicate trustworthiness. Anyone can fall for one.

Third, it is wrong to assume that all cult-like groups are deliberately and consciously running a scam, and that all cult-like leaders and teachers are some kind of evil genius. This in turn can affect the way victims are seen — as gullible freaks who were already outsiders and ‘losers’ anyway, and therefore deserve to have been scammed, or who can be ridiculed if they don’t submit to being ‘rescued’ and giving up their cultish beliefs and becoming ‘normal’ again.

That said, these ‘eight elements of brainwashing’ can deepen an understanding of how cults work, figure out at what point a group, teaching or teacher becomes dangerous, and help one get an insight into how relatively normal forms of social interaction can be so manipulated to dismantle psychological defenses.

Each post will include a section on how to recognise red flags and detect at what point a group stops being in one’s own best interests.

Summary — The Eight Elements of Brainwashing

1. Milieu Control — This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

2. Mystical Manipulation — The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

3. Demand for Purity — The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

4. Confession — Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

5. Sacred Science — The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

6. Loading the Language — The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.

7. Doctrine over person — Members’ personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

8. Dispensing of existence — The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

The second post, Milieu Control can be found here.

Posted by Yakaru


Sam Harris Doesn’t Understand Meditation

July 8, 2021

This is certainly one of the oddest products I’ve covered here. Sam Harris is selling a meditation app that he claims will help you erase your racial identity. The result is a bizarre form of New Age political quackery.

Why anyone should even be instructed to renounce their race is a valid question, but it is outside the scope of this blog. (For coverage of the implications for racial politics, see the footnotes.) The focus here will be purely on Harris’s claims about meditation.

For someone who has been a practicing Buddhist for three decades, Harris displays an extraordinary degree of ignorance about what meditation is and how it works. He also displays a most hilarious lack of self-awareness, and a confuses meditation with something that is simply an egoistic attachment to certain ideas.

In short, Harris makes three fundamental errors. He thinks you can simply force yourself to meditate; he assumes that insights gained from meditation can be directly carried over into everyday mental life; and instead of helping you dis-identify from their race, he is really coaxing people into identifying even more strongly with a set of (utterly fatuous) ideas.

These are beginner’s mistakes, though they also tend to be replicated by meditation teachers who exaggerate the efficacy of their product.

I’ve previously praised Harris for the way he dealt with Deepak Chopra’s spiritual bluster (see the footnotes), but here we will see Harris making exactly the same errors that he criticised Chopra for, as well as pulling all the standard New Age promotional tricks. Here is the classical 5 Step approach to promoting spiritual quackery that we are about to watch Harris impliment:

1. Find a problem (and if there isn’t one, invent one or exaggerate an existing minor one)

2. Find a single simple “cause” for that problem

3. Find a single simple “cure” for that cause

4. Exaggerate, oversell, or even fabricate the effectiveness of that “cure”

5. Treat all criticism of the product as a personal and unjustified attack on the teacher themselves

Sam Harris is best known as a “New Atheist” and a member of a right wing thinkers’ club, the hilariously pompous “Intellectual Dark Web”. A light touch, a practical approach, and a gently self-ironic attitude to his own foibles are not part of Harris’s character.

In his 5 minute ad for his app, Harris compares himself to Jesus; calls religion a perversion — a perversion of his own “true” meditative experience; claims that he himself possesses “genuine compassion”; and claims that the real reason why he is often accused of bigotry is because people don’t understand meditation. Ninety-nine percent of people, Harris complains, misunderstand the role that meditation plays in his political and philosophical thinking…. That’s 99% of the people in his own audience! Obviously, it’s them who need to change, not him. They need to start meditating so that poor Sam can have his ideas understood by people in the manner he wishes.

This is clearly a rather demanding child……

Oh yeh, and he claims his meditation app will grant you “meditation on demand”. Dis-identifying yourself from your racial identity has never been easier.

It is true that meditation, especially the Buddhist type that Harris likes, can be said to involve a kind of “dis-identification” with one’s idea of “self”. But the way Harris talks about it is completely mad. Despite thirty odd years of Buddhist practice, he doesn’t seem to know the most basic aspects of meditation and it effects.

Here is Harris’s version of the 5 Step sales pitch:

1. The problem is hypersensitivity to racial discrimination on “the Left”

2. The cause is over-identification with racial identity

3. The cure is Dr Sam’s meditation app

4. The exaggerated sales pitch is “meditation on demand”

5. Any criticism is treated as a personal attack on Harris himself

It’s all laid out in his short podcast titled A Few Points of Confusion.

As always in his podcasts, Harris opens by expressing his shock and bafflement that he has yet again been misunderstood by a great many people. As always, he will he have to correct everyone. The “points of confusion” that people have had concern the role that meditation plays in Harris’s life.

Sam Harris’s subjective experience of his own consciousness is of course very important to “people”, but sadly, they get confused, so that needs to be cleared up pronto. Harris explains:

—> Unless you’re deeply into it, the term meditation almost certainly conjures the wrong ideas in your mind.

Luckily for me, I am deeply into meditation. In fact I’ve been meditating about as long as Harris has. I was even in India in the 1990s at the same time as him, and in a similar milieu. I’ve also read his book Waking Up and had thought that I was in broad agreement with his approach. But it turns out that I’ve been “confused” all along.

—> Meditation is just a bad word for the recognition of specific truths about the mind.

Hang on — what??? So meditation doesn’t mean awareness, but rather a “recognition” of certain “truths”??? That’s insane! That’s not meditation by any normal definition. That will only lead to being egotistically identified with a set of ideas, only now with the added mistake of taking them to be “truths” instead of just ideas. That’s not even what his own book says!

I’m stunned. I can’t believe he said that. But yes, that is indeed a direct transcription of what he said.

According to the Buddhist/Vedanta style I thought he advocated, meditation is, more or less, simply awareness. Or if you want to get technical, awareness of awareness. Meditation is not centered around conceptual thought like that — recognition, specific truths, etc. That’s stupid.

What Harris just said is like saying that swimming is just a bad word for conceptually understanding what it feels like to get wet.

He continues:

—> It’s a process of discovering what is already true of your mind.

Which “mind” is he talking about here? The mind with a lower-case m, or the capital-M Mind that some translators use for various Buddhist terms for consciousness? He seems to be conflating both these meanings in an odd way. This will become clearer below.

—> People can’t understand positions I take on this podcast without understanding your mind.

Harris is really pissed off that communication involves an awareness of other people’s existing knowledge and perspective, rather than just being able to blab out whatever is going through his mind at the current moment. I thought meditation makes you less egocentric, not more!

—> And these are positions which, on their surface have nothing to do with mediation. My experience here [he means his own experience with meditation] is often the key to understanding my criticism of specific scientific and philosophical ideas….

No wonder 99% of his audience gets confused.

Harris then uses the examples of free will and the illusion of “self”, as insights that can be gained through meditation. And this is where he really goes off the rails.

He thinks that you can not only discover these “facts” through meditation, but then also simply ram this awareness into your everyday non-meditative consciousness. In fact he demands that people do this. And he calls resulting dogma, born of the interpretation of a memory, “knowledge”.

Sure, I can remember that while I was meditating my self or my feeling of free will disappeared, and I can intellectually believe that they must be illusions. But in normal everyday consciousness, I can’t keep on experiencing that absence of self or free will. The actual experience in the moment it is happening is one thing; the memory of that experience is something completely different. And the interpretation of the memory is yet another step removed. But Harris sees none of these distinctions. In fact he thinks it’s merely a lack of courage that prevents people from dragging their meditative experience into their everyday consciousness.

He thinks that people–

—> ….don’t really have the courage of their convictions, because they still feel like selves that enjoy free will.

Nope. You can’t simply decide to stop “feeling like a self” or “feeling like you have free will”. Note the use of the verb. And the pronoun.

There is no escaping this, with or without a meditation app. As soon as you start doing, meditation ends. Nor can you force yourself to stay in a meditative state. Ask any Buddhist for the last 3000 years. The mere attempt to do so instantly destroys meditation. There are no verbs inside the Gates of Eden, (as Dylan might have sung).

What you can do, however, is convince yourself that you believe that you don’t have a self or free will.

That will make you a very special meditator indeed. Instead of getting out of the mind, you can simply inflate the mind so that it includes all the great ideas like “I have the consciousness of Jesus”, “I have no self”, “I have no free will”, and then you can walk around smugly all day babbling about how non-egotistical you are.

—> I can say this because there’s nothing hypothetical to me about the kinds of experiences that people like Jesus were rattling on about to anyone who would listen. And if you’ve had these experiences, and can have them on demand…

And there it is folks — Meditation on demand!

Seriously, has this guy EVER meditated?

I recall hearing a talk by one of Joseph Goldstein’s rather smug followers (maybe Stephen Levine), who was laughing about people thinking Goldstein’s institute was called “Instant Meditation” instead of “Insight Meditation”. Well, Harris isn’t an innocent newbie. He is an experienced meditation teacher with some rather grand claims about his own degree of spiritual development. Yet here he is making exactly the same mistake.

We could really just stop this right here and save this fellow from further embarrassment. But, as Harris thinks he’s really onto a great new product that will save civilisation from “the Left”, it’s worth plowing on.

Harris continues:

—> When it’s absolutely obvious to you that the conventional sense of self is an illusion…

Um, Dr Harris– “absolutely obvious” to WHOM exactly? Has he even realised that his own illusory self is currently addressing your and my illusory self?

Sam Harris thinks his grand godly capital-M Mind of Buddhism has comprehended the illusory nature of his lower-case-m mind. The bad news for Harris is that he has merely convinced himself that he is in a permanent state of Jesus-consciousness.

This is exactly the same mistake that every channeler, conversationalist with God, Angelic Healer, every Pope, priest, faith healer, and snake-handling speaker-in-tongues makes. The promised land of the Higher Self gets colonised by the lower self and proudly proclaimed and blabbed about in public.

Harris continues, saying that if you can get these experiences on demand, then you won’t get dependent on a religion. And now that he’s cleared up that “point of confusion” in 99% of his audience, he moves on to politics.

….. Racial politics…… What could go wrong?

—> How can I be so sure that the explosion of identity politics that we see all around us isn’t a sign of progress. How can I know that it’s an ethical and psychological dead end to be deeply identified with one’s race?

Before asking “how can I know” it would be better to demonstrate that it is really the case, rather than just assuming it.

Whoops, that sentence is still going. He’s shoehorned a few more assumptions into it–

—> …and that all the people who are saying that there’s no way to get past race in our politics are just confused?

Hang on, what is he talking about? This is the “problem” his app will fix, but who exactly is it who says you “can’t get past race in politics”? What does that even mean?

—> Well it’s because I know that a person need not identify with the face he sees in the mirror each day.

Howwwleeee shit.

Well that was stupid.

Yep, stare at yourself in mirror each morning and repeat the affirmation “I don’t know who the hell I am.” That will improve your mental health no end.

—> How unnecessary is it to identify with millions of strangers who just happen to look like you in that they have the same skin colour. In light of what’s possible, psychologically and inter-personally, in light of what is actually required to get over yourself…

Does anyone know what he means by this?

—> ….and to experience genuine compassion for other human beings…

The Grand Master of Meditative Compassion speaketh.

—> It is a form of mental illness to go through life identified, really identified, with one’s race.

Yes, your racial identity is a mental illness….. Now please don’t tell Sam that he’s barking up the wrong tree. Or that he’s climbed up the wrong tree and is sitting there happily, blowing on a dog whistle.

—> Of course to say that as a white guy…

And here it comes. Point five on the standard model for the promotion of quackery — to treat all criticism as a personal attack.

—> Of course, to say that as a white guy, in the current environment, is to stand convicted of racial insensitivity, and even seeming indifference to the problem of racism in our society.

Poor Sam — all he said was that racial identity is a form of mental illness and is selling a product to cure you of it, and now people are calling him insensitive. …So let’s all talk about his victimhood now, rather than any of the problems with his ideas about race or the product he is selling.

He continues, saying that “most well intentioned people” have been “successfully bullied” into dismissing his ideas on race because he’s white.

Then he adds that the white people who criticise him — like me for example — are only doing so because there are “massive incentives” on offer. This shoehorning of assumption upon assumption, each with an implicit accusation of bad motivation in his critics, is really just about the only thing that Sam Harris’s statements ever consist of.

—> But to insist on the primacy of race is to be obscenely confused.

Who, exactly, insists on the “primacy of race”? Does he mean me?

Whoops– the sentence was still going.

—> …obscenely confused about human potential…

Hang on — what? Human potential? The Golden Age, the Promised Land awaits if we only fulfill our potential. This is seriously weird. I really didn’t know Harris thinks like this.

—> …and society’s potential. And I’m not going to pretend to be unaware of that.

The accusation here is of course that everyone else is just pretending “not to be aware” of human and societal potential, despite it being so obvious, whatever it is.

—> …So when I’m talking about racial politics I am also talking about meditation.

We got there finally. All that was just to explain why he sees a connection between meditation and politics. It’s all so simple– all the confused people think Sam Harris is talking about racial politics, but really he’s just talking about meditation. The undeniable FACTS of meditation that you would know are facts if only you would use his app. Really, I don’t know why 99% of people find this so hard to follow…

Harris continues with his usual lucidity.

—> There are certain things that I actually understand about my own mind, and about the mind in general [he means your mind]. And the idea that racial identity is something that we can’t get past is total bullshit.

Get with the program people! Stop this obscene confusion about your own identity, and listen to Dr Sam. Force yourself to understand him. He is right. He knows the facts, the scientific and meditational facts. He is offering you meditation on demand. Use the app and force yourself to dis-identify with your race and get identified instead with the fact that you have no self and no free will.

And if you believe — if you truly believe — a Golden Age will dawn. And the people shall rise up and attain the peak of human and societal potential– namely, they shall correctly interpret the role that meditation plays in Sam Harris’s political and philosophical thinking. And their confusion about this shall be no more. And they will stop calling him a bigot, a fool, a klutz, an ignoramus, an enabler of white supremacy. A racist. A white guy.

Footnote & Links: I used to follow Sam Harris and have praised him in the past–

see this article

–until I got bored with his habit of making long-winded complicated arguments and then whining about being misinterpreted, and making the whole issue about himself. Then, when he took up with a–

right wing pseudo-intellectual Christian scammer

–I started ignoring him as completely as possible. A recent series of podcasts called Woking Up alerted me not only to this ridiculous meditation scam, but also to Harris’s constant and completely hysterical attacks on “the Left” and his inexcusable support for white nationalists. Links to the series (which bullied me into writing this blogpost and benefiting from the massive incentives from doing so) can be found here

Part 1 — Some of my best friends are…. (and intro to Harris’s worst takes disgracefully ignorant conception of racism)

Part 2 — Steal-manning Champion

Part 3 — Election Aftermath (this deals especially with Harris’s claim that “White supremacy is the fringe of the fringe” and that “Wokism” is a far greater threat to civilisation)

Part 4 — Nothing to do with racism

Part 5 — Sam Harris loves identity politics

Eiynah’s ‘Polite Conversations’ podcast can be found here

Posted by Yakaru


“It took me years to understand that that belief system is actually the foundation of abuse and toxic shame” —A Comment on Louise Hay

January 21, 2021

A comment was left recently on my post Speaking Ill of a Dead Cancer Quack, recounting experiences with numerous health professionals inspired by the teachings of Louise Hay. It is not easy for anyone to penetrate through the smoke screen of apparent sympathy and spiritual wisdom, and promises of healing that envelope these teachings. Those who are already in a precarious situation are especially vulnerable to the harm these teachings inevitably cause, especially if exposed to these ideas by a qualified medical practitioner. The dangers, traps, and implicit victim-blaming are built directly into Hay’s system. As the commenter notes, “Every symptom I had became a reason as to why what I was doing was wrong.”

With permission, I reproduce the entire comment here.


I had a mental health councillor/General practitioner who claimed to be trauma-informed who believed these things.

I also met a nurse advocate in a hospital who gave me her book and told me to write down her details. I had just been abused at the time and was given it…

The second time I was under the above mentioned General Practitioner. I was homeless, being stalked, currently in the judicial system following up on convictions and was told, ‘The outside is a mirror for our insides. There must be some past issues that need to be resolved’. Sounds logical..Kinda.. Except I was then handed a bible verse and was denied medical treatment because my rashes from yeast infection, and reoccurring pain were due to, you guessed it- repressed anger! I was already vulnerable. This lady wasn’t advertised as anything other than a GP. And she was the first medical practitioner I disclosed abuse to. I told her I was exploring spirituality but wanted healthy spirituality and that was what I was told. She also gave me 3 separate reasons as to why my feet were hurting. I had been diagnosed with allergies previously and was told that my grief was causing them and to go into psychotherapy because it would make them disappear. I was given a new diet plan that consisted of what this doctor then wanted me to eat. When I got sicker and gained 15 kilos I was congratulated for looking healthy despite it being chronic inflammation > Which again, was put back on repressed anger.

I’ve had to have 3 years of gold standard trauma-informed therapy because of her reaction to the abuse. The therapy I had, proved her to be medically neglectful and abusive.

The shock trauma from my initial abuse left in 5 EMDR [Eye Movement Desensitisation & Reprocessing -ed.] sessions. The pain of what she has said left with me with Medical PTSD and it was aptly named spiritual abuse. It has not gone away because what she did was destroy my meaning making systems. Every symptom I had became a reason as to why what I was doing was wrong. Its also important to note this doesn’t just pertain to one aspect of health, people whom believe these things generally have similar justifications for other lifestyle choices too. What this belief system did was make me blame myself for my own homelessness, my own abuse and in all seriousness, it broke down my identity and self confidence to the point that I was then abused again. Not just once, but multiple times whilst I was under the care of this physician/qualified mental health practitioner. I had proof and recordings of my abuse that occurred whilst under her care, and not once was a proper protocol followed in following that up.

Instead, I was invited to ‘let it go with love and peace’ and told to read a book called People of the Lie because it was going to teach me that quote ‘people are monsters. They do exist out there’. I didn’t ever call my initial abuser a monster. I didn’t think it was justified because I saw what made them do what they do directly. However, to then have that person labelled as a monster was a seriously delusional thing to do. My social worker had to intervene and did when I couldn’t shut up about this horrific experience. 2 years of increased suicidality. I nearly ended up dead. Was abused twice more and forensics linked that to this belief system. It left me defenceless. I left her care showing the same symptoms one would have after being involved in a domestically abusive relationship.

I now can’t leave my house because I am terrified someone will call me sick. I went to a new therapist and was completely flooded with flashbacks of experiences with this doctor. It took me years to understand that that belief system is actually the foundation of abuse and toxic shame.

You can’t take what you need and leave it when it comes to vulnerable communities. There are specific protocols that need to be confirmed to restore justice and power to those with illnesses of any kind so that they aren’t exposed to crap like the above.

We need to call this woman and these people what they are if they deny or promote these services as all someone needs or if they discourage medical attention. Worse, this person was involved in the medical community.

They are abusers. It’s creating a dependency on a system for healing that has now been proved wrong by modern neuroscience AND trauma-informed therapies.

I think spirituality matters, but not this. This is not okay. I was introduced to this belief system at my worst and I quite legitimately lost my career, my health, my mind and now have a therapy bill of upwards of 10,000 and no trust in treating professionals or my own abilities because I was undermined and shamed for two years.



Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 78: (About that man who drank cholera in 1880 and was “completely unaffected”)

May 31, 2020

Yes, it’s still going. If you have been following this series, I advise you to wash your hands before reading any further. Your palm is likely to land with some impact on your forehead in the course of reading this.

One of the major, and frequently repeated pieces of evidence that Lipton cites for his ideas was the case of a man who, in the 1880s, drank cholera-infected water and lived. I covered it rather dismissively and, it turns out, all too briefly.

A new review of Lipton’s book by Jakub Micko deals in more detail with this important aspect of Lipton’s claims and, as those who are familiar with Lipton will already be suspecting, it completely demolishes Lipton’s argument.

First, we can recall Lipton’s account:

One of [Robert] Koch’s critics was so convinced that the Germ Theory was wrong that he brazenly wolfed down a glass of water laced with vibrio cholerae, the bacteria Koch believed caused cholera. To everyone’s astonishment, the man was completely unaffected by the virulent pathogen. (p. 125)

Lipton continues to claim that science has dogmatically accepted Koch’s (and Pasteur’s) germ theory, and failed to research why this man was “completely unaffected”.

If it is claimed that this bacterium is the cause of cholera and the man demonstrates that he is unaffected by the germs. . .how can he be “incorrect?” Instead of trying to figure out how the man avoided the dreaded disease, scientists blithely dismiss this and other embarrassing “messy” exceptions that spoil their theories. Remember the “dogma” that genes control biology?

Lipton returns to this incident repeatedly throughout the book.

And now, Jakub Micko’s account of what happened to this man, whom Jakub has identified as one Max von Pettenkofer. (Lipton failed to identify him.)

If he [Lipton] had done more research he would have learnt Pettenkofer did get violent diarrhea and likely didn’t die because he had cholera as a child thereby having protection…

Be still my face-palming hand…

….So Pettenkofer “avoided the dreaded disease” because he was immune. And he was “completely unaffected” as long as you don’t consider “violent diarrhea” to be a noteworthy symptom.

Jakub very kindly shared the source for this information in a comment on one of my reviews. The article (from a Munich university’s history of science archive) states:

[Pettenkofer] stubbornly refused to accept that the bacterium Vibrio cholerae – identified in 1884 by his rival Robert Koch – was the sole cause of cholera. In his own work, he placed far greater emphasis on non-biological factors, such as soil type and the nature of the groundwater reservoir. This is the context in which, some years after Koch’s discovery of the real culprit, Pettenkofer drank the draught mentioned above. Fortunately, it resulted only in a violent bout of diarrhea. Most probably, he escaped more serious damage because he had been infected with V. cholerae as a child and retained sufficient immunity to the bacterium.

Clearly Pettenkofer was being dogmatic, and immediately got violent diarrhea because of it and maybe learned his lesson. But 140 years later, Lipton is still babbling dogmatically about it, though noticeably without drinking cholera to prove it.

Lipton claims that:

(a) scientists accept germ theory merely out of dogmatism
(b) scientists refuse to research this incident
(c) if scientists did research it, they would find that Pettenkofer’s case supports Lipton’s claim that the mind can somehow — he never says exactly how — overcome cholera; and
(d) that this supports his more general claim that thoughts can somehow — he never says exactly how — heal many other illnesses too.

As shown above, scientists did in fact research it, and Lipton didn’t. And their research showed that Lipton’s hero merely demonstrated immunity in accordance with modern virology, and got a fully deserved bout of violent diarrhoea while doing it. Well done yet again Dr Bruce.

Koch’s brilliant work has since been easing suffering, preventing illness and saving millions of lives. Here in Germany the Robert Koch Institute has been advising the government on how to deal with the coronavirus and has been, by all reasonable standards, highly effective. Dr Bruce Lipton, however, with his Ph.D in cell biology, still thinks Robert Koch was wrong and is still using this 140 year old case of diarrhoea to support his claims.

Lipton’s deadly and insanely stupid quackery is far more dangerous for people hoping to avoid illness with COVID-19 than is his cancer quackery. Cancer sufferers at least have a chance of protecting themselves if they can read the book critically or do some research. The friends, family and neighbours of Lipton fans however, have no such protection.

…..”I had coronavirus and I was completely unaffected. I could travel on buses and trains, eat in restaurants and visit friends for a week or so, and then I decided to lie down on my stomach and gulp for air for a few days, but I had no symptoms at all. Sadly my weak neighbours must have believed in the virus because so many of them are now sick or dead.”


Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated with facts: the final summing up

April 13, 2020

I have noticed an up-tick in people looking for information on Bruce Lipton and I assume this must have something to do with the Coronavirus and COVID-19. A brief check and I see that he is indeed contributing his ideas to the discussion. Clearly many people are trying to figure out if there is any merit to his claim that you can use thoughts to “control your biology”, so I will offer a brief summing up of my exhaustive 77 post review of his book The Biology of Belief.

Sadly, Lipton’s book The Biology of Belief fails entirely, and in the most ridiculous manner, to provide any support for his claims. It is baffling that someone with a Ph.D in biology can get so much basic factual information in his chosen field so wrong. Worse, the argument that he constructs doesn’t even connect up with the case he is trying to make. Unsurprisingly, the result is so incoherent, contradictory, and confusing that even Lipton frequently confuses himself and forgets what his own teachings are, and more than once winds up demolishing the case he was trying to make.

In order to make the summary that follows a little clearer, I will start with an analogy.

Lipton — a cell biologist who once co-authored a highly technical research paper — is like someone with a detailed knowledge of a particular New York subway station. He knows all the exits, all the stairways and passages, the dimensions of the platforms, and even has a detailed knowledge of the door-opening mechanism on the trains. After talking about all this, authoritatively and in exhaustive detail, he suddenly claims that you can take the Number 27 line and travel directly to a particular station in Paris….. Or Mars…. It’s all possible, thanks to quantum physics and epigenetics.

Our subway expert has gotten horribly confused as soon as he tries to switch from one level to another, and steps outside his narrow field of expertise.

That may sound like I’m exaggerating, but Lipton’s errors are indeed of such orders of magnitude. He proposes that cells, (the subway station in the analogy), are each individually controlled by the brain and can be ordered to start, stop, do this, do that, simply by thinking about it. This is because each cell has its own brain, which is somehow — he never says how — connected directly to the brain in your head.

So you can drink typhoid-infected water, and if you don’t believe you’ll contract typhoid you won’t. As proof, he repeatedly tells of a man in 1880 who drank typhoid and was “completely unaffected”, as he did not believe in the existence of the germs. Lipton uses this case to attack biologists:

Instead of trying to figure out how the man avoided the dreaded disease, scientists blithely dismiss this and other embarrassing “messy” exceptions that spoil their theories.

But Lipton does not identify the man or provide any references. In fact, the man was a certain Max von Pettenkofer, and although he really did consume typhoid bacteria, Lipton gets every other detail about it wrong. Scientists did not “blithely dismiss” this incident, but rather studied it more thoroughly than Lipton himself did. And Pettenkofer was not “entirely unaffected”, but became severely ill, suffered from what medical historians report as “violent diarrhoea”. And it wasn’t “mind over matter” that stopped him dying, but rather, the fact that he had already had typhoid as a child and was probably still partially immune.

This kind of mistake happens to Lipton several times in the book– he cites a case, gets the details completely wrong, and correcting the mistakes shows the case to demolish the claims he was trying to support. But his audience won’t know, unless they research the whole thing themselves. A complete failure for Lipton, and a deadly mistake for those who don’t realise he is often lying to them and concealing the checkable details, or simply too stupid and ignorant to realise how far out of his depth he is.

And yes, Lipton really does claim that each cell in your body literally has its own brain. His proof of it is the spectacular centre-piece of his book. It’s one of many places where he, the self-proclaimed founder of a New Science, “over-turns mainstream biology”.

Mainstream biology, Lipton explains, believes that the brain of the cell is the nucleus. You see, the cell is a tiny image of a human being, with its own nutritive system, waste-removal system, and all the other things that an individual person has. Biologists of course, do not believe anything of the sort. Biologists do not think the cell has a brain. It is embarrassing even to have to point this out. The human brain of course has about 86 billion cells, with about 300 trillion connections, making it the most complex thing in the known universe. A single cell is indeed complex. Nevertheless, it is still at least 300 trillion times less complex than your brain. Isn’t it….

And of course, no structure in the cell is functionally similar to the brain. What’s more, just because you draw analogies between certain parts of the cell and certain parts of the body as Lipton does, it does not mean that all parts of the cell must therefore have all the characteristics that a human being has — as Lipton idiotically assumes. (Here Lipton gets a basic biological concept, homology, completely wrong by confusing it with “analogy”.)

But okay, let’s give the guy a chance. We will follow him as he attempts what he hopes is the spectacular central argument of his book.

What would happen, Lipton asks, if someone were to have their brain removed? Of course, they would immediately die. Therefore, according to modern biology, if you remove a cell’s brain, the cell will die too.


In retrospect, scientists should have known that genes couldn’t provide the control of our lives. By definition, the brain is the organ responsible for controlling and coordinating the physiology and behavior of an organism. But is the nucleus truly the cell’s brain? If our assumption that the nucleus and its DNA-containing material is the “brain” of the cell, then removing the cell’s nucleus, a procedure called enucleation, should result in the immediate death of the cell.

And now, for the big experiment… (Maestro, a drum roll if you please).

The scientist drags our unwilling cell into the microscopic operating arena and straps it down. Using a micromanipulator, the scientist guides a needle-like micropipette into position above the cell. With a deft thrust of the manipulator, our investigator plunges the pipette deep into the cell’s cytoplasmic interior. By applying a little suction, the nucleus is drawn up into the pipette and the pipette is withdrawn from the cell. Below the nucleus-engorged pipette lies our sacrificial cell – its “brain” tom out.

But wait! It’s still moving! My God… the cell is still alive!

(Biology of Belief, p.64)

There are a large number of problems here.

As Lipton correctly points out, the nucleus is full of DNA. What biology would predict — and would have predicted since the late 1800s — is that if you remove the nucleus, the cell will fail to replicate. No biologist since that time would be in the least surprised by Lipton’s demonstration. There is even biological term, enucleated, for such cells.

This is a central argument for Lipton, and it has already failed. Biologists don’t think cells have a brain, not the nucleus, nor anything else. Therefore removing it and not killing a cell does not overturn biology. And far from being a revolutionary new discovery thanks to the brilliant Doctor Lipton, it is a procedure that is carried out routinely and even has its own wikipedia page.

But Lipton is so excited about all this that he wants to push it even further, and “solve” the next (completely non-existent) problem: what, then is the brain of the cell?

Let’s put the membrane to the same “brain” test to which we put the nucleus. When you destroy its membrane, the cell dies just as you would if your brain were removed.


….Which is not only pointless but wrong as well.

The above footage is of membrane-less cells extracted from a fruit fly embryo.

Let’s put this clearly. Lipton fabricated the idea that biologists think cells have brains. He then fabricated the idea that they think the cell’s brain is the nucleus. Wrong on both counts. Then he staged a demonstration to “disprove” the latter non-existent claim, according to his own entirely fabricated standards. And he failed.

He failed even by his own entirely bogus standards to disprove a claim he fabricated himself and attributed to his opponents.

And then he made it even worse, with another demonstration to “prove” his own entirely specious claim that “the membrane is the brain of the cell” and failed again — even according to his own self-defined and entirely fabricated standards.

For someone who thinks he’s knows so much more about biology than his colleagues, and that he is revolutionising their field and exposing them as dumb frauds, that is a spectacular degree of both ignorance and incompetence.

The main claim of Lipton’s book is that the mind, especially affirmations (mentally repeating “positive” words) can cure cancer. People who buy the book, including cancer sufferers hoping to cure themselves, assume he is presenting scientific evidence that supports this claim. But despite all the technical jargon, complicated babbling about cell biology and vicious accusations about “materialistic science” being nothing more than a blindly dogmatic ideology, he never in fact even attempts to back up that central idea. Instead he blandly mentions the idea in passing, and assumes that his readers already agree.

Even more bafflingly, he declares that negative beliefs held in the subconscious need to be consciously overruled or they will cause cancer. Here is the passage, on page 127.

You can repeat the positive affirmation that you are lovable over and over or that your cancer tumor will shrink. But if, as a child, you heard over and over that you are worthless and sickly, those messages programmed in your subconscious mind will undermine your best conscious efforts to change your life.

This is difficult to achieve as the subconscious is, he declares, “millions of times more powerful than the conscious mind”. He promises to outline a solution for this terrifying weakness:

We’ll learn more about the origins of self-sabotaging subconscious programming in Chapter 7, Conscious Parenting, and how to quickly rewrite them.

Sadly, he has talked himself into such a hysterical state of incoherent blithering, that by the time he gets to Chapter 7, he forgets to say anything about it. Luckily for him though, absolutely none of his readers have noticed this.

If you think I am exaggerating all this, go ahead and read the book! It’s all in there, albeit it in a form that is so incoherent and jargon-filled that nearly all its readers give up after a couple of pages and simply assume it says whatever they want it to say.

Or check what I’m saying by reading some of the 77 blogposts I wrote, going through the book page by page. He frequently tries to impress his readers by including lengthy blocks of highly complex lecture notes that seem to have been copy-and-pasted into the text. Readers glance at these and assume they must be the complicated scientific justification for his assertions — muscle reflexes in cloned endothelial cells, the evolutionary history of slugs, and the like — but they don’t link up at all with his arguments.

Here is a very brief run down of a mere half a dozen of Lipton’s stupidest errors.

1. He claims that modern biology is an ideological dogma, blinded by an adherence to Darwinism. But modern medicine has little if anything to do with Darwinian evolution (with the obvious and spectacularly successful exception of immunology). He sides instead with Lamarck, in a controversy which flared up briefly in the 1870s and was decisively cleared up in favour of Darwin in the 1890s and confirmed by every single relevant finding ever since. And Lipton gets Lamarck’s ideas wrong, ascribing natural selection to Lamarck instead of Darwin.

2. He claims that something known jokingly in genetics as The Central Dogma is wrong. It is true that there are two versions of this: a good one, and an slightly simplified one which leads to some confusion as it doesn’t account for retro-viruses. Geneticists who are unaware of the better version sometimes get excited about “over-turning the central dogma!”, when really they’ve only shown the simple model to be outdated. Initially I thought Lipton was making this error in his book, and devoted two complicated blogposts to it. Given that quite a few geneticists have fallen into this trap, I was prepared to cut Lipton some slack on it,  but then I realised he doesn’t know what the Central Dogma is! He thinks it’s genetic determinism. But this idea, associated with eugenics, was exposed as pseudo-science in 1930s. Later versions of it which accompanied the discovery of the structure of DNA were swiftly dispatched by zoologists who pointed out that even Aristotle’s biology 2500 years ago had a more complex understanding of the biology of behaviour!

…So that is what Lipton is referring to each of the dozens of times he complains about “genetic determinism”. (Even more stupidly, he commits exactly this error himself when he advises parents to toss their baby into a swimming pool and watch it instinctively “swim like a dolphin”. Don’t that! Your baby might instinctively perform the brachiating motion that looks like swimming, but it hasn’t developed the necessary musculature and will drown.)

3. He claims that it is due to fractals that the cell is a miniature replicate of a human being, with all the same attributes and skills. Fractals — repetitions of a form at various scales — does apply in the odd case, (for example one part of the lung is structured partly in such a manner), but it does not apply to whole humans, and doesn’t occur throughout the entire body through every scale! In the Middle Ages some theologians believed that male semen contains tiny little human-seeds that simply expand when planted in a womb, but there is nothing like this idea anywhere in modern biology, apart from Lipton’s weird notion that “the cell” is also such a case.

4. Lipton claims that modern medicine has refused to utilise advances in physics. I will simply invite the reader to recall any medical intervention they’ve experienced which involved some kind of a machine. (Lipton realises the absurdity of this claim himself when he includes a scan of a cancer tumour, but dismisses it as a “rare case” of medicine using modern technology.) Lipton himself mentions the discovery of X-rays in 1895, but fails to realise that where physicists swiftly lost interest in that particular phenomenon, medical science immediately began using it for diagnosis.

5. Lipton claims that the reason modern medicine rejects modern physics is because biology is ideologically committed to “Newtonian physics”. Baffling as this claim is in itself — the inverse square law of gravitation is rarely if ever invoked by medical practitioners — Lipton gets Newtonian physics wrong. He thinks it is “linear thinking”

Figure from Biology of Belief, p.104

…and is incapable of dealing with any occurrence that is not sequential. By this measure, a map of the New York subway lines would have been too complex for humans to construct until the advent of quantum physics. (Yes, Lipton’s argument really is that simplistic.) Moreover, Lipton clearly never heard of Newton’s invention of calculus.

6. Even more stupidly — and this is really gobsmacking — Lipton thinks that this…

Figure from Biology of Belief, p.105

…is quantum physics.

Yes, that is really what he thinks quantum physics is! I am not joking!

And modern medicine’s rejection of it makes anything more complex than A->B->C is incomprehensible to a modern medical doctor.

And he pushes this stupidity even further of course, with an absolutely hilarious attempt at explaining the equation E=mc2. He fails completely, despite taking five runs at it, wherein he devises five different and completely wrong versions of it. Even that is too hard for him, and he is too stupid to realise — despite having dedicated the book to Einstein.

I am only scratching the surface of this man’s spectacular and hilariously stupid mistakes. But horrifyingly, the book is aimed at cancer sufferers who are often scared or desperate, and it is way too complicated for even his most loyal fans to penetrate beyond a page or two, so they take it on trust that cancer or any other illness can be healed via “mind over matter” as he promises.

Anyone who recommends this book has not read it. Any such person deserves to lose all credibility and never be trusted again on any matter pertaining to science, health, or reality. Nor should they even be trusted on information about alternative medicine, as Lipton’s descriptions of treatments like homeopathy, acupuncture, and all the other modalities he name-checks are just as inaccurate as his everything else!

I say to anyone who claims to have read this book and wants to defend it, go right ahead — comments are open. Otherwise stop recommending this deadly dangerous book.

Posted by Yakaru


Two more comments trying to defend Louise Hay’s deadly quackery

January 19, 2020

On an earlier post titled Speaking ill of a dead cancer quack, two commenters have repeated the exactly the usual lies that all the other people who defend Louise Hay’s fraud. I will consider them in a separate post so that next time people leave exactly the same comment I can just send them here.

Commenter “River” said this:

The person who wrote this article not even read her books and is saying lies. She never said that you don’t need to go to the doctor or take medicines. When she was sick she had chemotherapy and healed with that and her beliefs. She doesn’t talk about a “methafisical” healing, all she talk is about changing the way we think about ourselves and how that can help to heal us, sadness and guilt in fact can create illnesses and we all know that, because our inmune system goes down. This article is just for to divert the attention from the inner knowledge and make people buy more to pharmaceuticals and be addicted to it and continue being anxious and unhappy because that’s what the system needs.

Ok. First two sentences:

The person who wrote this article not even read her books and is saying lies. She never said that you don’t need to go to the doctor or take medicines.

“River” is lying. I didn’t say she said that. Read the article.

When she was sick she had chemotherapy and healed with that and her beliefs.

What she claimed is that affirmations healed her where the doctors failed. That’s why the doctors were so baffled (she says) when the cancer she claimed she had was gone. That was the whole point of the story, and that’s why I emphasised that she “couldn’t remember” the doctors’ names or what stage her “cancer” was at, and that she did bother to keep any record of it, even though she’d already published the book which claims affirmations can heal cancer and every other disease (You Can Heal Your Life).

Se doesn’t talk about a “methafisical” healing, all she talk is about changing the way we think about ourselves and how that can help to heal us…

Flat wrong. Look at You Can Heal Your Life. Three columns appear on each page: Illness; Metaphysical Cause; Healing Affirmation.

…sadness and guilt in fact can create illnesses and we all know that, because our inmune system goes down.

Stress can weaken the immune system and exacerbate already existing problems, leading to illness. This is well researched, well understood, but in my opinion, under-emphasised in medicine. Louise Hay has contributed nothing but confusion and lies to this field.

This article is just for to divert the attention from the inner knowledge and make people buy more to pharmaceuticals and be addicted to it and continue being anxious and unhappy because that’s what the system needs.

Like every other commenter who has ever tried to defend Louise Hay here, “River” has not addressed the problem I raised about people dying because they thought Louise Hay is offering a cancer cure. They don’t care about their fellow customers who have died because they thought that “Healing Affirmation” means “affirmation that heals”, or her “Healing Cancer” cd is concerned with healing cancer.

They don’t care about any of the cases I mentioned in the article, nor do they bother reading the earlier post (Louise Hay is a dangerous quack) I linked to where I list some of the hundreds of google searches that show in my site stats, revealing people googling “Louise Hay cancer cure” Louise Hay breast cancer” and the like.

“River”, I agree with you that Louise Hay does not have a cure for cancer. You don’t need to tell me that. You need to get on the Louise Hay forums and tell people there. They might believe you before they believe me. You might save a few lives.

And also, River, where did Louise Hay say she had chemotherapy? I never read that anywhere or heard it. But go ahead and tell people she did though — that lie at least might help convince someone to do it.

I’ll go through the she second comment, from Carla, line by line.

I really recommend you to read “You Can Heal your Life”, this is not about “methapysics”, it’s about being in peace with yourself and your past, is about forgiving the people who hurt you in the past and that’s what will change you.

Then why does it claim that all diseases have a “Metaphysical Cause”?

My friend healed from cancer thanks to this books and the chemotherapy.

This assertion is potentially deadly. While some will read it and think “Louise Hay’s products will help heal me along with chemotherapy.” Fine as long as they undergo chemo. If Louise Hay’s mushy words help anyone at all who has to go through that, I wish them all the best. Really.

But other people, like the people I mentioned in the article and whom Carla and River ignore, will read Louise Hay saying that affirmations healed her where the doctors failed.

I healed from other illnesses too.

Again, asserting that Louise Hay’s products “heal” illnesses. They don’t. In fact, affirmations are a very poor form of stress management. Simplistic and unreliable, and are often attached to the false and psychologically unhealthy idea that thoughts and events can be divided into “positive” and “negative”.

I became less hateful.

Well you are certainly less hateful so far than many other Louise Hay fans, like the earlier commenter on this thread telling me I would get cancer because of my “negativity”.

Many lifes had changed with her help. She never said to not going to the doctor or not taking medicines.

Just like “River”, Carla accuses of saying I said she did. Why do Louise Hay fans ALL repeat the same lies here about me? And never address any of the serious criticisms I make of Hay?

It’s clear that the person who wrote this article never read her books.

It’s clear Carla didn’t bother reading the article, because I discuss the content of her books in some detail.

EVERYBODY who read this book love it and feel better.

Great advertising from Carla, but it’s obviously not true. Human psychology is not as simple as Carla thinks, and physiology is more complex than Hay claims. Hay talks as if we know as much about human physiology today as we did in the time of Jesus. Thus leprosy has a metaphysical cause, and a prayer can heal it. Thus, everything that goes on under the skin is a mystery that we can only gawp at in wonder or horror.

Thus, the body is both mysterious — somehow affirmations will help and we can’t know how — and also so simple that EVERYBODY will react exactly the same way to the affirmations that Louise Hay claims will heal, as inevitably as an aspirin will thin the blood.

Posted by Yakaru


Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 77 (The book stops)

November 10, 2019

This is really the end!

To the dozen or so people who have somehow managed to keep up with this entire series, my sincere thanks and sympathy. I couldn’t have done it without knowing someone was reading it.

I might do one more post summing it up, and as a spin off project I might write about some the deranged lunatic scammers who wrote blurbs for this book, as long as its fun. This post is pretty dull. It’s Lipton’s big finale, but he fluffs it. I’m sure he was leading up to say that each human is like one cell in the whole collective body of the earth and that by transforming ourselves we can save the earth, but just forgot to say it. He still manages to cram in a few more of his extraordinarily stupid comound errors and says some more very silly things. And of course, the example he presents to make his in fact demolishes the case but he is too stupid to realise it.

Now Lipton is going to try to prove that his “fractal evolution” not only occurs, but has more explanatory power than the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis (which includes Darwinian natural selection, plus population genetics). This will be difficult for Lipton. Every species on earth is a living example of tens of thousands if not millions of pieces of evidence for the modern synthesis, while for fractal evolution he hasn’t offered a single case, nor even said exactly what it is.

Nor for that matter has he said what evolution is — I spent more time explaining in the above parentheses than Lipton has said about it in the whole book, despite having babbled on endless about page after page, chapter after chapter. There is a reason for this omission — he doesn’t know what evolution is.

The exciting, esoteric world of fractal geometry…

Factual error. It’s not esoteric. Lipton thought it deals with “other dimensions” but it doesn’t and Lipton is a fool. It uses a different definition of “dimension” as noted by @sclmw in the comments to the previous post. As he points out (and as illustrated in the video he linked to, “fractals are a different way to describe dimensions where shapes can be defined as having a fractional number of dimensions.” (He has also written an informative article about how fractals are really used in geometry.)

Lipton’s sentence continues:

…[fractal geometry] provides a mathematical model that suggests that the “arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident” that Mayr wrote about is an outmoded concept.

This both a factual error and a deliberate lie, and I covered it in post 72. Lipton pulled the usual Creationist trick of cutting off the other half of the quote. Mayr in fact continued to explain why in fact it isn’t random at all.

In fact, I believe it is an idea that does not serve humanity and should, as rapidly as possible, go the way of the pre-Copernican Earth-centered Universe.

Again, Lipton still hasn’t noticed that natural selection involves selection, and thus is not random.

Once we realize that there are repeating, ordered patterns in Nature and evolution…

…which occur rarely and have nothing to do with fractal geometry except as an imperfect analogy….

….the lives of cells, which inspired this book and the changes in my life, become even more instructive.

Go on, Dr Bruce, tell us yet again why you’ve been inspired to live out your life your life like a bacterium.

For billions of years, cellular living systems have been carrying out an effective peace plan that enables them to enhance their survival as well as the survival of the other organisms in the biosphere.

Well that statement was pretty fucking goddam stupid, wasn’t it. Yes, he really thinks cells sat down and mapped out a peaceful survival plan using fractals and quantum physics while eschewing the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis.

Imagine a population of trillions of individuals living under one roof in a state of perpetual happiness.

I’ll cut half a page of rhetorical flourishes about the human body being exactly this population of happy cells.

This happy that Lipton keeps talking about is the “positive energy” of the law of attraction. It is also the reason that every single photo of Lipton that he has published shows him giggling in a strange and silly manner. Like all law of attraction fans, he thinks a good life is one where you are always just as happy as your liver cells are.

Clearly cellular communities work better than human communities— there are no left-out, “homeless” cells in our bodies.

Well go and join an ant colony then, Dr Bruce.

But for those who don’t want to be happy all the all the time, and who sometimes choose negativity, he has some terrifying news — CANCERRRRR!!!!!!!

Unless of course, our cellular communities are in profound disharmony causing some cells to withdraw from cooperating with the community. Cancers essentially represent homeless, jobless cells that are living off the other cells in the community.

Here’s a more accurate metaphor, Dr Lipton. Cancer cells are the ones who just don’t know when to shut up and switch themselves off. Just like you.

Then he veers off and recounts his idiotic version of the evolution of the cell — yet again. again. But this time he says that billions of years ago the cells started to run out of space, just like humans are today. He blabs on about this idea for half a page, crammed full of technical jargon, and then says this:

The end result was humans, at or near the top of the evolutionary ladder.

…Um, What? Read that again.

At or near the top of…??????????

Of course — if the non-existent evolutionary ladder exists, then it must also have some extra rungs!

And who will get there? Of course — it will be the gaggle of spiritual scammers depicted at the end of the previous post. But how will they get there?

Will it be by using Lipton’s fractal evolution?

Similarly, I believe that the stresses of the increasing human population will be responsible for pushing us up another rang on the evolutionary ladder.


We will, I believe, come together in a global community.


The members of that enlightened community will recognize that we are made in the image of our environment, i.e. that we are Divine…

What does that mean???

…and that we have to operate, not in a survival of the fittest manner, but in a way that supports everyone and everything on this planet.


[New subheading] Survival of the Most Loving


[Rhetorical question]…Isn’t Darwin right that violence is at the core of life?

Factual error. Darwin said no such thing. He studied the role of cooperation in evolution at great length. Lipton is 150 years out of date.

Isn’t violence the way of the natural world? What about all those documentaries that show animals stalking animals, animals snaring animals, animals killing animals?

Well that does actually happen, doesn’t it.

Don’t humans possess an inborn inclination to violence?

Yep, a primitive one, as well as a primitive inborn inclination to enjoy snuggling up to others and keeping warm. This really isn’t complicated, Dr Bruce.

The logic goes: Animals are violent, humans are animals, and therefore humans are violent.
No! Humans are not “stuck” with an innate, viciously competitive nature any more than we are stuck with genes that make us sick or make us violent.

Lipton is very excited about this. Modern evolutionary theory is wrong, and his fractal evolution is right! And he is going to prove it by babbling at great length about a study by primatologist Robert Sapolsky.

We can skip it entirely though, because the study accords perfectly with modern evolutionary theory. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with Lipton’s ‘fractal evolution’.

He babbles incoherently for several pages about genes, and then finally gets to some concrete advice for how you can improve your evolution:

Join communities of like-minded people who are working toward advancing human civilization by realizing that Survival of the Most Loving is the only ethic that will ensure not only a healthy personal life but also a healthy planet.

Ahhh, yes, I guess that would fix it, wouldn’t it. Well done Dr Lipton, it was quite a struggle, but you got there in the end.

Remember those under-prepared, under-appreciated Caribbean students who banded together, like the cells they studied in their histology course, to form a community of successful students? Use them as role models and you will help ensure a Hollywood ending not just for individuals mired in self-sabotaging beliefs, but also for this planet.


A Hollywood ending???

My goodness, I wasn’t expecting such high-flown rhetoric, but we are almost at the end now. Time for one final piece of advice:

Use the intelligence of cells to propel humanity one more rung up the evolutionary ladder where the most loving do more than just survive, they thrive.

And that’s the end of the book.

Isn’t it….

No it isn’t there’s a fucking addendum, isn’t there! Lipton just keeps babbling for another 10 pages…. but I won’t cover it. It’s just a long advertising screed promoting Lipton’s mate Rob, who runs the Psych-K scam — that mind/body technology that Lipton probably got scammed into buying shares in. Maybe I will write something about this Rob character if he’s ridiculous enough.

The End…

…kinda… unless do do some kind of summing up, but that could easily turn into another dozen posts, so maybe I won’t.


Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 76 (Spiritual supremacy & fractal eugenics)

November 3, 2019

Welcome to the — really — second last post in this series.

Along with Lipton’s constant attacks on Descartes, “genetic determinism”, and “Newtonian” biology, (each of which he gets more or less completely wrong), the other great opponent he repeatedly singles out is Charles Darwin — and of course he gets all the fundamentals of evolutionary theory completely wrong as well.

Well maybe that’s not entirely fair. He did manage to get one aspect of natural selection half right, but he attributed it to Lamarck instead of Darwin. And had Lamarck really believe it, it would have demolished the rest of Lamarck’s theory, (a theory to which Lipton still ascribes).

So now it’s Lipton’s turn to out-do Darwin and the whole of modern evolutionary theory. He is about to map out his own ideas.

Fractal Evolution— A Theory We Can Live With

And with that sub-heading, it’s clear that Lipton has already made made his first factual error.Creationists always make this one too. He thinks the “theory” of evolution means “speculation”. In fact in fact it is “theory” in the same way that aerodynamic theory is theory — it’s a body of knowledge with practical application.

I’ve explained why I am now a spiritual scientist. Now I’d like to explain why I am an optimist.

(Anyone feeling depressed about the current state of the world avert your eyes now!)

The story of evolution is, I believe, a story of repeating patterns.

And with that sentence Lipton has demonstrated that he really doesn’t have a clue what evolution is. The entire point of evolution is that patterns get replicated with occasional error. Without, there is no variation, no new species, and no evolution.

We are at a crisis point, but the planet has been here before. Evolution has been punctuated with upheavals, which virtually wiped out existing species, including the best-known casualties, the dinosaurs. Those upheavals were directly linked to environmental catastrophes just as today’s crisis is. As the human population increases, we are competing for space with the other organisms with whom we share the planet. But the good news is that similar pressures in the past have brought into being a new way of living, and will do so again.

Ok… I guess the change from T-Rex to battery chicken could be called a “new way of living”, but I don’t think T-Rex’s would see it as “better”.

We are concluding one evolutionary cycle and preparing to embark upon another.

Factual error. There’s no such thing as an “evolutionary cycle”. And even if there was, it would not include “evolutionarily” getting hit by a giant meteor.

As this cycle comes to an end…

Factual error. Lipton thinks evolution is somehow pre-programmed or designed, as well as all being about humans.

…people are becoming understandably apprehensive and alarmed by the failures in the structures that support civilization. I believe, however, that the “dinosaurs” that are currently raping Nature will become extinct.

Yes, Lipton really thinks that “the dinosaurs” brought about their own destruction by “raping Nature”, and thus somehow attracting that meteor. He believes in the ‘law of attraction’.

The survivors will be those who realize that our thoughtless ways are destructive to the planet and to us.

Does anyone at all have the faintest idea what he is talking about? How will these “dinosaurs” kill themselves without killing the rest of us?

How can I be so sure?

Yes — HOW????

And here is his answer:

My certitude comes from my study of fractal geometry.

Um….. What?

Here’s a definition of geometry, which will explain why it is important for studying the structure of our biosphere.

And he’s off on another copy-and-paste lecture note rant, blabbering on at some length about Euclidean geometry, before telling us he didn’t need to tell us all of that because–

…Euclidean geometry does not apply to Nature.

Factual error. Yes it does. Or it can. When Eratosthenes calculated the earth’s circumference in 276 BC, using a stick and measuring the length of its shadow on the same calendar day first in Athens and then in Alexandria, he was using, effectively, Euclidean geometry.

For example, you cannot map a tree, a cloud or a mountain using the mathematical formulas of this geometry.

What??? Of course you can. It would just get very complicated.

In Nature, most organic and inorganic structures display more irregular and chaotic-appearing patterns.

Exactly. Like I just said — it would get complex, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t map out their structures. It’s just a question of what kind of resolution you want to go to. It couldn’t show atoms, but at that level you can’t see the structure of a leaf or whatever, either.

And how would being able to do this save the world from catastrophe?????

These natural images can only be created by using the recently discovered mathematics called fractal geometry. French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot launched the field of fractal mathematics and geometry in 1975.

Ok, maybe that would make it easier, I guess, but remember — it doesn’t just have to be better: it has to kill off the bad guys and let the good ones live as well! I have no idea where he is going with this or why he is even talking about it.

Like quantum physics, fractal (fractional) geometry forces us to consider those irregular patterns, a quirkier world of curvy shapes and objects with more than three dimensions.

What???? What the fuck??? Name a natural (or even Natural) object that has more than three dimensions.

And as noted, curvy shapes are not too “quirky” for Euclidean geometry. Anyway, here is Lipton’s explanation of fractal geometry. I know nothing about math, so I won’t comment on it. (Comments are open for those who do!)

The mathematics of fractals is amazingly simple because you need only one equation, using only simple multiplication and addition. The same equation is then repeated ad infinitum. For example, the “Mandelbrot set” is based on the simple formula of taking a number, multiplying it by itself and then adding the original number. The result of that equation is then used as the input of the subsequent equation; the result of that equation is then used as the input for the next equation and so on. The challenge is that even though each equation follows the same formula, these equations must be repeated millions of times to actually visualize a fractal pattern. The manual labor and time needed to complete millions of equations prevented early mathematicians from recognizing the value of fractal geometry. With the advent of powerful computers Mandelbrot was able to define this new math.

Inherent in the geometry of fractals is the creation of ever-repeating, “self-similar” patterns nested within one another. You can get a rough idea of the repeating shapes by picturing the eternally popular toy, hand-painted Russian nesting dolls. Each smaller structure is a miniature, but not necessarily an exact version of the larger form.

Here’s a video explaining this a bit more clearly than Lipton does. But note that while it shows nice harmonious patterns developing….

Screen shot from video showing a “stable” fractal (Source: “Numberphile”, linked above)

….it also shows how with a mere flick of the wrist, these structures also explode catastrophically!

Screenshot from video showing an unstable fractal ‘exploding’

Fractal geometry emphasizes the relationship between the patterns in a whole structure and the patterns seen in parts of a structure. For example, the pattern of twigs on a branch resembles the pattern of limbs branching off the trunk.

Ok, nice. And?

The pattern of a major river looks like the patterns of its smaller tributaries. In the human lung, the fractal pattern of branching along the bronchus repeats in the smaller bronchioles. The arterial and venous blood vessels and the peripheral nervous system also display similar repeating patterns.

What’s the point here?

Are the repetitive images observed in Nature simply coincidence?

Oh for heaven’s sake. What about all the images that aren’t repetitive???

I believe the answer is definitely “no.”

Oh my god. This is just an ‘Argument from Design’ from Medieval theology.

To explain why I believe fractal geometry defines the structure of life, let’s revisit two points….

Um, no, let’s not. Let’s cut this short.

If you fool around with fractals like the guy in the video does, sometimes you come up with something that looks like a fern. In other words, it is analogous to a fern. All it means is that if you want to draw something that looks like a fern using a fancy mathematical program; or if you want to do some rough calculations about the growth rate of a fern, fractal geometry might help you a bit.

It doesn’t mean that nature follows the laws of geometry. That’s what Plato believed 2500 years ago.

But Lipton is going to push on.

First, the story of evolution is, as I’ve emphasized many times in this book, the story of ascension to higher awareness.

Factual error #1: emphasising that it “is” doesn’t make it so.
Factual error #2: as far as I can recall, he hasn’t made this claim even once in this book, let alone try to argue that it is!
Factual error #3: evolution is driven by selection acting upon variations within a population. It does not miraculously “ascend”.
Factual error #4: this idea is similar to but less sophisticated than the idea of Great Chain of Being or Scala naturae of Plato and Aristotle. The only people who support this kind of idea today are racists like David Duke and idiots like Bruce Lipton.

Second, in our study of the membrane, we defined the receptor-effector protein complex (IMPs) as the fundamental unit of awareness/ intelligence.

Indeed he did define it as that, but he initially put “intelligence” in inverted commas, and simply removed them, thus declaring the analogy real.

But go on, Dr Bruce.

Consequently, the more receptor-effector proteins (the olives in our bread and butter sandwich model) an organism possesses, the more awareness it can have and the higher it is on the evolutionary ladder.

This is just utter rubbish, even by Lipton’s own atrociously stupid standards. Ok, we can pretend cells can be “intelligent”. But that means that the cells themselves are all just as intelligent as each other. A liver cell in a mouse is not necessarily “more complex” than a liver cell in a human. This means that there is no “evolutionary ladder” among cells — neither in reality nor even in Lipton’s stupid version of reality.

However, there are physical restrictions for increasing the number of receptor-effector proteins that can be packed into the cell’s membrane….

And he’s off again on yet another cut-paste-lecture-note rant, with nanometers, phospholipid bilayers and Integral Membrane Proteins, and argues that cells needed to get bigger to “expand their awareness”. And that this is the point of evolution.

Evolution, the expansion of awareness, can then be physically defined by the increase of membrane surface area. Mathematical studies have found that fractal geometry is the best way to get the most surface area (membrane) within a three-dimensional space (cell). Therefore, evolution becomes a fractal affair.

Let’s restate that: in the one or two cases where evolution might have involved a fractal increase in the surface area of a membrane, fractal geometry might be useful for calculating that increase. In all the tens of billions of other cases, it isn’t.

Repeating patterns in Nature are a necessity, not a coincidence, of “fractal” evolution.

That sentence is both meaningless and ungrammatical. Clearly this is all getting too fractal for Lipton’s editor.

The strikingly beautiful, computer-generated pictures that illustrate fractal patterns should remind us that, despite our modem angst and the seeming chaos of our world, there is order in Nature and there is nothing truly new under the sun.

But what about the way patterns explode? Maybe when the sun finally explodes that will also be fractal, but it doesn’t give me hope or mean that God designed it.

And then, incredibly, unexpectedly, Lipton states specifically the reason why he has been babbling on about all this, and why it gives him hope.

Evolution’s repetitive, fractal patterns allow us to predict that humans will figure out how to expand their consciousness…

Well, it has been said that a cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education.

…in order to climb another rung of the evolutionary ladder.

And what will this super-race look like? Believe it or not, a rather odd bunch of spiritual supremacist con-men think this race already exists! Let me introduce to you your new spiritual over-lords!

The Golden Future: Evolutionary Leaders (Lipton top centre right)

Yes, they really believe they are “more highly evolved” than you are.



Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 75 (Lipton’s analogy demolishes his own case yet again)

October 27, 2019

Only three more posts to go in this series. I know I said that about 6 posts ago, but I mean it this time! All that’s left is some loose ends to tie up about how to get yourself reincarnated as a TV set; to be followed next time by trashing the last of Lipton’s many copy-and-paste lecture-notes-rants; and then finally dealing with some product-placement and cross-promotion he tacks on at the end of the book. on. And then we’re done!

But for now, Lipton is still hypothetically dead and trying to get himself reincarnated.

One of the repetitive themes of this book is how horrible it was of Rene Descartes in 1650 to say the body is a machine, and his accusation that modern biology is simply a continuation of that idea.

But then Lipton himself suddenly tells people to conceive of their own body as a television set!

For Descartes the soul had the qualities of being rational and immortal. For Lipton the soul is analogous to the single anonymous wavelength of a TV broadcast.

For Descartes the soul communicated with the brain by connecting with the pineal gland by means of a highly complicated anatomy, which turned out to be pure fantasy — which instantly sunk his entire theory. Had he studied the available anatomy books more closely, he would have instantly seen his error.

For Lipton the soul communicates with the body via “identity receptors” embedded in the cell membrane, which work like a TV antenna, and “download” the self into each of our 37.2 trillion cells. These are likewise pure fantasy, and likewise has immediately sunk his entire theory. But unlike Descartes, Lipton has a Ph.D. in cell biology, access to electron microscopes and all of modern technology, and also 450 more years of biological research than Descartes had. And yet he has made exactly the same kind of mistake.

And he hasn’t realised it.

Surprisingly though, Lipton does realise in the next page or two that his analogy of the body as a TV set is problematic. He introduced the idea that organs transplanted from one body to another continue to “download” memories and habitual behaviours from the soul(/TV broadcast) of the donor, and transmit these to the recipient.

The reported cases are of course entirely spurious — so recipients of pig heart valves need not worry about unusual behavioural changes. But the claim raises a problem for Lipton’s TV set = body analogy, because TV sets don’t “upload” the TV’s personal experiences and send them back to the TV station for storage.

To be fair, Lipton admits it:

While the TV analogy is useful, it is not a complete one because a television is only a playback device.

We haven’t quite gotten to the part where he says the above quote yet, but we can note it in advance. And we can ignore the routine factual error (of course it’s not a ‘playback device’) and note that this is an important problem for Lipton to solve. There’s a lot riding on this analogy. He’s using it to explain the (non-existent) transference of memories from a transplanted organ to the recipient, which he in turn uses as a “model” for immortality and reincarnation…. Which in turn seems to be an important aspect of his cancer quackery– you don’t really die; and you get a new body.

Even though the body of the person who donated the organs is dead, their broadcast is still on. They are, as I realized in my flash of insight while mulling over the mechanics of the cellular membrane— immortal, as I believe we all are. Cells and organ transplants offer a model not only for immortality but also for reincarnation.

He returns to his idea that the thing that makes a recipient’s body accept or reject a transplanted organ also “download” the soul of a person and all their memories and behaviours in the cell.

….Yes — Lipton thinks your soul is downloaded into each of the 37.2 trillion cells in your body. And each cell not only receives all of your memories and behaviours, but it can also transmit these back up to your brain. Remember that he thinks the brain connects directly to each of the 37.2 trillion cells in the body.

Ok, let’s grant him that the “identity receptors” do exist, and they do download (and upload) his soul and all its contents.

This means that if someone kindly donates a kidney to someone else, then part of the donor’s self will now be squished inside the recipient’s body, and will sit there, transmitting the contents of the donor’s soul to the recipient, and also uploading new information from the recipient to the donor’s soul(TV station).

And that proves reincarnation.


Consider the possibility that an embryo in the future displays the same set of identity receptors that I now possess. That embryo will be tuned into my “self.”

……….Ummm…………… Ok. We’ve granted that the non-existent “identity receptors” do exist, and the soul is an entity that is simple enough to be picked up by them, if they are correctly tuned, and that this is such a simple process that organ donors also donate access to their soul as well the use of their heart kidney or pig’s heart and soul.

And now we are banking on the possibility that if an identical set of these (non-existent) “identity receptors” arise by pure chance, then…..

My identity is back but playing through a different body.

There are currently nearly 8 billion human bodies alive on earth today. The chance of one of them being capable of downloading the soul of Bruce Lipton is at the very least one in 8 billion.

If it was lower, then there would be cases of the same soul inhabiting two bodies, which thankfully doesn’t happen.

So Lipton has just demonstrated your *best possible* chance of getting reincarnated is one in 8 billion.

And that’s ignoring the fact that the mechanism that has to spontaneously generate for it doesn’t exist. …As I mentioned last time, Lipton’s analogies have not been kind to him so far in this book.

Sexism and racism become ridiculous as well as immoral when you realize that your receptors could wind up on a white person, a black person, an Asian, or a male or female.

Great, but what if they wind up on a sea slug?

Because the environment represents “All That Is” (God) and our self-receptor antennas download only a narrow band of the whole spectrum, we all represent a small part of the whole… a small part of God.

Christ almighty. He even fails at theology. “God” isn’t eternal and infinite, but so limited that He has to broadcast re-runs.

Another new Subheading appears out of nowhere.

Earth Landers

This is where he deals with the problem that TV sets don’t upload the TV’s thoughts and behaviours. He suggests another analogy:

So a more complete way of understanding our relationship to Spirit is to compare a human to the Martian rovers “Spirit” and “Opportunity” or the other NASA landers we have sent to the Moon and Mars.

This is just pure laziness from Lipton. Why the heck didn’t he just go with this analogy from the start? Anyway, he blithers on about the Mars rover for a while, explaining how it too has “senses”, but can also upload information and send it back to earth(/the soul). Thus:

You and I are like “Earth landers” who receive information from an environmental controller/Spirit. As we live our lives, the experiences of our world are sent back to that controller, our Spirit.

An “environmental controller/Spirit”.

So this is what Lipton means when he’s been saying “the environment” controls genes. Isn’t it?

But then the whole thing is dependent on your “identity receptors” getting replicated and attached to something in the first place. Then your genes — which according to Lipton must only carry the very basic outline of the body — don’t influence your character at all.

But in his excitement about epigenetics, he’s been constantly saying that the *thoughts of our parents* are also “the environment”, and they do affect our genes!

Then he adds Karma to the growing list of things that “identity receptors” receive and transmit:

So the character of how you live your life influences the character of your “self.” This interaction corresponds to the concept of karma.

…And this must also change the “identity receptors” themselves too, if it “changes the character of your “self”“. This is not going well for Lipton, but he blabbers on obliviously.

In the end, these cellular insights serve to emphasize the wisdom of spiritual teachers throughout the ages.

“Cellular insights”? What is he talking about? And whatever they are, they have nothing whatsoever in common with any spiritual tradition whatsoever. Then he suddenly blurts this out:

Each of us is a spirit in material form.

Hang on. What???? We’re a fucking Mars rover or a TV set. The only thing that makes us our “self” is some little non-existent antennas on our cells. On that model we are very clearly not “spirit in material form”.

Anyway, he’s done with TV sets and Mars rovers now. He’s going to try yet another analogy and see where it gets him.

A powerful image for this spiritual truth is the way light interacts with a prism.

No, that isn’t a powerful image for that “spiritual truth”. It’s not even in the same ball park. A prism is not light in material form. It’s fundamentally different from it. But there’s no stopping him now.

When a beam of white light goes through a prism, the prism’s crystalline structure diffracts the exiting light so that it appears as a rainbow spectrum.

Factual error. It refracts, not diffracts. (I spotted that all by myself! Yay!)

Lipton gives a garbled and totally inaccurate version of this phenomenon:

Each color, though a component of the white light, is seen separately because of its unique frequency. If you reverse this process by projecting a rainbow spectrum through the crystal, the individual frequencies will recombine, forming a beam of white light.

And then tries to relate it back to God and “identity receptors”:

Think of each human being’s identity as an individual color frequency within the rainbow spectrum.

So now the body is a prism and it separates out your unique wavelength/identity.

If we arbitrarily eliminate a specific frequency, a color, because we don’t “like it,” and then try to put the remaining frequencies back through the prism, the exiting beam will no longer be white light. By definition, white light is composed of all of the frequencies.

What on earth is this man talking about?

Many spiritual people anticipate the return of White Light to the planet. They imagine that it will come in the form of a unique individual like Buddha, Jesus or Muhammad.

Um, dude, in none of the multitude of versions of Islam is Mohammad coming back.

However, from my newly acquired spirituality, I see that White Light will only return to the planet when every human being recognizes every other human being as an individual frequency of the White Light.

Somehow he’s gotten from organ transplants to this. I don’t know how, and neither does he.

He keeps on babbling until he gets to the end of the section. The next sub-heading starts in the next post. We are on page 193.


Aristotle’s Peaceful Non-Christian God

October 25, 2019

The Christian God is derived of course not only from biblical scripture, but also from Plato.

But theologians also borrowed (along with an entire cosmology) some terminology from Aristotle: ‘unmoved mover’ and ‘first cause’, among many others. But they explicitly and vehemently rejected Aristotle’s notion of God.

Islamic portrayal of Aristotle, 1220 (partly damaged)

They didn’t like it that, unlike Plato’s God, the god of Aristotle did not create the universe. This is a needless abdication of power. Christians are supposed to feel infinitely subordinate to God and irreversibly indebted to Him as well. That’s an easier place to get to theologically (i.e. politically), if you can say that God created us, and that we are thus his property.

Aristotle thought the earth and the heavens had simply always been there: the spherical earth at the centre of the universe; the heavens slowly turning above, in an unchanging and unbroken circle. The animals, a category to which humans also belong, live out their lives as their predecessors always have done, beautifully attuned to their respective habitats.

For Plato, the demiurge created tiny geometric particles and shared out some creative tasks to lesser deities, who did the best they could to create a world out of this rather unforgiving material. All they could do though was to create a pale and unsatisfying copy of the divine master plan: the eternal “Forms” that are the immaterial true essence of the various things in the universe. Our world, according to Plato is a realm of shadows and imperfection.

This accorded well with Christianity, as did the path to “true knowledge” that Plato installed in this model as well. Only by revelation can knowledge be gained. His famous simile of the cave has a prisoner who has only seen shadows, led out into the light to see real things themselves. As with Christian revelation, knowledge gained in this manner grants the knower a special status. Better still, the knowledge itself is invulnerable to criticism as well as to revision. Its more baffling aspects can be “interpreted” by a priesthood, who attain special and unquestionable special status, which can be maintained as long as they maintain a grip on political power.

The Great Chain of Being: Christian cosmology based on Aristotle, 1579. (Source)

For Aristotle, the world was worth knowing about in itself. While Christianity indeed adopted his cosmology (with the heavens above, eternal and unchanging, and the realm of change below — the sub-lunary realm), the Church added Plato’s Creator-God into the mix. Thus it reintroduced what Aristotle had explicitly rejected in Plato: a beginning, a Creator, and the Forms.

While the heavens were for Aristotle governed by different laws (of circular motion) and consisting of different stuff (a fifth element, the quintessence), they weren’t separated by the same gulf as with Plato and Christianity. Knowledge of the world is genuine knowledge,m for Aristotle, whereas for Plato and the Church, true knowledge can only come from revelation.

In a way, Aristotle drew the invisible Forms of Plato a few steps closer to earth. That same wonder Plato invoked for a revelation of the Forms (and Christianity invokes for the presence of God), was for Aristotle the same thing we all feel when we gaze at the stars.

The encounter between reason and revelation, that has occupied theologians for so long, is, in Aristotle, simply the encounter between reason and reality as we perceive it.

Plato’s somewhat intolerant impatience for the natural sciences, which says ‘Ok, you can study that stuff, but ultimately who cares?‘ is the most enlightened position on scientific inquiry that theology has ever come up with. Tolerant theologians have always seen it as the study of the works of the Creator. Some have even granted that it might possibly be a “path to the divine”, though always with a cautious glance over their shoulder. It is always, however, seen as a circuitous and unreliable route to take.

They accept the reasoning that if God created the world, then to study the world is to study the works of the Creator… but that “IF” is barely audible, and usually surgically removed before it can do any further damage. The most liberal modern theologians are prepared to accept free inquiry, but always with one hand resting on the handbrake.

But for Aristotle, with no Creator-God, there is also no fear of disproof or disappointment; no burden of assumptions, and no big stick for any priest to wield.

“Humans”, as Aristotle said, “by their nature desire to know.”

The soul dies with the body, according to Aristotle, although he did see consciousness in a de-personalised sense continuing somehow. Prayer also went out the window for Aristotle. He saw it not only as useless but, under his conception of God, also impossible and pointless. And he said so. (And yes, he did spend his final years in exile.)

Not that he said people shouldn’t pray, but rather, that if they do, God won’t hear it, because he doesn’t love us, doesn’t care and doesn’t even know we exist.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics Book 7, translated by William of Moerbeke c. 1250 (source)

This is a horrifying thought not only for those who find solace in prayer, but also for the priesthood. Prayer is the currency of Christian theology. It’s a “thing” that people can “do”, can even be seen “doing”, can be told to “do”, and can say they’ve “done”. It’s a way that guilt can be resolved, that one can feel one’s own status has been raised, and one can feel a connection to one’s God. Above all, it confirms and reinforces the submissive, subordinate relationship that a believer has not only to their God, but — most importantly for the purposes of this piece of writing — to their priesthood.

So Aristotle’s God didn’t create anything, doesn’t answer prayers, doesn’t grant absolute knowledge through revelation, doesn’t keep the universe ticking over in some mysterious way, doesn’t reveal Himself unexpectedly to people or impregnate virgins or appear in human form. He also doesn’t perform miracles, sit in judgment, or grant any person eternal life.

What’s left then?

There are two aspects to that.

The first is that Aristotle’s God touches people and moves people. But not in the active sense of reaching out; rather in the passive sense: in the same way as people are “touched” by a work of art or “moved” by the beauty of nature. (The language is Aristotle’s.) The things of the natural world — the animals, the plants, even rocks and minerals — embody their closeness to the divine in the form they take. Aristotle saw a great hierarchy, a scala naturae, as it was called by the Christian theologians who embraced this idea, from the lowliest worm to the pinnacle of this great pyramid — humans, of course.

This particular idea — the Great Chain of Being — though it survived the destruction that Galileo and Newton wrought on Aristotle’s cosmology, did not survive Darwin. there is no grand hierarchy. Living organisms are adapted to their particular habitat, not to any kind of absolute or external hierarchy. (This is too rarely emphasised. Darwin didn’t just demolish creationism; he also dismantled the idea that the differences between species — and more importantly races — are of no intrinsic significance or value. They are related to habitat and chance mutation, and are not marks left by a divine Creator.)

Darwin’s conception of species branching out from a common origin, c. 1837

The second (and final) aspect is Aristotle’s consideration of what exactly God is and what it does.

God, according to Aristotle, thinks. He thinks about thinking. Or if I may risk a little pseudo-Buddhist supposition about what Aristotle is referring to, God is conscious awareness that is aware of itself. It contemplates its own awareness. (Maybe meditators will have a clue what I’m babbling about, and maybe it even means something.)

For Aristotle, it is good to be aware of the objects of the world — the search for knowledge is intrinsically good. But it requires an effort to “possess” the things of the world in one’s mind. You have have to go outside yourself to do it. But for awareness to simply be aware of itself, it takes no energy. Or maybe to today we might speculate that it takes less to be simply aware of awareness itself, relatively untroubled by the distractions of sensory input.

I’m not claiming necessarily that this kind of thing is psychological possible, but there’s the kernel of an idea there that I think is similar to the ideas found in Zen Buddhism, and also — I think — able to explored for oneself.

Whatever the case, Aristotle, as much as he valued scientific inquiry — and he did value as highly as anyone and in fact founded a genuine science of biology — he also saw conscious awareness itself as divine.

This happy state does not involve the endless prattling inner dialogue of ‘normal’ thought; not does it passively fall asleep. It is aware, but it doesn’t actually do anything. Awareness just is, ultimately. (Perhaps.)

Thought, Aristotle says, “seems to contain” what he calls the “divine element” (yep, that term also comes from him). And “the act of contemplation is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder…”

And life also belongs to God because the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is is life most good and eternal.

If that sounds like cheap theology, it’s partly because his rather pedestrian lecture notes are all we have on this, and also because it’s exactly the style theologians try to emulate. (The passage is from the Metaphysics, Bk 7, Ch 7.)

Whatever the case, and whatever Aristotle means by all this, it is clear that this “God” is not the Christian God. It doesn’t confer privileges on one class of people over another, nor does it claim it will rescue you or your soul. Nor will it even so much as raise an eyebrow at our private antics.

It’s just aware. A silent, non-judging witness.

Aristotle as portrayed by the Germans, 1520 (don’t ask)

Posted by Yakaru


Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 74 (Reincarnation as a cancer cure)

October 18, 2019

I really don’t whether Lipton really means to offer reincarnation as a cancer cure or not. What is clear is that he is advising his readers that death is really not such a big problem as everyone makes out. That is the attitude he expressed in the previous post.

Usually, when an author takes readers on a guided visualisation, they don’t suddenly spring on them an imagined experience of their physical death. But that is exactly what we saw Lipton do last time. He gave readers an analogy, whereby they were to consider their body a television set, with their “self” is the image on the screen. Next they were to imagine waking up one morning and finding their body dead. But no worries — the analogy would rescue them.

This is a stupid move at the best of times, but then he completely and utterly screwed up the analogy that was supposed to rescue them.

One of the strangest errors here was that half way through it he forgot that the TV set was supposed to be “the human body” and said instead that it was “the cell”. Okay, so now it’s only one cell that has died — not so bad. But then the human body is 37.2 trillion TV sets, and not one. And your “self” appears on every single one of them.

Then he switched back to the whole body being one TV set — and his readers are back to being dead again, and hoping for the analogy to rescue them. Which of course, it doesn’t. Lipton says that “you” are not the TV but the broadcast. But “you” think you’re the TV, because of your Newtonian dogmatism.

So the broadcast is “still present” in the environment, regardless of whether the TV is working or not.

Just as in the TV analogy, if my body dies and in the future a new individual (biological “television set”) is born who has the same exact set of identity receptors, that new individual will be downloading “me.” I will once again be present in the world.

That sentence, as it stands is — wonder of wonders — accurate, in the context. IF a new individual is born “with exactly the same set of identity receptors” then, yes, Lipton Mark II would indeed be among us again. And here’s the good news, if NOT, then no Lipton Mark II. The bad news: same for “you”: especially bad for those of Lipton’s readers wanting help curing their cancer.

Only Lipton could attempt to prove the existence of reincarnation by trying to cross the lowest possible bar, (by asserting that because an analogy can be made, it must be true), and then have the analogy blow up in his face.

But as always with Lipton, there are other problems. Lipton has a gift for these compound errors…. My god, how to unpack all this?

The “identity receptors” that Lipton claims are present in each cell, analogous to a TV antenna, don’t exist. So there is even less chance of an identical collection of them spontaneously being replicated in a fetus at the appropriate time. And that’s a good thing — imagine what would happen if this happened before the original was dead? What’s more, the idea that “identity receptors” could be replicated destroys something far more valuable even than eternal life: the uniqueness of each individual.

Anyway, this is Lipton’s view of the the human soul. It’s a broadcast that is always being transmitted — somehow, he doesn’t say how — into “the environment” until it is picked up by the appropriately tuned “self receptors”. No, not picked up, but “downloaded”.

Supporting evidence for my belief that an individual’s broadcast is still present even after death…

And of course, Lipton’s supporting evidence” is going to ruin the whole mess even more, and he won’t even notice.

….comes from transplant patients who report that along with their new organs come behavioral and psychological changes.

He cites the example of someone who had a heart transplant, and then started eating chicken nuggets, drinking beer and riding a motorbike. Of course, this is because the heart came from an 18 year old man who like beer and chicken nuggets and died in a motorbike crash… and who now finds part of his self suddenly existing again inside the rib cage of a middle aged woman. Such a comforting thought.

The accuracy of memories that accompany these transplants is beyond chance or coincidence.

Factual error. No they’re not.

One young girl began having nightmares of murder after her heart transplant. Her dreams were so vivid that they led to the capture of the murderer who killed her donor.

This is all powerful evidence for the science of the New Biology that Lipton is founding with this book. Or it would be if he provided the evidence, which sadly for the would-be practitioners of this New Science, he forgets to do.

It is worth pointing out too, that IF this evidence turns out to be bogus, then that means that organ transplants prove the exact opposite: that cells are interchangeable and not bound up with an individual person. According to this site, there are about 136,000 organs donated each year, so that must mean at least a million new cases of organ-transplant memories since Lipton wrote this book, and it would be a normal part of medical practice to deal with the phenomenon.

But for Lipton it’s real, and all that remains is to speculate about how it all works. He offers up the existence of “cellular memory” — introduced as always within a protective casing of inverted commas, which will be surgically removed once the notion has been established.

One theory about how these new behaviors become implanted into the transplant recipient along with the organ is “cellular memory,” i.e. the notion that somehow memories are embedded in cells.

What is going on here? The cells not only “download” the self with their (non-existent) “self receptors”, but they also somehow also record the memories that are stored among the 300 trillion neuronal connections in the brain.

In other words, as well as doing all the work of, say, a muscle cell in the left ventricle of the heart, that cell also has “self receptors” that not only “download” the “self” of that person, that cell also records *all* the experiences, thoughts, emotions, memories, fantasies, dreams and behaviours of that person — all while obeying its orders from the brain to ‘now, pump…now, pump… now, pump…” — because, remember the brain also has a direct line of communication to every cell in the body and can get it to change at will.

Okay, reading further, I realise I have that wrong. I’ve heard so much from creepy New Age healers in the past, that I thought Lipton was going to go down that path too. But he isn’t. And I will admit my error and let Lipton himself chastise me for it:

Yes, cells can “remember” that they are muscle cells or liver cells, but there is a limit to their intelligence. I do not believe cells are physically endowed with perception mechanisms that can distinguish and remember a taste for chicken nuggets!

Ok, so no cellular memory!

Wow. All you cellular memory healers out there, Dr Bruce Lipton Ph.D. dismisses your claims!!!

A quick search reveals this guy, “Dr” Alexander Lloyd, who bases his whole theory of health and illness on cellular memory. He likens cell memories to signals sent out by cell phones, which send these signals to the hypothalamus, whereupon a fear response closes down the cell. He says “If the cell remains in this closed state long enough, the odds skyrocket that it will unmask a disease gene….” Well Lipton would set him right on that. Cells don’t broadcast, rather they download!

Lloyd continues: “…In fact, Dr. Bruce Lipton says that this is the only way you can have a disease manifest in your life.”

This really is a microcosm of the whole massive scam. They cross-promote each other without even realise they hold completely contradictory views, even by their own hilariously stupid standards.

….Anyway, Lipton just cited two cases and two whole books arguing that “the accuracy of memories that accompany these transplants is beyond chance or coincidence.” How does it happen then?

Psychological and behavioral memory does make sense if we realize that the transplanted organs still bear the original identity receptors of the donor and are apparently still downloading that same environmental information.

“…if we realise…”?????

He means “if we agree for no reason…”

Even though the body of the person who donated the organs is dead, their broadcast is still on.

Well that’s almost what I just accused him of saying, except that the it’s even stupider. Instead of the cells storing the memories, they just “download” them from a central memory bank. But how did those memories get uploaded to the bank? And how do those memories then get transplanted into your immortal “self”????

The TV set which is your body, is now responsible for uploading your thoughts and memories and behavioural habits to the TV station!!!