‘Human sacrifice’ staged at CERN's Shiva Statue

[brekin]

Why the Internet Sucks You In Like a Black Hole
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lack-hole/

A lack of structural online boundaries tempts users into spending countless hours on the Web

By Tia Ghose, LiveScience on May 24, 2013 19

"Checking Facebook should only take a minute."

Those are the famous last words of countless people every day, right before getting sucked into several hours of watching cat videos, commenting on Instagrammed sushi lunches, and Googling to find out what ever happened to Dolph Lundgren.
If that sounds like you, don't feel bad: That behavior is natural, given how the Internet is structured, experts say.
People are wired to compulsively seek unpredictable payoffs like those doled out on the Web. And the Internet's omnipresence and lack of boundaries encourage people to lose track of time, making it hard to exercise the willpower to turn it off.
"The Internet is not addictive in the same way as pharmacological substances are," said Tom Stafford, a cognitive scientist at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. "But it's compulsive; it's compelling; it's distracting." [10 Easy Paths to Self Destruction]

You've got mail

Humans are social creatures. As a result, people enjoy the social information available via email and the Web.
Email and social media have the same reward structure as that of a casino slot machine: Most of it is junk, but every so often, you hit the jackpot — in the case of the Internet, a tidbit of juicy gossip or a heartfelt email, Stafford said. The instantaneous payoff only strengthens the Internet's pull.
The Web's unpredictable payoffs train people much in the same way Ivan Pavlov trained dogs, which were conditioned in the 19th century to salivate when they heard a bell they associated with food.
Over time, people link a cue (e.g., an instant-message ping or the Facebook homepage) with a pleasurable rush of feel-good brain chemicals. People become habituated to seek that social rush over and over again, Stafford said.

Fight or flight

Reading emails or hunching over a screen can also activate humans' fight-or-flight response, said Linda Stone, a researcher who has studied the physiological effects of Internet use.
Stone has shown that about 80 percent of people temporarily stop breathing or breathe shallowly when they check their email or look at a screen — a condition she calls email apnea.
The Web often has important content that requires action or a response — for example, an assignment from the boss or engagement photos from a close friend — so people anticipate this and hold their breath as they look at their screens.
But breath-holding sets off a physiological cascade that prepares the body to face potential threats or anticipate surprises. Constantly activating this physical response can have negative health consequences, Stone said.

No limits

Another reason the Internet is so addictive is it lacks boundaries between tasks, Stafford said.
Someone may set out to "research something, and then accidentally go to Wikipedia, and then wind up trying to find out what ever happened to Depeche Mode," Stafford said, referring to the music band.
Studies suggest willpower is like a muscle: It can be strengthened, but can also become exhausted.
Because the Internet is always "on," staying on task requires constantly flexing that willpower muscle, which can exhaust a person's self-control.
"You never get away from the temptation," Stafford said.

Set boundaries

For those who want to loosen the viselike grip of the Web on their lives, a few simple techniques may do the trick.
Web-blocking tools that limit surfing time can help people regain control over their time. Another method is to plan ahead, committing to work for 20 minutes, or until a certain task is complete, and then allowing five minutes of Web surfing, Stafford said.
"Technology is all about eroding structure," Stafford told LiveScience. "But actually, psychologically, we need more structure, and those things are in tension."

[guruilla]

@OP ED

An example of missed nuance would be your response to this statement:

Either it is a real murder or it's not.

On the other hand, there is an area of nuance here too, because it could have been a real murder surrounded by fake or anomalous elements, even including an overacting cameraman (if he was). So part of the challenge of this is recognizing the many moving parts in the interface between our perception of an event and the media that shows it to us. Learning to separate the parts and examine them as parts, not as the whole that has been constructed to trick us via a subtle manipulation of our perception by the media.

namely:

So you're saying you believe that this was a real execution?

Re, Crowley & animal sacrifice: leaving moralism aside (I am not a moralist), there is an energetic equivalence, or at least a continuum, between animal and human sacrifice; so if AC understood sacrifice as a means to release and direct the energy of the victim, and if he states clearly that human sacrifice is the best kind, then surely the fact he is known to have practiced animal sacrifice on occasion has to have some bearing on the question of whether he might also have performed the human sort? The main objection to this possibility is usually, or always, an implicitly moral one, i.e., he wouldn’t have done something like that because he wasn’t that bad (and he wasn’t that bad because he didn’t do that sort of thing). It’s a non-argument based on a predilection.

Regarding the OTO’s secrets: are you suggesting the OTO would sell their secrets about ritual abuse and/or sacrifice if they had any? To who exactly?
Unlike many occultists or reformed occultists at this site, I no longer recognize any clear distinction between occult fraternities and intelligence organizations; the latter are proven to participate in organized abuse and to have affiliations with at least some of the known fraternities. Whether it’s a question of infiltration or of creating occult fraternities from scratch (or simply of having two different names for the same thing), I don’t know and it seems almost an academic question at this point. But then I have never belonged to any of these groups so I am not invested in that question. It’s enough for me to know that there is an overlap.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence or a convincing argument as to why someone like Crowley, or occult fraternities in general, would propagate ideas that form a solid rationale for ritual crimes but only ever be exploring these ideas in a purely intellectual capacity, never dreaming of putting them into practice in anything but the most sublime (sublimated) of metaphorical ways. It’s merely an assumption, and I relate this sort of loose, dare I say licentious, presumptiveness that basically says “nothing to see here, quit being so square,” to neoliberalism in a very general way, insofar as AC’s philosophies, via the counterculture, seem to have laid the groundwork for the sort of neoliberal rush towards the sovereignty of the id-disguised as-superego that revolves around an anything-goes approach to sexuality, and that has now possessed the western soul (from my perspective, as one indoctrinated in what were extreme liberal values back in the 60s, but now seem quite quaint). This is very roughly and hurriedly stated, for the sake of clarity, whether it worked or not.

This isn't like that, really. That's about doing something transgressive in the company of other young men, which then creates a bond. What it also creates is a gang of guys who will keep transgressing not only taboos, but laws and ethical rules as well.

....

There might be some of that in this, but I see more of another aspect that's common in initiations - the death/rebirth thing. There's a before and an after, you die to your old self and emerge from the ritual as someone new. It's in baptisms, the Hadj, the Freemasons' third degree - and all those cults took it from somewhere older.

The hazing ritual angle seems valid to me, not so much as an explanation for what’s in the video but as context for it. It makes sense that, if you are going to work your way up to human sacrifice, start with a cat or a goat or two–and/or by a bit of playacting. Fraternity rituals have to do with breaking social taboos in a group environment in which the taboo is no longer taboo but de rigueur; the pressure is on the novice to perform the forbidden action and go against his or her social conditioning in order to bind with the group. Easy to imagine how this creates a kind of heightened consciousness in all involved, starting with the sheer adrenalin rush of it, and how it could be intoxicating enough to be mistaken for liberation. Even a theatrical enactment (which apparently many rituals are) might have this temporary effect. But then what? Once you have done the fake sacrifice a time or two, and it no longer gets you high or binds you any more deeply to the group, then it’s time to move to the next stage and find a higher kind of kick. The path of ritualistic taboo breaking, once embarked on, has to lead to more and more extreme acts of transgression. That’s the only direction it can go in, AFAIK, besides one of personal meltdown and/or horrified withdrawal from the whole thing (which after a certain point may not be possible without risking one’s own life).

I still say maybe the hooded guys in the video were trying to draw attention to something real by faking it, whether to blow the whistle, to break the spell for themselves, or as a kind of power play within the CERN hierarchy.

So taking the "joke" at face value and accepting CERN's story, I still think it's fair to ask...What the fuck? Why are scientists replicating a human sacrifice on the grounds of one of science's most controversial and mysterious ongoing projects, in front of the Hindu god of destruction to boot? Who filmed this? Who are the participants? Who was the "victim?" What does this say about security at such a revolutionary scientific site?

Maybe he’s been reading this thread?

Another thought, regarding the assumption that CERN scientists would be the first to poo-poo this sort of ritual hijinks. Wouldn’t scientists exploring the hidden dimensions of quantum phenomena be more, not less, open to “irrational,” even metaphysical, interpretations of reality?

Which stands in stark contrast to a tendency, all-too evident at this thread, to pass off violent disbelief and expressions of scorn as proof of a superior intelligence (mentioning no names)...

[MacCruiskeen]

So taking the "joke" at face value and accepting CERN's story, I still think it's fair to ask...What the fuck? Why are scientists replicating a human sacrifice on the grounds of one of science's most controversial and mysterious ongoing projects, in front of the Hindu god of destruction to boot? Who filmed this? Who are the participants? Who was the "victim?" What does this say about security at such a revolutionary scientific site?

CERN really have some cheek. Look at this transparently evasive waffle, which purports to be a reply to Siebert. It's shameless.

Thomas Siebert • 31 minutes ago

After getting stonewalled by CERN, now that this story's run, I got a response:
_______

....As for the “fake human sacrifice” video, this was a student prank done in poor taste filmed on a lawn outside an office building. CERN has the feel of a large university and accepts visitors from institutions all over the world to conduct research using the experiments hosted here. At any given time, there are high school students, college students, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, professors and staff members (communications office, accounting, HR, etc.)

The lawns and office buildings are accessible to everyone who is registered and holds a CERN badge (much like a university campus is accessible to all students). Other areas (experimental control rooms) are only accessible to people who have special clearance to be in the control room. Underground areas (where the detectors are) are much more complicated to access and you cannot access the underground areas unless you have an approved work package/IMPACT and the appropriate clearance/training: http://cms-safety.web.cern.ch/....

Onsite we also have a CERN hotel which houses visiting researchers and students, as well as a cafeteria (which I believe is open until 12:00am.) The experiments run around the clock, and researchers monitor the experiments from the control rooms 24/7. The the CERN site (lawns, CERN hotel, office buildings, etc) is accessible 24/7 by people who are registered staff/users and who carry a CERN badge (except during the 2 week winter closure, during which time you need special permission to be onsite.) Security guards systematically check the ID cards of people coming onsite through the car entrance, and the pedestrian entrances are only accessible if you have a valid CERN ID card.

The video was filmed outside on a lawn which is open to everyone who is registered at CERN and has a CERN badge. CERN is conducting their own internal investigation into the matter. CERN does not condone these types of pranks onsite.

If you need more information here is the statement we sent Snopes a few days ago:

The type of fundamental research performed at CERN brings together a large global community of physics from more than 60 countries and 500 institutions (for example, in the United States alone there are 1700 physicists from 7 national laboratories and 94 US universities who are part of the Large Hadron Collider research program.)

This fundamental research pushes the boundaries of knowledge and is helping us better understand the fundamental principles of physics and the evolution of matter in the universe. Because the research pushes into unknown scientific territory, some theoretical physicists think that LHC research might reveal previously unknown properties of nature, such as the existence of microscopic extra dimensions or particles that don’t interact with ordinary matter (called “dark sector” particles).

The research performed at CERN captures the imagination of theorists, scientists, students, artists and creative thinkers, which is why CERN has been featured in books like ‘Angels and Demons’ by Dan Brown and in artistic installations around the world. These imaginative and creative works inspired by the scientific research are works of fiction generated to capture the reader/view’s sense of wonder and should not be confused with the actual scientific research.

-- Sarah Charley / US LHC Communications / CERN Press Office

http://sdcitybeat.com/article-17728-the ... blood.html

WTF? She does not come even close to answering even one of his questions. She just serves up this boilerplate prose from a CERN Guidebook.

Why won't they give straight answers to simple questions?

[brekin]

@OP ED

An example of missed nuance would be your response to this statement:

Either it is a real murder or it's not.

On the other hand, there is an area of nuance here too, because it could have been a real murder surrounded by fake or anomalous elements, even including an overacting cameraman (if he was). So part of the challenge of this is recognizing the many moving parts in the interface between our perception of an event and the media that shows it to us. Learning to separate the parts and examine them as parts, not as the whole that has been constructed to trick us via a subtle manipulation of our perception by the media.

namely:

So you're saying you believe that this was a real execution?

Re, Crowley & animal sacrifice: leaving moralism aside (I am not a moralist), there is an energetic equivalence, or at least a continuum, between animal and human sacrifice; so if AC understood sacrifice as a means to release and direct the energy of the victim, and if he states clearly that human sacrifice is the best kind, then surely the fact he is known to have practiced animal sacrifice on occasion has to have some bearing on the question of whether he might also have performed the human sort? The main objection to this possibility is usually, or always, an implicitly moral one, i.e., he wouldn’t have done something like that because he wasn’t that bad (and he wasn’t that bad because he didn’t do that sort of thing). It’s a non-argument based on a predilection.

Regarding the OTO’s secrets: are you suggesting the OTO would sell their secrets about ritual abuse and/or sacrifice if they had any? To who exactly?
Unlike many occultists or reformed occultists at this site, I no longer recognize any clear distinction between occult fraternities and intelligence organizations; the latter are proven to participate in organized abuse and to have affiliations with at least some of the known fraternities. Whether it’s a question of infiltration or of creating occult fraternities from scratch (or simply of having two different names for the same thing), I don’t know and it seems almost an academic question at this point. But then I have never belonged to any of these groups so I am not invested in that question. It’s enough for me to know that there is an overlap.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence or a convincing argument as to why someone like Crowley, or occult fraternities in general, would propagate ideas that form a solid rationale for ritual crimes but only ever be exploring these ideas in a purely intellectual capacity, never dreaming of putting them into practice in anything but the most sublime (sublimated) of metaphorical ways. It’s merely an assumption, and I relate this sort of loose, dare I say licentious, presumptiveness that basically says “nothing to see here, quit being so square,” to neoliberalism in a very general way, insofar as AC’s philosophies, via the counterculture, seem to have laid the groundwork for the sort of neoliberal rush towards the sovereignty of the id-disguised as-superego that revolves around an anything-goes approach to sexuality, and that has now possessed the western soul (from my perspective, as one indoctrinated in what were extreme liberal values back in the 60s, but now seem quite quaint). This is very roughly and hurriedly stated, for the sake of clarity, whether it worked or not.

This isn't like that, really. That's about doing something transgressive in the company of other young men, which then creates a bond. What it also creates is a gang of guys who will keep transgressing not only taboos, but laws and ethical rules as well.

....

There might be some of that in this, but I see more of another aspect that's common in initiations - the death/rebirth thing. There's a before and an after, you die to your old self and emerge from the ritual as someone new. It's in baptisms, the Hadj, the Freemasons' third degree - and all those cults took it from somewhere older.

The hazing ritual angle seems valid to me, not so much as an explanation for what’s in the video but as context for it. It makes sense that, if you are going to work your way up to human sacrifice, start with a cat or a goat or two–and/or by a bit of playacting. Fraternity rituals have to do with breaking social taboos in a group environment in which the taboo is no longer taboo but de rigueur; the pressure is on the novice to perform the forbidden action and go against his or her social conditioning in order to bind with the group. Easy to imagine how this creates a kind of heightened consciousness in all involved, starting with the sheer adrenalin rush of it, and how it could be intoxicating enough to be mistaken for liberation. Even a theatrical enactment (which apparently many rituals are) might have this temporary effect. But then what? Once you have done the fake sacrifice a time or two, and it no longer gets you high or binds you any more deeply to the group, then it’s time to move to the next stage and find a higher kind of kick. The path of ritualistic taboo breaking, once embarked on, has to lead to more and more extreme acts of transgression. That’s the only direction it can go in, AFAIK, besides one of personal meltdown and/or horrified withdrawal from the whole thing (which after a certain point may not be possible without risking one’s own life).

I still say maybe the hooded guys in the video were trying to draw attention to something real by faking it, whether to blow the whistle, to break the spell for themselves, or as a kind of power play within the CERN hierarchy.

So taking the "joke" at face value and accepting CERN's story, I still think it's fair to ask...What the fuck? Why are scientists replicating a human sacrifice on the grounds of one of science's most controversial and mysterious ongoing projects, in front of the Hindu god of destruction to boot? Who filmed this? Who are the participants? Who was the "victim?" What does this say about security at such a revolutionary scientific site?

Maybe he’s been reading this thread?

Another thought, regarding the assumption that CERN scientists would be the first to poo-poo this sort of ritual hijinks. Wouldn’t scientists exploring the hidden dimensions of quantum phenomena be more, not less, open to “irrational,” even metaphysical, interpretations of reality?

Which stands in stark contrast to a tendency, all-too evident at this thread, to pass off violent disbelief and expressions of scorn as proof of a superior intelligence (mentioning no names)...

My God man.

If I'm parsing correctly, OP ED asked a pretty simple binary question:

OP ED wrote:
So you're saying you believe that this was a real execution?

And then you opened up the Necromonicon and started reciting.
To only end up here:

gurilla wrote:

I still say maybe the hooded guys in the video were trying to draw attention to something real by faking it, whether to blow the whistle, to break the spell for themselves, or as a kind of power play within the CERN hierarchy.

So basically you believe it wasn't a real execution. Why not say so?

I can understand people dig this stuff at a theoretical and meta-level, is a hobby or obsession for many, but I don't get the drift of mystification and wild concept straddling/stratification that is going on. It's like so many pages have to be generated now on the most spurious of content. Less seems to be more for evidence but not on the commentary.

[MacCruiskeen]

So basically you believe it wasn't a real execution. Why not say so?

HE DID.

As for your question to guruilla: he can answer for himself, but this is what he said a couple of pages back:

For the record, I do not believe the video shows an actual murder; I simply know that I don't know what it shows

Clear enough, surely?

How do you get away with such dishonesty, brekin? And such deliberate provocation. You enter the thread just to piss on it drunkenly, freely admitting you haven't bothered to read it before doing so.

Who gave you a free pass to troll this thread? What has happened to moderation here? (I will probably be banned again for asking.) Your contributions to this thread have been uniformly ugly, stupid, aggressive and pointless, ever since you entered it for the very first time with this shameless flamebait on page 10.

[...]

Major credibility hits points lost for anyone grinding in this thread.

I consider this a entry level entrance exam for gullibility.

Seriously R.I. "giggle, wtf?"

Locking this thread with a big red "Fake".

It is crystal-clear that you have no other interest and no other aim in posting here than to kill the thread stone-dead. Like CERN, you really have some cheek.

[PufPuf93]

So taking the "joke" at face value and accepting CERN's story, I still think it's fair to ask...

What the fuck? student prank done in poor taste

Why are scientists replicating a human sacrifice on the grounds of one of science's most controversial and mysterious ongoing projects, in front of the Hindu god of destruction to boot? a student prank done in poor taste

Who filmed this? a student prankster with poor taste

Who are the participants? student pranksters with poor taste

Who was the "victim?" a student prankster with poor taste

What does this say about security at such a revolutionary scientific site? security is tight and everyone on the CERN campus is registered and have badges that are checked (implies that the student pranksters with poor taste must be registered and have or will be identified)

CERN makes no released judgment that a “fake human sacrifice” video was produced.

"CERN is conducting their own internal investigation into the matter. CERN does not condone these types of pranks onsite."

The conclusion by CERN that it was a “fake human sacrifice” implies that the pranksters with poor taste have been identified and questioned such that CERN knows it was not a "real human sacrifice" but we don't know if there was a basis for the conclusion.

CERN answered the questions just not very satisfactorily.

[MacCruiskeen]

[PufPuf93]

:ohno:

You realize that I am agreeing with you here?

"CERN answered the questions just not very satisfactorily."

[MacCruiskeen]

No, you answered them for them, just not very satisfactorily and at inordinate length, i.e., by pointlessly tacking exactly the same non-answer onto every question Siebert raised and CERN in fact left totally unanswered.

Please.

[Cordelia]

[brekin]

So basically you believe it wasn't a real execution. Why not say so?

HE DID.

As for your question to guruilla: he can answer for himself, but this is what he said a couple of pages back:

For the record, I do not believe the video shows an actual murder; I simply know that I don't know what it shows

Clear enough, surely?

How do you get away with such dishonesty, brekin? And such deliberate provocation. You enter the thread just to piss on it drunkenly, freely admitting you haven't bothered to read it before doing so.
Who gave you a free pass to troll this thread? What has happened to moderation here? (I will probably be banned again for asking.) Your contributions to this thread have been uniformly ugly, stupid, aggressive and pointless, ever since you entered it for the very first time with this shameless flamebait on page 10.

[...]

Major credibility hits points lost for anyone grinding in this thread.
I consider this a entry level entrance exam for gullibility.
Seriously R.I. "giggle, wtf?"
Locking this thread with a big red "Fake".

It is crystal-clear that you have no other interest and no other aim in posting here than to kill the thread stone-dead. Like CERN, you really have some cheek.

Mac, you are always good for some righteous indignation. To quote Noel Gallagher: "He's like a man with a fork, in a world of soup." To answer your questions, all my powers, free passes and privileges flow directly from my masters at CERN. Bwahhahhahhaha!!!

I read the first page and thought the post was a "har har look at this silliness" only to discover (here we are 14 pages later) it has become a topic of serious study. As I think there is nothing wrong with questioning peoples assumptions (something you have made an aggressive career as of late, to say nothing of questioning peoples motives, morals, honesty, intelligence, sobriety and potty training) I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out thread and post bloat when posters themselves don't think the event in question is even real in the first place.

As guruilla thinks it doesn't show an actual execution (and forgive me if that signpost didn't stick out from the miles and miles of track he laid) why all the continued chatter? I'm not going to chastise people for posting about what interests them, but if they don't think this is anything more than a staged fake event it is a pretty glaring non-topic.

But this brings it all round to the person who started the thread, what about you, Mac, he of the eternal face palm, do you think the video shows an actual execution, or not?

[dada]

"I have yet to see a single shred of evidence or a convincing argument as to why someone like Crowley, or occult fraternities in general, would propagate ideas that form a solid rationale for ritual crimes but only ever be exploring these ideas in a purely intellectual capacity, never dreaming of putting them into practice in anything but the most sublime (sublimated) of metaphorical ways. It’s merely an assumption, and I relate this sort of loose, dare I say licentious, presumptiveness that basically says “nothing to see here, quit being so square,” to neoliberalism in a very general way..."

Well, I wasn't making a case, nor do I care to gather evidence to make one. I don't need, or see any reason why I should want to convince you of the argument that you've drawn up here.

If you took my post, specifically, as 'basically saying "nothing to see here, quit being so square," I guess that's on me, somehow?

Maybe I should have been clearer in explaining my intent when I posted my thoughts on the matter. I read Crowley's numbered prose poetically. It works for me, I get something useful out of it that way. I was sharing my experience with others.

I provided a link to a book, discussing metaphor and symbolism in Borges' stories. Fascinating stuff. I didn't post it to make a case for an argument. I thought it was interesting, and somewhat related to what I was saying. I thought others might find it interesting as well.

And you see this as irresponsible, or loose, licentious, presumptive, or whatever. Okay. I can live with that.

[coffin_dodger]

One day you'll all re-read this thread and see the funny side of bickering, intellectual insults and an overwhelming need to 'win' an argument at any cost. This thread is textbook.

[backtoiam]

Actually I was satisfied with the CERN explanation. Youth playing pranks in a campus type of environment. Seems perfectly plausible to me. I've seen it many times on a college campus that also had security.

[PufPuf93]

Actually I was satisfied with the CERN explanation. Youth playing pranks in a campus type of environment. Seems perfectly plausible to me. I've seen it many times on a college campus that also had security.

"A witless gang of bored, privileged, entitled young wankers"