And the competition is very fierce, there are literally millions of new books flooding onto Amazon (causing printing and shipping delays and all kinds of problems).

This is not the NY Times best-seller list I would point out, but it does have authenticity. Maybe you already know that you have to BUY your way to a slot on the NYT list! And it costs a lot of money ($250,000+, I’ve heard).

What’s more NGNW has garnered a lot of very positive reviews (4.9 of 5 stars!) It’s well worth going there to read some of the comments. You’ll understand right away that this is going to be a very HEALING book. Healing is my thing!

https://www.amazon.com/New-God-World-Visions-Scriptures/dp/1733478574/ref=sr_1_1

Many people have been waiting all their lives, in doubt and turmoil, for someone to give them permission to say “Get lost” to the old Biblical God, with his meddling, picking favorites, infanticide, genocide, threats, revenge and punishments. 

So where did this “New God” come from? Well, folks, think about it for just a minute: it has ALWAYS been there! I’m not attacking “God”, just pointing out the flaws in historical descriptions by misleading priest-devils and gatekeepers of the past, who want to protect their own powers by making God demanding, scary and threatening. I’m talking about a New God, who is more kindly and benign and, let’s be honest, more rational and understandable. 

For example, the New God has no gender. Trust me: there is no invisible misogynistic man up in the sky! And all attempts to re-market the Old God as a woman (Goddess) are doomed. Any supposed God which doesn’t have both masculine and feminine aspects is worthless. Male and female are balances and contrasts, like the Chinese Yin and Yang. You can no more have one without the other than you can have a one-sided coin!

Anyway, you may want to get yourself a copy, even if just to rage against it! You can do so here:

https://www.amazon.com/New-God-World-Visions-Scriptures/dp/1733478574/ref=sr_1_1

I have made a hardback version available because it’s truly a book to cherish and you will be reading and re-reading it a lot (maybe every Sunday morning, haha!)

10 key things readers will take away from New God New World

1. God is not a person, authority, judge, or external being—but a living metaphor for intelligence, creativity, and love itself.
Readers come away understanding that the old anthropomorphic God was never meant to be literal, and that clinging to that literalism has caused extraordinary damage.

2. Belief systems shape reality far more than most people realize.
The book makes clear that the God-image a culture holds directly influences its politics, medicine, sexuality, education, and capacity for compassion.

3. The old God model is not just outdated—it is actively harmful.
Readers realize, often for the first time, how fear-based theology produces obedience, guilt, violence, and intellectual stagnation rather than wisdom or love.

4. God does not require belief—only participation.
This is a relief to many readers: the divine is not something to “believe in” but something to live as—through curiosity, creativity, empathy, and presence.

5. Spiritual intelligence evolves just like biological intelligence.
The book reframes spirituality as an evolving system, not a frozen revelation, making room for science, art, mysticism, and reason to coexist.

6. Love is not a moral command—it is a natural state of alignment.
Readers leave with a sense that love is not something imposed from above, but what naturally arises when fear-based myths dissolve.

7. Religion can be outgrown without losing reverence or meaning.
One of the book’s quiet triumphs is showing readers they don’t have to choose between atheism and dogma; there is a third, far richer path.

8. Human beings are not broken, fallen, or sinful by nature.
The book dismantles the “original sin” narrative and replaces it with a vision of humanity as exploratory, creative, and fundamentally intact.

9. God-language should serve life, not control it.
Readers gain permission to update spiritual language so that it reflects modern understanding rather than ancient fear.

10. A new world requires a new God metaphor—or no future at all.
By the end, readers feel the urgency: outdated myths are not neutral. If we want a viable future, our deepest stories must evolve.

Many people might fear that abandoning the Old God means abandoning morality. How does this book address that fear? It starts from the premise that we are not broken but whole, good not evil, not treacherous but honest, not stupid but, yes, uniformed at times. People do what they think is right and bad things are mostly done in error, believing that a poor choice will somehow eventually lead to a good place.

There is one answer to all this; a simple answer; and it is this: always act from LOVE. Not imposters like greed, desire, want, or need… but LOVE. Real love will guide you.

Finally, and most important of all, this book answers the age-old quandary: How can a supposedly loving God, with infinite powers, allow tragedy and destruction to befall good people. We even have the term “an act of God” for something sudden, terrible, unpredictable and devastatingly destructive! I mean, c’mon!

This is Better

This is not a religion.

No rules to memorize.
No beliefs to defend.
No God demanding loyalty in exchange for love.

New God New World is a way of seeing where the Divine is not separate from life, intelligence, nature, or you.

Here, God is not frozen in ancient language.
God is alive—responsive, evolving, and intimately woven into reality itself.

You don’t need to convert.
You don’t need to repent.
You don’t need permission.

You only need honesty.

If the old stories never quite fitted, there’s nothing wrong with you.

It means you were built for what comes next.

To use our computer terminology:

God has been updated.

Bug fixes include: fear-based obedience, eternal punishment loops, and the belief that you are small, broken, or unworthy.

New features now gone live: direct knowing, embodied love, curiosity, creativity, and a radical trust in consciousness itself.

This software update doesn’t install through belief.
It installs through awareness.

Blessings to all.

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

PS That link again: https://www.amazon.com/New-God-World-Visions-Scriptures/dp/1733478574/ref=sr_1_1

Dyslexia isn’t a glitch; it’s a variation. A natural cognitive style shaped by genetics, neurodevelopment, and the brain’s bias toward certain kinds of processing. The common assumption is that dyslexia is a “reading disorder,” but reading is where the problem lies, not the origin of it. 

To understand dyslexia, we have to step back from letters and look at the architecture of the brain itself — how it forms, how it connects, how it distributes workload, and what kinds of tasks it prefers to excel at.

Credit to Brunel University

At its core, dyslexia emerges from differences in neural organization, especially in the systems that handle language, sound structure, and the conversion of symbols into meaning. Let’s look at the major causative factors,  one by one.

1.Genetic Foundations

Dyslexia is highly heritable. It runs in families. Researchers have identified several genes associated with dyslexia — DCDC2, KIAA0319, ROBO1, DYX1C1, among others — and they’re not “reading genes.” They’re involved in:

• how neurons migrate during fetal development

• how brain circuits connect

• how auditory and visual information is integrated

• how the cortex lays out its specialized regions

These genes influence how the brain organizes itself before a child is even born. They shape the micro-architecture that later supports language, attention, rhythm, and symbolic processing. A different layout means a different set of strengths — and different challenges.

Genetics doesn’t “cause” dyslexia so much as it sets the blueprint for a brain that will approach the world in a nonlinear way.

2. Differences in Brain Connectivity

Brains are not collections of “centers” — they’re networks. And in dyslexic individuals, the networks involved in reading are wired differently.

Reading requires three main systems:

The phonological system. How we decode sound, break words into phonemes (sound bytes), and match letters to sounds.

The orthographic system. How we visually recognize written words and letter patterns.

The rapid integration system. How the phonological and visual systems connect quickly and smoothly.

But in dyslexia:

• the phonological circuits often activate less efficiently

• the visual-word circuits activate later or in different locations

• the integration pathways between sound and symbol are slower or take alternate routes

This is why reading feels laborious: it’s literally more work, more steps, more detours.

But here’s the twist — many of the “detour circuits” are extremely good for other things:

• 3D visualization

• spatial mapping

• creative association

• big-picture synthesis

• connecting distant ideas

• pattern-spotting in chaos

Dyslexic brains tend to rely more heavily on the brain’s default-mode network, visual-spatial networks, and right-hemisphere creative circuits, which is why so many dyslexic people excel in entrepreneurship, engineering, art, design, storytelling, architecture, physics, music, and systems thinking.

My wife Vivien, who is dyslexic, was a brilliant fashion designer of her era. As I have written elsewhere, her high street designs outsold Stella McCartney, 10 to 1 or more. She was even exhibited at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (and their call!)

3. Phonological and Auditory Processing Differences

One of the most consistent findings in dyslexia is a difference in phonological processing — the ability to hear, separate, and manipulate the smallest sound units of language (the so-called phonemes). This isn’t a hearing issue; it’s about how the brain interprets sound.

Dyslexic children often:

• mix up similar phonemes (b/p, d/t). Or B and bee (insect), I and eye. 

• have difficulty breaking words into sound chunks

• find it harder to match letters to corresponding sounds

• struggle with rhyming or rapid naming tasks

These aren’t signs of laziness or low intelligence — they’re indicators of how differently the auditory system is tuned.

Some researchers propose that dyslexic brains are optimized more for global auditory processing (big-picture sound, music, intonation) rather than local, analytic processing (breaking speech into microscopic units).

In other words: the brain is tuned to ideas, not syllables.

4. Magnocellular Pathway Variations

Research in visual neuroscience shows that many dyslexic individuals have differences in  what is called the magnocellular pathway— the system that handles motion detection, big-picture visual patterns, and rapid visual shifts.

This pathway helps with:

• tracking letters as eyes move across the page

• stabilizing visual focus

• processing rapid sequences of visual information

If this system is less efficient or has a slightly altered developmental pattern, letters and words begin to dance or jazz on the page. As a result, reading becomes visually unstable or tiring.

But the same magnocellular differences that make reading harder can enhance abilities in:

• 3D visualization

• design

• engineering

• movement-based skills

• artistic composition

• spatial creativity

Again, a trade-off, not a flaw.

5. Cross-modal Integration: The “Timing” Challenge

Reading is a timed process:

• eyes take in letters

• ears interpret internal sound-maps

• motor systems prepare speech

• meaning circuits light up

• everything syncs within milliseconds

Dyslexia often involves subtle differences in timing across these systems.

It’s not that one system is “broken” — it’s that they don’t lock together at the same rhythm as a neurotypical reading brain. This explains slow reading, inconsistent spelling and moments of “I know this word but I can’t retrieve it right now”

But outside of reading, this same timing difference can create ease in:

• improvisation

• creative leaps

• spatial reasoning

• thinking in images

• nonlinear problem solving

The mind is less bound to sequential steps.

6. Developmental Factors

Other elements shape dyslexia in early development:

Prenatal factors. Variations in hormone exposure, nutrient levels, and neural migration patterns can influence the developing language circuits.

Language environment. Children raised in language-rich environments sometimes compensate faster, but dyslexia appears across every culture and language group on Earth.

Brain lateralization. Dyslexic individuals often have less rigid left-hemisphere dominance, creating a more balanced brain — something extremely useful for creativity but trickier for symbol decoding.

7. Dyslexia as an Evolutionary Variation

One emerging view: dyslexia may be an evolutionary specialization, not a malfunction.

Human groups benefit from members who:

• see the world differently

• spot patterns others miss

• envision solutions out of sequence

• imagine alternative structures

• think spatially and abstractly

• explore, invent, build, create

• challenge conventions

• hold nonlinear intelligence

In evolutionary psychology, this is called cognitive diversification — not everyone is optimized for the same tasks. Linear readers and nonlinear spatial thinkers complement each other, as do Vivien and I.

A linear (me) and a non-linear spatial thinker (Viv). Temple of Delphi, Greece

For an experiment, I asked ChatGPT to write me 300 words on dyslexia, as a gift to Vivien. This is what it said:

Dyslexia isn’t a defect; it’s a different rhythm of mind. It’s a brain that reads the world with a sideways shimmer, a brain that refuses to march in straight lines and instead loops, leaps, tilts, rearranges. People imagine dyslexia as “trouble reading,” but that’s like saying jazz is “trouble sticking to the notes.” Dyslexia is a cognitive style with its own signature: nonlinear, associative, inventive, spatial, intuitive.

Neurologically, dyslexia comes from the way certain brain networks communicate. Instead of funneling everything through the phonological pathways that process letter-sound mapping, dyslexic brains distribute the load across wider networks — visual, spatial, emotional, big-picture systems. It’s like running a city not from a single control tower, but from an entire constellation of lights. That makes reading tricky, yes, but it also gives dyslexic thinkers an uncanny ability to see patterns, metaphors, relationships, and possibilities that more linear minds miss.

Many dyslexic people read slowly but think quickly. They’re often strong in reasoning, creativity, problem-solving, and three-dimensional imagination. They design things. They invent things. They make connections that shouldn’t exist and then somehow do. Their thoughts arrive in images, impressions, structures, and stories rather than tidy rows of syllables.

And here’s the beautiful part: dyslexia doesn’t limit intelligence — it reshapes it. It widens the frame. You get mindmaps instead of bullet points, leaps instead of steps, intuition instead of rote memory. It’s sometimes frustrating, yes. Systems weren’t built for nonlinear thinkers. But nothing about dyslexia is about lack. It’s difference, not deficit. A neurological accent, not an impairment.

When dyslexic people are given the right tools — time, audio, visuals, rhythm, context, movement — something stunning happens: their gifts come forward. Because behind the reading hurdle is a mind tuned to a bigger, more dimensional kind of understanding. A mind built for insight, imagination, and the long-view vision the world absolutely needs.

Rather sweet, don’t you think?

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The clunky linear one…

But it also includes emotional and psychological health too (Duh!)

Health workers, me included, spend a lot of time working on negative emotions. Pain, grief, fear, anger, shame, despair drain all the color out of life, until the world starts to turn grey. Not only that but they drain the juices of physical life force too, and the consequence of that is physical ill health; anything from lack of energy to cancer and heart disease.

But what about the positive emotions? Joy, exhilaration, ecstasy even? These are important to us and far too often are marginalized by concentrating only on the negative. American psychologist, educator, and author of self-help books, Martin Seligman came up with the term “positive psychology” by which he meant cultivating the good, instead of just trying get rid of the bad. A bold idea and he got a lot of flack for it.

Martin Seligman, professor of psychology in the University of Pennsylvania, is often called the father of Positive Psychology, a movement that reshaped modern psychology from a focus on pathology to a study of flourishing. Before Seligman, psychology’s primary concern was healing what was broken — depression, trauma, anxiety. Seligman asked a radical question: What about what’s right with people?

In the late 1990s, during his presidency of the American Psychological Association, he launched Positive Psychology as a formal discipline. Its goal: to scientifically investigate happiness, optimism, purpose, and character strength. His early research on “learned helplessness” — showing that animals and humans tend to roll over and quit after repeated failure — led him to explore the opposite: learned optimism. This became the basis of his 1991 book Learned Optimism, which offered practical tools for reframing perception and increasing resilience.

In Authentic Happiness (2002), Seligman proposed that happiness stems from using one’s “signature strengths” — innate virtues such as courage, kindness, curiosity, and perseverance — in service of something larger than oneself. Later, he refined this into the PERMA model: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment, the five measurable pillars of well-being.

Positive Psychology’s impact has been enormous, influencing education, healthcare, business leadership, and therapy worldwide. It’s not about pretending life is perfect, but about cultivating mental habits that build resilience and joy even amid difficulty. Seligman’s work redefined the goal of psychology from “fixing damage” to “building potential” — transforming the field from a map of illness into a compass for thriving.

Critics (read: “dodos”) argue that Positive Psychology can unintentionally promote toxic positivity — the idea that people should be happy or optimistic regardless of circumstances. I cannot see how that’s toxic. But Barbara Ehrenreich, bless her, in Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America (2010), accused the movement of denying suffering and encouraging emotional denial. She suggested it fits too neatly with Western consumerism — turning happiness into a personal duty and moral obligation rather than a human experience that includes pain and shadow.

Sociologists like Tim Lomas and psychologists like Isaac Prilleltensky have noted that Positive Psychology often reflects Western, individualist values — emphasizing personal achievement and self-actualization rather than communal or spiritual well-being. In many non-Western cultures, happiness is tied to harmony, duty, or belonging rather than personal pleasure or “accomplishment,” suggesting the PERMA model may not be universally applicable.

Some scholars claim Seligman’s work undervalues the psychological function of “negative” emotions like grief, anger, or fear, which can catalyze growth. I don’t much believe in the value of these feelings, though it can be argued that fear keeps us from danger (it also keeps us from happiness too). Philosophers such as John Cottingham has said that a life oriented only toward positivity risks becoming emotionally shallow and morally evasive.

It’s like the old tropes about the “suffering artist”. Only if he/she suffers are they capable of good work… which is BALLS! The person Gautama Siddartha, who became the Buddha, lived a life of unparalleled luxury and comfort in his early days. This later seemed to give him great insight into the path towards happiness: that cravings and neediness cause pain. He chose “The Middle Way”, avoiding both indulgence in pleasure and harsh self-denial. It represents balance, wisdom, and moderation, leading to liberation (nirvana). I’ve always thought of Buddhism as “positive psychology”, rather than a religion.

While Positive Psychology emphasizes measurable well-being, meta-analyses (e.g., Brown et al., American Psychologist, 2017) have found mixed results regarding long-term effects of positive interventions. Critics say that focusing on “happiness metrics” can reduce the complexity of human fulfillment to quantifiable but superficial variables.

Again this is dodo thinking. Why does “human experience” and fulfilment have to include the negative stuff. It’s common, anyone can agree that. But why is it a necessity? I’m with Seligman, that positive feelings should be the target and are not just an indulgence.

The Higher Emotions

How often do you think of what feelings and experiences are available to us that lie beyond happiness and delight? Most of us are too busy striving towards happiness that we rarely, if ever, ask: what comes next?

I’d like to suggest a few and put them out as worthy goals.

First: exhilaration. That comes higher than just joy. It has a certain thrilling energetic or “zoom” aspect. It rarely sustains.

Next: The Flow. Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1934–2021) gave us this one. Flow is the state of total absorption where action and awareness merge — time disappears, self-consciousness fades, and you perform at your peak simply for the joy of doing. 

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. His name BTW is not so scary, really: chick-sent-me-halyi

Above that I put Power: this is where spiritual force kicks in. The Being is so in charge and free to act that strange things begin to happen: telepathy, prescience, telekinesis and so forth. Hence my use of the term power.

Consider Plato’s definition of being: “I hold that the definition of being is simply power”. (from Sophist, Section 247e)

Anything higher? Oh yes! Ecstasy. Note that ecstasy (from the Greek) means “out of self”. That very amazing experience, which I have had a few times, most people never, does seem to be a state of pure Being, where the physical form of self, the “creature”, seems irrelevant.

More? Yes. Serenity of Bliss. This rare and awesome state (literally: awe) is gifted to only a few. It’s true you do need to be serene and calm. It doesn’t come in the middle of turmoil, confusion and emotional dramas. Eastern religions make a virtue of meditation, which is supposed to be seeking this state.

American psychologist Abraham Maslow collected many reports of people attaining this state he called “peak experiences”, from right at the top of this emotional ladder. There seemed to be a remarkable consistency in how people  described their experience. Typically these were special moments of unity and transcendence when self-boundaries dissolve. The word “oceanic” came up a lot. People felt awe, clarity, timelessness, deep connection, and overwhelming love — a direct sense of truth, beauty, or divinity beyond ordinary perception.

Anything more? Is it possible to go higher?

Yes but only as a concept. I theorize that our ultimate experience of Being would transcend all possible dimensions of human experience. It would certainly not be “of this world.” It would encompass a hugeness of Being that was not any aspect of the self but a state, a union with all creation and that it would feel xxxx (well, no words, you see!) Anyway, certainly immeasurably positive.

I call this state “Limitless Being”. I have never been there and if anyone ever did attain it, I doubt they would bother to come back! Ha!

Prof. in lyrical mood this week. Always strive for higher.

Here you go…

The Bridge From Here To Happiness

For many years I’ve been fascinated by the theme of what an optimum or ideal human being might look like. How would such a person behave? What admirable traits would make them an exemplar for the best-lived life? How would they lead — and with what qualities?

In times past, ideal human beings were often judged on religious merit. Following prescribed codes, no matter the cost to oneself or others, was considered the highest calling. Saints, ascetics, and martyrs stood as role models, and emulation of them was seen as noble. Few would have been able to embrace that much self-sacrifice, but the cultural climate framed such devotion as the pinnacle of human aspiration.

Today, very few people look to martyrdom or extreme sacrifice as a model of human excellence. If anything, our definitions of the “ideal” have swung to the opposite end of the spectrum. Watching modern television and so-called reality shows, one might conclude that the figures most admired are those with money, physical attractiveness, and a knack for sarcastic, even harsh, judgment. The influencers of our era are often not exemplars of inner strength or wisdom, but rather people skilled at self-promotion.

Fortunately, the idea that celebrity alone is the highest good has been exposed as shallow. We have seen too many examples of famous people living miserable, destructive lives. Wealth and notoriety have not prevented the downward spiral of countless actors, musicians, and social media stars. Addiction, family collapse, loneliness, and early death have revealed that fame is not a reliable bridge to happiness.

This leaves us with an important question: if religious sainthood and empty celebrity are not the models of the ideal life, what is? What does a truly admirable human being look like in our time, and how do they show us a path toward real happiness?

To answer this, it helps to step back and think about what qualities consistently produce better outcomes — not just in wealth or prestige, but in well-being, relationships, and contribution to society.

Research in psychology and sociology points to a set of traits that appear again and again: emotional regulation, empathy, resilience, a sense of meaning, and the ability to form strong, healthy connections. Unlike religious sainthood, these are not about denying the self; unlike shallow celebrity, they are not about aggrandizing the self. They are about balancing individual flourishing with service to others.

An “ideal” person today is not flawless or superhuman, but they do have recognizable qualities:

• Self-awareness: They understand their strengths and weaknesses without denial or self-deception.

• Compassion: They are able to consider the perspective of others and extend care beyond their immediate circle.

• Integrity: Their actions are consistent with their values, even when inconvenient.

• Adaptability: They can navigate stress and change without collapsing or lashing out destructively.

• Contribution: They put effort into making things better for their community, workplace, or family, not just themselves.

These are not abstract ideals; studies show that such traits correlate with greater life satisfaction, stronger relationships, and even better physical health.

Why integrity and empathy matter more than brilliance or beauty

In earlier eras, people might have argued that the ideal human was the most intelligent, the most beautiful, or the most powerful. Today we see that intelligence without empathy can be destructive; beauty without depth can be empty; and power without responsibility can devastate lives.

Integrity — the ability to align behavior with core values — is more predictive of trust and respect than raw talent. People admire those who keep their word, not simply those who are clever. Similarly, empathy is the trait that allows societies to function cooperatively. Leaders who lack empathy may gain control temporarily but inevitably destabilize their institutions.

It is worth noting that people high in empathy and integrity are often not flashy. They may never trend on social media or dominate headlines. But they are remembered as trustworthy friends, effective colleagues, and caring family members. If the goal is a meaningful and happy life, these quieter virtues turn out to be much more important than charisma or wealth.

The role of resilience and adaptability

No one lives a perfect life free of setbacks. The real test of character is how someone responds when difficulties come. Resilience — the capacity to recover from adversity — has become one of the most studied psychological strengths of our time.

Resilient people are not those who never feel pain or fear, but those who do not become permanently defined by them. They find ways to grow through challenge. They learn, adapt, and use hardship as fuel for deeper perspective.

An ideal human being today, then, is not someone who never suffers but someone who transforms suffering into insight. This capacity not only benefits them but also gives them credibility when they support others through difficulties. Resilience connects directly to happiness because it prevents the collapse into despair when circumstances turn bad.

Contribution as a defining trait

Perhaps the most important reframe is this: the ideal human being is not simply focused on personal fulfillment. Contribution — giving back, serving, leaving things better than they were found — emerges as a crucial factor.

The Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest-running studies on human well-being, has repeatedly shown that relationships and contribution to community are the strongest predictors of health and happiness. People who invest in meaningful connections and give to others do not just live longer; they report greater satisfaction in life.

Thus, the ideal person is not someone who isolates in pursuit of private pleasure, but someone who invests in others while maintaining their own balance. Happiness arises less from accumulation and more from connection and contribution.

The bridge to happiness

So how does this all connect to the search for happiness? The bridge is built from qualities that create sustainable well-being. We know from decades of research that material wealth beyond basic security contributes little to happiness. After survival needs are met, it is relationships, integrity, meaning, and contribution that create enduring satisfaction.

The ideal human being, then, is not a saint or a celebrity, but a person who cultivates qualities that serve both self and others. They live in alignment with values, navigate hardship with resilience, form healthy connections, and contribute to something larger than themselves.

This is the bridge from here to happiness. It is not built overnight, nor is it a fixed destination. It is a way of living that steadily improves the quality of life for the individual and the community around them.

Conclusion: moving toward the ideal

Most of us will never be saints or celebrities. That’s good news, because those models were never reliable bridges to happiness anyway. Instead, we can aim to become people who embody empathy, integrity, resilience, and contribution.

This redefinition of the ideal person is not abstract or unattainable. It is grounded in science, demonstrated in ordinary lives, and available to anyone willing to cultivate it. If more of us stepped into this model — even imperfectly — our societies would be healthier, our relationships stronger, and our personal lives more fulfilling.

The ideal human being is not a perfect figure on a pedestal. The ideal human being is simply one who lives with enough wisdom and compassion to cross the bridge from self-centered striving to shared flourishing. That bridge is the one that actually leads us to happiness.

Joy to you all,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Sources:

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

Southwick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (2012). Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest challenges. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vaillant, G. E. (2002). Aging well: Surprising guideposts to a happier life from the landmark Harvard Study of Adult Development. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Waldinger, R. J., & Schulz, M. S. (2010). What’s love got to do with it? Social functioning, perceived health, and daily happiness in married octogenarians. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019087

Waldinger, R. J. (2015, November). What makes a good life? Lessons from the longest study on happiness [Video]. TEDxBeaconStreet. https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good_life_lessons_from_the_longest_study_on_happiness

Meantime, let’s look at what I call some “earthly powers” (available to use right here and now, on this planet!) I have pinpointed four: LOVE, GRACE, COURAGE and REASON. These could also be called The Four Wisdoms.

1. LOVE

Let’s start with the paramount wisdom: LOVE. It’s an age-old truism LOVE INFORMS EVERYTHING.

I have a powerful maxim which is that, Love is not something we get or give; it’s not something we do; love is especially not a tool to get what we want (you probably know the old saw, “Men use love to get sex; women use sex to get love”); love is actually what we are. Love is a state of Being. As such it’s not a flow of emotion, as often portrayed but an act; an act of enfoldment. Cherishment.

We embody love, meaning real love, not need, want or desire. Not that I exclude romantic sexual love; far from it. But I’m not talking just about what the Greeks called agape or non-sensual love. Again, as I said, it’s a state of Being. Love is what we are!

There are many quotes about love, of course; Shakespeare plays; whole novels! Some portray it as a madness; a disease. It will get you killed. Other’s point to its sublime and nurturing properties. You can’t live a complete life without love.

Real love is divine and informs even sex! Don’t be coy. In many religions, sex is how you get to God. You have intercourse with the priestess, you get to Heaven! You can see this clearly in the glorious temple carvings of Khajuro in India:

How much more inspiring and heavenly than cruel crucifixes as a symbol of the divine!

Come to mention it, the famous sex manual Kama Sutra is just that: a sutra is a Buddhist or Jainist scripture!

OK, moving on…

2. GRACE

Love gives rise naturally and graciously to GRACE! There are many garbled definitions of grace, mostly around the matter of how the person looks and moves. But here I redefine it to mean the acknowledgement of a person’s Being. 

It is recognizing and honoring another’s place in the scheme of things (English use of the word scheme, not American use). To grant a person grace is one of the highest and most sacred of human accomplishments… and at the same time one of the most difficult.

It means respect where respect is due.

To deny, attack, criticize or denigrate someone is the exact opposite of according him or her grace. Thus murders, robbery, wars, even punishments,  are all matters which repudiate grace, as I am using the term.

Thing is, you have to have it before you can give it. If you cannot sense and live by or within your own panoply of grace, how would you know what it is, to offer to others?

Especially, is not something you save up and grant only to figureheads, leaders of saints. Grace is not an emotion. You have to go about life with an ATTITUDE of grace.

I consider it a fundamental wisdom and may be out of a limb here. Others occasionally recognize it and respect it but it’s not common!

Perhaps the word “charity” in the famous Biblical passage in 1 Corinthians 13:4–7 could be substituted by grace?

Grace is patient and kind; grace does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.

It might be fun to transform a few other famous quotes with this idea of grace?

3. COURAGE

Courage is important. Without it, you fail because you lack the commitment. It’s one thing to know what you SHOULD be doing; it’s another to have the guts and wit to actually DO IT!

It’s also relevant to honesty. You have to have courage to tell the truth, no matter what. Honesty, of course, is an aspect of integrity. Interestingly, you might also want to reflect that integrity means much more than telling the truth; it means wholeness.

Brené Brown is worth reading in this respect. She points out that the word courage comes via the French word cour, which means heart. Bravery is having your heart intact. You do not flinch.

Professor Brene Brown

Here’s a quote from her super Netflix special The Call to Courage, which is now streaming in 190 countries and 29 languages. You should watch it. 

I’m going to live in the arena. I’m going to be brave with my life. I’m going to show up. I’m going to take chances, and if you’re brave with your life, if you choose to live in the arena, you’re going to get your ass kicked. You’re going to fall, you’re going to fail, you’re going to know heartbreak. Today, I choose courage over comfort.

Yet how many of us take the easy route? More than all the times we regret something we did, there are a thousand times more occasions when we end up regretting something we DIDN’T do! As I wrote in one of my 1994 essays: 

“More than all the times we have hurt or been hurt are those moments when life presented us with a golden opportunity which—through neglect, fear, folly or other failing—somehow passed us by and so the fame, glamor, riches or success that we craved so earnestly still evaded us.”

Trouble is that Brené uses courage to segue into vulnerability, which doesn’t sit well with me. Maybe nobody defined vulnerability to me in a way that is positive. I’d rather be bombproof than vulnerable! But of course I don’t mean arrogant, cocksure, unfeeling or foolish. I just mean secure within my own resources; knowing that Higher Power is on my side: that I can survive a considerable degree of shock and hurt.

Mind you, that was tested to the absolute limit when my first marriage broke down! But then I did survive! In fact I grew in wisdom, strength and love. So maybe “bombproof” is better for people like me? Haha!

Finally…

4. REASON

This is my long suit, as you would expect. I’m fond of saying that human beings did not use “intuition” or snug, comfy feelings to get down from the trees. We used hard logic to invent transportation, farming, smartphones, computers, heavier-than-air flight and space rockets!

It’s a common myth to set logic and reason against supposedly warm, friendly, loving feelings; it’s one or the other; you are either task-oriented or people-oriented, say some. I say NUTS to that. That’s posturing, not love or logic.

What would have happened to the world if Alexander Fleming had been people-oriented, instead of task-oriented? He invented penicillin, without which millions (actually billions) of people would have died. Isn’t that being people-oriented?

I just want to make the point that reason has a relentless advantage. If it’s “right” it will benefit us all. Truth is a kind of reason, just as lies are stupid and illogical. Reason is friendly. Reason solves troubles, problems and pain. Don’t back off from it and go all woo-woo! Wait a minute: isn’t that what we mean by woo-woo (no logic or reason)? I think so.

One of the greatest words in our language is actually what I call a logical operator: THEREFORE. It’s a kiss!

Therefore can substituted by “it follows that…” But I prefer to phrase it as an operator: if this is true, it follows automatically that THAT is true! It’s the whole basis of good science. But it is also the basis of good living and human interactions. It is reason come to nest as loving and care! At least that’s how I see it.

Love is gentle, kind, honorable, pleasing and protective THEREFORE I choose love in all things.

To The Courage I Know You Hold!

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

[This is destined for the Scriptures in The Making series: www.scripturesinthemaking.com]

Dr. Keith talking with world-class expert Dr. Rob Vanbergen, these two old hands have it covered. Why “A hospital in your hand” is an apt metaphor for this amazing class of electronic devices, what they can do and how you can get one and be trained up quickly and easily. Includes how to do vagus nerve stimulation. Your order link at the end, if you want one: www.TheSanaShop.com/KSM. You must use this link to get all the freebie bonuses mentioned at the end.

==> Get Your Avazzia Device Today

In the case of cancer, this situation can be made worse by chemotherapy, surgery, hormone therapy or radiation therapy, all of which can impede normal sexual activity. Unfortunately, there is usually very little discussion of this problem among doctors and caregivers. That makes open, honest and sensitive discussions by the couple themselves even more important.

Not all patients experience changes in their urges, while others feel the loss keenly in one or more areas: desire, arousal, orgasm and resolution.

With the growing incidence of cancer, particularly among young individuals (eg, colorectal cancer), increased knowledge and awareness of the potential effects of cancer treatment on sexual health and reproductive potential among physicians and individuals is increasingly important.

Yet such matters are rarely discussed.

The most common sexual change for cancer patients is an overall loss of desire. This is usually due to fatigue but nausea from the treatment can also be an issue. Depression and anxiety, which are pretty normal in certain stages of cancer treatment and recovery, also have a notoriously negative effect on libido.¹

For men, erection problems are common. For women, vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activity are frequent. It is common for patients to need more time or stimulation to reach orgasm. This calls for affection and patience.

Breast surgery, notably mastectomy can also have a damaging effect on self image and desire, as well as all the other undesirable effects of chemo or radiation therapy. So too can hair loss be damaging to a person’s self-image.

It’s vital that the partner stand by their beloved and assure him or her, as often as it takes, they are no less attractive and no less loved!

Blissfully, most men and women are still able to have an orgasm even if cancer treatment interferes with erections or vaginal lubrication, or has involved removing some parts of the pelvic organs. Water-based lubricants, such as KY Jelly, can definitely help (avoid petroleum jelly).

It is not sufficient counselling to imply a diminishment of sexuality is par for the course and, in any case, the patient will have far more on his or her mind than mere gratification. The truth is that love and tenderness between a man and wife, or a romantic couple, can have powerful healing and nourishing qualities which should therefore be indulged and not side-lined.

There are a number of recognized side-effects following common cancer treatment that may affect your desire for sex:

• Fatigue

• Nausea

• Vomiting

• Diarrhea

• Constipation

• Hair loss

• Weight changes

• Scars

• Sensitivity to tastes and smells

While medications are available to treat many of these symptoms, some of these same drugs can decrease sexual desire or make it harder to reach orgasm. Drugs to treat drug side-effects is never a good idea.

If you are having sex during chemotherapy, you may wish to use barrier protection, such as condoms or dental dams (for oral sex), since chemotherapy chemicals can be found in saliva, semen or vaginal fluid and you don’t want to transfer these to your partner. 

Radiation therapy from an external machine will not endanger your partner in any way. If you are undergoing brachytherapy, which implants radioactive seeds in your body, you may have to stop sexual activity briefly until the strongest radiation has left the body.

Sex can be a problem if you have bleeding in the genital area following a recent surgery or if your immune system is very weakened. Sometimes a low platelet count can lead to blood clotting defects and that in turn may further any bruising, even when intercourse is very gentle.²

The good news is that most sexual side effects of chemo will disappear when therapy is completed. 

The main thing to remember is that the absence of sex does not mean the absence of intimacy. Even if you are unable to achieve an erection or tolerate intercourse, intimate touching and caressing can bolster both your outlook and those all-important feelings of self-esteem.

According to the American Cancer Society, self-stimulation (masturbation) can help ease you back into sexual feelings as you are recovering from chemotherapy.

Risk of Infection

Not directly related to desire and fulfillment is the question of heightened infection risk. Many therapy drugs complicate matters by tuning down the immune system.

For example, people undergoing chemo are often at risk of developing a low white cell count (neutropenia). These immune cells are vital for fighting off infection, and, without them, we are all at risk for infections which might otherwise be harmless.

And that’s where sex can become a problem. Whether vaginal, anal, or oral, each of these activities has the potential to pass infection. If the immune system is compromized, that could be a problem, at least theoretically. In practice, not so much, because a couple who are regularly intimate already share most of each other’s microbiome. In any case, where the risk is substantial, condoms can provide adequate protection from pathogens.

Vaginal infections are common in women undergoing chemotherapy, especially those taking antibiotics or steroids. The infections can cause pain, burning, and irritation to the vagina, often accompanied by a white vaginal discharge. Avoidance of sex is generally advised until the infection clears up—but that’s normal advice for all couples in the same situation.

Genital warts or herpes flare-ups can also be a real problem. Because chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, viruses like human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus (HSV) are able to thrive where they might otherwise be controlled. In fact, some people who have never had an outbreak may suddenly be faced with one after starting treatment.

If your immune system is severely compromised, sexual abstinence may be the only sure way to avoid infection.

In any case, while undergoing treatment you must take care to avoid the complication of pregnancy. Chemo and radiation are both capable of mutagenesis, which could lead to birth defects.

But these are all technical points; important, yes. But nothing to compare to the magic of love and affinity! I think other people have said it well enough; I’m merely repeating it: feelings and good emotions are powerful healers of pain and suffering. It is your DUTY to show love and care when times are stressful. 

Anyone can DO love when the going is good. It’s how you measure up when it’s not easy that is the mark of your character. OK, don’t want to be preachy. You’ve got it.

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. Sexual Dysfunction in Females after Cancer Treatment: an Unresolved Issue. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017 May 1;18(5):1177-1182. doi:10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.5.1177
2. https://www.mdanderson.org/patients-family/diagnosis-treatment/emotional-physical-effects/sexuality-cancer.html

FYI, I have decided to add this essay to my book “The Psychology Of Cancer”

Click here to have your own copy.

To die is not shameful…

Toxic emotions, such as shame and guilt, and not optimism and hope, are common reasons why terminally-ill cancer patients continue with ineffective treatment, at vast cost, at the end of their life. Researchers from Rutgers looked into this and found…

Quitting is seen as cowardice of a sort. A cop out. Abandoning one’s “duty”.

“In the United States, advanced illness care is enveloped in a set of moralized social attitudes around ‘fighting’ and ‘not giving up,’ where death is seen as the enemy, to be fought off at all costs,” said Login S. George, a health services researcher at the Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, research member of the Cancer Prevention and Control Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute and lead author of the study published in the journal Health Psychology.

“This creates a dilemma for patients, who can feel like they are falling short of some moral code and disappointing others if they consider discontinuation of treatments,” George said. “Ours is among the first studies to quantify these sentiments.”

George and his colleagues recruited 116 people receiving treatment at the Rutgers Cancer Institute, the state’s only NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, and other clinical sites between April 2022 and March 2024. Eligible participants had a median life expectancy of less than 12 months and were in the advanced stages of one of several cancers, including pancreatic, lung, colorectal or breast.

The participants were interviewed with a view to establishing their main decision making thoughts and sentiments; particularly what had pushed patients to continue non-beneficial cancer treatments despite a poor prognosis.

In some questions, up to 88% of those interviewed said they continued potentially pointless treatments out of a moral obligation or for the benefit of loved ones. For example, there was an array of responses to the question: “Stopping anticancer treatments would be a form of giving up on my family.” 19% of patients said, “a little,” 19% responded “somewhat,” 15.5% responded “quite a bit,” and 11.2% responded “a great deal.”

Similarly, up to 86% of patients reported they tried to appear more optimistic and physically well than they were feeling when loved ones were present. That makes sense at least. 

But the instinct to downplay their discomfort even applied to how patients acted around their oncologists, with more than 41% saying they tried to appear more optimistic and healthier with doctors in the room, which made patients feel uncomfortable and therefore was a source of stress.

Earlier studies have examined cancer patients’ feelings of guilt for burdening others with their care, but George said this study is novel because it focuses on an entirely different source of guilt – one stemming from “not abiding by the social code of battling cancer optimistically.”

At a deeper level, this is about passivity. It’s a truism that patients who are demanding, assertive and throwing their point of view around, sometimes quite rudely, do very well! The passive patient, who gives in to other people’s feelings, will not survive nearly so well.

Let us remind ourselves of the writings of that wonderful human being Bernie Siegel MD, author of Love, Medicine and Miracles: 

“I have learned from my experience with patients and by asking them, ‘Why didn’t you die when you were supposed to?’ that they always had a story to tell. I can recall, as an intern, realizing that the seniors, with hip fractures, who were noisy and demanding didn’t develop pneumonia and die while the submissive, quiet seniors who never raised their voice or caused a problem had a much higher mortality rate.

“We now know from studies how one’s emotions and personality affect survival rates. I was criticized years ago for speaking about many things; no one had researched because no one believed they made sense, which are now scientific. Simple things like laughter affecting the survival of cancer patients and loneliness affecting the genes which control immune function are now proven to be true by studies…

“When people have a sense of meaning in their life, express anger and emotions appropriately in defense of themselves, ask for help from family and friends, participate in their health care decisions, say no to what they choose not to do, find time to do what they enjoy and to play, use their feelings to help them to heal their lives and do not live a role but an authentic life they will always do better than expected… [my emphasis KS-M]

And finally: “I found a large part of the problem was that people were afraid to take responsibility and participate because if they didn’t get well that would mean they were a failure… If you do not grow up with parents who love you and give you mottoes to live by and teachers, clergy and other authority figures who love and respect you then you are into guilt, shame, blame, addictions and self-destructive behavior.”²

In an ideal world, a decision about stopping or continuing treatment would be guided by deliberation and intention and reflection on the part of patients, including open dialogue with their caregivers, oncologists and others. But according to George, “…It appears that process can be restrained by some of these feelings of shame and obligation to others.”

Obviously findings such as these have significant implications for end-of-life planning for those with advanced serious illness and should push families, loved ones and clinical providers to think deeply about what motivates patient preferences. That means helping patients recognize they have the choice, or permission, to discontinue treatments that are not seen to be worthwhile.

What’s not really addressed the fact that doctors will often push patients towards minimally-useful treatments because it is lucrative for them. Doctors are in a strong position of authority and, it has to be said, quite capable of pushing the guilt and shame buttons, to get the patients to continue. 

“Typically, doctors present people with information about treatment options and ask them what they want to do,” George commented. “These results suggest we need to go a step further and discuss moral sentiments. Helping people articulate their feelings related to needing to continue treatments out of social expectations, or for the sake of others, could produce outcomes that are more in line with a patient’s actual wishes.”

This turns on a point I often visit and comment about, which is that much emphasis is given to the feelings of cancer patients (quite rightly) but there is little emphasis on individuals in the surrounding environment and this is a sad thing, because one day the patient will be gone but family and friends are left behind, bereft and suffering, sometimes for a long period.

They do have feelings and entitlements too. I’m not saying their position is more important than that of the patients. I am saying that there has to be honest dialogue and all points of view included in decisions made. Doctors should be fully aware of what is going on but not try to influence matters, one way or another.

Never stop fighting for yourself. Never give up (Winston Churchill) and finally: leave with as much dignity as you can muster when the end comes.

To your good health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Sources:
1. Ahead of publication study at: https://psycnet.apa.org/
2. https://berniesiegelmd.com/resources/articles/from-cancer-patient-to-respant/

It’s a silly idea and never happened. That’s why it’s known as the “hard” question. Matter has never woken up. Matter has been enshrined in  consciousness since the dawn of Creation, not the other way round.

I have two killer questions to change anyone’s world view (if they are honest). The first is: Suppose consciousness came first? 

“Experts” like atheist Daniel C. Dennet would never ask such a question. Indeed, he would deny anyone the right to ask it—it would threaten his book sales! Human consciousness is a fiction, he says. It’s an illusion. A “bag of tricks” the brain plays on us.

But what if consciousness was there before anything in the material world? Then consciousness is just a given. A baseline. Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics,  addressed this question beautifully, when he said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness”. 

That being the case, the “hard” question is null and void. The really difficult question then becomes “What is the physical universe? How did it get there? What is it for?”

Alright, several questions, but these are the questions they should be addressing! These are matters of metaphysics (beyond physics), which at college is a department of ontology: ontology, the nature of existence and being…

Upside Down Question

Well, I spotted the same inversion in the debates about life after death. Instead of tying to “prove” there is life after death, I’d like to turn this around, as with the consciousness argument. To me, the important question is this (my second worldview question): where is the scientific EVIDENCE that there is no afterlife? Where is the PROOF that we do not live on after death?

There is no such proof… and before you get started on contradicting me for the sake of form, you cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to PROVE that something does not exist. You can only fail to prove that it does exist! So right away, that puts the materialist dodos on the back foot. They all think that reality consists only of things you can see, kick and touch!

There is abundant proof that life after death exists; that there are non-material domains, which consciousness can explore with all it’s senses; that there are other worlds and other space-times. The only way out of the self-imposed trap for the dodos is to ignore, contradict, deny or just close their eyes to all the evidence we have so far.

Thus you get writings such as: 

How can we square this self-conception of ourselves as mindful, meaning-creating, free, rational, etc., agents with a universe that consists entirely of mindless, meaningless, un-free, non-rational, brute physical particles? (John Searle, Freedom and Neurobiology, pp. 4,5)

Who says the universe is composed entirely of brute physical particles? That’s the flaw in their argument. It’s set up that way, because they set it up that way! In fact, famous experiments such as the double-slit experiment, rather suggest that particles are indeed conscious and aware. At least they seem to “know” what particles at the other slit are doing!

Their’s is a self-contradictory premise meaning a statement that is logically inconsistent or incompatible with other statements: they won’t accept the evidence because “it can’t be true.” But the only reason it can’t be true is because they won’t accept the evidence! I think a child could spot the circular reasoning.

Look, even advanced physics is on my side. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be lost or destroyed. We are made up of information and energy (matter is just energy in disguise, remember: e = mc² and all that). You can’t get rid of information once created. Oh sure, you can delete any carrier of said information: destroy computers, burn books, delete files, get rid of our bodies even. But the information of “us” MUST survive somewhere.

It’s a tenet of quantum physics that information cannot be destroyed, only altered or transferred to a different system but never lost. Quantum theory is weird, we all know, and in fact “the only thing going for it is that it is unquestionably correct”, according to celebrity physicist Michio Kaku. It’s what powers our TVs, computers, smartphones, etc. You can’t argue with that.

Classical physics—or rather weird misguided modern cosmology—says that information can be lost at the “event horizon” of a black hole. But since black holes are not real, just a nonsense patch to make the absurd Big Bang model work (as with dark matter), then that need not worry us either.

In other words, something of our existence, in the form of energy and information, has to survive bodily death and vanishment. It’s advanced physics! Not that survival after death could happen; but that it must happen.

So back to my question, which I pose with my tongue out and blowing a raspberry: where is your proof there is no life after death?

Of course there is no such proof, as I said. You can’t prove a negative. But you can cling to your lame suppositions, no matter how flawed and how many holes in it, for as long as you like. Just don’t let mere facts get in the way of a good theory.

Wait. Did I say good theory? That’s going too far. A theory which focuses on a tiny part of the whole and sweeps under the carpet anything outside those narrow boundaries could not be said to be a good or comprehensive theory.

Neither is the attitude of “You are wrong, wrong, damnably wrong,” or “I won’t listen to any more of this nonsense,” good science.

Consider this: if your spouse comes back from the store saying “They ran out of potatoes,” you wouldn’t immediately say, “Where’s your proof?” now would you?

Why not? Because he or she is normal, intelligent and observant and if he or she says “They ran out of potatoes,” that is almost certainly true. There would be a slight element of doubt, unless he or she went to the store manager and asked additionally if they had more potatoes in back. But if that question was asked, and there were none, then lack of potatoes is a near-certainty. Nobody is going to call your spouse stupid, dishonest, deluded or a freak.

But that’s how the mechanistic scientists approach matters beyond the material. If someone makes a simple observation (no potatoes), they know with unquestionable certainty that no-one in the history of the world has ever run out of potatoes, NOR IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO RUN OUT OF POTATOES! Therefore, anyone who says they did is totally mistaken, possibly mentally unstable.

Phooey!

So, with the reader’s kind permission, I’ll continue to ignore what “science” has to say and look at real facts.

Live well, Live forever!

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

https://drkeithsown.com/

Psychiatrists have lately been asking “Is grief a disease?” Duh! They want to sell more drugs, of course, by “treating” someone who is distressed and grieving. Apparently, they think it is OK to grieve for a time. But once a certain number of days or weeks have passed—time’s up! You have now overstepped the boundary into madnÏess.

Another example: being overly concerned about what you eat is a newly diagnosed disease—avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). Personally, I think anyone who does NOT have angst over what they eat in our modern ultra-processed world is crazy or, at the very least, dumb! There will be more daft diseases emerging in years to come, I am sure. I half expect to see the recognition of woke aversion psychosis (WAP), or something similar.

But psychiatrists have missed or avoided a HUGE mental affliction, which is hatred.

It seems to me that hate has far more of a claim to be a diseased state than many contrived mental disorders. It doesn’t come naturally to people. It’s not a genetic condition. Kids are not born hating — because they haven’t yet met the world, never mind met people to dislike! 

As Jacque Fresco put it: 

“No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns.”

In other words, it’s something peculiarly human. Animals don’t hate. Who does not know that wolves involved in a brawl will desist immediately when one of the antagonists offers his neck to be slashed. The behavior of orcas (and even some domestic cats) is a little bit suspect, in that they play with their victims and seem to deliberately torment them before death. But it’s a very human over-interpretation to call that an emotion of hate.

Nelson Mandela. A man with every reason to hate—but he didn’t

Basically, we are taught to hate, as Nelson Mandela said. It comes from dysfunctional adults who lay it on their unfortunate offspring. As if a true parent would go laying anthrax or rabies on their kid; yet they do it with hate.

Of course peer pressure and modern memes (thought viruses) also play a very powerful part. We all want to belong and sometimes we are willing to do despicable things, just to earn approval from the group. That is the core of mob mentality which, as we know, is deranged and dangerous.

So it is that people grow up hating, but are not born with the tendency. They are, to use modern parlance, “radicalized” into hating. And, yes, I chose the word advisedly, since the majority aggression in the world today is religious in origin.

One can point the finger easily at Christians, Muslims and Jews. The behavior of some members of these religions is clearly motivated by fanatical hatred. Their treatment of women moreover—and this includes the other big religion Hinduism—is clearly an expression of sexual hatred. 

But I have always excluded Buddhists, and considered them to be gentle and kind people… Until lately. When I was living in Sri Lanka I was shocked beyond measure to learn of Buddhist monks attacking and murdering individuals who failed to make the necessary religious observances. And then came the pitiful state of affairs in Myanmar, since the collapse of the military order, where Buddhist mobs have been attacking and killing hundreds of Muslims.

As commented by Time magazine (July 1, 2013):

“In the reckoning of religious extremism — Hindu nationalists, Muslim militants, fundamentalist Christians, ultra-Orthodox Jews — Buddhism has largely escaped trial. To much of the world, it is synonymous with nonviolence and loving kindness, concepts propagated by Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, 2,500 years ago. But like adherents of any religion, Buddhists and their holy men are not immune to politics and, on occasion, the lure of sectarian chauvinism.”

What got me started on all this, if you are wondering, is the atrocious Jan 1st 2025 attack in New Orleans, in which a crazed Muslim fundamentalist drove a truck down a crowded street of party revelers seeing in the New Year, killing 14 and injuring many more.

This man had apparently been “radicalized” a year before, meaning he had been taught to hate so deeply and profoundly that he was happy to surrender his own life in the pursuit of killing as many Christians as possible. Ironically he also killed a couple of Israeli women who, I suppose, in the sick mental state of these people would be counted as a bonus.

One has to ask: how it is possible for Muslim leaders to convert a person so rapidly from normal to a killer hatred mentality? The person in question, 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar, was a former US solider, so perhaps PTSD was a factor in sending him over the edge. At the time of writing it is not clear if he was a psychiatric patient or not. But my first thought in these mass killings is to ask the question: is this person taking psychiatric drugs, which are notorious for causing murderous aggression and which lie behind the rise in mass killings?

The secret to radicalization, or mass killings of any stripe is, of course, that there is pre-existing psychosis. Individuals susceptible to violent outbursts are already on the edge or beyond it.

Talking of weirdy medical conditions, when I was in med school we learned of “involutional melancholia”. I can’t say I’m surprised that the Americans have dumped that term and now group it as “major depression”; there are too many syllables for the average American and Ancient Greek is not part of their education.

But it’s a very sad disorder in which a middle-aged man gets to feeling that life is all played out, there is nothing left, and he commits suicide by blowing his head off with a shotgun or driving his car into a tree. You read cases in the newspapers almost every week. More rarely he shoots his wife and kids first and then turns the gun on himself. 

It’s hard to fathom the psyche in which everything is so appallingly black that to destroy your whole life, including yourself, is the only release from the pain. The point is that the others, who are innocent victims, appear basically as projections of the perp’s own miserable being. He thinks they must be suffering terribly as well and it’s better to “put them out of their misery.”

All has come to nothing.

Melancholy by Pieter Codde, 1633, via Wikimedia Commons

Now in Jabbar’s case, I don’t think the diagnosis applies. He’s the right age group; he’s divorced (two wives); suffering business and financial problems; ex-military and he had apparently posted videos of his intention of killing his family. All fits. But he made a point of associating his attack with Muslim fundamentalism, flying the ISIS flag. I think he was just suffering from hatred!

I find it strange that people here in the US enjoy one of the best lives in the world, the highest standard of living, the envy of almost every other nation, yet they want to destroy it! Makes no sense.

But I am reminded of the wise words of American writer and humorist Leo Rosten:

“I learned that it is the weak who are cruel, and that gentleness is only to be expected from the strong.”

Everything about Jabbar shouts sad, failed, ex-human being.

Cheer up everybody! Make it a HAPPY New Year…Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor