Hey my Haters hear me out.

I think it is important for you to at least read this Post of mine.

I earned the right to call you my haters for your hate speech against me, and in fugue: you run after insulting me by blocking me. Like Haters Chicken Run.

I do not authorize psychological nor psychiatric formulations, interpretations nor diagnosis, etc. I am not a lawyer, this is no legal advice nor advice of any kind, I am not knowledgeable enough in Politics nor Sociology. Which by the way are not Sciences. I am not a Scholar.

Cognitive Dissonance from Wikipedia:

“In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.Being confronted by situations that challenge this dissonance may ultimately result in some change in their cognitions or actions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce this dissonance. Relevant items of cognition include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment.”

In the case I am to narrate is the Belief, not the Opinion and not the Fact that some Ideas are addressed by Science and not Humanities. Believing, not knowing, that some Non Scientific Ideas are Scientific is holding two conflicting “ideas, beliefs [and] values”. Referred as items of cognition in the previously quoted paragraph.

“actions” is acting upon those ideas. “feelings” is evident to me.

For People who can´t handle the truth when presented it in undeniable form which should cause cognitive dissonance at least, like Trans, ADHD, Autism and Patriarchyst believers, or at least react like Haters even avoiders of opposite views:

I know how you feel, cognitive dissonance specially when it touches ones identity like in racists, misogynists and the like leads to Hate, Radicalization and Fundamentalism:

From "Motivations for Jihad and Cognitive Dissonance – A Qualitative Analysis of Former Swedish Jihadists"

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2019.1626091#abstract

“This study is based on interviews with three former Swedish jihadists, and it uses cognitive dissonance theory to analyze how their motivations for jihad changed—from the early stages of radicalization to fighting as part of a jihadist group and finally leaving jihad. It argues that cognitive dissonance is a causal mechanism, alternative to empathy and collective relative deprivation, that can explain how individuals with collective identities can be motivated to opt for jihad.”

Notice “alternative to empathy” and “causal mechanism” my Haters. Notice “collective relative deprivation” because I don´t know what it means.

From "Evidence of Psychological Manipulation in the Process of Violent Radicalization: An Investigation of the 17-A Cell"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8905186/

"Table 1. Strategies, techniques, definitions, and indicators of psychological manipulation adapted from the CPI."

"[use of the strategy of ] Cognitive control [with the technique of] Denigration of critical thinking [defined as] The members of the group must assume and accept the arguments through an authoritarian model in which the rules are followed without debate. Critical thinking is penalized; in this case, the reasoning of the leader is faithfully followed, that is, the hierarchical figure is absolutely trusted."

"[Indicated by] Reduction of cognitive dissonance through clear and final answers to the ambiguity and doubts of the members (cognitive closure). Prolonged exposure to ideologies or doctrines that hinder critical thinking, reflection, democratic values and/or respect for individual freedoms."

Notice “cognitive closure” because I am not quite clear what it truly means.

Note: The [autoritarian] leaders in these cases: Patriarchy, ADHD, Autism and Trans Speech are the sources you read your ideologies from and through their examples of hating rhetoric are Manipulating you like they manipulated Jihadists in the cell 17-A.

It is also authoritarian believing you are authorities who know better than me or anyone else disagreeing with you.

Notice it says “hinder critical thinking, reflection, democratic values and/or respect for individual freedoms” such as freedom of expression for someone else, hate speech, inappropriate insulting comments makes me less likely to express myself freely, for example.

Clear and final answers like “ADHD, Autism, Trans and Patriarchy are real things”.

They are not, they are mere Ideas with no Empirical nor Theoretical connection to Reality.

I.E.: You don´t read nor accept any ideas different from your indoctrination, coming from anywhere else than other indoctrinated or indoctrinators.

Do my writings critical to your Ideologies not based in Reality but on mere Belief, not even Opinion nor Fact cause you Cognitive Dissonance my Haters?. Yes or No to yourselves, I don´t need nor want your answers. I am not a researcher nor a therapist, and certainly not your Caring Friend. I am a Professional Writer, a technical one nonetheless.

The criterion to answer correctly is: do my writings cause you to address the contradiction, the dissonance that what you believe in is not Real?. Yes or no to yourselves. That would reduce your dissonance my haters: accepting what you believe is not only not Real, but can´t be Real at all.

Meaning also that when people stop having cognitive dissonance to critical arguments they are already or might be indoctrinated and radicalized.

Meaning also when their income, fame, reputation, followers or readers already know my haters for Believing and Preaching ADHD, Autism, Trans and Patriarchy they can´t back track for economic reasons, and vanity issues like not admitting they were fooled, at least. And in turn fooled other people, and specially harmed ADHD and Autism medicated Children, Trans persons receiving a treatment not helpful and sometimes harmful. And Patriarchysts believers trying to save face.

"[use of the strategy of ] Cognitive control [with the technique of] Control of attention [defined as] Programed activities are carried out to keep the members busy within the group, with no option to choose activities freely."

"[Indicated by] High participation and involvement in the activities, which consolidate the group support and commitment."

Such as talking, writing and discussing nothing more than your assumed identity issues: Trans, Non-binary, ADHD, Autism. Some of you even have Handles, visible identifications as ADHDers Autisters and the like, suggesting to me you are prominently involved in the promotion, propaganda of this single issue in your lives.

Like Fundamentalists: for them there is nothing else that is of importance. But, I am guessing, I really don´t know what you do beyond posting a lot about the same single issue, or it´s mixes, it´s intersections with other Fundamentalist or Radicalization issues like Trans, Non-binary, ADHD, and Autism.

And blaming Substack or Social Networks won´t fly with me: you have other options to reduce your Contradictory Beliefs against Reality.

“…with no option to choose activities freely.“ I can interpret as: you choose to read nothing else, specially no opposite views.

If someone forced you to believe in nothing else blame them, not Substack, not Social Networks and Specially not ME.

Crucially when it no longer causes you cognitive dissonance, when it no longer causes you discomfort between your contradictory beliefs in Science as something relevant to the Truth, and believe at the same time ADHD, Autism, Trans and Patriarchy are Real, and therefore can be studied with Science, which they cannot be, precisely because they are not Real: they are mere Ideas.

And hence you do nothing useful to align, to bring your Beliefs with Scientific Knowledge into agreement, or more agreement, into alignment: a single line or pointing in the same direction. And you give me just hate, not even debate…

And erroneous, pernicious, recalcitrant and harmful Ideas too when imposed on other People specially Children, and callously trying for the Law to impose them on everyone else. That is: Beyond being just Irrational.

Like non Fundamentalist Religious Ideas, Irrational, but by themselves can be beneficial, even if rabid Skeptics, Religion haters believe otherwise. I don´t: Just because Religious Practice has harmed People does not mean Religion is Evil, specially as an abstract thing. And crucially from Philosophers or users of Philosophy!.

The Devil is in the Details for me.

Your neurodiversity is a divergence from Reality not from the Normies.

Control of attention, like censoring and not reading critical thoughts, not stated as such in the article, I think, about one´s beliefs is the most common found indicator in said study, by far.

But just reading from Religious texts, a single one or only from a single Religion, specially to explain everything or a lot, like who one IS, where ones suffering comes from, why one is Hated, why the Law and the Politicians and the rest of the World don´t accept ones beliefs, seems to me perfect a match for reading no opposite views to your Beliefs even if non Religious and using them to explain things that are not only nuanced, but complicated, at least Historical in origin: Like Law Making, Belief, Science, Medicine and Politics.

Things, Ideas, processes with details probably denying your intents, interpretations, beliefs and actions.

Hence Radicalization.

The third one in frequency is denigration of critical thinking. Like your hating comments to my work, and me, like if my work somehow were a significant part of who I am. How I work is, in what I work is not my Haters.

See A Guide to my Writings to verify with your own eyes such is the case.

From "Understanding the psychological aspects of the radicalisation process: a sociocognitive approach"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8330720/

"This clinical and qualitative study is based on an analysis of legal expert interviews of people at different stages of the radicalisation process. It highlights common psychological characteristics in personality, mechanisms of moral neutralisation and sociocognitive and interpretive treatment during radicalisation. These observations suggest the applicability of a model of cognitive–emotional transformation of self and meaning-building in radical violent engagement." [Violent engagement like verbal violence, my words, see below].

"In this sense, the cognitive mechanisms of moral neutralisation, which allow the person to avoid cognitive dissonance between performed acts and representations or beliefs by modifying the self-perception of individual responsibility, can be seen as stemming from the action of these different sociocognitive units." [Like feeling no guilt nor remorse for your hateful expressions against me and my work].

"The engagement phase is defined at the sociocognitive level by a loss of inhibitory mechanisms and a difficulty in backtracking. This is because questioning the choices made would create cognitive dissonance that is difficult for an individual to manage, given the lack of differentiation between personal and collective goals." [Like not holding your tongue: loss of inhibitions, and not tolerating the mere thought of leaving your clika, or actually leaving it].

Meaning to me most radicalized individuals cannot go back to Reality because they will suffer from cognitive dissonance, aka from facing Reality, and prefer keep going more radical, they double down, rather than backtrack. And in part because they assumed a collective identity.

You my Haters are already engaged in your Radicalization as described from the quotes alone. At least…

I admit the sources I quoted from are full with psychobable and written by Non Scientists, and I skimmed them, but, properly interpreted as a product of Humanities thinking, I can see and accept the parallels. And since no Trans, ADHD, Autism and Patriarchy are real things, for me is like talking about Philosophy even it if has a whiff of fakey Empricism.

I´ll call it philosopho-political inquiry from live sources, like oral History.

And me having read Hundreds of Book on History, having been a Skeptic since Kid who accepts, now defends with my own writings, and Respects the Rights of Religious Persons, Paranormies and the like, I think I can assert with confidence not only I see parallels, but there are strong enough parallels with Radical Jihadists. I have no bias, and I am skilled in such assessments and interpretations.

To me also explains the verbal violence I have received for my opinions and writings: you my haters are behaving like Jihadists towards me.

As a foretelling, not a warning, denying it would be gaslighting me, and minimizing it would be double whamming me. Among others.

Since you are at least already engaged in your Radicalization probably you won´t read this Post of mine because you blocked me, or I blocked you for your hateful expressions, among others, like spreading disinformation and or hate.

Don´t call me names, don´t insult me, I have a recognized situation as a Human Rights Victim by a State Commission of Humans Rights in my Country. I have the quality of Human Rights Victim in One Government Official Document.

I just don´t feel a victim, I have an official paper from an Agency of the Mexican Government, my Government, saying I am a Human Rights Victim. It is not my belief alone: It is a Legal Fact!.

Maybe I´ll do a proper long format post, I have enough casuistics against me, and these quotes are from 3 of the first page web search results. I need more sources , putting them without the Jargon and analyze its peculiarities to Trans, Non-binary, ADHD, Autism and how it is not a cult. Or it could be a cult or a cult like process too…

And it explains the use of terms like feminazies, when as parody, I don´t encourage it´s use, more appropriately it would Patriarchy Jihadists, not feminazies.

Or ADHD Jjihadists, Autister Jihadist, Trans Jihadist and the like.

I do not condone nor promote violence against anyone, my use of Jihadist is not for the purposes of inciting violence nor to ridicule, but to bring attention to such probability, not possibility, suggested by the use of Hate speech from believers in those when apparently they read my comments or hopefully Posts.

Just the avoidance of reading critical works of ones assumed identity is a sign something has gone wrong and probably can go worse. The hate today in Substack and other social networks is Jihadist type Hate, probably with the same mechanisms behind it.

That should grab everyone´s attention, read about it, talk about it and do something about it, but I don´t like recommending. If something can be done after properly understanding it and documenting it, which is not a given at least because such Fundamentalism is widely accepted around the World.

Fundamentalism and consider my Haters trying to take it out of the religious context is: “…point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.”

In these cases: ADHD, Autism, Trans and Patriarchy, secularism is Science and the Fundamental principles are against reality. Against secularism.

Fundamental as in Foundational, belonging to the Foundation, the base, essential or central Ideas for your Ideologies.

From Wikipedia on Fundamentalism:

“Fundamentalism is a tendency among certain groups and individuals that are characterized by the application of a strict literal interpretation to scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, along with a strong belief in the importance of distinguishing one's ingroup and outgroup, which leads to an emphasis on some conception of "purity", and a desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed.”

Ideal not as bygone, but as mere Idea!.

Purity as in not getting contaminated by wrong ideas, and not mixing with wrong believers: everyone who believes different.

"In modern politics, fundamentalism has been associated with right-wing conservative ideology, especially social conservatism. Social conservatives often support policies in line with religious fundamentalism, such as support for school prayer and opposition to LGBT rights and abortion. Conversely, secularism has been associated with left-wing or liberal ideology, as it takes the opposite stance to said policies, however, various left-wing policies have likewise been deemed forms of fundamentalism, notably stronger forms of wokeness."

But, it is possible, just not from me, I am a secularist, a good and law abiding citizen, an empathetic one, and I do care for other people, regardless:

"Political usage of the term "fundamentalism" has been criticized. It has been used by political groups to berate opponents, using the term flexibly depending on their political interests. According to Judith Nagata, a professor of Asia Research Institute in the National University of Singapore, "The Afghan mujahiddin, locked in combat with the Soviet enemy in the 1980s, could be praised as 'freedom fighters' by their American backers at the time, while the present Taliban, viewed, among other things, as protectors of American enemy Osama bin Laden, are unequivocally 'fundamentalist'."´

Although:

´"Fundamentalist" has been used pejoratively to refer to philosophies perceived as literal-minded or carrying a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion."´

I am not using it pejoratively, I am not calling your beliefs Religious, I just see the parallels with Fundamentalism and since I am no right winger I can say it without any doubt I am not moved nor motivated by Religion nor Hate, but by caring and Science, not Belief.

I can use Fundamentalism in a non pejorative way, those right wingers can´t, but I can, and I am telling you Haters: To me you are behaving as Radicalized Fundamentalists of the Political Kind. Again, said by me non pejoratively.

From Britanninca on Fundamentalism:

"In the late 20th century the most influential—and the most controversial—study of fundamentalism was The Fundamentalism Project (1991–95), a series of five volumes edited by the American scholars Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby. Marty and Appleby viewed fundamentalism primarily as the militant rejection of secular modernity. They argued that fundamentalism is not just traditional religiosity but an inherently political phenomenon, though this dimension may sometimes be dormant. Marty and Appleby also contended that fundamentalism is inherently totalitarian, insofar as it seeks to remake all aspects of society and government on religious principles."

Militant: Fighting or warring. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause, as in "a militant political activist." Engaged in warfare; fighting; combating; serving as a soldier. Similar to fighting and combating.

By inducing and motivating others to fight for your cause you are Promoting Aggression, Violence, Fighting and Warring in the name of a cause: yours alone.

And you are fighting against Facts and Opinions, not even against other Beliefs.

Militant rejection is a Fighting, Warring, etc., Rejection and against Science!, it totally fits.

Secular Modernity is Science in this case as an interpretation, not as a Fact, accepting ADHD, Autism, Trans and Patriarchy as Real as I´ve shown in several of my writings is a rejection of Modern Secularism, aka Science, as in Modern Science.

The previously quoted Paragraph, the sixth above this one, applies to Matriarchy! as I showed in my Post from an actual exchange here at Substack!.

"Despite its unprecedented breadth, The Fundamentalism Project has been criticized on a number of grounds. One objection is that many of the movements that Marty and Appleby categorize as fundamentalist seem to be motivated less by the rejection of modernity than by social, ethnic, and nationalistic grievances [which can be addressed and negated as criticisms by accepting those grievance actually come from the Political process, such as Political Discourse: problem and criticism addressed]. Indeed, in many cases the people who join such movements have not suffered more than others from the stress and dislocation typically associated with modernization, nor are such stresses and dislocations prominently reflected in the rhetoric or the actions of these movements. The term modernity itself, moreover, is inherently vague; Marty and Appleby, like many other scholars, use it freely but do little to explain what it means."

No vagueness in the cases I am referring to: Modern Science is a Huge part of Modernity and is used to justify the Ideologies I am referring to. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

And again, I am not saying there is no place for Religious thinking nor Political thinking nor Philosophical thinking. Simply, what I am saying in several of my writings those are not Scientific Thinking areas of Human Knowledge and Expression.

"A third objection is that the significant negative connotations of the term fundamentalism—usually including bigotry, zealotry, militancy, extremism, and fanaticism—make it unsuitable as a category of scholarly analysis. On the other hand, some scholars have argued that the negative connotations of the term aptly characterize the nature of fundamentalist movements, many of which seek the violent overthrow of national governments and the imposition of particular forms of worship and religious codes of conduct in violation of widely recognized human rights to political self-determination and freedom of worship."

Like Bathroom Policies, perennially accepted before Tans ideology.

Freedom of Worship translate as Freedom of Belief, or Freedom of Conscience for the Ideologies I am referring to and as rights are attacked by hate speech and hateful behavior.

My Freedom of Conscience is instantiated in my moral attitude that using Science to justify Evil is wrong. Harming kids with any Ideology to me is Evil.

My Freedom of Belief is instantiated in my knowledge Science and Religion do not mix, and should not be mixed because they belong to different Fields of Human Knowledge and Expression: Science and Humanities, respectively.

Again, I am not saying your Ideologies are Religious but the mixing of your Ideologies with Science attack my Freedom to Believe anyone can believe whatever they want, religious or not as long it is not harmful, not forced upon another. etc. By extension…

I believe in Religious Freedom.

At a minimum, without going into further Details.

Basically, to address this third criticism I might need a new word not loaded with negative connotations in the discourse, a good start is Radicalized Irrational Thinking. But I will keep looking for one. Irrational Radicalized Thinking might be more apt. Radicalized Ideologies or Ideologues seems to fit, but one word would be better. Which btw, also addresses the second criticism referred in Britannica.

And the second criticism from the etymology, the origin of Fundamentalism as a word is also solved, negated by the meaning of the word Fundamental.

Fundamental as a word has no Religious ideas attached to it beyond Fundamentalism discourse.

That is an error that can be corrected by reading a Dictionary instead of uncritically criticizing writings, apparently specially scholarly. Fundamentalism as a word refers to Fundamental, even if it´s origins are Religious Fundamentalism.

Using Fundamentalism as a lonely word, a lazy shorthand, as in the second criticism in Britanninca, is a Synecdoche leading to equivocation in the meaning of Fundamentalism.

Unrealists seem good enough. Radicalized Unrealists might be more apt than “my Haters”.

But with the clarifications from the Dictionary, Fundamentalists is right on spot to me.

"...On the other hand, these movements share with Christian and Jewish fundamentalism an antipathy to secularism, an emphasis on the importance of traditional religiosity as their members understand it, and a strict adherence to sacred texts and the moral codes built upon them. Although these and other common features are important as sources of insight, each fundamentalist movement is in fact unique and is best understood when viewed in its own historical and cultural context."

Ok, I think I can do that right now here: They hate Science applicable to their Ideologies, Check!. They emphasize their non or anti religious Ideologies, Check!. They adhere strictly to readings about their ideologies, Check!. They adhere strictly to their moral codes based on writings about their Ideologies, Check!. They do it as they understand it, Check!.

Five out of Five interpreted in a non Religious form and context. I think I nailed it…

The historical context is one of feeling disempowered, even attacked and “…motivated less by the rejection of modernity than by social, ethnic, and nationalistic grievances”.

Nailed it again!…

I obviously for my personal circumstance might not be the most appropriate person to expand on this Post, I need help myself, but maybe it won´t take long for me to write more throughly and expand it in another Post, but I think I give up now.

I have other things to write more important to me and what I care about: minors..

Stop Hating! at least me!: Think of the Children…

Oh, I wrote a Second Part to this Post.

Thanks.

Federico Soto del Alba.