Adonis Diaries

Archive for February 6th, 2009

Judas Iscariot (Written on December 11, 2008)

I am not hot for religions or religiosity, but I like good, interesting, and coherent stories. 

Judas Iscariot (Yehuada) is the son of Simon Iscariot (the leprosy, the Pharisee) whom Jesus cured from leprosy.  

Judas is also the brother of Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected from the death. 

Judas is the brother of Martha and Marie Magdalena (Magdala) who poured expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet when he visited the family in Bethany, near Jerusalem.

The father Simon the Pharisee was a very rich man and living in the best house; he was a highly respected and visible personality in Bethany and the Judea region. 

Simon came from a village called “Kerioth”; (it is from this region that Judas Maccabeus launched his successful assault on Jerusalem and conquered it from the Syrian monarch Antiochus 4 Epiphany, over a century before Jesus birth).  

Thus, this family’s sympathy to the zealot movement (those Jews who were intent on kicking the Romans out of Judea).

Simon didn’t have to join any colony of leprosy as was the custom.  Instead, as an impure by the Pharisee laws, Simon decided to move to Galilee, away from Bethany, in order not to pressure the inhabitants and to save face; he lived there comfortably.

Jesus cured Simon in Galilee and became very attached to his family; Marie Magdalena visited Jesus in her father’s house in Galilee and had cried over his feet and rubbed her hair on Jesus’ feet in repentance.  Simon was curious whether Jesus would realize that Marie was “a sinner” who lived freely from society’s prejudices.

Actually, Marie Magdalena, who had left her husband, a scribe in Jerusalem, and joined a Roman officer to the city of Magdala, was saved from being lapidated to death by stones, simply because she was from a very rich family.

Judas was the purse keeper of the apostles, one of the rare literate in the group, and he was rich and didn’t need any lousy 30 pieces of silver to sell his “Master”. 

Judas was a fervent “zealot” Pharisee; he was a vehement and irascible man and he stated his mind.  Judas surely had Jesus’ ears and they discussed at length.  Did Jesus’ plan coincide with Judas’? Not necessarily for the long-term and not for the same reasons.

Judas was not happy with the Sanhedrin state of affairs: those priests were very cozy with Pontus Pilate. Judas the zealot wanted something to be done. 

Jesus, a high priest of the Essenes sect, a celibate, secluded, white-clad and closed community caste of Qumran, was not happy with the Sanhedrin either: Jesus had the harshest words and diatribes against the Pharisee and the Sadducee sects.

In fact, Jesus chased the merchants out of the temple; Jesus was on a war path when he ascended toward Jerusalem, for the first time in his adult life.

Jesus, the knowledgeable in the Jewish law teaching, planned his entry to Jerusalem to coincide with the prophesies of the coming Messiah. He was welcomed as such by the common people in the City.

Nicodemus of the Sanhedrin met with Jesus secretly and they talked; something was being prepared. 

During the “Cène” or Last Supper (commemorated according to the Essenes sect) Jesus dipped a piece of bread in milk and offered it to Judas (symbol of his closest friendship) saying: “Tonight, one of you will hand me over”. That was the code name for Judas to execute the plan.

The negotiations with the Sanhedrin to accept Jesus as member, and done by Judas in the name of Jesus, had  failed.

It was expected that humiliating Jesus bu the Sanhedrin would offer an excellent excuse for the Jews to put the squeeze on the Sanhedrin .

Jesus knew that the Sanhedrin had no rights to put anyone to death,:  Only the Roman governor Pilate had this right.

Was the plan to incite the Sanhedrin to imprison Jesus? That’s what 3 of the accepted Testaments lead to believe.

Only the narrative of Lucas, the earliest of the Testaments, 35 years later and before the Roman revenge on the rebellious Jews, was sober and down to the facts.

The other 3 testaments tried their best to “wash Pilatus’ hands” from the crucifixion of Jesus.

Mind you that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and exiling the Jews, the Christians had no benefit of officially incriminating the Roman Empire.

Judas was the catalyst to convince the Sanhedrin that Jesus has been claiming to be the coming Messiah, and if they fail to get hold of him now and then, it would be impossible to stop him once out of Jerusalem. Judas negotiated 30 pieces of silver to give credence to his maneuver and to the seriousness of his claims.

The Sanhedrin didn’t need Judas to lead them to where Jesus was located: the entire city knew where Jesus stayed. 

Judas’ job was to make sure that Jesus was apprehended and then to spread the news for mass revolt. 

The Jews in Jerusalem had welcomed Jesus as a messiah and a legislature leader and had no patience with another prophet martyr: they sided with the “power to be” and let go of their “Messiah”.

Jesus had to fall back on plan B. 

Jesus kept total silence with his Jewish captors in order not to be lead into any further mistakes or divulging names.  He spoke to Pilate of a Kingdom not of this world; thus Jesus has no plans to revolt against the Romans.

Pilate knew that Jesus plan was not against the Romans dominion as he has discovered that the Sanhedrin angst is real and serious: the Sanhedrin knew that Jesus revolt was to curb their hegemony over the Jews, to review the over 650 rules and regulations shackling the daily behavior of the Jews and thus, to weaken and destroy their businesses.

When faced between liberating the murderer Barabas the zealot or Jesus, the Sanhedrin didn’t blink.

Pilate also was not happy with a purist Jewish movement: Pilat felt very comfortable doing business with this rotten Sanhedrin and Herod Epiphany (King of Lower Galilee), the one who had decapitated John the Baptist, a close relative of Jesus.. 

Pilate washed his hands on account of a person called Jesus, King of the Jews, but not on a Jewish purist internal movement, a revolt that would have given him huge headaches.

Pilate divulged the entire scheme in one sentence: he ordered to write on top of the crucifix “Jesus of Nazareth. King of the Jews”

It was known that Nazareth was a hot bed for the Essenes sect that planned to become the dominant sect among the Jews.

Judas did an excellent job, but the task of disseminating news to arise the wrath of the common Jews task failed miserably: the Jews turned against Jesus.

Judas felt let down by a meek Jesus who didn’t stand up as a legislature leader such as Moses.  Judas’ earthly dreams vanished; the arrogant and proud Judas returned the 30 lousy silver pieces.  The Sanhedrin used that money to purchase a field, since it could not recover impure and tainted money.

Judas, the fervent zealot, hanged himself to avoid further investigation, retributions, and for not believing in redemption.

The Jew Joseph of Arimathea, a rich friend of Pilate, was permitted to handle Jesus’ body.  Pilate expressed surprise for a strong young man to die so quickly, but he refused to dwell on any further investigation or discussions.

The smart and brutal Pontus Pilate, in complete coordination with Herod Epiphany (King of Lower Galilee), were tracking the progress of Jesus toward Jerusalem and setting up the trap.

Even the Pharisee warned Jesus on several instances to desist from the project of attending the ceremonies in Jerusalem.

Jesus knew that he had no alternative but to be welcomed as a member in the Sanhedrin: A position that would give him a breathing period in the face of the tightening plot against his movement.

The strong following of Jesus in Galilee had sharply dented the credibility of Herod as the King, and Herod feared that Jesus was after revenge for killing his close relative John.

Pilate could not react swiftly and brutally against a mass non-violent movement, and he needed the cooperation of Herod and the Sanhedrin to provide him the necessary indicting facts to execute Jesus.

Consequently, Herod did a fine job donning Jesus with the King Purple attire and mocking him as the King of the Jews and disseminating this innuendo, as admitted by Jesus.

This was an excellent excuse for Pilate to crucify Jesus.

For Pilate “Jesus is dead; go home everybody“.  That is another follow-up interesting story.

Note 1: Obviously, Jesus was not considered officially a Jew, since the Jewish historian Joseph of the period didn’t mention the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus and most of the disciples were from Upper Galilee, under the jurisdiction of Tyre.

Note 2: The selection of only 4 testaments in the year 325 was highly political. Among the hundred of testaments that each Christian sect adopted, these four didn’t incriminate the Roman Empire.  The Christians at that time were about to be recognized officially by the Roman Empire, and it was not a good idea to be perceived as another vast Jewish insurrection throughout the Roman Empire, organizing in total secrecy and ready to start disturbances.

Note 3: Origin of jesus

Compensation: An Experimental mind


I recall my advisor telling me once in frustration “At your age I was professor and had raised a family”.  He had two grown up sons and a daughter who just got married.  I didn’t need this reminder to comprehend my desperate situation: I am just plainly stubborn with no imaginations on earning money.  These long years in a PhD program in the specialty of Human Factors, at the age 35 to 41, should be considered a waste of time for any career-minded student but they were valuable for my mind. My exposure to the methods and vocabulary of five other different fields of study in psychology, business, marketing, economics, and education permit me to think that I acquired an experimental mind, a mind that not many could claim to explicitly have.  I was exposed to various experimental designs, not necessarily cause and effects designs, and inevitably to different statistical results and interpretations.  I witnessed graduates focusing on the technicality of terms and so many “point statistics” that basically means nothing, and a fortiori meant nothing in the minds of the graduates but their experimental minds were lacking in comprehension.  The end result is millions of graduates publishing papers not valid scientifically and unable to interpret results.   

When someone asks “how” (the mechanical process or procedure) it is tacitly understood that he comprehend the why and what of the subject matter or the system; that he knows all the factors and variables that may affect the outcome of a system, including the human element within the system.  Maybe a practicing or a professional knows his particular system, (he should though implicitly most of the times, as engineers learn), but the fundamental question remains “has he acquired the generalized method and rationality to investigating systems outside his discipline?” 

I know what I am talking about but the difficulty is to express and disseminate the problem.  I have taught engineers who had no understanding for discriminating among variables such as dependent, independent, or controlling variables; you think that they implicitly know how to differentiate among the variables; wrong, they don’t. Even after three sessions coupled with examples they were still in the dark and still wondering what is all the fuss about. You think that they can interpret graphs, extract wealth of information and comprehend pages of written materials from one meaningful graph, they generally cannot.  I can testify that 30% of my engineer classes could not read; another 30% could not understand what they read.  It was a pleasure to educate a couple of good minds.  I have written several articles on that subject in my category “Professional articles” for further detailed clarification.

Worst, undergraduates are almost never exposed to research papers.  Most Master’s graduates barely comprehend or interpret correctly research papers.  Graduates join the “work force” of the rational minds practically illiterate; they cannot resume any continuation learning programs for a simple reason: they are illiterate in reading and comprehending research papers.


My contention is this.  If you acquired an experimental mind then you should be eligible to comprehend any field of study by reading the research papers in the field.  The major contraption devised my professions to discriminate among one another is a flimsy mask targeted in changing the technical terms and vocabulary; a secret ritual inherited from ancient times to creating castes of literates. Other than that, the experimental methodology is fundamentally the same.  When you acquire an experimental mind then all disciplines are one course away; you need to learn the slang, a new language that sound familiar, but with terms that have different meanings and connotations.  The ultimate goal of teaching is for every university graduating mind to be trained to comprehend research papers of other disciplines.

May I refer the reader to my current article “Rationality Fraud: Can our leading minds pass Socrates’ dialogue test?”

A Few Good Politicians (February 6, 2009)


Our problems with politicians stem from three factors:

First, most of the politicians inherit their jobs, one way or another.  They realize soon that they are not up to the requirements of the arduous job, and don’t want the hassle; and thus, they delegate their responsibilities to people who were not elected in the first place. 

Second, politicians don’t work for the long-term success because they “Don’t find the time to read, reflect, and grow their inner power“.  

Third, most politicians didn’t walk the streets, and reluctantly communicate with potential voters: they are not people oriented, which should be the main job description for a politician. 

Among the very few politicians who satisfy the 4 criteria of proven records of people oriented, capable providers, continuing education, and mastery of verbal intelligence, only those who realize the need to strengthen their inner power through reading and reflection, and actually taking short “sabbatical” away from the media have the potentials to become leaders of people.

 We all want to be “providers”, the Patriarch, or the Matriarch.

Only the minority of us can be providers and are willing to take on this responsibility and dedicate their time and nerves for that constantly demanding job.

Among this minority we have people with good “verbal intelligence” or orators who can be candidates for political career.

In “Hiroshima my love” Marguerite Dora says:

Human political intelligence is a hundred folds lower than scientific intelligence”  

On the face of it, many would be nodding their heads in consent.  We have got to analyze political intelligence from a different perspective to appreciate that the previous statement is not correct. 

When we deal with human behaviors that are extremely complex because:

First, characters are in the hundreds of varieties and ever-changing with time and conditions Second, the inability of human cognitive powers to assimilate the different interactions of even 4 factors or variables at the same time and t

Third, juggling these interactions in real-time and under pressure then, we can grasp the far complex intelligence requirements of doing and thinking politics. 


Democracy, without prior selection of politicians based on cognitive and emotional testing for mental capabilities, is tantamount to more of the same repeated errors and mistakes for the public good.  

Political intelligence would be vastly appreciated to its own merit when candidates satisfy cognitive and emotional criteria before submitting their applications to public political posts.


We all agree that doing politics is a serious profession.

And yet, candidate to “serving the public” are not taught and trained in schools like all the other professions.

Actually, most of the students in high schools and in universities, graduate with a terrible bad connotation for the term “politics”. 

People enroll in political science thinking that this field will train them for the political arena; wrong! 

The field of political science does not train people in the social and psychological behavior of people, which are the right tools for doing politics. 

Acquiring sketchy understanding of the macro politics by lumping whole nations as a single entity or entire regions as potential enemies is not the correct way for training politicians to thinking rationally and for the good of the people in the long-term.


The vote of the people would make much more sense when people are initiated and exposed to the complexities of serving the people and offering a higher value for the term “doing politics”. 

A professional politician is necessarily pragmatic because he works toward consensus as he communicates extensively with citizens and listen carefully and seriously to their demands.




February 2009

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,150 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: