Quote
shimon
not only is hawkins map of consciousness similar to scientology, it is also strikingly similar to the Sedona Methods map too...So in my opinion hawkins map is not so original and he seems to have gotten most of his stuff on it from Lester Levenson the founder of the Sedona Method...

Quote

I had several physical ailments, including migraine headaches, diverticulitis, gout, and severe hypoglycemia, ant [[i:57393305ac]sic[/i:57393305ac]] the week after taking the course was scheduled for surgery. But within a few days after beginning to release, the surgical condition disappeared and never re-appeared. My other physical problems cleared up. I believe these good effects are due to the stress reduction brought about by using the Technique. [www.releasetechnique.com] [www.releasetechnique.com] [www.releasetechnique.com]

Quote

Dr. David Hawkins, known as the Father of Orthomolecular Psychiatry, who published a textbook on the subject with Nobel prize winner, Linus Pauling, conducted scientific studies on the Release® Technique states: "The Releasing® Technique is more effective than the other approaches currently available to relieving the physiologic responses to stress. In my researches of all the various stress reduction and consciousness programs, the Release® Technique stood out far and beyond the rest for its sheer simplicity, efficiency, absence of questionable concepts and rapidity of observable results. Its simplicity is deceptive and almost disguises the real power of the technique." Larry Crane, THE ABUNDANCE BOOK, CHAPTER ONE: THE RELEASE TECHNIQUE And its profound effects on every aspect of life

[www.releasetechnique.com]

Quote

M b1925ish American (AZ) shrink, author, kinesiological "calibrations" used to support R-wing politix, "Power vs. Force", celebrated in Korea, complex "Levels of Consciousness" system derived in part from Lester Levenson. New URL. A new-age Lyndon LaRouche?
[www.globalserve.net]

Quote
shimon
...maybe some from L Ron Hubbard.

Quote

CAVEAT #1: Not Exclusive or Original

The late Ian Xel Lundgold had spent thousands of dollars to study the training courses of Scientology, and disclosed that their teachings are virtually the same as the system Hawkins is presenting here. This anecdote came in an email from an author who is known online as Zuerrnnovahh-Starr Livingstone. He writes regularly on the subject of how focussed human consciousness can be used to affect the health of planet and the unfolding of events. (For a sample of his writing, see his hope-inspiring recent piece "The United States of a Miracle" [( [educate-yourself.org] )].

That leaves unanswered the question of whether Hawkins learned about this hierarchy of values from Scientology, or whether he arrived at a similar system through a process of independent discovery. If Lundgold and Livingstone are giving accurate testimony, the fact that the two systems exhibit the same significant omission suggests that they drew from a common source.

[peswiki.com]

Quote

I am pleased to recommend this work [[i:57393305ac]Thought Field Therapy: Clinical Applications Integrating TFT in Psychotherapy[/i:57393305ac] by Suzanne M. Connolly]. Ms. Connolly is a first rate seasoned integrous counselor with many years of experience in the various modalities of therapy. She offers clinically the best of the new as well as the tried and true.
[secure.sitehosting.net]

This [[i:57393305ac]Brain Respiration [/i:57393305ac]by Ilchi Lee] is indeed an important and praiseworthy book for it helps us get close to the truth and actual experience of our own reality as the Self which transcends all of time, which always was, always will be, before and after all worlds or universe.
[www.healingsociety.com]

Lou is the coauthor of [i:57393305ac]Enlighten Up![/i:57393305ac] (ASCD Press, 2003, Foreword by Dr. David R. Hawkins)
[www.thepromiseofpurpose.com]

[i:57393305ac]Red World–Green World:The Hidden Polarities of Nature[/i:57393305ac]

Margaret K. Chan. Paperback, Veritas Publishing, 151 Keller Lane, Sedona, AZ 86336 142 pages. Paperback, 1996. US $9.95

This deceptively unassuming little book reveals for the first time what is actually a very major discovery with widespread implications for health and recovery.

There are two major divisions of people and physical materials in the world. Using kinesiology, the author has demonstrated during fifteen years of research, that, depending on which division you belong to, apparently half the foodstuffs, metals, and other materials in the world will make you go weak, and another group of foods and materials will make you go strong. This is a remarkable discovery. The author divides the two divisions into the “green world” and the “red world.” She invites the reader to verify for themselves that for “green people,” foods from the “green list” will make them go strong and those on the “red list” will make them go weak. Conversely, “red” people go strong with foods from the “red list” and weak when in contact with anything on the “green list.” (There are tables of fibers, fabrics, metals and supplements, among others.) More than just a curiosity, this phenomenon is associated with sickness or health. Adverse substances and foods make one prone to illness while compatible foods and substances support health and healing. The author gives case examples and helpful suggestions. The validity of this work is supported by previous research reported by others on cerebral allergy which shows that even very minute dilutions of certain foods can cause very major reactions and symptoms in susceptible individuals. This is an astonishing work; simply written, fast reading but with very major implications. It will certainly appeal to readers with an interest in diet and health.

David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D.
[orthomolecular.org]

Diet has a great deal to do with how we feel and behave. Ms. Chaney has made an important clinical discovery corroborated by my 45 years of clinical and research experience. Perhaps in twenty or thirty years, academics will 'discover' her findings.
[www.margaretkchaney.com]

Quote

Dumb academicians cannot comprehend [my teachings]...YOU don't know the Truth. YOU pitiful mindless fools, YOU are educated stupid…I am wisest...Your Professors are stupid evil Liars, and fear the Time Cube Truth…I am wiser than any god or scientist…
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikiquote.org]

Quote
shimon
The only thing Hawkins added to it was his calibration numbers in its lograthiimic form, which as far as I can tell, makes no sense and has no mathematical accuracy, it is a silly system and he shoulld have just stuck with regular numbers instead of logarithimic.

Quote
shimon
I know you dont believe in his ktesting nor do i. But what do you think Hawkins himself calibrates at, not from Ktesting, but from looking at his map of consciousness. With 600 and over being enlightenement, 200 and above being integrous, 400's being very intellectual, and below 200 nonintegrous.

Quote
shimon
Do you think Hawkins can possibly have fallen and is below 200. Or is he integrous and above 200, say in the 400's and the intellectual. Or is he above 600 and actually enlightened. I am curious where you would put him.

Quote

Occasionally, David Hawkins transcends his reliance on pseudo-scientific authority and seems to speak from a greater knowledge…
[www.spiritualteachers.org]
(See also [www.spiritualteachers.org] )

Quote

[b:57393305ac]Pros[/b:57393305ac]: …Hawkins seems loving.
[www.energygrid.com]

Quote

The label of "pseudo-science" is not entirely relative: one man's pseudo-science is not necessarily another's science — pseudo-science…comes across as BS no matter what your perspective. This is where many New Age teachers like Gregg Braden and David Hawkins fall down. Their theories are clearly not scientific, and yet they dress up their legitimate non-scientific theories as science, complete with scientific terminology. Braden, for example, repeatedly uses the phrase "scientists do not doubt this" in his lectures, whilst Hawkins muddles his terminology and resists scientific objectivity by making his calibration theory unfalsifiable (if the theory doesn't work, the fault is with the practitioner who is calibrating at under 200). As a result, their non-scientific theories gain the credibility that our society affords scientific theories. (Whether this is deliberate or just a display of ignorance, is open to conjecture.)

Once again, I am not saying that the theories Braden and Hawkins put forward are rubbish per se, only that they are scientifically rubbish. To judge anything as rubbish you need a measure or map key by which to judge it. Braden and Hawkins, like all pseudo-scientists, supply that measure by presenting their theories scientifically, which opens them up to being judged scientifically. When their "scientific" theories are then found wanting, there is little point then appealing for a less-scientific assessment. The fact is that theories presented scientifically tend to hold more weight in the public imagination, and the pseudo-scientists of this world are constantly in a balancing act of scientifically colouring their theories enough to give them authority, but not too much as to get them scientifically dismissed. In my opinion, this whole process lacks integrity. It would be far more honest for these sorts of individuals to present themselves as mystics rather than scientists…

David Hawkins is a prime example of a medical psychiatrist turned New Age BS merchant, spinning out very obviously pseudo-objective pendulum calibrations for the truth /vibratory rate for different people, events and concepts etc…

(Humility comes from accepting the possibility that you might be wrong.)…

Wittgenstein wrote: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence." We can only speak about maps and models of reality; we cannot speak about reality itself. That can only be experienced, in silence.

Quote
shimon
I wasnt sure why you posted about the trutester. Is it to show how silly this hawkins stuff has become, or should we order it, does this stuff work. Please share more why you posted that.

Quote

Dr. David Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. is a trained psychiatrist living in Sedona who earned his B.S. in pre-med from Marquette University in 1950, and went on to receive a medical degree (M.D.) from the Medical College of Wisconsin (1953). His Ph.D. is from an unaccredited correspondence school called Columbia Pacific University. It should be noted that many of Dr. Hawkins' beliefs and practices are considered highly controversial, such as reincarnation and the recollection of past lives, and some consider his teachings to be pseudoscience.

[www.sedona.biz]

Quote

The Bent Spoon Award is an award given by Australian Skeptics, "presented to the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudoscientific piffle". The name of the award is a reference to the spoon bending of Uri Geller...Winners are notified by telepathy.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Last August Lani Morris, 53, from Melbourne, lost the power of speech and the use of her right arm after seven days of trying to survive on "prianic light", and collapsed three days later, never to recover. Greve later said that perhaps Morris was "not coming from a place of integrity and did not have the right motivation".

[www.culteducation.com]

Quote

[u:73975230ea]Big Red Flags[/u:73975230ea]

Like so many things I read, at first blush, I dug it.

Then the niggling little thoughts started bubbling up from below the "Gee Whiz, Isn't This Cool!" surface of my mind.

When a person self-rates his own books in the spiritual stratosphere, I have to ask, "What's wrong with this picture?"

Worse, when a person rates his detractors in the lowest strata, I have to ask, "How self-serving is that?" Also, "How self-referential is that?"

Then there are the pseudoscience claims…I object to spiritual teachers trying to validate their personal beliefs with pseudoscientific claims…and blowing smoke in our faces for dubious reasons of their own, while hoping we don't notice…

Into whose hands are you willing to place the assessment of truth?…

Dr. Hawkins doesn't address the issue of [i:73975230ea]failed double-blind verifiability of applied kinesiology[/i:73975230ea], which was the thrust of the Skeptic's Dictionary criticism, other than to rate the criticism more 160/sophmoric egoism--which you can call a mere [i:73975230ea]ad hominem[/i:73975230ea] attack, for my money.

He is a medical doctor and a PhD (albeit a diploma mill PhD), and yet his defense is that his detractor is an atheist, and he, Dr. Hawkins, is a spiritual teacher and therefore immune to criticism from an atheist. Huh? It was [i:73975230ea]scientific criticism[/i:73975230ea]. Shouldn't one also be scientifically, er, integrous?

Or...do the "requirements for consciousness research validity" lie in some rarified spiritual realm beyond the scientific method, known only to Hawkins?

If so, why insist on the "absolute replicability of test results?"

And besides, the, er, integrous [i:73975230ea]Wayne Dyer (nominated for the Templeton Prize) supports him[/i:73975230ea], says Dr. Hawkins.

OK, [i:73975230ea]Wayne Dyer also supports Sai Baba[/i:73975230ea], bigtime--Sai Baba--the Indian guru of large scandal, and interestingly enough, if the following is correct, [i:73975230ea]Hawkins calibrates Sai Baba pretty low[/i:73975230ea]:

[i:73975230ea]Dr. Wayne Dyer Inspires You Discussion Forum:

Posted by Cheekykid, Sat 17 Sep, 2005

I attended Wayne Dyer's lecture today and in the break I went up along with other people to talk to him.As you can understand I didn't have much time to talk to him so after greeting him and expressing my gratitude towards him/his work I asked him: For which Sai Baba you speak about.

He took out the pic from his pocket which by the way as he said during the lecture he keeps it in there all the time and guess what the controversial Baba was the person in it.

I then went forward to say:You said during the lecture that Sai Baba calibrates at 970 and that there only 2 people in world that calibrated as high.

As fas as I know according to D.Hawkins calibration test sai baba calibrates below 200 and his a fake guru.

His reply was that Hawkins doesn't believe in guru's and that he has actually met Sai Baba in person therefore he has some grounds on what he says. That was all......

My conclusion:

If Hawkins with his muscles tests calibrates Sai Baba below 200 (see power VS force VHS) then everyone who does the test on his own should find out the same number.

If Wayne endorses Hawkins and Hawkins says that Baba is a fake then how Wayne came up with a 970 calibration?

Hawkins or Dyer is in the wrong here.

I admire a lot Wayne Dyer and I have no intention to critisize him but i can't hide the reality which is that there is a major contradiction here.

Wayne Dyer endorses Sai baba???? [wayne-dyer.inspiresyou.com][/i:73975230ea]

Hawkins is a self-styled guru, IMO, whether he admits it or not, and is more than a little crazy.

All the gurus have feet of clay, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from them, if you can manage to hang on to your critical thinking skills...

But if you're going to create neologisms like [i:73975230ea]integrous[/i:73975230ea], and describe yourself as Top Integrous Dog, and shoot scientific jargon and dismal calibrations from the hip, you deserve all the skepticism the great unwashed dis-integrous masses throw at you, I would say.

[ [www.stevepavlina.com] ]

A lot of Hawkins' stuff makes sense if you leave out the black and white fundamentalist thinking, and, of course, the pseudoscience. :shock: Hawkins seems to be hoist on his own petard, IMO…

This seems to be a vocational hazard of Consciousness Hierarchy popularizers.

Ken "Wyatt Earp" Wilber has nothing on Sir David "Einstein" Hawkins:

Does something seem not quite right here?

Maybe there is no fruitful way to talk about things like this? Maybe we need to give up the whole enterprise? Maybe it's just too prone to projection and megalomania?

I leave you with this, to cleanse the palate:

[i:73975230ea]If you don't find God in the next person you meet, it's a waste of time looking for him further.
--Mahatma Gandhi[/i:73975230ea]

…I feel like I'm kind of raining on some people's parade about Hawkins, but people are just surrendering their minds to his assessment of, well, just about everything, and, as they say, if it walks like a cult and quacks like a cult.... Anyone who questions him gets the retributive calibration, so people are sort of afraid to question him…

I can see why people go for it. I went for it myself the whole time I was reading the book. After that, I sort of sat with it for awhile, and then I'm going, hey, I've been in a cult before, I know what it feels like to be in a cult, and this is exactly what it feels like--turning over your mind lock, stock and barrel to someone else, so I burned the book and never looked back.

People don't want to have to think, that's why they get hooked into personality cults, it seems to me. It's a form of returning to the womb.

Hawkins offers what everyone's looking for: absolute certainty. It's just another form of fundamentalism, and a dangerous one, I believe, in my rotten little below-200 heart. That kind of certainty doesn't exist.

I do believe in spiritual evolution…

Think of the political ramifications of an [i:73975230ea]elitist system[/i:73975230ea] like Hawkins'! Do you think that the 85% of the population who are poor schmucks that calibrate below 200 should be allowed to vote? More to the point, do you think Sir David does? This is going no good place, IMO.

It's one thing to have a theory that there are levels of consciousness. I believe there are levels of consciousness--no problem there.

What I have a problem with is one man setting himself up as the arbiter of the value of everything in human culture, and who feels empowered to write off his detractors as low-calibration nincompoops. The "karmically qualified" Hawkins' demagoguery is getting close to the Divine Right of Kings flapdoodle of old, it seems to me:

Quote:
[i:73975230ea][b:73975230ea]The Divine Right of Kings[/b:73975230ea] is a European political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. Such doctrines are largely, though not exclusively, associated with the mediæval and ancien régime eras. It states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God. Divine Right of Kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [en.wikipedia.org][/i:73975230ea]

The Emperor has no clothes.

[u:73975230ea]Potential for abuse in any hierarchy scheme [/u:73975230ea]

I posted the link to Ken Wilber's rather amazing article because I wanted to demonstrate that the [i:73975230ea]Spiral Dynamics[/i:73975230ea] scheme isn't any more immune to being seized by people for their own ends than the Power vs. Force scheme.

I think we have to be very aware of the pitfalls inherent in treading on this ground--the projection and megalomania, the personality cult tendencies, the elitist thinking, the marginalizing of whole groups of people--as I mentioned, in short, human nature rearing its universal head.

I posted the Omega Point reference because I agree with you that "the idea of a collective dealie turning into a process turning into a thing (the ABC thing) had some potential, along with the levels of conciousness."

But I don't think we make our own truths. I believe in an Ultimate Reality, towards which we all strive, but I think that, at best, we make approximations of truth, which need to be continually upgraded. It's called evolution. Collective evolution.

Any one person claiming to possess THE TRUTH is delusional, and potentially dangerous, depending on how charismatic he or she is, in my opinion.

David Hawkins is pretty charismatic…

For most of us, most of the time (and especially for those afflicted with "Lightworker Syndrome," perhaps), all this speculating on ideas is an exercise in wool gathering, at best, and an addictive escape from demonstrably more important matters close at hand, at worst.

Ideas in the hands of an ambitious and charismatic ideologue, however, are another thing altogether, I believe. For examples, please see, ahem, history.

History, it can be argued, is peopled with those who a) devised hierarchal schemes, and b) placed themselves at the top of said schemes.

Two of my three examples above see themselves as [i:73975230ea]sui generis[/i:73975230ea], it seems: Ken Wilber, the "Wyatt Earp" of consciousness, and David Hawkins, the "Einstein" of consciousness, self-designated. Well, I beg to differ...That said, learn from anyone, also at your own risk, I would say--Hawkins, Wilber, Teilhard--anyone who says something that makes sense to you, and bears deeper scrutiny.

But [i:73975230ea]own the responsibility for what you believe[/i:73975230ea], and don't give your power away to ideologues.

Megan

[i:73975230ea]The fact is that scientific knowledge and spiritual knowledge are already married.
--Muktananda[/i:73975230ea]

[ [www.stevepavlina.com] ]

Quote

[u:73975230ea]Sunny[/u:73975230ea]: I just finished Truth vs Falsehood last week.

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: Does the good doctor go into the falsehood of getting a degree from a diploma mill?

[u:73975230ea]Ethereal[/u:73975230ea]: Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. [...]

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: Sir? As in a knight?

Joe Vitale [ [www.google.com] ]needs to get himself a knighthood too. :roll:

[u:73975230ea]Ethereal[/u:73975230ea]: Frankly it shouldn't even matter...

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: if it shouldn't matter than why does he get a fake degree? That's my problem with him -I started reading his book and put it down because it was utter nonsense I am open to new ideas - to wild theories about the universe and reality - but not pseudo scientific non sense.

where did he get his 'sir' title from ? Sealand [en.wikipedia.org] ?...

I was close...

Why does he have this stuff? Edison created great inventions - he didn't need a phoney doctrate and fake sir title. His work stood stood on its own merits. Same goes for great writers and artists. Frauds hide behind titles.

[u:73975230ea]Sunny[/u:73975230ea]: no position is right or wrong,...................

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: I guess when you believe there is no rigth or wrong you can claim to be a doctor and a knight when you're aren't one. In my dualistic world, it's called [i:73975230ea]lying[/i:73975230ea]…

[u:73975230ea]Ethereal[/u:73975230ea]: It takes years of practice to get consistent results. The reason Dr. Hawkins and his audiences can consistently do calibrations is because of the spiritual energy field emanating from the Doc (similar to those emanating from other spiritual gurus) that, shall we say, "sets up" the conditions necessary for it to work…the intention of the testers/testees with regards to the question at hand must be integrous. This is a biggie, because most "scientific studies" are those trying to either prove or disprove the theory, and by definition the intention behind it is already non-integrous (wanting the outcome to be a certain way). This is why skeptics who try to use it, cannot do so, and they just claim all of it is bunk because they themselves can't do it :wink: Intellectual egotism is pretty rampant all over the world :wink: ...This makes it pretty hard for anybody to use it and consistently get results :wink: which is why using scientific studies to "prove" these things is kinda hard.

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: I started reading that book, put it down about half way through, i have never read such utter nonsense in my life. i couldn't believe the likes of lea iococca recommened it- perhaps that's a false claim like his 'knighhood' and doctrate...sunny, let me again ask you, why do you think Hawkins has to lie about his 'knighthood' and diploma mill degree? doesn't that strike you as fraudulent?...Why is he so concerned about these 'superficial' dualistic, whatever, titles? Why does he try to present himself as sanctioned by society?

[u:73975230ea]Sunny[/u:73975230ea]: I mean this with the best of intention, but your dualistic thinking is down right comical to me. :D :roll: :shock: :oops: I personally have no interest in it other than the fact that it is great practice for me. I know it is serving a purpose in my growth and that must be why I have created this experience. Wow, this whole thing is pretty cool!

By the way, how do you always manage to respond to messages so quickly? It seems like I hit the submit reply button, then refresh my browser and within seconds there is a message from you. I am starting to wonder if you are even real? Now things are starting to get interesting.......... My calibration level is rising as I type this response :D I think I am starting to [i:73975230ea]lose my mind[/i:73975230ea]! Which of course is the ultimate goal..............

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: Do you post reviews on Amazon? I do. When I like a book, I write a postive review to encourage people to buy it, even though i don't make any money off of it.

Likewise, when I buy a book I don't like, I will post a 'negative' review saying why I didn't hopefully saving people who see likewise a few dollars.
As I said, I began reading his book, power vs. force and found it so full of pseudo science that I honestly felt cheated -cheated - that I paid money for it and people recommended it -lee ioccoca? Or did Hawkins make that up too?. I sort of felt guilty re-selling it on ebay.

I find it funny that none of you can comment about his fake degree and his fake knighthood- to me that's a sure sign of fraud, and interestingly he creates a cult like mindset in his followers that as evidenced in this thread. i am just going to ignore what you said dor, because it's dualistic :roll:

If his work was purely spirtual not making scientific claims I wouldn't comment on it, but my posting here is to simply make people aware of these facts, I would do the same if someone posted something about the "dr" EMoto and his fraud -and fake degree…psedu science and frauds tarnish the whole area of spirituality…

[u:73975230ea]Ethereal[/u:73975230ea]: Suffice it to say, I don't think an enlightened being even cares whether he's a Ph.D. or not. Perhaps he didn't even put the Ph.D. and Sir stuff on there, but his webmasters and editors. In fact, I think that is most likely the case; other people, thinking that it would be helpful to put the Doc in the best possible light, put it on there, and he didn't notice or bother or cares one way or another. Who knows? Who cares?

I don't think a single person bought his books for the reason that he is a Ph.D. or a knight. I also don't think a single person who has read his books and got something out of them would object to him lying about these things, even if he did lie. So why the fuss? :)

Don't project your own unconscious belief systems onto others and onto the world. I don't mean this as a personal attack or to defend the Doc, but as a possible area for an honest self-inventory. I feel saddened that your insistence on logical proof and "moral righteousness" (according to your own egoic beliefs) is preventing you from getting the immense spiritual benefit provided in his books.
[ [www.stevepavlina.com] ]

[u:73975230ea]Antiventurecapital[/u:73975230ea]: So if I understand you correctly, you have no problem with people BS-ing about their education and professional qualifications?

:shock:

I'm old school in that I believe that if you lie about one thing you probably lie about a lot of things as well. As a wiseman once said, "You can't compartmentalize ethics."

You also have to ask yourself why no one else on this planet is researching this stuff.

[u:73975230ea]Dor[/u:73975230ea]: i don't think its petty, and i as indicated, I read his book - about half of it when i finally gave up because it was a complete waste of time. But pseudo science can be worse than a waste of time it can be deadly.

If people are going to be here promoting his crap, then expect some scrutiny -just like in real life. He makes scientific claims then refuses peer reveiwed research. when someone criticizes him:

[i:73975230ea][b:73975230ea]Hawkins replies to most of his critics by calibrating their levels of consciousness, which he finds to be below the level of truth/integrity (200). [/b:73975230ea][/i:73975230ea]
:roll:

Not one of his supporters here have answered the fundemental question: Why does he lie about his qualifications and more bizzarly, knighthood?

He says smoking organic tobbaco is good:
[b:73975230ea]* Hawkins grows and smokes his own tobacco. Based on applied kinesiological testing, he deems the organic tobacco to be positive for him [/b:73975230ea]and commercially produced cigarettes to be detrimental due to pesticides included since 1957.

[u:73975230ea]Ethereal[/u:73975230ea]: You know what, dor and AVC -- I apologize for my comments. I was feeling bad all of yesterday for imposing my beliefs onto others...

[u:73975230ea]Antiventurecapital[/u:73975230ea]: No worries, just be careful of needing to believe something too much.

:)

[ [www.stevepavlina.com] ]

Quote

[Hawkins] said we dont need freedom OF speech we need freedom FROM speech...

When you give everyone single person an equal vote you open the door to the lunatic fringe.