Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/PSYCH-K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes should also be up for deletion. As PSYCH-K is directly related to the bicameral mind. On the conscious level (in contrast to the subconscious level) I'm sure the smaller conscious minds of the editors will somehow rationalize a disconnection between these two. Furthermore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel should also go up for deletion as it is a story that tells of the evolution of mans societies from functioning in a subconscious state (as many animals today exist in) to that of consciousness or the creation and use of higher level abstractions to solve problems from a growing complexity of growing societies. And again this is relevant to PSYCH-K, as evidenced of a subconscious mind state. And of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious should also be deleted as it is best to deny the existence of what PSYCH-K establishes verifiable (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology ) communication with or between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind, for if the subconscious exist and we cannot communicate with it, then do we really have choice or free will? There are other Wikipedia articles that can also be deleted as being recognized of being in communication with the subconscious such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce , etc.. For all of these are examples of such subconscious <-> conscious communication. And I'm sure there are plenty more Wikipedia pages that should also be deleted. But be warned, the growing world protest have one thing in common, people are tired of those in command positions using our abstract tools of conscious communication intentionally wrong, where the subconscious integration with the much smaller conscious mind is happening today and this does not bode well for Wikipedia's editing bias, which unbeknownst to Wikipedia, is spreading. Personally I don't care what Wikipedia does, for I know better than to believe a lot of what Wikipedia entries present, that Wikipedia is a hear-say site in that it post nothing not found elsewhere, as in simple sum stated in its own policies.