ArchiveCategory Archives for "Human Nature"
Why people do what we do, and how we can do better.
Why people do what we do, and how we can do better.
If we say that humans have rights, then we can say that animals have rights because when a human mistreats an animal, then that human will have caused himself to be more likely to mistreat humans. He will probably have changed his psychology – and possibly his brain chemistry. He will have thus made himself more of a threat to the rest of us. An additional but lesser reason is that he will have made the animal more of a threat to the rest of us.
Let’s illustrate this phenomenon with a few examples:
Suppose an 18 year old girl has a well behaved dog who loves her and would die for her, and then she starts leaving him alone for 24 hours at a time because she wants to be with her boyfriend. Would you let her babysit your kids? Would you hire her? If her boyfriend had no problem with this, would you let him babysit your kids? Would you hire him?
She either has to accept that she is causing her dog to suffer greatly and let it sadden her greatly and make her feel very guilty, which will make her less attractive to the guys, or else, she has to stop caring, which is something humans can do, but then it becomes much easier to do it to other humans.
If she stops caring, then it becomes easier to occasionally let her dog run out of food and water. Then it becomes easier to completely ignore her dog when he is so glad to see her when she briefly pops into her apartment each day. Then it becomes easier to yell at him and smack him when he jumps on her and barks because he is so glad to see her. Then when he starts chewing up the pillows and furniture, it will be easier for her to open the door and let him run out into the street so that he will get run over.
You knew not to hire her or let her babysit your kids long before it got to this point. Same for her boyfriend.
At any time, even years later, she could still choose to feel the sadness and guilt over what she did and decide to be a different person, but until then, who can trust her?
This is how torturers are created by governments. A guard has to decide if he will feel the sadness and guilt of standing guard at the end of the hall when he hears the sounds at the other end coming from the torture room. If he chooses to stop caring, then it will be easier to guard right outside the door of the torture room. Then it will be easier to guard inside the door. Then it will be easier to hold the instrument tray. Then it will be easier to hand the instruments to the torturer. Then it will be easier to participate in the torture directly. Then it will be easier to become the torturer.
This is probably one of the ways that Obama’s DHS manufactures sociopaths, since we already know they torture. Another is the No More Hesitation program, which is where Obama’s DHS agents shoot at targets of pregnant women and children in their own homes. Some cops shoot at targets of their own children for this reason. Would you feel safe in the presence of these cops?
Many people who care about rights already know about the Stanford prison experiments and the Milgram experiments in the 1960’s where the majority of subjects devolved into sociopaths rather quickly and easily; whereas, the experts of the day had predicted that no more than 3% would devolve that far and fast.
Now that we’ve looked at some examples of this phenomenon, let’s consider what we should do.
If one thinks about these cases ahead of time, then it becomes much easier to resist such character devolution in the future. Therefore, simply failing to learn about such examples is actually the first step of choosing to stop caring.
Although dogs do have real emotions, it is an error to project more human attributes onto the dogs than they actually have. Likewise, people often project more sentience and emotion onto a fetus than it actually has. In fact, some people even project human attributes onto toys and other objects. Although this is an error, it still contributes to one’s character devolution if one feels that one is mistreating a sentient emotional being.
The reality of character devolution is a reason to say that people themselves have rights. Who would want to be in proximity to a single individual who has let his character devolve?
Therefore, if one wants to say that humans have rights, then it also makes sense to think of animals as having rights.
We should indeed say that people have rights because people need to interact with each other in order to thrive, and rights are those fundamental principles that maximize our ability to thrive. Rights must also be compatible with our genetically programmed behavior if we expect them to be the most effective. Clearly, rights are thus a useful but fuzzy concept, like good and evil, and like the legendary vanishing heap.
We should thus pretend that rights exist for people, and for animals too, but should the government punish those who violate rights, given that any government whatsoever will also be a violator of rights and a creator of perverse incentives? Should government also regulate behavior to prevent us from starting down the path of character devolution, which would be before we had actually violated any rights?
If we are not each allowed to make mistakes such as going down the path of character devolution at least once, then how can we ever escape the state of arrested development that plagues our society today? Wouldn’t a society based on everything voluntary be better? Wouldn’t it be preferable to live in a world of strong role models who have learned from the consequences of their reputation? Wouldn’t it be preferable to live in a world where we could easily find inspiration from art that was itself inspired by deep wisdom and enlightenment?
Does evil exist? Is it an entity, a collective, a force?
– or –
Is evil like a heap …
Suppose I show you a heap of sand, and you agree it is a heap of sand. If I remove one grain, then you would agree that it is still a heap of sand, and if I keep removing a grain of sand until only one remains, then you would agree that it is no longer a heap of sand. You would also agree that there was no magical grain whose removal transformed the heap into a non-heap, and yet, the heap did indeed transform into a non-heap. How is that possible?
A heap is a fuzzy but useful concept. Our language is full of fuzzy but useful concepts like: heap, big, good, right, moral … and evil.
Evil is really just an accusation that means that you have an intense dislike and/or distrust and/or disrespect for the target of your accusation, and that you believe others would agree with you if they knew what you know. In other words, evil is weak threat that is mostly bluff. Its power is mostly dependent on your reputation with your audience.
I prefer to use more precise terms like useful, profitable, objective, falsifiable, or voluntary. Of course, one can often just let the facts speak for themselves.
The Golden Rule is usually articulated as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The world would certainly be a happy, healthy, productive place if everyone followed the Golden Rule, and yet some misrepresent it.
For example, the masochist would have people beat him, so does the Golden Rule mean he should beat others? – OR – Does it mean the masochist would like for others to give him only what he wants, and thus he should give others only what they want?
The so-called liberal says that no one should take anything from a person like him by force, but that if he were like you, he would want others to use government to forcibly take the fruits of your labor, so does that mean he should use the government to take the fruits of your labor? – OR – Does it mean that he would like for government to forcibly take nothing from him, and thus he should want government to forcibly take nothing from you?
The progressive says that he should pay taxes and that government should have more money, and yet he never gives one penny more than necessary to government, and he will break the law whenever he can get away with it in order to give less to government, so does that mean he should want you to be punished for not paying taxes? – OR – Does it mean that he does not actually want to pay taxes, so he should not want you to pay taxes?
Fortunately, The Golden Rule is in our genes. It gives Nobility to those of us who carry the Soul of Humanity.
A coward dies a thousand deaths.
A hero dies but once.
How can a man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the future of our children,
And their freedom from our gods.
Does it profit a man to gain the world …
And lose his very soul?
The world … is not enough.
Embrace the Soul of Your Humanity.
It’s the things you didn’t do … you’ll regret most.
Instantly become the person you want to be.
He’s what every little boy wants to be when he grows up,
And in the end,
What every man wishes he had been.
First, there is plenty of reason for hope, so don’t despair, but …
Something is wrong with the people, who seem increasingly partisan, ignorant, apathetic, dishonest, evasive, cowardly, hypocritical, passive aggressive, insecure, conformist, closed minded, irrational, illogical, and unprincipled. Perhaps most obvious is the increase in cognitive dissonance, but the entirety of the character devolution of the people should be really obvious to any American who has lived long enough. I first noticed it during the Clinton Administration, but the root cause actually started long before that and merely caused a rather obvious leap under Clinton.
A lifetime of experience has taught me that just about everyone has the potential for the dark side as well as the potential for nobility. Both impulses are in our genes, but something in our environment is favoring the dark side.
First, let’s identify the rather obvious trends that motivate us to find a cause. Then, we will learn how they all have the same root cause:
Before we can solve a problem, we usually must understand the cause; otherwise, the unintended consequences could be worse than the original problem. In fact, the solutions of the past are the cause of most of our problems today.
Given that those who are most successful tend to be those who are least principled, we can see why every other problem is the result of unhealthy interventions at the top, but how did it get to be this way?
After a few generations of unhealthy interventions from the top by men who may or may not have been principled, we can see how their bad solutions created a perverse incentive structure that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. Just like bad parenting creates a spoiled child who suffers from arrested development, now an entire people are increasingly spoiled children who suffer from arrested development.
The Soviet Union had a system that rewarded unprincipled people, and it crumbled from within.
Everything afflicting the people (that wasn’t caused by evolution) is caused by dishonest banking and a dishonest money supply, and the watershed of problems are self reinforcing. One unusually large cause of problems, that was itself indirectly caused by dishonest banking and dishonest money, is political correctness. Another unusually large cause of problems that was itself indirectly caused by dishonest banking and dishonest money, is media bias. Of course, the chain of cause and effect is long, complex, and suppressed by the media; whereas, myths are substituted by the media, but the chain of cause and effect should be clear by the end of this article.
This is where the real explanation begins.
Dishonest banking and money are caused by:
Central Banking: The Federal Reserve is a private bank with a government granted monopoly on currency creation; whereas, money is a product just like any other, and thus would benefit from competition just like any other product. Why do you think the Federal Reserve refuses to be audited? Central banking was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Fiat Currency: What most people still don’t know is that all of the money in America is created from nothing and backed by nothing except confidence, and thus it is referred to as fiat currency. Fiat currency was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Fractional Reserve Banking: The main cause of fiat currency is that banks can lend at least ten times as much money as they receive in deposits, and depending on the type of loan and type of deposit, it can be even more. Over time, the government has been making it increasingly easier for banks to create more unearned money out of nothing. This is known as fractional reserve banking, which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Quantitative Easing: In addition to fractional reserve banking, under Obama, the Federal reserve has been creating a much larger than usual amount of money and loaning it to the government and the banks. This is known as quantitative easing, which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
ZIRP: The federal reserve has reduced the interest rates to nearly zero percent on money it loans to the government and on money it loans to those banks who own the Federal Reserve. This is known as Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Consider that any entity who borrows money at zero interest has little incentive to ever pay it back, and will in fact have much incentive to keep borrowing. That’s a very corrupting influence.
Bailouts: Before Quantitative Easing and ZIRP, the government tried bailouts. Does anyone believe that the crash of 2008 and many of its prerequisites would have happened if all the self-proclaimed Elites had been certain that bailouts were an impossibility? It is almost as if bailouts were part of some plan.
Bailouts are unconstitutional, but they happened anyway, so we see that it is really just the character of the American people that gives the Constitution its power, and the American people lacked the character to stop the bailouts. It is almost as if character devolution were part of some plan.
Bailouts were universally considered dishonest until Obama.
Cronyism: Dishonest banking causes the government and the big banks to receive a flood of unearned money, which then finds it way to their closest cronies, which thus tempts cronies to become closer cronies and which tempts honest entities to become first-time cronies. This is called cronyism, and although it has been growing for a long time, it was universally considered to be dishonest – until Obama became the President.
Government rewards cronies with bailouts, contracts, tax breaks, regulations that help the crony and/or hurt honest competitors, and with selective enforcement of laws and regulations. Once the media became cronies, then media bias also helped other cronies and hurt honest competitors.
Once cronyism took hold at the top of government, the cronyism trickled down to the local level. Cronies in local government thus have the support of the cronies directly above them.
A system that favors cronyism makes it increasingly difficult for honest individuals and honest businesses to compete with cronies. It also manufactures more cronies by corrupting honest people. Furthermore, the dwindling number of men of principle limit their success by avoiding doing business with cronies.
Dishonest bankers corrupted honest banking, which then corrupted government, which then corrupted the free-market, which thus corrupted the people, which thus reduced entrepreneurship, innovation, efficiency, and honesty.
Inflation: Newly created dollars make each existing dollar worth less than before, and thus a reason to be first in line for the new money is the ability to spend it before each dollar has become worth less than it would have been worth – had the new money never been created. This is called inflation, which was universally considered dishonest before FDR.
Inflation is like a tax of several percent a year on every dollar in existence. It makes prices permanently higher than they would have been. The recipient of the inflation tax is whoever received the new money before it inflated prices. Inflation is theft.
Therefore, inflation tempts honest people to compete to be first in line.
Misallocation of Capital: More than ever before, there is a flood of new money at near zero percent interest rates. This new money often starts off in investment banks and thus much of it naturally finds it way into financial instruments, which thus creates even more incentive to bet the rest of the new money on financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and options.
Consider the alternatives available to anyone who had access to unlimited new money at zero percent interest rates. Would he spend the effort to evaluate and fund your idea for a product which has a 50% chance of making him 10 million dollars in five years, and which is in a field he knows nothing about, and which will have even less chance of success than before – given inflation, cronyism, and the increased interest in financial instruments? – OR – Would he instead invest in financial instruments and in bribing politicians given that those have the potential for more profit and faster profit, and that he is already intimately familiar with such investments? If he loses, he can always just borrow more at zero interest.
Consider the alternatives of an MIT graduate who could invent a product that could attract investment capital. He could make an engineer’s salary, and then maybe someday invent something that would make him a couple of million dollars after years of saving or after increasingly difficult competition with financial instruments for investment capital. – OR – He could work for Goldman Sachs and make three times as much right away, and have three times the opportunity to make a couple of million dollars, and do it three times sooner. This is like The Funger Games.
Suppose government has more money to spend. That means more labor is directed toward government projects and less labor is available for projects that are capable of earning enough money from voluntary customers to pay for themselves. At the same time, inflation resulting from government borrowing reduces the value each dollar spent on projects capable of earning enough money from voluntary customers to pay for themselves.
These are examples of misallocations of capital resulting from interventions in the free-market, and are caused by dishonest banking. Misallocation of capital was universally considered unhealthy before FDR.
The Seen vs. The Unseen: Misallocation of capital is very hard to detect because of “the seen vs. the unseen”, which is a phenomenon first identified by Frederic Bastiat in 1850. Whereas, we can easily see the jobs created by the new money at zero interest, only one man in a million can see the jobs that were lost or never created because of the new money.
An additional hurdle is the bias of a crony media cheering for the new money projects and ridiculing those one in a million who can see the lost jobs and who can see that they were higher quality jobs because they would have been making something for which people would have voluntarily paid enough to generate a profit; whereas, crony jobs were created as a result of cronyism, taxes, bribes, and free money.
The “seen vs. the unseen” was universal knowledge – before government schools.
The Broken Window Fallacy: One way to penetrate the media bias and “the seen vs. the unseen” is the broken window fallacy, which is another idea from Frederic Bastiat in 1850.
Consider that progressives claim that all government spending, such as war, helps the economy as much as, and usually more than, any private spending. The progressive argument is another version of the argument that if a kid breaks a window, then that helps the economy because the capital spent on fixing the broken window created more work for the carpenter and more work for the window maker.
Whereas, we can easily see the jobs created by the capital spent on fixing broken windows, we cannot easily see the jobs that would have been created by that same capital if the windows had never been broken. Both labor and physical resources were obviously wasted in such a misallocation of capital.
Sooner or later the capital would have been used create something the owner thought customers would voluntarily pay enough for to earn him a profit. If the owner couldn’t think of any use for his capital, then he or his bank would loan it out to any borrower who did have an idea to create something the borrower thought customers would voluntarily pay enough for to earn him a profit and pay the interest on the loan.
The broken window fallacy so easily penetrates the seen vs. the unseen that it made it difficult for governments to borrow such great sums of money, and thus great effort has been spent by economists and other cronies to deny or circumvent the broken window fallacy. The pressure to deny reality has corrupted many economists because the surest path to obscurity in economics has been to embrace reality.
Keynesianism: The broken window fallacy was universally accepted until John Maynard Keynes developed the obfuscation that so delights dishonest bankers, governments, and cronies to this day. Keynes said that if people were unemployed, and if capital were not being used at that moment, then government should take that capital in the form of taxes, or borrow money, and spend it on some kind of project – any kind of project.
Keynesianism has been the dominant economic theory since FDR. Consider that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman recently said that the best thing that could happen to the economy would be fighting off an alien invasion! or building the Death Star! or just plain old war! Of course, we could just build some pyramids or some bridges to nowhere too. We could even just dig some holes and fill them up again. We could make them dig with spoons to maximize employment.
Like I said, the pressure to deny reality has corrupted many economists because the surest path to obscurity in economics has been to embrace reality. Fortunately that has been changing rapidly since the Great Crash of 2008 and the ongoing economic malaise since.
The New Plantation: In order to buy off a majority in a pseudo democracy, the dishonest bankers and their cronies understood that they needed a lot more cronies, and that it would be pretty easy to buy the poorest people with all that free money and with the bias of their cronies in the media. Hence they invented the New Deal and then the War on Poverty.
They are not even spending their own money. They just create it and loan it to the government, and then the middle class must pay it back to them (through taxes) – and with interest! These programs are unconstitutional, and are also taxation without representation for those who were too young to vote against the programs or the against borrowing. This is why I say the federal debt is not legitimate.
The War on Poverty has enslaved the black community. Government dependency is the new plantation. The black community has thus been neutralized and pacified and only causes damage to itself and is no threat to the dishonest bankers.
Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of government dependency. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, or on other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring racist who hates poor people. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.
In addition to corrupting or discouraging honest candidates. Teaching people that they can’t survive without being given the fruits of other men’s labor is a corrupting influence on their character. It is an atrocity of progressivism on a grand scale.
A few brave black men have come forth to expose how the Democratic Party have enslaved the black community on the new plantation. They call themselves “runaway slaves”. Some are the one in a million who can see what would have been (they can see the unseen), and some are just honest, independent minded men of principle. They are mercilessly ridiculed by the crony media when not being completely ignored by them. They are among my heroes.
Affirmative Action: In a wealthy country like America, the trinkets of the new plantation could not corrupt enough voters, so the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media then invented affirmative action, which lets a woman or an individual from a racial minority sue an employee and his company for millions if that company fired him, didn’t hire him, or didn’t promote him. Ironically, the potential of such lawsuits is a rational reason not to hire someone. Likewise, another irony is how it raises the rational question of whether someone is competent if they benefited from affirmative action.
Of course, if the assumption were correct that hiring a given number of women and minorities is profitable for a company, then that would have obviously happened by now without government interference. To understand why, suppose those companies who hired women and minorities outcompeted those who did not, then other companies would either emulate their success or go out of business. If hiring women and minorities does not make your business more profitable, then why should the government destroy your business unless you hire them anyway? Either way, to interfere in a private business is fascism.
Another aspect of affirmative action in business is 8a companies, which are companies owned by women or racial minorities. Government gives preference to 8a companies for government contracts, loans, bailouts, subsidies, taxes, etc. Government also gives preferential treatment to companies who buy goods and services from 8a companies.
Academia also has affirmative action. For example, every school gives preference to students who are female or from a racial minority.
SAT scores are fudged based on race. Asians lose points. Hispanics gain points. Blacks gain more points than Hispanics, and the scores of whites are unaltered.
Title IX is a court decision that mandates a university must have equal numbers of female athletes and spend equal amounts of money on male and female athletics. Given that females are genetically programmed to be less interested in athletics, the universities try to be fair by giving a lot more athletic scholarships to female students, and by reducing the number of male athletes. Now they want to extend this philosophy to science and engineering!
Another example of the cognitive dissonance of title IX is cheerleading. Although cheerleading is the most rigorous and dangerous female sport, they are not counted as athletes, because cheerleading is politically incorrect. In their putative desire to help female athletes, progressives have exposed cheerleaders to great danger without any of the insurance or other protections they give to other female athletes.
Reproduction is another kind of affirmative action, and one where the government’s double standard is pretty extreme. The result of pregnancy is solely the woman’s choice, and thus the result of that choice is solely the woman’s responsibility. More specifically, if the woman chooses the more expensive choice, then that extra expense is solely her responsibility. Just to be clear, birth is the more expensive choice, and abortion is the less expensive choice; therefore, the extra expense for the birth choice is the cost of birth plus 18 years of child support minus the cost of abortion. It would be a simple and fair legal matter for the man to also choose whether he wants to be responsible for the birth, but instead, the government let’s the woman decide whether the government will force him to pay 18 years of child support.
Divorce is another kind of affirmative action, and one where the government’s double standard is pretty extreme:
Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of affirmative action. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, or on other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring racist who hates poor people and women. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.
An employee who takes the noble and rational position of opposing affirmative action will be cited as evidence of his employer’s guilt in an affirmative action lawsuit. This discourages companies from hiring or promoting anyone who opposes affirmative action. Also, the crony media have taught everyone that it is OK to ridicule and shun anyone who opposes affirmative action, and thus only conformist employees who lack principles can easily climb the corporate ladder.
If an opponent of affirmative action tries to be an entrepreneur, then advertisers and investors will shun him because of potential ridicule from the crony media.
Such a double standard not only tends to corrupt or expel honest, independent minded men of principle, it also corrupts women and racial minorities. Although the putative goal is to help women and racial minorities, teaching them that they cannot succeed without help from the government is a corrupting influence on their character. Teaching them that double standards are OK, and that intervention in voluntary agreements is OK, are also corrupting influences on their character.
Sexual Harassment: In a wealthy and tolerant country like America, the trinkets of the new plantation and affirmative action could not corrupt enough voters, so the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media then invented sexual harassment. which is all about banning speech and ideas. For example it is illegal to create a hostile working environment for women through one’s speech, although for all practical purposes, women have no such restrictions on their speech about men. Ironically, the potential of such lawsuits is a rational reason not to hire a woman.
For example, if a man were to make the politically incorrect statement that men and women have obviously evolved different genetically programmed behaviors, then that would contradict the politically correct belief that men and women are only different because of how they were raised. This would place his employer at risk of being sued if they did not fire or discipline him – if anyone complained – which is likely.
Telling any joke about women would be illegal; whereas, the HR woman at my company had a joke on her wall ridiculing men, which is legal – for all practical purposes. The rules do not apply equally to men and women.
If a man complains that the rules do not apply equally to men and women, then this would place his employer at risk of being sued if they did not fire or discipline him – if anyone complained. At the very least, he would just be shunned – because his thinking did not conform, and the crony media have taught everyone that it is OK to shun and ridicule anyone who does not conform with political correctness.
The kind of man who thrives in a politically correct workplace environment is obviously like the kind of President who thrives in a politically correct environment – like Bill Clinton – the unprincipled, harassing, raping, adulterous, liar – who feminists defend.
Sexual harassment laws created a hostile workplace environment for honest, independent minded men of principle.
Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of sexual harassment laws. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, and other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring misogynist who hates women and will accuse him of sexual harassment. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.
Such a double standard not only tends to corrupt or expel honest, independent minded men of character, but it also corrupts women by teaching them to have double standards, to overreact to perceived insults, and to feel dependent on government.
Arrested Development: In spite of all the pressures trying to corrupt every man, woman, and child in America, a mature, honest, independent minded man of principle can successfully maintain his integrity and still support a family if he is smart enough and articulate enough. Such individuals are few, but their power is magnified by the Internet, which is why the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media employ an array of forces to arrest our development.
Controlling the Internet is one strategy employed to arrest our development. Although the Internet is not the physical world, and cannot by itself produce a mature person, it can help anyone to develop faster and more completely through exposure to all of the ideas that ever existed. Control of the Internet continues to progress along many fronts.
Eliminating independent entrepreneurs (those who get no advantage from the government) is a strategy employed to arrest our development. Independent entrepreneurs not only learn all about reality, but are also role models who inspire others.
Eliminating small businesses is another strategy employed to arrest our development. Although many small businesses are dependent on government in one or more ways, and are thus cronies to varying degrees, they still are much closer to reality than the big corporate experience.
Eliminating family farms is a must. People are exposed to a lot of reality on a farm, and they feel way less dependent on government.
Eliminating ownership of single family homes (especially without a mortgage) is also an important technique for arresting our development. People who grow up in cities and who rent, preferably an apartment, are much more likely to suffer from arrested development and feel much more helpless and dependent on government. They are more likely to be conformists, and they are also more like puppies – weird little puppies. They quietly support the system built by the dishonest bankers and passive aggressively pressure others into conforming. They lack the confidence, the courage, and the independence of thought to break out of their cage. Their only sense of confidence comes from being part of something bigger.
The myriad regulations, laws, and financial collapses have been forcing waves of people into becoming city renters – almost as if that were the plan.
Bad Role Models: The most obvious of the many causes of the character devolution of the people is bad role models. We already explained how bad role models got to be role models, but apparently we are genetically programmed to emulate successful role models – even if they lack principles.
I first noticed this trend in the Clinton Administration, and I am certain that it was the example of Bill Clinton himself that influenced people to devolve. I am certain because that is how it affected me, as well as the people around me. It probably didn’t help that I lived in the Washington DC area throughout the Clinton administration. I started down this path a couple of times, but as an independent thinker, I always came back and continued to evolve in a more noble direction. This doesn’t work for everyone because being an independent thinker is much harder for most people; otherwise, we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place.
Whereas, Bill Clinton was the first relevant bad role model, since then, the relevant bad role model has been the media. These role models are almost exclusively Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. Perhaps not so coincidentally, when I think of those people succumbing to character devolution, they happen to mostly be Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.
Obama is not a relevant bad role model because he is just another infected progressive. He is the good cop, and the media are the bad cop. Together they are one entity. Obama is just a front man – a blank canvas on to which the media can paint any image they want.
Although we live in a system that tends to reward those least principled, and where those infected partially infect everyone else, I also notice that because their character flaws have become so obvious, many others are becoming better people by taking pride in not being like them.
Elitism: Needless to say, so much free money and so much power creates a class of people who could not compete in a free-market, and yet, who feel entitled to … well … everything. They are much like trust fund babies, or like the boss’s son. In fact, their character is similar to that of the people they have trapped in government dependency.
Most elites think the rest of us are just sucking up their resources. We are useless eaters, and the earth would be a lot better off if there were far fewer of us. That’s called eugenics – much like what was proposed by Obama’s progressive science czar. It is no secret that Nazis were inspired by the eugenics of American progressives. It is thus almost as if the exponential growth in physical and mental maladies were part of some plan.
Therefore, elites plot to convince us that we need a global government to protect the earth – hence exaggerated global threats like anthropogenic global warming. Of course, they would control their new global government just as easily as they control the US government. Then there would be even less diversity of ideas in government which would be just about perfect for an established oligarchy.
Elites protect themselves by keeping us divided against each other, which is another reason for their programs such as affirmative action, welfare, title IX, sexual harassment, political correctness, and all other manifestations of identity politics. They use the same technique Machiavelli recommended to divide and conquer a people. They are not ideological. They will support any weak faction, but always through coercive means – in order to maximize division among the people.
Whichever party is in power, the federal debt rises, poverty increases, and regulation increases. Their regulations reduce competition and retard innovation. Fewer competitors and retarded innovation are solving problems slower than they occur; whereas, a freer market used to solve problems faster than they occurred.
Reduced competition and slower innovation is a good thing to those elites who want to maintain control over the people and continue milking them. I think that perhaps at one time, elites were more noble, but then they lost their way. They have been corrupted by … themselves.
Media Bias: While both extreme and quite obvious, media bias is not as obvious as a cause of character devolution, but the media cause character devolution by suppressing reality and promoting myths in support of all of the other causes of character devolution we have already talked about. Such a biased agenda permeates the entire media, from Hollywood sitcoms, to the mainstream “News” organizations.
The following links are just a sampling of topics on which the media suppresses reality and promote myths:
It’s about ideas – not factions.
The collection of ideas and policies driving the character devolution of Americans, like all ideas and policies, do have their adherents; but what can we call these particular believers given how they span all other factions? They could be any religion, race, party, nationality, etc. They include the Republican Party leadership (the Neocons), the Democratic Party leadership, and lots of other believers; but the most diligent and articulate believers tend to call themselves “progressives”, which is pretty historically accurate, so we use that term as well. I previously referred to believers as The Political Class, but the term “progressive” is much more common.
Looking at the words and actions of enough progressives, anyone can conclude that they champion two ideas, whether they realize it or not:
Just talking with a wide variety of people in America, one can see that a large percentage, adhere to both of these two ideas, whether they realize it or not. Of course, believers seem even more numerous outside America, but I am merely a witness to the American manifestation.
You are Here
While there have always been some unprincipled men who were able to acquire power and wealth, dishonest banking has given them almost unlimited power and money. While cronyism has always existed, a flood of unearned money has made it grow exponentially – especially under Obama.
We all know that the opportunity to receive unearned money creates perverse incentives, but this historically unprecedented flood of unearned money has created a pusillanimous plethora of perversity.
Most people in America today remind me of Vika in the movie Oblivion. She is the poster child for passive aggressiveness and normalcy bias.
The reality is that we now live in a system designed to corrupt, expel, or hobble … honest, independent minded men of principle, and reward unprincipled conformists. The purpose of our system is to control us and milk us while preventing any competition from arising.
Although we live in a system that tends to reward those least principled, and where those infected, partially infect everyone else, I have noticed that because their character flaws have become so obvious, many others are becoming better people by taking pride in not being like them.
The Tea Parties and OWS may not have realized it, but before they were co-opted, they were rebelling against the character devolution of the people, and were unprecedented in recent history. More recently, President Obama, backed by the crony media, was hours away from attacking Syria in another progressive interventionist act of aggression designed to cause countries to borrow more money, but then the Tea Partiers, occupiers, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, independents, socialists, and libertarians came together and said NO! Obama and his progressive cronies stumbled and backed off when confronted with this unprecedented assertion of character, which thus empowered Vladimir Putin and the British legislature to also resist Obama and his progressive allies.
It is never to late for anyone to become the person he wants to be. To once again embrace the Soul of Humanity requires little more than a decision.
I am reminded of the epiphany of one of the characters in the movie Slow Burn (2000). He was a criminal and a simpleton, but he instantly transcended every character in the movie when rebuked the beautiful woman who offered him herself and a treasure in diamonds if he would kill the other criminal who always bullied him and who deserved to die anyway, but he told her, “No! I’m never letting anyone else talk me into doing something that I know is wrong!”
This movie powerfully illustrates what I call the Soul of Humanity vs. the Soul of Animals. Whichever one triumphs will determine the survival of all life on earth, and yet, this conflict mostly plays out between an individual man (Tom Cruise) and the wife assigned to him.
Ignore the critics, they lack the maturity to understand this movie. Even the folks who made it lack the maturity to understand this movie. We know this because if they really understood, the movie would have been even better. They just got lucky.
Oblivion, and the role played by Tom Cruise, should remind you of Gladiator and the role played by Russell Crowe, or Equilibrium and the role played by Christian Bale.
You will not see the plot twists coming.
As the story begins, the main character, Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), tells us that 60 years earlier, an alien race began a war to exterminate humans and take the earth for themselves. Humans won the war by using all the nukes, which rendered the earth uninhabitable.
It is now 2077, and no one lives on earth except for Jack and his wife Vika, who are finishing up their five-year earthside mission. Their job is to maintain the drones that protect the giant fusion reactors that are sucking up the oceans in order to power the human colonies on Titan. The reason they need the drones are because a handful of aliens remain on earth and are trying to sabotage the power generators. The only other surviving humans live in the giant mission control space station that gives Jack and Vika their orders.
Mission control erased the memories of Jack and Vika at the beginning of the mission so that if they were captured by the aliens, they could not reveal that information.
From the beginning we can sense that something is not right, and this feeling only grows throughout the movie as the evidence mounts. In fact, the future of all life on earth depends on Jack and Vika figuring out the truth and doing the right thing. However, one of the things we begin to learn right away are that Jack and Vika are two very different people. Jack is curious, adventurous, and courageous; whereas, his wife is very nice – as long as she is in her comfort zone.
Whenever anything out of the ordinary happens, Vika is fearful, small minded, petty, spiteful, jealous, etc. She wants nothing more than for her and Jack to rejoin the others on Titan. She has never violated a rule. She has never left their amazing apartment that sits on a mile high pole. She has never been to the surface of the earth. She has never met another human, She has never met an alien. She would place her life and the life of her husband at risk just to avoid hearing any evidence that might cause her to leave her comfort zone.
Vika’s is the poster child for passive aggressiveness and normalcy bias. She is holding Jack back.
In a world of epic threats and epic deceits, Vika is convinced that she is doing the right thing, and that Jack must conform. She is too closed minded to change.
Likewise, back in the real world, we too face epic threats as well as epic deceits, and it is people like Vika who are holding back progress. They are preventing us from moving forward because they are too closed minded. They are convinced they are doing the right thing, and that the rest of us must conform. They include all of those who voted for Mitt Romney, but worse than those are the ones who did not vote, and the most closed minded and delusional bullies of all are those who voted for Obama.
I know, that is 98% of America, so that probably includes you, but you could have voted for the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party, or written in Ron Paul. You could have contributed to their campaigns. You had a choice.
Given the recent scandals and how both parties are determined to go into Syria, some of you are now very sorry and promise to never vote for a media-approved candidate again, if not, then you are still one of the assholes who is killing the Soul of Humanity.
You still have a choice. The world is the result of our individual choices. It is never too late to become the person you want to be. Some of us just figured it out sooner than others. You will be forgiven.
We need honest debate more than ever given that our governments and media promote fallacies, suppress honest debate, and force integration. The only reason that such heavy handed political correctness is not fascism, is because we don’t call it that. They even deny that race exists!
Another reason we desperately need honest debate is because all humans are racist.
The reason all humans are racist is really simple. It is evolution.
We are not the product of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us who got the most offspring into future generations.We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same genetically programmed impulses that got more of their genes into future generations. To be clear, we have those same genetically programmed impulses.
One genetically programmed trait that would help all humans get more of their genes into future generations would be distrust of those passing through their territory. The reason that distrust of transients would better protect one’s genes and one’s life, resources, and offspring is because transients are indeed less trustworthy, because …
Transients have no stake in the future of your community.
It is obvious how one’s life, resources, and offspring are at far greater risk from a minute of exposure to transients than from a minute of exposure to the folks in one’s community. However, one’s genes are also at risk. For example, a man travelling through a community will feel the genetically programmed urge to impregnate women there and move on. Therefore, the men there will have evolved the genetically programmed urge to drive him out as soon as possible.
Suppose a transient male has impregnated a woman in a community, then he does have a stake in the future of that community, but not as much as one might think, because he cannot be sure he has impregnated anyone, and he is already moving on at that point anyway. In fact, if he did not move on immediately, then he would be in even greater danger from the local males who want to either kill him, beat him, or make him stay and marry the woman he tried to impregnate.
Genes are not rational, it is not as if they can directly evaluate who is transient and who is not …
The genes that protect us from transients would thus operate by making us fear those who look and act differently than those in our community.
Why do men and women seem to have such different goals, interests, and behaviors?
Both men and women often get mad or frustrated because they don’t get what they want from the other. They also get mad or frustrated with themselves for making choices that do not get them what they want.
The anger, frustration, and stupid choices men and women make are the source of most of our comedy and drama because, after thousands of years of recorded history, we still don’t seem to understand why men and women behave the way they do.
The reason men and women behave the way they do is really simple. It is evolution.
We are not the product of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us who’s genes caused the most copies of themselves to make it into our generation. We are thus the product of those whose genes caused them to employ the most effective reproductive strategy, and the most successful reproductive strategy for men is different than for women because:
A woman can have about 10 kids, and a man can have about a hundred kids. The genetically programmed male strategy thus focuses on quantity, and the genetically programmed female strategy thus focuses on quality. Quality in this context means “most successful at reproduction”. This is the root all of the interesting differences between men and women.
The men who had the most kids in future generations were those who were able to impregnate as many women as possible – regardless of how or why they were able to impregnate more women. The women who had the most kids in future generations were therefore those who tried to reproduce with those men who were best at impregnating as many women as possible – regardless of how or why those women tried. We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same impulses that got more of their genes into future generations.
It is true that a man’s offspring were more likely to survive and reproduce themselves if he stuck around and helped raise them, but some men also impregnated additional women and thereby tricked other men into raising their offspring, so they had far more offspring in future generations than the men they had tricked. We are thus not only the offspring of those men who tricked (cuckolded) other men, but we are also the offspring of women who favored those men – regardless of their reasons – and thereby got more of their offspring into future generations too.
It gets even more interesting than that. A woman needed a man to provide food and protection for her and her kids, but not every woman could have the biggest, strongest, smartest man. So the best reproductive strategy for a woman was to be as loyal, helpful, and sexually available as possible for her husband, and then once per month, she would try to put herself into a situation where an alpha male could impregnate her. Therefore, we are the offspring of those women who loved their husbands but still tried to get impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, women today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those women.
Just as the female reproductive strategy was shaped by the male strategy, the male strategy adapted to the female strategy by optimizing for both the husband role and the alpha male role.
Both the husband role and the alpha male role had reproductive advantages. We are thus the offspring of those women who tried to have some children by men who excel at the husband role as well as some children by men who excel at the alpha male role.
This is a self reinforcing cycle that would only get stronger as we evolved.
Let’s look at some specific consequences.
A husband who let his woman be impregnated by an alpha male or a better husband would get fewer of his genes into future generations than a man who took measures to prevent his woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, we are the offspring of those men who took measures to prevent their woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, men today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those men.
Being a husband might seem like a good strategy because a prehistoric husband had 24/7 access to his woman, but evolution can be pretty sneaky. For example, an anti-husband mutation caused women to be more likely to get pregnant if they have an orgasm, which obviously was an advantage for alpha males who got fewer opportunities to impregnate any given woman but whose one try was more likely to induce an orgasm than any of the husbands’ multiple tries.
Another anti-husband mutation has enabled men to produce sperm that would form a rear guard and thus block other men’s sperm from reaching the egg. Therefore, when a woman became fertile each month, if she let the alpha male try first, then his sperm might successfully block the husband’s sperm for the period in which the woman was fertile that month.
Although some men are alpha males and some are husbands, both have the same strategy. The difference is that alpha males are more successful at implementing the male strategy, which is why we are the offspring alpha males and of those women who were most successful at being impregnated by an alpha male instead of their husbands.
Clearly, a woman must be one heck of an actor to pull off the female strategy. Therefore, the descendants of those women are good actors, but the women before us were more than just great actors. The most successful women would have been those who really did love their husbands but who still tried to be impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, the descendants of those women really do love their husbands – and – they are good actors.
The dual nature of the genetically programmed female strategy is one of the reasons men think that women send mixed signals and play games, and why women will often agree and not be able to explain their behavior, but it is not a game or mixed signals. It makes perfect sense once you understand its evolutionary underpinnings.
Another reason men think that women send mixed signals and play games is actually a real game.
Consider that in prehistoric times, if a man was able to chase a woman, catch her, and impregnate her without letting her injure him with her feeble blows, and without injuring her, then that man must have had good genes, and good genes was exactly what she wanted. It would have been a good reproductive strategy for women to put themselves into a situation where a man she was certain had good genes would attempt to prove himself in this manor. Obviously, when the game went as planned by both parties, it was quite mutual in spite of the woman running and fighting. Women today are thus the offspring of women who employed such a strategy and thus feel the impulse to engage in this strategy themselves.
Now the game would have been great fun for both the alpha male and the woman, but what if the woman was wrong and the man was weaker than she thought and he failed to block some of her feeble blows. The woman might then suddenly decide that the game was over because she could do better in this menstruation cycle, although she would have reserved the right to change her mind later that day – just in case there were no better males available. Therefore, given that a woman can only have a few kids, and so every one must count, a mutation would thus have succeeded in pre-historic women so that when they were already trying to get pregnant by a given man, they might suddenly think that being impregnated by that man was horrible based on any one of many possible ques.
Hence, a woman today might really change her mind at the last minute for any one of many reasons that may be mostly subconscious, but which are real from a previously evolutionarily optimum perspective. Of course, this would seem really insulting to a man as well as making him think the woman was shallow and irrational, but if both parties understood the evolutionary forces at work, then they would be more likely to enjoy themselves as well as being more likely to part amicably if evolution throws them a curve ball at the last minute – and more likely to try again later.
The political elite use our genetic programming to manipulate us all the time. Just one of those manipulations relies on the fact that evolution has caused women to feel like they need a husband more than just about anything else. For many women, a priest has subconsciously served as a surrogate husband, and now politicians like Obama are also subconsciously seen as a surrogate husband by many women. Now that women are in the workforce, their boss and/or company can serve as a surrogate husband. Of course, government itself can serve as a surrogate husband too.
Religious and political surrogates, in addition to trying increase their own competitiveness with real husbands by playing a role or sometimes actually giving stuff to women, also try to reduce the competitiveness of real husbands. One way priests and politicians manipulate women is by raising women’s expectations for real husbands, so that women will be perpetually disappointed. Another way they manipulate women is by reducing the effectiveness of real husbands – consider how many black men are in jail.
Never forget that we each have a brain, which can override any genetic programming – especially if we are aware of that programming. Also, remember there is certainly no reason to get mad about our genetic programming.
The soul of humanity is the peak of human evolution; but just as most (maybe all) of us carry the soul of humanity, most of us still carry the soul of animals – the peak of pre-human evolution, which consists of conformism and hierarchy, which are incompatible with the soul of humanity.
However, today’s leaders and their followers act as if they believe that conformism and hierarchy are a part of the soul of humanity, and many act as if they believe that conformism and hierarchy are themselves the soul of humanity.
Consider that fascism is little more than the open belief that conformism is a good thing – that when we’re all on the same page, we all benefit. Consider that fascism is thus at the core of political correctness, big government, reeducation camps, progressivism, genocide, slavery, socialism, militarism, tribalism, racism, and communism – all bad things.
The soul of humanity has not yet evolved to the point that we always have the strength to do the right thing, but we have evolved to the point that we at least always instinctively admire the right thing – it’s in our genes.
Animals, of course, do not admire conformity and hierarchy. They just apply them – instinctively.
Surely there must be other intelligent life in the universe, and they must have evolved at least the equivalent of the soul of humanity in their genes at some point. Perhaps they are waiting for some of us to also evolve the strength to live consistently with the soul of humanity and abandon the instinct for conformism and hierarchy.
Whereas, evolution was heading the direction of giving us the strength to do the right thing (live consistently with the soul of humanity) and erasing the instinct for conformism and hierarchy; governments have been changing the direction of evolution by rewarding those who not only instinctively accept conformism and hierarchy, but who admire them. Admiration of conformism and hierarchy is new in human evolution.
Government is killing the soul of humanity – erasing it from our gene pool – forever.
There is much reason for hope. Although conformism and hierarchy are part of our genes, the soul of humanity was able to evolve later – in spite of conformism and hierarchy.
Evolution has given the vast majority of us the ability to instinctively know which principles are right and wrong. For example, we are genetically programmed to dislike cheating, pettiness, and short sightedness; whereas, we are genetically programmed to admire integrity, open mindedness, tolerance, responsibility, curiosity, and courage.
Majority Principles are even more difficult for us to articulate than for ancient cultures because politicians, the mainstream media, and government schools are very careful to never draw a connection between majority principles and the positions they choose to promote, ignore, or ridicule. We are thus divided on positions because The Prince keeps it that way, but we are less divided on principles.
Majority Principles are:
Integrity – Your principles are consistent with each other. Your positions are consistent with your principles. Your decisions, actions, and inactions are consistent with your principles. Your life is consistent with your principles. You make personal sacrifices to live consistently with your principles. If you discover your position is out of sync with your principles, then you change your position. The end does not justify the means, which means that you do not violate your principles to promote your principles.
Open Mindedness – You are always open to the possibility that someone else is right and you are wrong.
Tolerance – You are tolerant of that which does not violate your principles.
Responsibility – You accept the personal debt you incur when you violate your principles.
Curiosity – You need to know why.
Courage – You overcome your fear to be true to your principles – your fear of pain, embarrassment, peer pressure, and the unknown.
Independent Thought – You are already an independent thinker if you have Open Mindedness, Responsibility, Curiosity, and Courage.
Honesty – When interacting with another person, you will never be the one who initiates fraud, cheating, lying, evasiveness, or deception against the other.
Peace – When interacting with another person, you will never be the one who initiates force, violence, or physical aggression against the other.
Nobility – You honor your agreements. If you created an expectation, you try to honor it. If you would have agreed to someone’s terms before, then you will try to honor those terms now. You treat others as you would like them to treat you – even when responding to an initiation of force or fraud.
Progress – You try to leave the world a better place than if you had never existed. Not to be confused with Progressivism, which violates all Majority Principles.
If you are among those of us who instinctively admire these principles, and who instinctively know that the world is the result of our individual choices, and who instinctively want to leave the world a better place than if you had never existed, then
you are among those of us who carry the soul of humanity.