The Story of Us - Preflight

Preflight

Whether it’s accurate to consider our time as humans ‘a journey’ or not is a topic for another day. Personally, I’m OK with it so down the road we go. Sometimes though we veer off course, face choices that are metaphorical forks in the road, either as an individual or as part of a bigger group. In order to get back on track, we have to stop and gaze backwards before going forward; the old adage something like “you have to know where you’ve been before you can know where you’re going.” Sometimes, in order to get back on track, we have to look down instead of backwards, down at our foundation, what we are built on. In this section, the goal is to present a basic look at humanity from a backward and downward point of view whilst drawing a few conclusions via observation and deduction. In order to get the most from this reflection, a short preflight checklist is beneficial. These few preparatory steps and points to ponder will assist in understanding the material easier, better and deeper.
Click below if you like to come back to this section later on and instead get right into it! :)
The Story of Us - Part One

From a master of short story made long, my apologies in advance, this part kinda got away from me.
Right at the top, the mental and perceptual slate to be wiped clean as it were. Set aside as best as can be all that you've been conditioned to believe about govt, banking, corporations, religion and the monetary system. Set aside for the time being all the individual challenges that society currently faces. In addition to the slate cleaning, and equally as important: an open mind, primed and ready for some critical thinking.

Throughout this site, you will read mention of the need to either completely remove, or at least reduce to almost non existent, the concept of government. I want to point out here that while I do hope to show that government is actually a criminal organization, the requirement for its relocation to the garbage can is not just about a good vs evil thing. There is also incompetence, the impossibility of satisfying everyone, inevitable layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, reams of stifling oppressive rules and regulations, coercive monopolies, impossibility of knowing all that is required in order to facilitate effective decision making, etc. I also hope to show that the entire concept as we currently know it is unworkable, unnecessary, deeply flawed and needs to be chucked.

Eject as best as possible current bias' and conclusions; these are the things we overlay on our decision making and knowledge acceptance which can cloud or misdirect thinking. It's also important to understand that there is a distinct difference between the concepts of criminality and morality.

The so called 'power elite'

A habit that humans seem to have is to assess other’s behaviour based on:
  1. their own personal morality scale
  2. how they perceive the other party in either a societal scale or level of authority, earned or otherwise
Aside from the odd high profile examples that bubble up from time to time, it’s sometimes hard to accept that there are folks out there occupying positions in society considered respectable and honourable who either intentionally hurt others (and not just in the physical and/or criminal sense, the emotional and/or manipulative as well) or don't care if their actions inflict hurt, especially when you yourself are not that type of individual. Add to this how we perceive the other party or group on our
internal societal scale bias. internal societal scale bias :
a shortcut phrase I use to refer to the innate scale of 'a ranking in society' that I think the majority of us apply to others somewhat instinctively. This is also a ranking system influenced heavily by visual input. (see ‘environmental conditioning’ below)



Example me this:

Charles Manson - he done it, but did he actually kill anyone or just manipulate others into doing so? Doesn’t matter, he done it. Look at him, not only generally scary to look at but at many points in his life he looked outside of what would be considered normal. Definitely capable of some bad shit indirectly or directly. Whether he be well known Charles Mason or unknown Joe Smith, we will be inclined to accept his ability to commit some nasty behaviour.

Bruce McArthur - no way grandpa here could do any worse than forgetting to refill the treat dish when grand kids are coming to visit. He wouldn’t hurt a fly. Except for the 8 men he murdered and dismembered. Wikipedia: "McArthur is the most prolific known serial killer to have been active in Toronto, and the oldest known serial killer in Canada.”

Elizabeth Holmes - there’s no way this person could do anything bad is there? Look here too, an entrepreneur at 19 out to revolutionize the medical testing industry. In no time her company, Theranos, had a $10B market capitalization value, herself $4.5B. While there is some room for suggesting she was so blinded by zeal that she did not recognize what she was doing and/or was blindly enamoured with her then boyfriend as to be influenced, based on the research I’ve done on her and her company Theranos, I’m leaning more towards the ASPD camp with both Psychopathy and Sociopathy checklists having been substantially completed by her behaviour. Likely a combination of all of the above. In any event, it was all crapola and she now has a net worth of zipola and is currently indicted in California for wire fraud & conspiracy after having settled SEC fraud charges. Further, her actions had the potential to seriously harm or kill other individuals but this clearly did not matter.

These People - so often quickly dismissed as lazy, mentally unstable, gross, an unfortunate story to be pitied while we cross to the other side of the street in avoidance. We conclude this how? How many of these folks have we actually talked to, how many do we know? Do we know their story that got them to this place? Have we considered how many times in life we ourselves have been one step removed from the same position?


Elizabeth of London - look at this grandmotherly figure. Not wanting to get into the whole sordid history of the UK monarchy here, instead one snapshot in time for our example. By accident of birth, this individual claims to have some sort of authority over all others in her country of residence and beyond. Neither this person, nor her family past and present, have done anything to earn the position nor have they received consent from all they claim authority upon. Further, there are countless women who have given exponentially more in their lives than this individual ever could. According to the UK Social Metrics Commission, in a 2018 report, more than 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, live below the poverty line. That's 14 million people, including 4.5 million children that this person has a responsibility for due to her claim of authority. Authority without responsibility is a dictator. The insert picture bottom left is taken from her annual Christmas message. Starting with the gold plated piano, what do you think is the market value of all that you can see in that picture alone? The entire royal apparatus? Put a pretty reasonable dent in the poverty issue I'd wager with some left over so she wouldn't be left slummin' it.

How many mothers and grandmothers do you know that would openly flaunt their unearned claimed superiority and unearned effortless life? Further, do so while speaking a message to everyone else of “keep on working, give to others and don’t hurt anybody.” My guess it's a small number indeed.

But look at her, she couldn’t hurt anybody could she, she couldn't be nasty, so lets respect her, believe her when she speaks and happily continue to finance her life, she claims she's a queen after all.

The overall point I'm labouring to make here is that when considering this group, the ones who arbitrarily claim authority, the ones who seek only to control and dominate, we have to try to think like these people rather than superimpose ourselves on to them as is so often the habit. It really is an apples to zebras comparison which I hope becomes apparent from exploring deeper into this site.

We have to be aware of our bias', our thinking habits and, particularly in this context, stop giving free passes to, or being much less critical of, this group of individuals.

IMHO, we should actually be extra cautious and skeptical with this group!

A few further points of ponderation:
  • These groups of humans tend to live an insulated lifestyle centred around money and power. They in turn tend to surround themselves with folks who are the same. Many humans all across the spectrum tend to do this but in the case of a controlling class, the negative results are elevated and enhanced.
  • Wikipedia: "In news media, echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system. By visiting an "echo chamber", people are able to seek out information which reinforces their existing views, potentially as an unconscious exercise of confirmation bias. This may increase political and social polarization and extremism. The term is a metaphor based on the acoustic echo chamber, where sounds reverberate in a hollow enclosure."
  • These folks are used to the world running on their schedule whereas for the rest of us it's the other way around.
  • Stressing about living day to day life, paying the bills, raising family, etc: how much energy does that take from the average person? This common situation, often created by the so called privileged few, allows them to play the long game while the average person has to play short.

  • Mental health issues are not confined to the 'unwashed masses' only, every human is susceptible regardless of social status. It seems like we tend to think that those in the higher levels of social structure are somehow immune but it’s clear this is definitely not the case in today’s civilization.

of personality disorders

Personality disorders and their traits are the subject of much discussion and differing of opinion in our state of affairs today, however, at the big picture level a pretty solid consenus exists on what those traits are and the amount of relative damage folk excerising these traits can do: 1 person, large damage radius. Conversely, caution must be taken to avoid over use and over label and to keep in mind that we all exhibit a few of these traits ourselves. I do feel it important to include the topic as these issues do fit into the big picture story.

Understanding basic motivation here helps when trying to get past the builtin disbelief system: albiet finally beginning to change, we humans tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who claim authority. They wouldn't be in their position if they weren't compassionate and dedicated to the health and well being of those who pay their salaries would they? The reality is we have countless examples of humans we hold in positions of prestige and authority who couldn't care less whether you literally live or die, whether by their direct action or indirectly via the actions of others who do their bidding. This is supported by observation of our civilization today and its history.

Also to consider, many of the traits that fall into any of these 4 categories can be exhibited by individuals without them qualifying for a full ASPD or related diagnosis while still causing harm to others.

Of the issues known, there are four linked below that fit into our story the most for the following reasons.
  • the bank/corp/govt sectors exert the most direct influence on a society.
  • these sectors tend to attract folks of this type like the proverbial moth to flame.
I have separated psychopath and sociopath for our purposes here but modern psychology generally has these two together under the umbrella of Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Finally, it's critical to note: even for trained professionals, there is no changing the behaviour(s) of these types of people. In all aspects of civilization and the social hierarchy, at our current medical knowledge level, the ONLY solution is to not engage, instead, walk away and remove these individuals from your life as best you can.


Like the echo chamber mentioned with regards to the power elite, we must recognize our own echo chamber in the form of the mainstream media (MSM) and the
narrative Narrative :
a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious. A story that connects and explains a carefully selected set of supposedly true events, experiences, or the like, intended to support a particular viewpoint or thesis (dictionary.com)

this group pushes onto the general population.

With the exception of a bit of passion and a smidge of anger, we need to set emotion aside and think logically and pragmatically (sounds harder than it is; habit really).

It is reality not an exception: some people will agree with you, some people will not, this is life. We have no right to push our personal agenda, morals and bias' on others, nor they us.
Morality morality :
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. A particular system of values and principles of conduct. The extent to which an action is right or wrong. (en.oxforddictionaries.com)

is subjective, individual, with no human having a right to force their version on another.

Wise words from Henry Hazlitt: “Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in someway be paid for.”

TSOU_Intro_insert_a

Lastly and IMHO, this concept is one of the most important of all as it directly affects our resistance to choosing change as an option. It's a two sides of the same coin type deal, a coin I'll call the 'it won't work'. I struggle to articulate this in a decent manner but here goes anyway:

The general behaviour of the humans making up our modern society, that is, the individual's reactions to everyday events, are a result of, among a few other things, a century or so of 'environment(al) conditioning' (EC from here forward), with a century representing a general top level of human lifespan. Each cohort gets direct influential input from itself and the cohorts immediately before and after, an age overlapping type of deal:
  • in the zero to pre-teen range, parents, their close friends, the prevailing conditioning of their time, etc. all formulate an influence on an individual.
  • in the teenage/adult years, the individual gets input from their own cohort/peer group.
  • as an individual ages, they get input from their children, the social norms being accepted by them, etc.

EC here is in the form of such things as promotion of existing social norms, state run education systems, religious institutions/beliefs, the constant barrage of input from all facets, media or otherwise, parental influence, influence that itself was in turn influenced by EC and so on.

While there are exceptions to be sure, in large part this EC not need be looked on like some sinister brainwashing TV plot, instead, a high level view of a way in which humans process input from their senses and experiences. In turn, groups of humans exert a kind of collective influence on the group itself, steering it in generally the same direction like a ship's crew on a destinationless Sunday sail.

On average, humans are not big fans of change, a pretty well known observation. When a requirement for considering change comes along, one bigger than a change of socks, it’s easy to just respond with "it won’t work" followed by a simple declaration that people will react in this or that particular manner, usually against the idea, then ramble off a bunch of reasons based on observation of this point in time and that’s, as they say, that . . . "it won’t work" and the terrible boogeyman of change is avoided once again.

Instead though we must look at our place in the universe as it really is: a complex web where single changes can, and do, have wide ranging effects, the ripple effect. In the case of profound, fundamental and widespread change, such as redesigning a monetary system, there will be a massive impact on humanity, immediately and over time, on how it behaves, reacts, interprets, opinionizes, ultimately invalidating the 'it won't work' argument as the parameters are now new, EC has changed and so will human behaviour. A possible outcome can certainly be suggested at by observation, reason and logic but it will still remain unknown until it, well, becomes known. It won't work in this context tries to claim a definte outcome where none can be had.

The point I'm once again labouring to make is that profound change will have a wide reaching impact on how an individual's decision making process works and how they feel in general, overall. In the context of the topics on this site, particularly liberty and the monetary system, the impact will be positive because the change focus (liberty/monetary system) was also positive. Behaviour modification will be rapid as humans tend towards speedier adoption of things viewed as positive and helpful vs negative.


The other side of the coin is economics, the financial and deals more with systems and such instead of behaviour and choices. Massive multinational corporations provide a good example here.

Given the statement:
"removing barriers to private ownership of forest land will actually help to preserve these forests."

Immediate response:
"the big corporations would just buy up all this land and proceed to do bad things to it. It won't work"

The two immediate problems here are:
  • this response presupposes the existence of big corporations, that's our reality now, a result of the systems and institutions we have in place at this snapshot in time. With the changes we are discussing here on this site however, especially in the areas of government and monetary reform, these multinationals would not be able to exist in the first place and so the response statement would not be the case at all.
  • in an unhampered free market world built on liberty, the benefits of operating like a jackass are drastically reduced whereas the benefits of efficient responsible operation are drastically enhanced thereby also rendering the traditional responses invalid.

Term: Confirmation Bias Definition: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is of particular current interest because of the increasing polarisation between left-wing and right-wing political viewpoints, and the gullible acceptance of the current rapid spread of fake news. Source Reference: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia