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.
The so called 'power elite'A habit that humans seem to have is to assess other’s behaviour based on:
- their own personal morality scale
- how they perceive the other party in either a societal scale or level of authority, earned or otherwise
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:
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.
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.
- 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 disordersPersonality 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.
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.
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)
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)
- 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."
"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.