Nietzsche and blogging, Genius and the malice it must endure

Was Nietzsche the first blogger?

My books are holistic. All my writing is. I cannot repeat the entire foundation arguments each time I build upon them. And so you will have to read the books if you do not automatically connect with my blogg arguments. They are not complete. They are just the tips of arguments, like the point of a triangle, or the peak of a mountain. You have to climb the mountain to appreciate them. It’s like getting dropped off by a helicopter on Mt Everest. I don’t expect many of you to be in a position to appreciate and understand them.  But they will  give you some idea of how it is up here, where the air is refined and clear, but very thin. It is not for the weak minded, nor weak of character. Few ever even consider climbing as high as a Nietzsche, Hume, Freud, or Epicurus.

And these heroes all share something in common with other ‘high’ achievers. Their peers do not want them to achieve. In fact they will sabotage their efforts. And then if they cannot manage to ensure the failure of the ambitious, they will seek to underplay the value of their achievements.

A geniuses talent, their genius, is only credited and recognised, let alone actually applauded and rewarded, after decades of struggle, and often only after their death. This is consistent enough for it to have been an archetype at least as early as Ancient Greek Tragedy. The hero suffers, achieves great feats, overcomes great hardship and obstacles, to either die alone in poverty, or to be actively murdered by his peers. Only after his death is he venerated, often even as a god.

The passive form of this is to ignore the person, and leave them to die from neglect, rather than direct abuse. The direct abuse in this case usually only takes the form of maliciously intended, derogatory criticism and dismissal. I say malicious, rather than constructive, as it is intended as a form of violence. The people have not managed to build themselves up into a frenzied mob, to overcome their more social inhibitions against actually directly physically harming their better, their superior. So they make due with the less direct forms of violence. However their intentions are the same. To destroy their betters, their superiors.

And where the socio-historical moment is ripe for it, the people will build themselves up into a frenzied mob, and either murder the individual themselves, or demand that their legal authorities do it for them. Of course later in history when the society begrudgingly admits the genius of the victim, the society will then be able to blame the acts on the judges. They will be able to wash their hands of the act.

We hate our betters. They make us feel less worthy, less good, less valuable. We fear rejection and abandonment. That is being generous. To be more brutal, we hate anyone who is better than us. We burn with envy and jealousy, and want to destroy them. We are furious with anyone who would dare even try to be better than us. At school we bully and mob them. We do the same when we are taller but no ‘bigger’, in the workplace, and in our public and private lives. Women call it ‘bitching’. We try to undermine each other’s accomplishments, whether physical, social, business, or intellectual. We try to cut down the tall poppies. It is logical, as they make us look bad by comparison. It is logical as we risk losing our relative status, and the benefits that go with status. Our better show us up as inferior.

And when their ambition is of a ‘moral‘ nature, when they are striving to be, and even worse, actively being, better people, they hold up a mirror to our own less than ideal ethics and behaviors. They show us up. They highlight our imperfections. They clearly shout out that it is possible to be better than we currently are. They deny us the ability to deny that it is not possible.  They rob us of our treasured excuses as to why we cannot be better than we are. They deny us denial. We cannot deny that it is possible to behave better, and to produce a better, fairer, more creative and beautiful world, when there are people right up in our faces who are actually behaving better, and working hard, making sacrifices, in order to realise their vision of a better world. They explode all our excuses. They reveal us for what we are. Lazy. Of poor character. Selfish. Mean. Nasty. Malicious.

And this will not do. How dare they show us up like that. Our blood boils with indignant rage against this Jesus, this Socrates, this ‘good’ person. How dare they be good. How dare they be better than us. How dare they hold up mirrors to our faces, and show us the truth about ourselves! They must die. Preferably a long and painful death. But if that would reveal too much about our true motives and intentions, then we will settle for a quiet poisoning. We will have to settle for that, if we are to maintain our self deceptions regarding our true motives. We want to pretend our motives are noble, good and righteous, rather than nasty, ugly, base and mean.

When our ‘better’ ‘superior’ genius’s talent is less of a moral, and more of a technical nature, when their achievements are in the fields of art and culture, we rarely go this far. Instead we deny their genius and achievements, so that the possessor, who struggled so hard, who sacrificed so much, who worked so hard and long to develop their talents and to employ them productively, should never personally benefit from them. That would not be fair now, would it! Why should they benefit from their talent. It was not fair that they should be born more talented than us. Even if this talent was only for disciplined, dedicated, passionate, ambitious passion to achieve something, more than any inherent extra talent or ability, relative to the general population.

No, history shows, that we deliberately wait until the person can no longer benefit personally, when they are old and decrepit, preferably insane, or dead. Then we can claim all the benefits for ourselves. We can put ourselves up on a pedestal by being among those capable of recognising genius. This must surely reflect well upon us. For we, unlike the others, are able to understand their achievements. This means we must be very clever. And so more and more people want to appear clever to, and soon the genius is applauded throughout the land. They are often deified as demi-gods, if not actual gods per se.

And those who lived among the geniuses, passively destroying them with their neglect and indifference, if not directly trying to undermine them with ignorant criticism and derision, will bask in the limelight of their association. They will make up stories that put themselves in a positive light, as their audience hungrily devour any stories they can share about the genius that lived among them. They will often claim to have be sympathetic and helpful, when the rest of the world had mocked and derided the genius. They had had the genius themselves to recognise the genius’s value even as the rest of the world had scorned and ignored them!

And against the flood of positive re-evaluation of the genius, even those who would prefer to harm them even after their death, will give in, not wanting to appear ignorant, or as malicious, nasty, mean and base as their characters really are. So the majority will join in the popular approval and recognition, rather than attempting to fight the tide of public opinion. And so our genius, after he can no longer derive any personal benefit from it, will have his talent, effort, and sacrifices finally recognised, validated, and acknowledged. He will be famous.

And then everyone will hold him up as a role model. They will even exaggerate much of his character and life. They will attribute him super-powers, and employ this new mythical person as a means to their own ends. A Plato or Paul will use them as their own puppet, putting words into their mouths, ascribing them deeds, building them up into sources of authority which they can then bathe themselves and their own arguments in, a-la ‘transferred’ authority. They can claim that this super-man shared their own opinions. They will claim this super-man said so and so and recommended we do so and so, and lived so and so as a role model for us. They will use the dead man, who they have built up into a super-man, to get acceptance for their own arguments and their own beliefs. Thus we get a ‘Socrates’ mouthing the arguments of a ‘Plato’, or a ‘Jesus’ mouthing the arguments of a ‘Paul’, ‘Mark’, ‘John’, ‘Matthew’ and so on.

If you have studied Freud and Hume you will get all this. Otherwise study them, or read my TROONATNOOR books.

Hume explained how the emotional energy derived from the jealousy and envy we feel for those more fortunate than ourselves, and which produces antipathy in us for our betters, can end up fueling a co-existent admiration for their talents and good fortune, so much that the positive feeling becomes the dominant one. We aspire to be fortunate ourselves. We imagine how it would be to enjoy the good fortune or success of our betters. We imagine how it would be to be like them. Thus we can come to love our betters. Freud reminds us how we love others as projections of our ideal selves. The selves we would love to be. The selves we aspire to becoming. And so, as per the motto ‘If you don’t get yours I won’t get mine as well’, we endure another’s good fortune simply to keep the hope alive of one day also being fortunate. It is only those who have lost all hope of joining the beneficiary classes that claim to be socialists. It is only those at the bottom of the wheel of fortune, with nothing to lose, who desire that the wheel should ‘revolve’ (revolution). Thus we sympathise with the fortunate, and feel good-will towards them, for we want to be them. And if they managed to enjoy the good life, it means it might be possible for us to also. If no-one was fortunate, then we would lose all hope of becoming fortunate ourselves. And so we are motivated to protect them, to protect our own hopes. And at least while they enjoy such public favor, those with no hope, and no good-will towards the fortunate, will be checked in their ambitions to destroy them for lack of public support.

But be wary. The malice lingers. It does not take much for it to once more become the dominant motive, and to absorb all the energy of the previous good-will, feeding upon it until it devours it entirely, and unleashes all that is malicious and base in human nature, and the god is crucified by its previous devotees. Of course in hindsight they will deify their victim, and spin their own actions into a perverse nobility in which they were killing their god as part of some necessity, or they will simply deny responsibility, and blame someone else for the acts.

Hume notes that when too competing emotions towards someone or something exists, the stronger of the two will absorb the energy of the weaker, thus annihilating it, and bringing clarity to our wills, our emotions. This is the preferred state of our minds, to rest on something firmly and securely. It is a pleasurable feeling, compared to the displeasure of uncertainty. Anyone who has not studied Hume directly, or through my books, cannot claim to understand much at all about reality.

Hume explains how we sometimes recognise genius in people even while they are alive, and able to benefit from it. Our first impulse will usually be to harm them, to cut them down to size, to deny their achievements or talents, and so prevent them from casting a shadow over our mediocrity.

However if someone manages to find a way to benefit from their talent themselves, they will recognise it, as a means to their own ends. Thus an art collector in possession of many works of an artist can begin the cycle of recognition. As a ‘critic’, they can appear to be a genius themselves, by having recognised the genius of the artist. As they own paintings, they stand to benefit personally if the artist gains wider recognition. They will recommend the artist’s work to their friends and other dealers. Together they will produce a market for their art. This will drive up its value. This will attract ever wider attention. The general public will only pay attention when the paintings sell at auction for incredible sums, as opportunists seeking to speculative gains buy and sell the art works, often deliberately, to lift their market values, with the intention of finally passing them on at great personal profit, independent of any interest in the art itself. Just like any speculative situation, a small group of people can keep buying and selling something until an outsider buys it at a hugely inflated price. Then you share the windfalls among your ‘syndicate’.

Anyway, the point is, someone must have a motive to help someone else. Their help is not motivated by a desire to benefit the genius and to promote their work. It is to employ the genius’s work as a means to their own ends and benefit.

And so we have art dealers, a music ‘industry’, publishers, and so on, to thank for saving our greatest artists from being crucified by their peers out of sheer jealousy and rage, even though their motives are usually purely selfish, rather than driven by any intrinsic love of art, literature, or music.  They see the possibility of making lots of money, or at least personal fame, as the discovery of a great new talent.

And once a person is recognised somewhere else, our best chance to benefit is to pretend that we too comprehend their genius. This will reflect well upon us. We will appear cultured and educated and intellectual. Of course their genius was evident to us from the very beginning! And we have nothing to benefit from denying it. It is a fait accompli. We would simply look foolish. How dare we contradict public opinion. So the best thing is to try to be the first to recognise the genius. We will all jump over ourselves to be the first to lavish praise upon them, so as to bask in their genius, and to define ourselves as their peers, and as people of excellent judgment and taste.

The critics will earn their own reputation by writing as eloquently and powerfully about the genius and their talent as they can. In fact, if you want public acclaim, then give the critics something to write about. Make it possible for them to  sound clever and they will praise you without end. Facilitate their own success, but letting them sound intelligent, and they will write about you, and facilitate your success. Live an interesting, romantic life, and that will make it even easier, especially if you are an artist. If you are a musician or actor, then get into trouble and get yourself into the news for millions of unpaid, and unbuyable, publicity. Let your interviewers appear clever, witty, and informed, and they will love you.

It is so hard to keep a coherent line when you have so much to say, and realise your audience, for the most part, are belligerent towards you, and what you have to say. But I have tried. Ideally you would take the time to read my books. Of course that would mean risking that I might actually benefit from all my hard work and sacrifice.  You would prefer that I gained no benefit from an unfair distribution of talents. But are you aware of how much I have suffered for this?  I am not sure I would wish such talents upon anyone, unless I really hated them. For they bring me nothing but frustration, belligerence, hatred, violence, and all the other costs associated with being marginalised, rejected, and abandoned. I would certainly not inflict them upon anyone I imagined I loved, such as my own ‘not-yet-conceived’ (never to be conceived if they are lucky) children. Or is that it, when it comes down to it. You want me to suffer for my talents. Study Freud or read my books, before you bother getting indignant with me for daring to write things like this, especially without the ‘safety-net’ of humor!

Now a brief Nietzschean blogg on legal justice

In order for our legal system to be forced to direct its resources towards actual justice, it must be possible for legal counsel to be ‘switched’ during a trial. This would make it impossible to pervert justice by reference to ‘counsel-client privilege’, which means that the lawyer with information which would actually ensure justice was actually served, is not allowed to reveal that information. In other words one person, a lawyer, might have clear evidence, even an admission of guilt, from their client, which would certainly make justice swift and fair, but they can keep it secret. This is an absurd notion. Or at least it would be, if you assumed that the point of trials was to identify the guilty, and to exonerate the innocent. Of course that would be naive of you. The legal justice system was designed to protect the rich from prosecution, and to persecute the poor slaves.

Now if you could ‘switch’ legal counsel, then the poor person fighting against their own corrupt government would be able to swap their legal aid lawyer for a the Queens Council the government hired to do its dirty work. Imagine that. Imagine how the O.J Simpson trial would have went if the State had had his legal team on their side! Not to mention all the insider knowledge they had, all the admissions they had obtained from O.J, and the consistently failed lie detector tests they had had made, but had been able to disclose from the jury, under the guise of ‘client-lawyer privilege’.

I saw a televisions documentary in which the Judge clearly had no idea about the law, and the lawyers sucked up to him, pretending his obviously did. Anyway, the point was, the law clearly mandated a particular sentence for the ‘crime’ the defendant had committed. There was no need for a trial, let alone a lawyer or judge. The sentence was dictated by law. The judge went on and on about the defendants past criminal history, when this had absolutely no bearing on the dealings of the court in this case. The mandatory sentence was a suspended sentence, and a good behavior bond. The lawyer had to remind the judge about this. The judge appeared to have had no idea, based on his actions. This meant the lawyer should have been absolutely unnecessary. It was a trial for possession of cannabis. A first offense.  A clearly pre-determined legal outcome. Why did this poor guy have to spend thousands of dollars on legal representation, just to get the judge to do the simplest task?  How could the judge be so incompetent?

It must become law for every legal code to be simplified and expressed in language that any average citizen could understand, without the need for ‘interpretation’. Without this fundamental right we will never have justice. We must abolish the ‘legal justice system’, and replace it with a ‘justice system’. Stop abusing language. Limit trials to facts and reasonable assumptions. Do not allow any insinuation, games, psychological manipulation, abuse, insults, and time wasting. Legal counsel must have absolutely no vested interest in the outcomes of trials. They cannot be motivated by anything except the desire that justice be served. If they have any other extrinsic motive, they cannot be expected to be even seeking justice.  We then need to train people in the sorts of reasoning skills I have outlined in my TROONATNOOR books.

One day courts will be set up to seek the truth, or the closest approximation the facts and  compelling arguments  will allow. Today we have lawyers and judges seeking to prove themselves right, to enforce their own opinions, to defend the guilty and to persecute the innocent. Any time justice is actually served it is merely coincidental.

The legal justice system as it operates today is all about  pride, self-righteousness, prejudice, and desire for political power and financial reward. No reasonable person could expect a system built upon those foundations to be capable of ever serving the interests of justice. But then, do we really want justice?

Hold on for one more day, things will go your way?

This is the motto of the slave-owner. They want their slaves to endure their hardship, and count on their good fortune, better luck, satisfaction, and enjoyment, being just around the next corner. In this way they endure each day anew, believing that this will be the day when their ship comes in. And when it isn’t, then there is always tomorrow. In this way they are tricked into enduring an eternity of dissatisfaction, disappointment, displeasure, exploitation, suffering, pain, even agony. The eternal lie of false hope and unfounded optimism is the fodder of evolution, and of all slave society’s. It is how slave masters get their slaves to continue serving the master’s interests, as means to the master’s ends, day after day, life after life. It is the false hope perhaps that most foils Buddha’s attempts to ‘enlighten’ and ‘free’ us. This hope is absurdly false. Things do not change. If anything, those with fortunate holistic inheritances accumulate more good fortune, and those with the least fortunate holistic inheritances lose anything they might have started with. How often has anyone’s luck actually changed?  How few in a Billion? While the ‘rags to riches’ story is appealing, it is hardly representative. Only a desperate gambler would bet on those odds.

It is worth noting that people traditionally define bad luck as earned, either through deeds in this life, or in past lives. In this way the lucky get to define their luck as ‘just’ and ‘fair’, and to justify their exploitation of the less fortunate. For surely god must be rewarding themselves, and punishing the unlucky?  How appealingly masturbatory! How convenient! How satisfying! Who are the lucky to thwart God’s or Karma’s will?  Surely the unlucky have earned their misfortune by displeasing God. They must be bad. They deserve to be exploited and enslaved. Surely this is God’s intention. Surely this is the best way to redeem them for the bad karma earned in past lives!

And so you can see why people would be less than keen to advertise any misfortune or bad luck. It would only incite others to express all their malicious impulses to destruction and harm towards them. For what more legitimate a target could you find for your desire to hurt others and destroy things than those that the Gods or Karma had already identified as ‘deserving’ of being harmed? Thus people learned to be ashamed of their bad luck, their misfortune, their poor holistic inheritances. Otherwise they risked bringing down further misfortune upon themselves. They risked giving others an excuse to attack them, to take advantage of their vulnerability, both physically and ideologically.

In a fair, productive, creative world

In a fair world the person who worked the hardest and longest, and made the most sacrifices should have access to the most resources. In a rational, logical, productive and creative world, resources would be allocated to people on the basis of their ability to most productively exploit them, to produce the greatest value from them. This would ensure that resources were most productively allocated, and that the most value possible would be derived from them.  And so we see an inherent conflict between fairness and productivity. But if we ensure that value is re-distributed fairly, we can reconcile the conflict. We can allow the most productive to keep a fair share of the value they produced, while rewarding those who worked hard and made sacrifices more fairly for their efforts and sacrifices, more than their actual production per se. This would mean paying less productive, but hard working people more than they had actually ‘earned’ as such, and paying the most productive much less than they actually earned. This will of course appeal to the least productive more than the most productive. However as all value is a social product, the most productive, if honest, will accept that their productivity was facilitated by the society as a whole, and that their individual part in the production could only take place in the context of that society. And so they would accept the legitimacy of sharing the holistic outcomes with the society. And the society would accept the need for some inequality to motivate the most talented to employing their talents more fully. And thus we have the Liberal Social Democratic solution for the age old economic challenge of deciding what gets produced by whom, how, and who gets to consume it.

Sadly in our world people actively prevent others from producing value, unless they are assured of personally benefiting from their actions. It is not enough that the entire society might benefit. The benefit must be immediate and personal. Preferably the facilitator will benefit more than the person doing the work, making the sacrifices, and producing the actual value. This is the only reason people ever allow an ambitious and talented colleague to go about their ambitious plans unhindered. This is the only reason they sacrifice the satisfaction of mobbing and harming their ‘better’ colleague. The chance to take credit for this hard worker’s efforts is a greater prize than the chance to act on their destructive, malicious, vicious tendencies, and satisfy these destructive impulses. As long as the person never gets to benefit from their own efforts and sacrifices themselves, the mob will be content to let them go about their work without actively hindering them, well, at least not as often as they would like to. They will still take the opportunity to harm and ridicule them, but they will resist the temptation to indulge in a a full out orgy of malice-driven, self-loathing fueled, ugly violence.  They will sacrifice the satisfying feelings of power and domination they enjoy when getting to inflict pain and harm upon other living creatures. They will sacrifice the satisfaction of destroying things that are more beautiful, valuable, talented, morally ambitious, and ‘better’ than themselves. They would prefer to destroy anything better than themselves, thus making themselves the best, but they sacrifice this, at least for now, for the promise of personal material benefits. They will resist sending all the talented, honest, healthy, beautiful, creative, productive people to the insane asylums, gulags, and concentration camps, only with the expectation of personal reward. Should this promise evaporate, then they will gleefully help Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot identify their ‘betters’, so they can be rounded up, humiliated, tortured, and then sent off to work on the farms and in labor camps. Could you really be so ignorant of history as to deny this?

Copyright 2011 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved


Are you really against slavery? Will we ever end slavery?


There is no to or for in evolution.

No physical properties of our natures, from our opposable thumbs to our mental processes (artifacts of electro-chemical processes) exist to serve some function, or for some purpose. That a particular bundle of physical properties is present today in our organism is simply an artifact of the negative selection of less adapted gene-bundles, and the accumulation better adapted gene-bundles, which are produced by randomly occurring mutations in our genes. The genes make imperfect copies of themselves as they reproduce by self-replication and/or the impacts of atomic level particles, such as photons, or other forms of electro-magnetic radiation, knock out bits of genetic code. Thus the offspring of one organism is no longer a mere replicant clone of their parents, each now having a different genetic makeup.

Where these new gene-bundles produce new physical properties which prove beneficial to the organism, as a whole, the organism will tend to survive and reproduce, thus reproducing these gene bundles. Such new gene-bundles will emerge randomly, and accumulate in their host organism over billions of years. Some particular genes will be reproduced despite the fact that they offer no advantages, as the physical manifestations of these particular genes do not produce enough of a negative effect on the organism to counter all of its more adaptive physical properties. Thus many genes are actually of no value, or are in fact a burden to the organism. But as long as long as the organism as a whole has enough other positive properties to offset this, the organism will survive and go on to reproduce its gene-bundles, despite the fact that the organism would be better off, often much better off, without many of the genes it inherits.

When thinking about genes and evolution, we must be careful not only to avoid the teleology of functionalism, but also to consider the process holistically. Thus we avoid seeking to ascribe a positive meaning to everything. We recognise that nothing in evolution was designed. Nothing in evolution was intended. No benefit was intended by nature. Nature does not have our interests at heart. The only thing that has our interests at heart is ourselves. Sentient creatures, animals, including us, are the only things with intentions and designs. A gene bundle will be reproduced despite it containing many genes that the organism would benefit from not having.

In the same way we could well do without many of our current inherited gene-bundles, and the instinctive responses, drives, motives, emotions, behaviors, and habits they produce. Religion is a product of human nature. It is a product of our desire to enslave others to our will, to treat others as means to our own ends, rather than as ends in themselves. Religion serves the interests of the beneficiary classes, and appeals to all who aspire to join those beneficiaries. Sadly this includes almost all of humanity. However the consequence is a slave society in which a few realise their dreams of heaven on earth, while the rest suffer in hell, or in their own ego-minds, in the waiting rooms of heaven, a.k.a purgatory, where they imagine they are doing their time, and earning their entry into the heaven that that tiny minority called the beneficiary classes inhabit.

Remember it is a mistake to think of every gene or property as existing because it is of benefit to the organism. This sort of thinking is a necessary artifact of the muddled way people think about evolution, and of functionalism and teleology in general.

Some thinkers merely want everything to serve some purpose, to thus indicate that it was intentionally designed for our benefit. Thus they construct a universe that cares about us. Religion of course personifies the universes care in this context as God/s.

Some thinkers are merely confused about how the process of evolution works. They see a bundle of adaptive, functional physical properties in the current organism. This suggests naturally that these must have been intended , either by some designer, or by the process of evolution itself, in some way. The benefits are the product of a benevolent universe, evolutionary process, or some designer (God etc). They are then forced to overlook the maladaptive properties, or to explain them away by imagining that they do in fact serve some positive purpose which we are simply unable, right now, to perceive. They will reasons that it is a question of perception and ignorance, rather than proof that the universe does not give a damn about our welfare, that it is indifferent to our experience of it.

The old gods were indifferent to our suffering, if you recall. It was only the new god, produced by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, invented to serve their intentions, as one of their ‘noble’ lies, that had any concern for our wellbeing. They would have us believe that in this, the best of all possible worlds (thus at least acknowledging its imperfections), everything happens for a reason. For a good reason. Everything thus serves some positive purpose. Ultimately. And this purpose will be revealed one day to you, and in a moment of epiphany you will understand why your suffering was ultimately designed for your own good. And you will be grateful for having suffered it. Read Plato’ s Republic.

We can be grateful to Plato either for his arrogance and assumption that only members of the beneficiary classes or those aspiring to membership would ever read his books, or for deliberately and mischievously revealing their plans for us, to us, their slaves. Either way Plato has informed the slaves of their master’s intentions and designs in constructing ‘Religion’ . Religionare , remember, comes from the Latin, ‘to bind‘. Plato ‘advises’ the aristocracy to eliminate all the old gods, and to replace them with one god. This god was to be the source of everything good in the universe. And as he was to be all-powerful, it would be necessary to ‘spin’ any imperfections in the world he ‘created’ in a positive light. Otherwise this god would be unappealing, do to his lack of concern for our welfare, or his incompetence. Why worship a god who didn’t care about you, or who couldn’t actually do anything for you? Unless of course he was an angry volcano god who would ‘smite’ you if you didn’t. Anyway, the new god-makers were sure to cover all their bets. You would either worship a loving father, or fear a tyrannical and arbitrary one.

Other ancient Greeks such as Epicurus saw through the god-maker and ‘Religion’ maker’s plans, even before Plato outlined them in Republic. Epicurus, Democritus and their philosophical peers, all had a modern and accurate impression of reality, unbiased or prejudiced by wishful thinking or the dogma of Plato and all the cults, including the Catholic Church, which modeled themselves on Plato’s Republic.

And thus we find ourselves today, the inheritors of billions of years of hit and miss random mutation and negative selection, and a few thousand years of noble lies, teleology, functionalism, and ‘Religion’.

Most of us still want to imagine that the universe cares about our wellbeing, whether as Gaia or some God/s. We do NOT comprehend how evolution works. Most of us do not WANT to comprehend this. The rest simply have been constantly mislead by their teachers, books, and television presenters. You can’t blame these popular ‘scientists’ for failing to understand how evolution really works. Given all their best intentions, they have been deliberately duped by some, and have become the collateral damage of others, equally ignorant, no matter what their academic titles or nobel prizes.

You will have to read my TROONATNOOR books and bloggs to really comprehend how evolution works. And you will have to be willing to comprehend the reality. You will need to be willing to dispose of many of the comforting and satisfying beliefs you so treasure, and have become emotionally dependent upon. And if you are a member of the beneficiary classes, you will have to be willing to risk losing many of the benefits you enjoy as a result of these beliefs and misconceptions. You will at least have to be willing to risk losing your sense of ‘moral’ entitlement to those benefits, your ability to legitimate them, and to kid yourself that you are a good person, and that your enjoyment of the benefits is legitimate, earned, justified, and even in your own longer term self-interest. Once you become holistically enlightened you will find yourself in a world that is new for you, but which was always staring you right in the face. You will experience discomfort and unease, at first. You will question all your values and assumptions. You will have truly eaten of the forbidden fruit, forbidden to you by the priests.

Just pause for one moment and consider that after this first and only law, the second law of the god of ‘ Religion’ was to ‘go forth and multiply’. Think about why you would have a god make such an ineffably cruel commandment to Adam and Eve. Could anything ‘godly’ harbor such malice for his own ‘creation’, who through his own fault, have acted in ways that would ensure the suffering of all their offspring for eternity? Surely a loving god, even one that was simply not a complete and utter bastard, would not desire suffering? Why on earth would any reasonable, half-decent person want to inflict suffering on untold generations? The answer is so obvious once the veil is lifted. The priests, and the beneficiary classes they belong to and represent, are the ones who want their slaves to keep having more slaves, despite the clear knowledge that these offspring are doomed to suffer for at least their natural lives. It is the slave-owner who wants more slaves that has a god order the people to reproduce. And thus I need not explain the commandment ‘gainst self slaughter’ that Hamlet refers to. Slaves are the property of their owner. The owner cannot allow his capital to liquidate itself. He cannot allow his means to destroy themselves. If he did, he would be back to working his ‘estates’ himself, and all his land and territories would be reduced to the value of what he himself could produce from them. In other words all the land in the world would be of no value to him, as he could only profitably farm and cultivate a very small area of land. He could only fish so many fish himself. He could only hunt so many animals and collect so many fruits and nuts himself. Please, think about it. It is so obvious once it has been brought to your attention.

Now the actual target of this blogg is our impulses, desires, and instincts. Earlier in my books I explain how all our behavior can be reduced to a bundle of inherited instincts, impulses, and desires. A few nights ago I was further contemplating the nature of our behaviors, especially with regard to the more nasty ones which I find myself constantly the victim of. I am talking about those of other people, not my own desires, which of course we are all equally the victim of. I have always been the victim of other people’s impulse to ‘cut down the tall poppies’, or any that at least have the ambition to grow higher, in order to gain a holistic overview of the entire field!

An instinct can be reduced to an artifact of electro-chemical interactions in our brain. Thus the mind is an artifact of physical interactions, or the movements of atoms in space, if you like. Everything we think and feel happens in some part of our nervous system . All our perceptions are produced inside the brain, from inputs inputted by our senses. All our primary motives are hard-wired, and the interaction of these with our environment produces secondary motives, which derive from the interaction among the primary motives, and their interaction with the environment and the feedback that environment gives.

For example. Consider the impulse to steal. Good idea. You steal. But then others steal from you. Sucks. So you try first to find a way that you can steal from others, but they cannot steal from you. Good. Security guards. Fortresses. You go on raids and bring back your booty, keeping it safe inside your castle. The guys inside the castle are your guys. You have come to an understanding that you all have to respect each other’s property inside the walls of the castle, otherwise you would have nowhere to leave your booty once you had stolen it. You agree to limit your stealing, and rape, etc, to outside the walls. As your walled city grew, and became a state, and then a nation, you limited your theft and rape to people further and further away, and more and more different from you. Just so you wouldn’t accidentally steal from and rape the wrong people. This we call ‘Society’. If you stole from and raped people inside your own society, then the agreement you had to not steal from and rape each other would break down. You’d never get a good nights sleep.

So you invented ‘races‘, which took advantage of really obvious differences between people, such as skin color, or the shape of their eyes. This made it easy to identify who was in your own society, and whose rights you had to respect, to ensure reciprocation of respect for your own rights, and those who were not. This meant you could be protected by the ‘social contract’ tacitly entered into among members of your own society, and enforced by police and courts to every member’s advantage, while at the same time having access to a clearly identifiable group of ‘others’ from whom you could steal from, and rape. Thus we got first nationalities, and then when many nations enjoined into more global ‘social contracts’, we got races. It was O.K to rape and steal from other ‘races’, as they were morally inferior. God didn’t love them. Just us, the ‘chosen’ or ‘master’ ‘race’. Thus members of each nation, and then ‘race’, could rape and steal from each other, and have somewhere safe and ‘civilized’ to bring back the sex slaves and other booty to, where your right to the exclusive enjoyment of it would be protected by police and courts. Once you got it back to your own ‘society’ it was automatically your property.

This was great for all those who benefit from fear. The military. The ‘security’ forces. Police. You definitely had reason to fear ‘others’ not belonging to your nation or race. For they considered you as legitimate a target of rape and theft as you considered them to be. And so we developed all the industrial military complexes and security industry, including C.I.A’s, K.G.B’s, F.B.Is, massive ‘Big brother’ policing, all part of a hugely profitable ‘security’ industry. The slaves lived in fear, and were happy to pay for all of this, just so they could feel a bit safer. When the slaves were nominally freed, they continued to ‘voluntarily’ pay for all this.

Anyway, over time you find more sophisticated ways to steal, a.k.a feudal system and later capitalism, and still protect your ill-gotten booty a.k.a legal systems. Rape was harder. First you defined all your own tribe as taboo, defining all the others as legitimate victims, for your god had told you so. Anyway, as things became more complicated and the boundaries of tribes grew we sooner or later realised we couldn’t manage both rape and protection of our own sex objects from others, so we agreed that no-one would rape anyone, unless of course you were a Catholic priest or other powerful person who had immunity from the laws everyone else had to obey. But for the most part we deny our impulse to steal and rape, on purely selfish grounds, either that we don’t want ourselves or others we care about to be the next victim, or that we don’t want to end up in jail.

And socialization means that the unconscious has even internalised some taboos into its computations of short and longer term self-interest. It has noted the costs of some impulses. It has noted that some impulses conflict with others. It has computed longer term and immediate interests and desires. It has calculated hierarchies and priorities of desires and aversions. It considers things holistically. How can I make the most of the available opportunities to satisfy my desires while still maintaining my security and longer-term survival and prosperity.

We call this computation reason. It is purely cost-benefit analysis on a holistic scale. The unconscious allocates a mobile cathexis, so that today we feel displeasure even at the mere thought of acting upon some of our impulses. We find them distasteful and discomforting per se.

But thinking about the unconscious in terms of actively, deliberately allocating a mobile cathexis, so that we find some ideas and acts intrinsically and inherently pleasurable, and others dis-pleasurable, even painful, is less precise than what I will now try to elucidate.

Evolution is a passive process. It has no aims or objects. No to or for. No intentions. No designs. No interests in outcomes or processes. Of course an organism that did not have the impulse to survive and reproduce would become extinct in one generation. No such species will likely be present for us to observe, as they would become extinct in one generation. We would have to be there at their birth and death, to be able to witness their existence, as examples of how ‘hit and miss’ evolution is.

The only species we do get to observe do have an impulse to survive and reproduce.

However this is no necessary defining characteristic of organisms or of evolution. This impulse is no more natural or necessary than an impulse to eat your own head would be.

All impulses derive from some physical process produced ultimately by genes and D.N.A. D.N.A and gene will only be reproduced if it is part of a holistic bundle that is consistent with reproduction. Eating your own head, and having sex with shoes, for example, will not reproduce your organism, or the genes. Surely over billions of years organisms were born with precisely such impulses, and they didn’t reproduce. Thus this gene mutation is no longer among us. Or if it is, it is defined as some sort of abnormality, some aberration of evolution. However it is in fact typical of evolution. Evolution is a process of misses, with occasional hits. Most of evolutions outcomes were misses. Most of all the species that ever emerged from the process of evolution are extinct. Most would have gone extinct very quickly. One in a billion outcomes, organisms, of the process of evolution were likely to have survived long enough to reproduce. This is negative selection. It is cruel, unfair, indifferent to the suffering of the creatures it produces. It is a nasty and painful process. It is the opposite of eugenics. It s random. It produces billions of more misses than it does hits. It takes billions of years to accumulate the few ‘hits’ to produce what we can observe today. We observe the hits. And most of these ‘hits’ are mediocre compared to the few really ‘desirable’ outcomes of evolution. Eugenics seeks to reproduce only the most desirable of ‘hits’. But then there would be no inequality for the beneficiary classes to opportunistically exploit. So guess who tends to be the most violently opposed to eugenics? Not the ugly and stupid, seeking to defend their self-definition, and right to reproduce. They of course have an emotional reaction against the idea of eugenics, as it defines them as inferior. No, the real, organized, active resistance to eugenics has always come from those people who have, by pure good fortune, inherited the most superior genes themselves. They seek to preserve the benefits that accrue to those with such fortunate holistic inheritances. They wish to preserve inequality in their own narrow self-interest. They are loathe to give up their privileges and benefits that accrue to them based on their genetic inheritance. They want to remain members of a small minority. You can only opportunistically exploit inequality if it exists. If we were all born more or less equal, there would be no inequality to exploit. There could be no slaves and no masters. No beneficiaries and no exploited. Anyway, I explain all this in detail in my TROONATNOOR books.

Eating other people’s heads will be reproduced, to a point, as it doesn’t holistically prevent the host organism reproducing. It aids it in this. To a point.

But of course those of us who don’t want to have our heads eaten will question the judgment of the head-eaters. We will seek to over-ride their impulses. We will seek to manage them. We will want to regulate their behaviors. We will try to regulate their impulses too, through socialisation and education. We will try to convince them that head-eating, especially of people with heads like ours, is a bad thing. And if we cannot convince them of this, we will employ police and courts, legal systems and prisons, to impose our own good judgment of what is good for them in specific and in general, upon them, whether they agree to this imposition or not. In the same way we over-ride the judgments of people who believe it is safe from them to drink and drive, and safe for others for them to force them to consume the products of their nicotine addictions.

Of course we are loathe to over-ride other peoples judgments if they have the same power to over-ride ours. The social contract implicitly places us all on an equal footing re: the right to vote. And so we are careful about over-riding other’s judgments, for fear of them over-riding ours. We may not like them drink-driving or smoking in public, but we do not want Big Brother intervening in our lives, and over-riding our own judgments, for example, concerning our impulses to dissect living animals, to pump toxic waste into other peoples rivers, or to reproduce ourselves, maybe even to beat our wives and children. And so we tend not to support laws which would restrict others, for fear of experiencing similar restrictions one day. We are loathe to set precedents which might one day limit our own ‘freedoms’.

Eugenics, and veganism, then, are not opposed on the grounds that they are not good for society. They are resisted on the grounds that individuals do not want to have their own judgments and impulses in any way contradicted, let alone responsibly regulated. The prime determinant of our behaviors is at best holistically enlightened self-interest, but more commonly, narrow selfish interest defined by ignorance and deception. This deception is both internal denial and self-deception, and external deception on the part of others seeking to misinform us.

The beneficiaries of any system of relations have no motive to change it. They are at the top of the wheel of fortune, and do not want it to revolve any further, as that would only mean a decline in their own personal fortunes, privileges, powers, wealth, satisfactions and so on. Their motive in opposing Euthanasia, Eugenics, and so on, are purely personal. The interests of others rarely enters into anyones calculations at a level powerful enough to be a determinant, or at least a consistent one. Even parents are parents because they wanted to be parents. They did not have the interests of their not-yet-born children in mind when they reproduced. They were focused on the sensual delights of babies and little kids, and on illusions of living vicariously through their children, achieving their own (the parent’s) aims, using these children as the means to their (the parent’s) own ends.

Slavery will never be abolished if you appeal to democratic values, as the vast majority of the people who have the power to vote, and the intelligence to use it effectively, are the beneficiaries of slavery. The only reason we care if another has access to Euthanasia is in terms of our own self interests. Are they are means to our ends? A potential means to our ends? Do they provide a service or good we value? Do we benefit from their existence?

And if we don’t find any benefit from this particular person, and thus find ourselves indifferent to whether they live or die, would we be perhaps setting a dangerous precedent if we let them die peacefully when and how they chose? If we let one person have access to Euthanasia, someone who provides no current for future potential benefits for us, as a means to our ends, would be be risking opening the flood-gates to billions of people from whose existence we did benefit?

And worse, if we managed reproduction to reduce inequality, and to boost the overall level of health, intelligence, beauty, and talent, and ensured that each person was born with a desirable and reasonably equal holistic inheritance, there would be no inequality for us to exploit. Natural inequality is leveraged into social inequality, by natural processes. The beautiful and intelligent, healthy and talented, have a competitive advantage which they opportunistically exploit to accrue personal privileges and benefits. This is further leveraged by other components of the holistic inheritance, such as money, social connections, and so on.

And so when you hear people arguing against contradicting the judgments of people, don’t pay heed to their reasonsings and rhetoric. If you are against Euthanasia and Eugenics, and Veganism, then you are a beneficiary of slavery, or at least perceive that your interests are being promoted by slavery, pure and simple. You do not WANT an end to slavery, as you fear losing your relative position of superiority, which allows you to opportunistically accumulate benefits.

I will edit this later. I wanted to make that point about slavery. It has not yet been abolished, and probably never will be, as long as a powerful minority or democratic majority perceive that it is in their interests to maintain it. I am referring to the slavery of not owning your own life, and of the slavery of animals. And of the slavery of the not-yet-born who will become our children. None of these people have the right to chose. We withhold it from them. They do not own their own lives. They are all slaves. That is why we can legally kill unborn babies. Of course this is a new right. Until overpopulation became an issue, it was a criminal act. The slavers valued every not-yet-born slave as a form of capital, and thus they protected that capital like they would any other capital they owned, be it land or gold or a patent. But in the western developed world, with its welfare state (designed to ensure the welfare of the state, and not the slaves, mind you), and mechanisation, and baby-boom, and the nominal elimination of slavery per se, the unborn are no longer considered valuable capital. And so abortion has become legal. I prophecise that for similar reasons euthanasia, and even infanticide, will one day become just as legally accepted as abortion is today.

Keep in mind that most of us are slaves to others, while at the same time benefiting from the slavery of others. You, the reader, most probably find yourself fairly high up in the hierarchy of relative beneficiaries, as members of the Western Developed Welfare State world. We are slaves to a minority above us, but beneficiaries of a much larger majority below, consisting of third-world workers, the unemployed, and the exploited casual worker.

To bring the discussion full circle, we must now see how opportunism is an instinct. Enslaving others, obtrusively or unobtrusively, by force or other more subtle means, employing them as mere means to our own ends, is instinctive. It is just a bundle of nerve connections that have been reproduced as they did not, holistically, prevent enough humans surviving and reproducing to send the species extinct. In fact many will claim that the advance of this species derives from slavery per se, the exploitation and reproduction of inequality, the ever concentrating of power and privilege in ever fewer hands (proportionally to population size), and thus the ability to give the best random outputs of negative selection the best social conditions and opportunities in which to thrive. A small percent of the human population is thus given the ideal conditions to prosper in their own self-contained Edens, at the expense of the majority.

Is this a necessary pre-condition for the evolution of our species? Misery for the many and joy for the few?

Is it worth taking the chance that every next-life you will, statistically, most likely suffer a life of misery, just so that once or twice in a few thousand years you can enjoy a life of joy?

Dare to challenge your instincts and judgments. They are not perfect. They were not designed to serve your interests, with your wellbeing at heart. They are the consequence of billions of years of random mutation and negative selection. You exist despite many of them. So question each of them. They are not ‘the best possible of all impulses and desires, in this, the best of all possible worlds’. They are just one possible set of impulses in this, just one mere example of what a world could possibly look like. There are alternatives that could be superior. And we will probably experience Billions of billions of others that are inferior, before we get to experience the few superior ones, unless we take a more active role in our own evolution, and re-direct the process towards positive selection.

If you are a member of the beneficiary classes right now, consider how small one lifetime is compared to billions of years of next-lives. Do you really want to risk inheriting the lives most people endure today in so many next-lives, just to enjoy a few privileges this life, until one of the exploited slaves gets it into their head that you have no right to do so, and that they have nothing to lose by revolting against the system, even if it means dieing in the process?

Do you fear comprehending TROONATNOOR, because it might mean questioning your current values, and risking losing some of the benefits you currently enjoy? I mean the comforts of believing in false conceptualisations of evolution, in believing all things are for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds. I mean the comforts of believing you will be rewarded in next lives or after lives for enduring the hell of your current life? I mean the economic benefits of money, comforts, goods and services, things you would not enjoy in a fair world devoid of slavery, including the meat in your meals, the milk in your thick-shakes, and some status goods, and worthless cosmetics and pharmaceuticals which you have been duped into thinking are of value?

???? Are you against slavery? Really? Or are you for Slavery? Or do you imagine you do not have to decide, that you will let others decide, and take the moral responsibility for your passive consumption of their decisions, like some Dalai Lama imagining he can pass on his moral guilt, his bad karma, onto the butcher who slaughters the animals he will eat?

I prophecise that it is merely a matter of time, and billions of experiences of suffering and misery, before the beneficiary classes have access to means which are better than humans to satisfying their own ends. Then most humans will no longer represent valued means to the beneficiary classes. They will come to represent ‘pollution’ and ‘threats’. And only then will my Eden Protocols, in effect, be introduced. Not with the good intentions I have, but nonetheless with the same outcomes. Thus I often feel like the little cloud racing energetically and ambitiously across the sky. The big mass of dark clouds behind it, like the tide of history, will catch up with it sooner or later. And I wonder at all the effort, sacrifice, and suffering I have endured merely to have raced across the empty sky alone, to reach the point just a little earlier, in evolutionary time. And it is lonely at times. But more often I enjoy the solitude. The fresh air. The open skies. I am free to range here and there, while the dark masses of clouds plod along in their slow fortress-prison of gray. Sure, when they get here they might laugh at me for all the effort and sacrifice I endured to enjoy the open skies, to have gotten here earlier. I might laugh at myself even now. But remember, my actions are no less determined than theirs. I didn’t get offered the chance to chose any more than they did. And so they will experience the costs and benefits of their holistic inheritance as I enjoy and suffer mine.

May your next holistic inheritance be an optimal one. May the next experience engine you experience be a satisfying one.

 Copyright Markus Heinrich Rehbach 2011 All Rights Reserved