DEFINING GOOD AND EVIL

Anything we consider "evil" is perfectly acceptable in nature if we subtract man from the equation. Therefore, anything evil is natural outside conscious understanding of consequence. An understanding of consequence creates moral choices. Since we can understand that certain actions have detrimental consequences to other third parties, we can classify "good" (having a positive effect on individuals) and "evil" (actions which would otherwise be natural in nature but which cause harm or detrimental consequences to some third partie or parties). All "evil" is therefore central to self-interested motivations. Consequently, the two principle factors of "evil" are (1) natural genetic programs which act toward self-interest and (2) which are harmful or detrimental to some third entity. These "evil" actions need not be conscious choices since they can stem either from rational thought or pure programming.

Simple self-interested actions which have no detrimental actual or potential consequence to some third party are not evil.

Levels of evil arise in both the amount of harm inflicted and the level of necessity or need on the part of the acting party. As an example, the small act of detonating a nuclear weapon creates tremendous harm. What can compound this act is the fact that the actor had no actual justifiable (rational) reason for making this choice. It is the difference between stealing one loaf of bread to survive and stealing 1000 loaves of bread without a need to do so. Hoarding wealth for the sake of excess or gluttony for the sake of satisfaction is therefore inherently evil.

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

I think genetics, physiology (and chemical dependency), environment, imprinting (both moral and immoral) and circumstance plays a significant role in whether we can or can not be moral or make a moral choices. As such they can be an "influence in" or a "cause toward" eliminating a moral choice. Consequently, immoral actions are not simply the product of “free will” or choice. Often the choice to be moral is eliminated - in isolated circumstances and in isolated behaviors and often entirely. Also circumstances can define whether actions are moral or immoral. Among those things which influence moral ability and behavior are: (1) Environment or circumstances: For example, hunger can influence the immoral act of stealing food. A naked woman can influence immoral sexual acts, etc. (2) Genetic predispositions: Take for example my docile dog - his genetics were specifically altered to make him docile. Just as many humans have genetic codes which influence our behavior. and (3) Engagement “influences” future behavior through imprinting: That is to say when you engage repeatedly in over-eating you program yourself to over-eat OR when you are compassionate you program yourself to seek future opportunities of compassion (it makes you feel good). Stated another way: 1 - Drive toward immoral behavior = Genetic Survival Programming 2- Genetic Programs influence choice. 3- Repeated operation of genetic programs can imprint behavior. 4 - Imprinted behavior either eliminates moral choice or immoral choice. The ability to be moral is in conflict with chemical dependancies, genetic influences and imprinting. There is a battle between your moral abilities and your genetic programming and biology. Not only can one side win out-right, but one side can win out in isolated situations. It's not an all or nothing. When we behave immorally, we can call all this an “unconscious choice”. But what it really is simply our “genetic survival programming” with imprinted modalities or chemical dependancies. Consequently, moral abilities include variances. To begin, not everyone’s “genetic programming” (and therefore predispositions to behave in one way or another) are the same. Some people have greater genetic tendencies toward immoral behavior. Secondly, this programming operates toward behavior in different environments differently. And clearly not everyone’s experiences are the same. Finally, our genetic programming is imprintable through use. Therefore through use certain programs become unconscious and result in this eliminated choice. Overcoming these “influences” toward moral behavior can be a tremendous accomplishment. Again it depends on the variables - it’s easy to stay off drugs when you have never been exposed to them nor became addicted, It’s easy to succeed morally in a friendly environment (well fed, etc.). It’s easy to over come your genetic programming if you’re my docile dog. However, You can not compare the moral accomplishments of humans as the variables vary tremendously. Not to mention intelligence and wisdom. All of this translates in to the very biblical concept of being unable to judge people - because your circumstances, your genetics, your prior experiences are not theirs and therefore truly unknown to you. I think a person of lesser virtue has no compassion for the person whose genetics and/or environment and/or dependency caused them to loose the battle and make immoral decisions. That certain someone who wishes to impose punishment and death as a means of exacting revenge and controlling the conditions of their material existence. Conversely, who are we assign heroism to moral choices? We are far from omniscient. No doubt there are heroic people who have overcome all sorts of circumstances and factual realities. Then there are plenty who just skate and look like heroes. It’s all in the variables. Making it impossible for us to judge another as either moral or immoral.

IMPRINTING AND THE ELIMINATION OF MORAL ABILITY

Scientifically speaking, there are chemical dependencies which results in physical dependancies which eliminate free will toward moral choices and actions. The physical dependancy (and physical need) is governing the choices. I would think that most people could at lease agree with this example. Then question then becomes is there some non-chemical dependency that may form which also eliminates moral choices? Some imprinting which is not chemically based? Let’s take some perverse behavior like that of serial killing to see is we can conclude that some imprinting is the source of these types of immoral behaviors.

Empirically, if we see that serial killers have participated in lesser sadistic activities as children, we can infer a number of things. First, their initial choices to do so were probably influenced by genetics (and not environmental influences) since these type of acts are not preeminently represented vis-a-vis social norms. As a general rule, they we’re (most likely) not learned behaviors. Second, we can also infer that progressively increasing the behavior first qualitatively and then quantitatively is the result of some need which requires more and more stimulation to create satisfaction. This is the brains ability to imprint behavior which has it’s foundation in adaptability and survival. If you hit the dog every time he walks past the sofa, after a while he can not walk past the sofa. At some point, the behavior is changed from abnormal to normal. For we humans, the choice to behave in a moral and not animal fashion is at that some point (and not at the wing removal stage for serial killers) eliminated. For example, this elimination is evidenced by the fact that sociopaths have no guilt and remorse for immoral behavior - an element of a properly functioning morality. My point is that imprinting occurs over time - during that time moral choice is available. However, strong genetic influences and engagement gradually take control and eventually eliminate choice. That is the choice between moral and animal acts. I think these choices are conscious needs. I think they are needs in either case - moral choices also reinforced through engagement.

When we speak of those initial choices which are not chemical dependencies but rather habitual imprinted behaviors, we must look at genetics in the context of survival. And human behavior in the context of the conflict between being moral and surviving. Genetics is not the sole factor in initial choices which lead to imprinting or chemical dependency but can play a role - as can environment and experience. Physiology, biology and genetics play a role in behavior. I have a very docile dog created through years of breeding. We humans are no different. Is then the inability to make moral choices due to these genetic factors therefore a “defect”? Well, considering that the opposite immoral behaviors were required to be dominant toward survival, I’d say that “defect” is the wrong term.

In conclusion, while immoral choices can be made through rational thought, the mind itself can eliminate decision making.

The Biology Of Immoral Behavior

I see a number of causes for human behavior - morality (or a sense of right and wrong), chemical dependence (or biological influences), and genetics (or specific programming associated with survival of the fittest). Each operating collectively toward a dominant influence in any given situation which would require some action - some behavior. They are often in conflict. “They know not what they do” is essentially the tale of those whose instincts and programing and/or chemical dependencies have eliminated moral choices. For example, sadistic tendencies simply being an extension of normal behavior in animals for which humans still require reenactment toward satisfaction of programs. The serial killer merely exhibiting normal behavior (a need to kill) which in the pre-conscious human was not in any way outrageous (as you rightfully believe it should be in the post-conscious human). Take a simple example - football (or the Romans feeding people to lions) - do you see the vicarious extension of being an animal in the love of these things?

There are many programs which relate to hoarding in a variety of animals - squirrels for example hoard nuts without any moral thought regarding the other starving squirrels in the forest. Gluttony, which is a sin in many religions, is something readily participated in by various animals - including humans. The idea being that hoarding wealth is an extension of ingrained programing and not (as you might suggest) some "personal whim". It is only by application of our morality that we can over come these basic desires and instincts.

Clearly there are examples of people who have chemical addictions who have eliminated their ability to choose an alternative behavior. That's one notion I have. I also believe that repeated behaviors grounded in pure programs reinforce themselves and become habitual. The reason for this (I can speculate) is either biological or some pattern in the neurons which is imprinted. I am basing these ideas on empirical evidence. For example, many studies conducted on serial killers indicate that they start this imprinting by killing insects, smaller animals, etc. as children. This seems to suggest a correlation between the behavior and the continued actions as such. I also believe that this imprinting is progressive - meaning that the more you engage in it the greater it becomes. See for example sexual addictions. Finally, I also believe that environment can facilitate this imprinting. Exposure to behavior facilitating a small need which when acted upon can create inescapable patterns Therefore many people are in fact making what we might label immoral choices without any real choice at all.

QUESTIONING THE LEADER OF OUR PACK

I think the basic design of our evolution toward survival made it necessary for packs to form. We do cooperate within packs for win-win results. But given the dynamics of the earth (scare resources etc.) it seems global cooperation would be unlikely. What’s more likely is the system of national packs we have now - all cooperating toward collective goals and (generally) uncooperative or violent with one another. Of course, even these packs are further broken down in to smaller sub-packs (i.e. republican’s and democrats, Catholics and Jews, races, etc.) toward sub-goals. And there are competing interests between the main packs and the sub-packs. Nevertheless, at any given moment the behavior of the alpha of any pack is toward the accumulation of territory, wealth and power for his pack - both in relation to the packs members and to the other competing packs. Other variables are often at play, including competing interests toward the alpha’s individual accumulation of these things. Most decisions of any leader are made in terms of survival without any consideration for morality. It’s a startling catch 22 because the reality of the situation sometimes dictates that immoral behavior is in fact necessary toward survival. Justified war in the face of an attack comes to mind. The problem is that when our leaders act in these immoral ways, they reinforce their future ability to act immorally and (often) justify their behavior in false moral terms. Even though the reality of one or more situations may not dictate that further immoral behavior is actually necessary - and yet it becomes the norm. The change to a conscious human creates an ability now avoid the programs of our evolution and behave toward total cooperation as humans (no pack) through things like cooperation and self-sacrifice. To ignore our natural inclination to behave immorally toward survival. But as you can see by world events, this ability remains at war with the old instinctual programs of the past. Perhaps some global calamity is what is necessary to finally push us toward this reality? What happens when the pack leader suddenly forgets to share the kill with the other pack members? They (eventually) attack him. How many leaders were taken down by their own supporters for failing to share the wealth? What is at play when this occurs is an extreme version of this instinctual need to hoard and control both wealth and power. Every instinct we have can operate at extremes. At it’s worst it’s all encompassing and can lead to sociopathic and self-destructive behavior. As Buddhists would say what is required to overcome the dynamics of human programming is the cessation of desire. I think the right and left hemispheres of our brains are at odds with one another. I think that one side of the brain is strictly for survival at any cost - eat, steal, hoard, obtain power, fear, etc. I think the other side is what you would call the ability to be moral. I think that either side of this duality can be reinforced through use and that choice (or free will) is the initial inciting reaction or key ingredient which decides which side of your brain is going to operate now - once this decision is made or made repeatedly the ability to have an alternative choice is progressively eliminated.. Habits form easy. And de-programming strong reinforcement is often impossible. Behavior, therefore, is a product of environment, choice, use, habit (reinforced programs) and genetics. The brain is obviously a malleable organ and was intended to be as such. Pleasure, like pain, causes the release of chemicals in the brain based upon sensory input. As far as programs go - reinforcement creates a greater chemical need and a need for an increased sensory input to achieve the same (desirable) results - which is why (for example) people may engage in cumulatively more risky behaviors. On the other side of the coin are depressants (like alcohol) which negate sensory inputs. The more they are negated the more sensitive you become to the effects of not negating them. Notwithstanding these things, an initial choice needs to be made to engage in any activity which could create a spiral effect in either case. In today’s world when someone makes a decision to act as leader of our pack, we must question their motivations. Is the situation one where immoral behavior can be tolerated toward survival? Or is it just an extension of the pack leaders personal weaknesses?

Is Religion A Failure?

I wanted to find out what Christians are being taught as a result of being involved in their pack, So I went to Yahoo Answers and posed some simple questions.

Question one:

Can someone tell me what steps to take to accept Jesus as my savior?

Some sample answers to this question:

Baptism, Communion, Confession, Confirmation. This is what my religious family members do.

It is so easy Simply confess to being a sinner and that you need a savior. Then ask Jesus to come into your heart and save you . You will truly be a changed person.

Pray and meditate. Go to church for worship and get involved with study group, part of the Christian is community based.

Go to traditionalist catholic church and talk to a priest. He will tell you what to do.Don"t put it off, do it right now!

Knowing and accepting that Jesus died on the cross for us and accepting him as your personal savior and knowing that we are sinners. Then you are supposed to be Baptised.

First you have to take in accurate knowledge of him and his father by reading the Bible.

Call on Him to forgive you of your sins and confess that you are a sinner.

If you sincerely mean it simply pray: Lord, I know I am a sinner. I know you died on the cross for my sins. I ask you to please forgive me of all my sins. Come into my heart. I want you to be my Lord and Savior. Amen

The Church in your area, where you can join a Bible study, or the TV shows if you are unable to get out, the 700 Club is the best one that I know of. God bless you.

First I would suggest finding a church that you enjoy going to. There are all different kinds, please don’t let someone lead you astray and tell you all churches are the same.

You must admit you believe in Him, and He did all the works He is accredited with, believe He healed the sick, raised the dead, made the blind to see, cured the leper and that he was born of woman, the Son of God, spread the gospel, was crucified, died, and arose on the third day so we could be forgiven of our sins.

Sometimes it's tough to pray, but really all you have to do is say what you're thinking, either out loud, or in your head. You don't have to use this exact prayer, but this is what I said:
"God, I'm sick of being dirty. I'm sick of being a sinner. I need You to forgive me, and make me Yours. I want to be Yours, and be purified by You. Please forgive me. Amen."

The best one to tell you is the Bible: Romans 10:8 "...the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

I must accept His crucifixion as payment for my sins, personally. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13)

It is important to find a bible teaching church and become part of the body of Christ to help you grow in your walk with the Lord. Read the Bible daily.

Not one Christian said anything about being a good person, or doing good deeds, or engaging in self-sacrifice, caring about people - NOTHING! So I thought maybe I asked the wrong question. So I tried this one:

FOR CHRISTIANS - What do we need to do to be saved?

Some sample answers (MY COMMENTS ARE ADDED):

If you want to be saved, then honestly, believe that the Lord sent his Son, Jesus Christ to pay for our sins through his death. Accept this wonderful gift. (can I get a his and her matching box set for this gift?)

To believe in God, to believe, that Jesus died for your sins, to seek forgiveness, to repent and to sin no more, to follow the commandments and to be baptized (if I don't believe than I’m screwed!?)

Oh hon. You are searching for answers and can't find any? Surely someone has pointed you to the bible. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved". (one of my favorites - confess with my mouth!!!)

So you will be saved, if you honestly say, "Jesus is Lord," and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death. (Just believe! Hallelujah!)

I am a Christian. I have been saved for ten years...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. If you have ears to hear,, this is your answer. Shalom! (just believe baby - ya gotta believe)

So you go to God as you are and all you have to do is believe and you can be saved! You will want to change your sinful lifestyle to please God hope that help (all you have to do is believe - simple!)

Here is your answer: NOW, say this prayer....' Dear Jesus, Please come into my life. I believe that you died on the cross for my sins and rose to life on the 3rd day. Please come into my heart. make it pure. Wash me with your blood. And please forgive all my sins. Amen." (say this prayer! is that all I have to do!!!)

Talk to Him just like you would if He were setting right there you don't have to do this aloud talk to Him from your heart tell Him you are sorry for all the bad things you have ever done and that you believe Him and need Him to come into your heart ("You have no idea how very sorry I am")

Only those whom God calls, who have come to know their position and sin problem and know their need for a savior, can truly confess Jesus as Lord. (has he called me? I have to check my messages)

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. (I got to believe "on" Jesus?)

I believe in that the Bible is the Inspired, Infallible, Inerrant Word of God. I don't listen to men, they are fallible, I listen to what the Bible says. (didn’t men write the Bible?)

Many of these people have been in churches for YEARS - 10, 20, 30 -- not even one percent of those who responded said anything about being good, treating people with respect, doing good deeds, emulating Jesus, being charitable – NOTHING! Instead they use the brainwashed term "sin" constantly, talk about believing “in him”, “on him”, “going to church”, and the like. Apparently Christians think the primary goal is a belief and a belonging. Is this what Jesus taught us? Is there then a tremendous failure of organized religion to instill that morality is more important than being part of some group? That helping people should not be subservient to kneeling and eating a wafer? I had to press on with on last question. It can’t be that Christians aren’t focused on being good people - could it? So here it is:

What does it mean to be a good Christian?

Give up all your possessions .

Don't question anything your preacher/pastor/priest tell you.

Put Jesus and others ahead of yourself knowing it pleases God (and is what he did) and that he will bless it.

Concern yourself not over behaviors of the flesh. Instead concern yourself over salvation and growing in the spirit of God

First of all we are converted and we set an example and we follow the ten commands.

Wow. What’s going on here? Thousands of years of tutelage and studying of the Bible and countless churches and sects of Christianity and few if any Christians say anything about being a “good person” or “being moral”? It can’t be! What about other religions? Let’s press on with this next question:

Jewish people! What does it mean to be a good JEW?

A few samples of some answers:

A good "jew" follows talmud, torah, sabbath, makes pilgramage to wailing wall, understand faith and purpose of the LORD. and focus attention to create peace and harmony through out the world.

Read the mythology follow the observations, gentiles suck

Talk to a Rabbi. I can almost guarantee that it means different things to different Jews, though. To me it means following the laws of Judaism to the best of your individual ability.

Ok - so there you have it. Is religion a total failure with regard to instilling a focus on people which is central to being moral, good and of a high character? You be the judge...

TERRORISM THROUGH THE AGES

There’s a rather smug email being passed around - a multiple choice questionnaire in which numerous terrorist acts are the question and the answer is always something like: “Muslim Extremists under the Age of 30”. This mock quiz is intended to show just how animalistic Muslim “extremists” are and as some form of justification for going to war. Mostly what it stands for is a dehumanization of Muslims. A way of saying that they are morally reprehensible such that killing them is to be justified. This got me thinking about the magnitude of what they have perpetrated upon America and if there was some comparable actions that the United States has (historically) taken which could show that the Muslim behavior is rather normal. A simple Google search later and I has numerous instances of American atrocities which oddly enough seem to dwarf whatever the Muslim Terrorists have perpetrated upon the United States. To be brief I will set forth a brief consolidated list of these acts (which go back 200 years) as follows:

The CIA trained and managed Iran's dreaded SAVAK secret police which tortured and murdered countless people.

In 1953 the CIA initiated “Operation Phoenix”, a program of torture and murder of civilians in Vietnam.

In 1958 the CIA hired Saddam Hussein to assassinate the President of Iraq - Abdel Karim Qassim. Resulting in countless deaths and atrocities.

In the spring of 1864 the USA launched a campaign of violence against the Cheyenne Indians and their allies, killing "any and all Indians" and razing their villages AFTER THEY HAD SURRENDERED!

The USA dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing over 200,000 civilians.

In 1953 the CIA organized a coup which overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims.

In December 1989 the USA wiped out a large tenement barrio in Panama City leaving 15,000 people homeless, (officially) 523 plus dead and 3,324-something wounded.

A Pentagon agency document describes 320 alleged incidents of atrocities against Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians (not including the 1968 My Lai massacre) and who committed them. 320!

The USA dropped more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II such that a quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

In 1964 the CIA backed a military coup in Brazil to overthrow the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart causing the junta that replaces it (over the next two decades) to become one of the most bloodthirsty in history, creating Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder?

In 1981 the CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua?

On March 16, 1968, the USA assaulted the Vietnamese village of My Lai and the surrounding area murdering 400 to 500 Vietnamese civilians?

So while the Muslim Terrorists killed American citizens on September 11th, do we really have a right to be outraged? Do we have a right to object to their animal behavior when we’re on the same page? I guess what I mostly object to is American Hypocrisy - that is to point fingers at the rest of the evil-doers and forget were from the same fabric. To say that we are morally superior when we are in fact morally similar.

Some would attempt to justify American Terrorism with some contextual history. To place these atrocities in to some historical context is absurd. The correct context is “we are human” - any other context (historical, factual) would simply be an attempt to justify the abhorrent actions of our country and thereby exasperate the actions which are perpetrated against us - there is no historical context which is required to recognize that atrocities have been committed.

These types of atrocities have been happening over the course of human history, am we’re not the first pack to mask our actions in the shadows of morality. The Nazis, The Crusades, the Medieval or Episcopal Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition come to mind. Immoral acts presented as moral for the sake (I suggest) of suppressing individual morality such that immoral behavior could continue.

I would say that human tendencies prevent even the smartest among us from recognizing that the perpetration of “acts of terror” toward control and dominance are the norm - even for we Americas. And I further think that we and every pack, group, or country has a self-inflated idea of our own worth and morality. This is systemically human-natural - as we humans are programmed to defend our packs in all instances. That would make recognition of our packs inherent negative similarities to our enemies almost impossible (if not impossible). As such, the atrocities I list are an example of the fallacy in being out-raged at “terrorism” toward we Americans. Our “historical terrorism” dwarfs anything that has been perpetrated upon us. And, the animal acts of attaining dominant are rather human and historical indeed.

A Lack of Duality In The Mind of A Psychopath

Without much of an introcution to this topic, I will note that I think that psychopaths are essentially amoral. Or put another way, they are simply animals acting solely on their programming without any influence from that part of us that is moral. Why this occurs I am not entirely sure - I would suggest that things like environment, genetics, experience, etc. play a role. Analogous to this behavior is the addicted drug user who behaves in an amoral fashion to obtain his high - stealing from even his mother for drugs. These are similar in that psychopaths are required to act selfishly for similar biological needs. Their focus is simply on their programming and not their moral side.

Keep in mind that conscious thought and the ability to acknowledge that one’s behavior is immoral are two different things. The drug addict is conscious of his actions when he robs his mother to feed his habit but his behavior is not subject to his ability to be moral. The distinction is between consciousness and conscience. Psychopaths tend to be driven to a greater extent by instinctive behavior than are the rest of us. They are focused solely on their otherwise innate genetic programs which drive their behavior - the behaviors which the rest of us are able to attach a corresponding out-rage or guilt to: they have somehow eliminated their morality from their being (and their behaviors). In a person with an ability to make moral distinctions there is a constant balancing of instincts (wants and desires) and conscience (not to be confused with our consciousness). I think it’s a conflict and a duality with either side taking control of any given situation and any given behavior. There are some whose morality trumps their instincts constantly and some whose instinct are dominant. Guilt often playing a role in how we behave. Some waiver back and forth between animal and moral behavior with no clear direction. With psychopathic behavior the moral side is not functioning as an influence - permitting the psychopath to act simply as an animal - with no guilt or remorse.

Some might argue that it’s the instincts of the psychopath that are different. That they lack the “programming” for things like empathy and compassion. I don’t think so because it seems to me that animals don’t have a moral code. They act according to their programming and things like self-sacrifice and sharing are not their common attributes - I'm not sure morality exists at all out side we humans. I think there is some part of our being that drives our behavior to be moral and I don’t think it’s programming (instincts, etc.). And if you have read my blog I believe it’s the same thing that many people have labeled “god” or “Allah” or “spirit” or “soul” or a host of other similar names. That is not to say that I believe our morality is some form of a floating white god with white hair and a robe. Just that the distinction between good and evil is often made in this very simplistic thoughtless way.

To summarize, I think we do have conscious thought, and a conscience. Do we have a choice between acting like an animal and behaving morally? I would say not in all instances. Choice is (for me) not a good description of what may be at play. Does the drug addict have a choice in stealing to satisfy his biological need to get high? Does the starving man have a choice in not stealing the food? Does the psychopath have a choice in not treating people like objects? We could debate that point but I think that at some point the choice to be moral is lost to dominating programs and instinctual behaviors (“forgive them, father for they know not what they do”). I also believe that both moral growth and animal behavior can be reinforced in an individual. That is to say biological reinforcement can lead to habitual behavior. Similarly, moral behavior can lead to even more moral behavior. When we say people can grow in moral character we mean they can become more moral. When we say people can become and act like animals what we really mean is that their behavior is central to their programming.

I am not convinced of arguments which profess that morality is a form of reasoned behavior or is itself hard-wired or instinctive. It seems clear that even if morality developed from the evolution of a higher level of intelligence (which I believe it did), this would not necessarily negate the possibility that such a development is not now contrary to the very things which permitted that evolution - to our instinctual behaviors and programming.

Michael Medved and the Philosophy of Conservative Elimination

I am going to briefly revisit my theory regarding conservative values. I am incited to do so by today’s Michael Medved radio show and his comments on homelessness. On the show today Mr. Medved noted that homeless people drive down the property values of otherwise hard-working individuals. He also noted that homeless people should either be imprisoned (eliminated) or put in to shelters (controlled). He took issue with a caller who indicated that he fed the homeless on a weekly basis. Even though the homeless this caller was feeding were children and Vietnam veterans.

Mr. Medved’s position clearly reinforces my belief that the typical conservative point of view is both hypocritical and immoral. As I noted in a previous blog entry, conservatives values are squarely on animal modalities. Primarily those of protection (of wealth), elimination of threats (to their positions and possessions through any and all means) and to a lesser degree control (control of their problems). The focus of their energies is protecting their positions, their assets and their wealth. They have no humanity and they typically place very low value on the souls of human beings.

If I am not mistaken although Mr. Medved professes to be Jewish. And like most hypocrites he behaves contrary to his religion and his god. Mr. Medved sees no value in feeding the homeless because such an action does not “eliminate” the problem. Eliminating Mr. Medved’s problem (i.e. protection of his property value) is more important that some moral idea like compassion - despite the fact that the value placed upon such an intangible is to be sought:

[If] you offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature, then shall your light shine in darkness. [Isaiah 58:10) .

Assuming that the homeless person was not Jewish, Mr. Medved may be have been able to avoid the teachings of his own religion:

“The highest level of all is the one who supports the hand of a Jew who is falling and gives to him (1) a gift or (2) a loan or (3) creates a partnership with him or (4) creates (invents) work for him in order to strengthen his hand, before he becomes dependent on asking [for assistance]. Concerning this, it says, ‘And you shall strengthen him as a stranger and as a resident-settler that he should live among you’ (Leviticus 25:35) that is, support him before he falls and becomes needy.” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:7)

However, Mr. Medved made no distinction between a Jewish and Non-Jewish homeless person. He simply wants them either eliminated or controlled in a such a way that his material position is protected.

As I noted previously, conservatives not only seek to eliminate their problems without giving any consideration to human souls, they often create the problems through their failure to share their wealth, or by denying people the means to solve the problem on their own accord. Without complicating this blog with a long social dialogue, I’ll just briefly mention what I believe are the root causes of homelessness. These would include primarily a lack of affordable rental housing, an increase in poverty, a decline in social programs (including public assistance) and mental illness. And note that a moral person has values placed on things like compassion, love, sharing, caring, self-sacrifice, creating joy and happiness. And that animals focus on what is relevant in the material world - including position, property, and wealth (especially accumulation). In light of these differing values, I wonder which side Mr. Medved falls on? I also wonder if (through some calamity in his life or even some global calamity) Mr. Medved would like to be treated as he would treat the homeless? If a meteor struck the earth tomorrow and Mr. Medved was left without a cave to live in and no means of creating any wealth for himself and his family (food, etc.) would he like a nice jail cell somewhere? I wonder if Mr. Medved was not wealthy and established in a post apocalyptic world if he would frown upon a hand-out of food from a kind and compassionate human? While some would like to hope that Mr. Medved is (in fact) placed in that position some day, I hope instead that he becomes more human; that he considers the plight of less fortunate people, that he becomes more compassionate; and that he grows spiritually and not materialistically. Good Luck Mr. Medved!

Are You An Animal?

My underlying understanding of human beings is that our behavior mirrors that of animals and that we have an additional capacity for behaving in a way which is opposite to animals. That is to say that we have the “free will” to shut down our animal programs and behave in an opposite fashion. So, for example, we can steal like animals do or we can choose not to steal (even in the face of hardship). We can hoard our wealth like animals do or we can share or give away our wealth away. We can kill like animals do or we can choose not to kill (even when threats are upon us). These things, this ability to stop our programs from running, is (I believe) a uniquely human thing. What the ability also seems to do (when operating properly) is to create guilt when we act contrary to it (i.e. when we act like animals). Many Christians (while most lack a fundamental understanding of the principle) call this component the “Holy Spirit”. It is also termed “your conscience”, “your morality”, “your spirit”, “the son of god”, “Allah”, “Jesus”, and most often simply “god”. None of the terms (as classified) change the component nor it’s functionality. For the purposes of this discussion I will call it the “god component”.

A basic problem arises in the operation of our god component in two different ways. The first arises because (unlike animals) we humans can rationalize animal (immoral) behavior. This gives us an added dimension which permits us to operate in an animal mode while producing what we claim is a good reason to do so. Usually one which looks rather humane at first glance. That is to say, we are able to continue to act like animals and yet justify our behavior (to ourselves) in a way which makes it appear to be the correct and moral behavior. And thereby eliminate the guilt we would otherwise experience. We rationalize the behavior as moral behavior even though it amounts to nothing more than being and acting like an animal. For example, when we steal we can rationalize that behavior by saying things like, “the other guy had more than enough anyway.” Or when we hoard our wealth we might say “I worked hard for it so why shouldn’t I reap the rewards, why should I share my money?” Or when we kill, we label it a “penalty” and rationalize it as a necessary evil to deter other killings. Many people make the ultimate guilt-relieving rationalization and justify immoral behavior by believing that it is sanctioned by god. And this type of rationalization permits limitless guilt free animal behaviors. In short, we can find many reasons to justify animal or immoral behavior. And these rationalizations work to suppress our otherwise god-component-related-guilt.

These types of rationalizations come from different groups of people and for different reasons. Often the justifications for acting like animals is presented in the context of survival and preservation. Or the “us against them” context which actually plays upon our contemporaneous animal needs to create bonds and maintain power structures. Of course the means to maintaining this survival is usually by “any and all means” - including those which are exclusively animal in nature (killing, hoarding, stealing, etc.).

In short, by rationalizing animal behavior, we are able short circuit our god component and thereby alleviate our guilt, ignore our conscience, and behave immorally without an individual mental consequence. In effect, we fool ourselves in to believing that our behavior is justified when in fact it is not.

These types of rationalizations are not limited to packs which are inherently concerned with power. They also exist in groups which claim to follow god. Historically. we often see animal behavior exhibited in the confines of a belief in god. Couched in the blessing of or at the request of same. In fact, all religious organizations fuel the continuation of programs which have historically created conflict among we humans by creating divisive power structures which beckon to our animal needs to defend and fight. More specifically, those programs which control our innate need to dominate or be submissive. To “lead: and to “follow”. To be sided up with and defend the dominant pack. And, of course, the ultimate pack is the one with god on it’s side - of which each religious group claims exclusivity. None of these affiliations (in and of themselves) speak to anything other than behaving like an animal. Either in the context of filling our need to belong (to rule, to follow, etc.) or our animal need to survive (in this case transfixed from biological survival to eternal survive). And within these hierarchies, no matter how much one person claims to be “following” god, what they are really primarily following is their pack. Their instinct to protect their pack is primary. Even when there is a complete and utter absence of any justification to do so. Their desire to be a member of the powerful pack is prevalent. We have, as a result, the Muslim extremist who kills in the name of Allah. Or the Catholic who defends a priest’s behavior regardless of the fact that that behavior has it’s loyalty in animal behaviors. As I noted before, having god as a rationale for animal behavior is the greatest means of eliminating our conscience (our guilt). God (or the thought that our actions are morally correct) permit us to act like animals in a guilt free fashion. How could I be wrong to kill the infidel if this is what god wants? How could it be immoral to stand up for the unjustifiable acts of a man of god? A man who stands for all of those things which god wants? What these justifications really are is a means to eliminate our guilt and suppress our god component. In the case of defense they are propagated by an innate need to defend our packs. I suggest that this type of defenses is one of blindness and that the blindness stems from systemic programs which are unrecognizable in their operation by us on a conscious level.

The second problem arises in the fact that these animal programs are highly imprint-able on our behavior. For the sake of brevity I will only touch upon this second obstacle to behaving as our god component suggests. Once we engage in something like stealing, our brains attach a high to the behavior (as is intended in our biology) and we want to do it again - even in the face of our guilt. The more we engage in this animal behavior, the more we want to engage in it. It becomes a vicious cycle for us in that at some point we are physically required to behave like animals, have created a strong biological need to behave like an animal, and yet have the guilt remain as a result of our god component’s normal operation. This type of suppression does not alleviate the guilt, but rather creates a duality and a conflict that can even lead to mental instability. But more often than not simply leads to habitual behavior. For example, when we defend a position we are running innate programs. The more the position is attacked the more we need to defend it and the greater the lengths we will go to defend it. The effects of operating these animal programs is therefore cumulative and progressive.

The most troubling part of the programs which are at war with our god component is that they are strongest when they are both permitted to run and re-run and when the justification for behaving as such is simultaneously rationalized as moral. The equivalent of two jet engines pushing the behavior to normalcy. Resulting in a simultaneous condition of unawareness of action and a satiation of an underlying biological need or needs.

It therefore stands to reason, that until we can successfully identify our own sub-conscious animalistic programs, consciously eliminate them, and avoid reinforcing our animal programs, we humans (individually and as a collective) will continue to be nothing more than animals.

Oprah's Religious Power - YOU WILL BELIEVE!!!

I wonder if Oprah Winfrey came to us today and said “last night I spoke to god and he said there’s a new set of rules to follow” if anyone would eagerly line up to get the hard copy? In a similar fashion, I wonder if a group of people led by Oprah came to my door and said “Larry Willaby just performed ten miracles and he says he the new messiah” if I could buy in to that? Especially if ten was his miracle limit and I missed them all. It’s these types of hypothetical ideas that make me question how anyone who believes the messiah is actually going to come back (or get here for the first time) will be able to identify that event when it happens. I have to surmise that any advance alien form could do a few alien card room tricks and turn the world upside down. Seeing how some religious texts already warn about false prophets it’s going to be a hard call no matter what the scenario is. Imagine for a moment that two alien races show up throwing fire balls at one another – each claiming to be angels of god. The level of religious confusion that this could generate is out of this world. But then is there really some exact level of believability in such a skeptical world that would permit someone (anyone) to believe that the new messiah had arrived?

When I talk to Jews or Christians or Muslims or any religious people about their beliefs they have a hard time articulating just why it is they believe what they do. Especially when you make parallel comparisons to hypothetical modern day scenarios. So you wouldn’t believe Oprah spoke to god last night but you believe Abraham did? You wouldn’t believe Larry Willaby and his ten miracles but you believe the Jesus set? How come? How come Jews believe that Moses parted the red sea but they don’t believe that Jesus walked on water? How come Christians believe that Jesus spoke to god but Mohamad did not? Doesn’t it make more sense to believe modern day people who say they saw Mr. Willaby do all these miracles than to rely on a less advanced people who claim to have witnessed the miracles of Moses or Jesus or Mohamad? If Oprah said god now designated the people of New Jersey as the new chosen people how is that any different than Abraham saying that about the Jews? “But Abraham was a great holy man”. Okay, Oprah is a great credible and believable gal - now what? “But many people witnessed the miracles of Moses” Yeah, a whole bunch of people said they witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Mohammad and Mr. Willaby also.

Clearly ALL religious beliefs are based upon a system of passed down stories which people take as truth without any rational thought as to whether they have any valid basis. For the most part these beliefs are based upon nothing other than a past account which has been and is taken as true. But what makes people take hold of one belief and not another? What makes people believe something so strongly that they are willing to kill and die for it? Certainly it can not be the rational examination of the belief and the infallibility of positions which can not be proven. Especially those which are easily challenged in their provability by competing beliefs with the same or similar substance and origination (for example recanted second-hand tales of miracles). Nor can it be the degree or value of the claims made to support the belief (i.e. the TEN Mr. Willaby miracles are not controlling).

Most people, in fact, do not have any understanding of why they believe what they do other than that they were told to believe it. The source and the credibility of the source of this telling are critical factors in whether the belief will take hold. Figures designated holy or worth while, parental figures, persons shown to exhibit leadership qualities, seemingly intelligent people, all exhibit influence in what we believe. Perception of the source is critical. But this in and of itself is not the controlling factor in why we believe what we believe. Because clearly many people are swayed to believe things from less then reliable sources (in my mind inept political leaders often fall into this category).

How can two people believe in two competing positions so strongly when neither is based upon anything other than a recantation of events they were not a party to? In my examples above this method of recantation (in and of itself) does not seem capable of swaying someone to a particular belief. But what if you revered and loved Oprah? Well, you’d be more likely to take her word for it (of course). And this is why our parents play a critical role in the development of our beliefs. Nevertheless, one would tend to think this alone would neither create nor maintain a strong belief. What if Oprah formed a group dedicated to Mr. Wallably (the Wallabies?)? With this added element I think the scenario of a Mr. Wallably religion gains momentum. The simple fact that you can join these other individuals in a common goal (with someone like your beloved Oprah!) places Mr. Wallably at a new level of believability. And if belonging is coupled with a displayed understanding that this is the superior pack (to which you the outsider are made to feel welcomed and even wanted) the underlying belief is further propelled. In a sense these cumulative elements are what is required to create and maintain a belief. While you can be born in to a belief system, maintenance requires allegiance to the pack. Consequently, I believe the most essential element to be the establishment of some hierarchy with perceived strength or ability. A hierarchy which permits the reinforcement of our genetic program to belong - which is in lineage with that of pack animals. There is some program in us that says belonging to a group, and especially a strong group or a group with the answers, is essential and necessary to our survival. Such a requirement of our programming makes sense, given that the goal of our programming is to further our survival. Our post-conscious desire to circumvent this existence in favor of some after-life has caused our pack alignment program to be repositioned to account for this extension by making us align with the strongest after-life pack we can find. The one which we believe will get us to the point of survival beyond death. In fact, most religions preach that their belief system is the pathway to eternal salvation for this very reason.

When do people jump ship from their religion? When their beliefs are in conflict with those of the pack; when the fell unwanted (misallegiance); when their position in the pack is diminished; when some other pack invites them in and in doing so provides rearticulation of that program that requires a sense of belonging to a powerful pack; when they question the beliefs of the pack in rational thought and can find no acceptance of those beliefs; when they are rewarded or feel they will be rewarded for changing packs - or any combination of these or like things.

Reinforcement of religion is therefore best accomplished by a reinforcement of the rewards of the pack (“you will only go to heaven if”), the strength of the pack (“we are the chosen people”), the weakness of the other packs (which is why religious persons often belittle the substance of other religious beliefs, i.e the Pope Benedict XVI) and a constant never ending attack on any belief which may be contrary to those of the pack, a separation and definitive line establishing the distinction of the pack (usually made vis-a-vis physical separation, by wearing some symbol, celebrating some holiday, wearing a particular clothing, engaging in particular rituals, and the like). The rules of organized religion mirror many other pack facets in our culture and society. From armies to sports teams to civic and political groups these basic methodologies and requisite elements of maintaining the strength of the pack and allegiance to the pack are present.

ARE JEWS PIGS AND MONKEYS?

I have a very close Jewish friend who is conservative in many respects. Today he sent me a video of the Glenn Beck Show (on youtube.com) about the propaganda used by Muslim extremists to sway public opinion. In the video (among other things) young Muslim children are taught to hate Jews and associate them with monkeys and pigs. As evidence of the power of these teachings, some children (as young as three years old) were shown to recite their hate for Jews verbally. “Jews are monkeys and pigs”, a small child relented. The video noted that the basic means of teaching this hate was advocation by people the children looked up to - mostly their parents and religious leaders. I would surmise that my Jewish friend saw this teaching of false ideas to children as an aberration. But what struck me most about the way in which Muslim children are taught to hate Jews was not that this is in fact abhorrent, but rather that the technique used by hateful Muslims is the very same technique used by the Jews to teach their children their religious belief systems and values. And the same technique used by Catholics to teach their children religious beliefs and values. My conclusion is that what is glaringly missing from the learned process of acquiring a belief (which is not only lasting but which would propel someone in to insane acts of violence) is that it requires absolutely no rational examination. There is no examination of just how Jews are monkeys and pigs - these children are told they just are. The children usually have no personal contact nor experience with Jews. And the fact that such a strong ingrained belief can be taught without any real examination by the believer, such that he or she can use that belief to kill someone, is (to me) eye opening. I wonder aloud if the majority (if not all) of the Christians and Jews realize that the way they formed their religious beliefs (and their values) is in this very same way those small Muslim children learned to believe that they are monkeys and pigs. The parallel to me was something that over-shadows the intended message of the Beck episode. Here was a parallel example of a way people acquire their beliefs in every major religion in the world - used to insinuate just how insane those beliefs were. It struck me that the same thing could easily be said about people who believe that god exists. Except that the belief in god is more universally accepted than killing Jews because they are monkeys and pigs. Fundamentalism is essentially a firm belief in anything that has no basis in “reason” or “logic”. I would add that these fundamental beliefs often involve a total lack of any examination of the belief. There’s no real thought about what it is we have learned to believe. And for some there never is. By this definition the Muslim extremist who believes Jews are monkeys and pigs is no different in his chosen belief than the Jew who believes god wants him to eat only Kosher foods. They each were taught this to be a truth; they each practice the truth without any rational thought as to the validity of it; they each follow the belief blindly and it dictate their actions. What separates them is simply the acceptability of the end result. We are not shocked by the Jew who refuses to eat a pig. We are, however, shocked and outraged (morally) by a Muslim who kills a Jew because he believes he is a pig. It’s a strange world we live in indeed.

How You Can Change the World

I am an American. And there is no doubt in my mind that I live in the greatest and most civilized internal nation in the world. My standard of living is beyond adequate, my potential within this country is unlimited, and my status is subject simply to my abilities and work ethic. I am also a member of this world. I reside in a world with war and famine and hunger and strife and death and destruction and violence and hatred and conflict and more conflict. It seems conflict and not cooperation, hatred and not love, selfishness and not self-sacrifice are all fast becoming the global norms. I am not a participant in these things on a macro level: I have not started a war; I have not exploded a car bomb; I have not killed a human; I have not paralyzed a human; I have not taken anyone hostage; I have not created a nuclear bomb; I have not threatened to use a weapon of mass destruction; I have not taken over a country nor a government by force. Nor am I prone to the forces which encompass these types of actions: I do not seek power or control over other individuals; I do not seek to convert people to my point of view; I am not interested in hating individuals based upon their race, religion, creed, color, economic status; I am not interested in accumulating wealth to the point of excess. But I have to wonder - as a member of this world am I somehow to blame for these events? And if not, is there something that I can do to change them?

I have on occasion felt anger or even violence toward another individual. I have on a very micro level wished ill upon someone who either threatened me or caused me pain. But for the most part the extent of my participation (even on a micro level) has been limited to verbal attacks. And even those it seems are rather isolated and limited. Yet my ability to participate in conflict on the micro level gives me some understanding of the forces at work in the global macro level - and they are from my experiences intense and difficult to shake. Nevertheless, even this insight does not lend itself to a solution regarding my potential (as an individual in a free nation) to diffuse global conflicts, create world peace, or change the prejudices and attitudes of the millions of people who have them. It seems insurmountable from an individual standpoint. Any attempt to try and stop the avalanche of despair with bare hands would seem at best futile, and at worst insane.

I watch and read and listen to anti-war protestors, and have images of them dating back to the Vietnam War. And I find these types of approaches to have a minimal impact on the actions of the people involved. Nor do any of these protests ultimately eliminate the sources of conflict on a global scale. As evidence by the fact that war protests have come and gone along side different wars between different parties and for different reasons.

I have seen the political packs form and the arguments rage and the debates continue about war and the like and from a historical stand-point these types of events have no lasting impact on the future of conflict. Wars have continued through the ages despite the formation of groups of opposition. None of these irritated intermittent blisters seem to offer any long-lasting dent in the propensity of humans to war.

The basic premise of any fight is for something. And the world is ripe with somethings that people value for various reasons which are directly opposed to those things which other people value for their own various reasons and these variables are an inevitable by-product of our existence. Scarcity in resources, a psychotic affiliation to some or any belief system, the differences in our genetic code, the differences in the way we look or behave, the predisposition of animals to often seek conflict, the inherent propensity in us to seek revenge and get even, the inherent propensity in the majority of humans to seek control and power of their environment and the people around them, the desire of people to strengthen their pack by either converting other individuals to their point of view or destroying them, and others, are all elements of this world which are here to stay. This is our stew, it’s cooked and we have no more ingredients to add.

When interpreted and applied properly, there are fundamental elements of Judo-Christian-Muslim-Buddhist (etc.) belief systems which offer a solution to these global problems. What can violence become in the face of compassion? What can hatred become in the face of love? What can scarcity become in the face of self-sacrifice and cooperation? What can hatred become in the face of understanding? What can self-control and submission become in the face of a threat? Yet even these solutions seem to offer no hope for an individual faced with global conflicts caused principally by an indifference to them. How can anyone profess the power of love to someone in another culture who rationalizes god as a basis for war and killing? Or self-sacrifice and corporation and sharing to a society that overwhelmingly values the perverse accumulation of material possessions? That worships the wealthy? That admires the powerful? How does one extrapolate compassion for the plight of the hungry to an individual who would pay millions of dollars for a single baseball?

So then the question remains, what can an individual do to change global events beyond their immediate realm of influence? No one at the bottom can start the climb at the top of the mountain. What’s required is a continuation of things like truth, love, self-sacrifice, compassion, caring, self-control on the micro level in the hopes that a chain reaction can be created toward (or to) the top. When you are kind to someone they recognize that and they remember that and they may be led by example. When you diffuse a conflict with rational behavior it’s possible (although not probable) that someone who is prone to violence may remember your actions in his next potential conflict and act accordingly. What is required is your individual behavior in situations of despair to be exemplary. The next time someone asks you for a dollar, do not judge them, give them the dollar. The next time someone threatens you, do not fight them, diffuse the situation. Then next time someone needs help, help them. For leading by example at the micro level is the best way for anyone to make a difference in our world.

PLEASE, CONSIDER THE SOURCE!

Inherently we Americans are drawn to conflict. Conflict (and often violence) it seems is always at the fringe of our behavior waiting to push it self to the surface. A middle finger, one guy who cuts you in line, or even a dirty look can set us off. For some of us resorting to conflict and violence requires nothing more than some form of insult. Nothing more than a simple word or two directed in a negative way at our person. What is it about something like an insult that would require someone to physically attack another individual? How do words create such strong reactions and equally strong behaviors which are contrary to a civilized existence? The answer is rather complicated because there are numerous variables which play a role in how we behave in any given situation. Things like environment, past influences, past results, past experiences, our beliefs (i.e. in god), etc. all play a role. However, there is a very short answer and that very short answer is: “our biological programming causes us to either seek or avoid conflict”. We are programmed to either (a) instinctively react to a threatening situation by defending our positions (dominant programs) or (b) by submitting (submissive programs) to the threat by backing down. Yes, just like on animal kingdom. And that’s why even when it seems improbable that controversy should ensue, it does. Let’s take a quick look at some examples:

Should anyone really care what Tom Cruise has to say about psychology? Isn’t he sort of like a homeless guy who calls you a loser from the alley when he tells Brooke Shields that psychology is bunk? If he told me that my air conditioner was bunk would I get insulted? Isn’t he an actor? Yet his words created controversy. So much so that they required an apology. How could this be? Who the heck is Tom Cruise when he’s talking about anything but acting (or maybe tooth polish)? Of course, good old Tom apologized to she-is-still-in-therapy-Brooke in the face of public pressure and a disintegrating public image. He was motivated to do so for his own sake and the whole thing died down and off the pages of People Magazine. And while I’m on the subject of drunken conflict creators, how about Mel Gibson? Does he really feel that way about Jews and if he does should they really care? He’s in the public eye but why do Jews care if THE ACTOR Mel Gibson doesn’t like them? He was raised a Catholic and there are inherent prejudices in any religious teaching. He made a movie about Christ where Jews are portrayed like some group of Zombies who chase Jesus through a mall - wait that’s not the movie. In any event, I’m sure there are plenty of drunk Jews who speak badly about Catholics. And probably even more who had a few bad things to say about Mel Gibson. But I’ll tell you, if some drunk blonde haired girl said she didn’t like brown haired guys it would just make sense to me - and nothing else. I don’t think I would need an apology.

Of course, it’s not only a drunk actor who can get the conflict going. In 1998 Reggie White (a three hundred plus pound football payer) outraged homosexuals when he said homosexuality is a decision, not a race, and it should not be placed on par with the civil rights movement. Homosexuals were outraged! How come? When a guy who knocks off heads for a living makes a statement concerning atypical sexual behavior how can someone get outraged? If he said my wife was a lousy blocker I might have to agree. But when he’s talking about her sexual preference I think it matters little what he thinks. In any event, White stood his ground when he said, “I would rather God not be mad at me and let people be mad at me, so I have to speak the truth — no matter the consequences." Of course, White died of a heart attack at only 43 caused by poor health including what looked to me to be a severe overweight condition. I guess in his mind sloth is not as big a sin as sexual immorality. Still White never apologized for what he believed -- conflict or no conflict. Take that Tom Cruise.

After the actors, the drunk actors, and the football players we then get to the untouchables. And those instances where the source itself has a role in creating additional controversy and conflict. Take for example the soothing words of Pope Benedict XVI when he recently said "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. Muslim leaders around the world to this day are continuing to demand a “full” apology (and not half of an apology). He’s the Pope - head of the Catholic Church. Why would Muslims care what he has to say about a religion he doesn’t believe in? It’s sort of like Darth Vadar making a speech in which he says all the Jedis are morons. Would the Jedis care? Why should they - he’s on the other side! And that’s why - because he is on the other side. There’s no rational reason to care what he says - it’s simply about defending a position. And it’s simply about a program which makes us want to do that.

So there you have it, absent any real explanation of why we get insulted, a desire to engage in conflict clearly emanates from some genetic programming stemming back to the times when you had to fight for your mate and for the top spot in the pack. That little thing inside that signals green when you get the finger. And for all of you who are insulted by any of this (or my Blog) - PLEASE, consider the source!

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE

Conservatism is a ploy. A ploy to get you (the middle class or non-wealthy) to help the wealthy and super wealthy in this country to protect their positions and possessions. Conservatism is a morally bankrupt belief system centered on self-interest. What conservatives seek is not to protect America (or the sanctity of America as they often claim) but rather the positions and the possessions of the most affluent Americans. We need only look at the basic positions of conservatives to see that conservative lore is based upon self-preservation and not (for example) self-sacrifice.

Conservatives often speak of cutting social spending, cutting their own personal taxes so that their own personal income can remain high, implementing the death penalty, harsher criminal sentences, the elimination of threats (like terrorists) by force and violence. All of these positions are aimed solely at maintaining one’s possessions or one’s positions without addressing the morality of the underlying means. While self-sacrifice entails helping someone at your own risk and/or your own peril, conservatism and it’s policies seek to eliminate the risks to one’s self (self interest). To eliminate both the peril and/or the cost associated with preventing or fixing the peril. In fact, the tools of a conservative are principally preservation and elimination. In the use of preservation, conservative policies deprive others who need a conservative’s possessions or positions from obtaining them. In the use of elimination (and to a lesser degree control), those people (locally, nationally and globally) who pose a threat to the positions or possessions of conservatives are eliminated (either killed or removed from society) through any and all means possible.

The Patriot Act; Harsher criminal sentences; Illegal searches and seizures; Warrant less wire taps; Who do these types of infringements target? Is it the (politically connected) wealthy and super wealthy? Is it the powerful? Is it the individual who has enough money that stealing is not necessary? Or are these types of infringements targeted to individuals at the lower end of the economic spectrum? At individuals who are essentially powerless in our country? But who nevertheless may pose a threat to a wealthy business man?

Who therefore wants the stiffest penalties for crime? And why? Who supports the death penalty? And why? Who seeks the harshest sentencing rules? And why? Who wants unaccountable aggressive police forces? And why? Who seeks to cut social programs? And why?

What is the foundation of these “conservative core values”? Are they to help people? Are they concepts which speak to self-sacrifice and love? Are they positions which help or hinder the downtrodden? Do they improve humanity?

In the mind of a conservative, a thief, a crook, a criminal, a poor person, a murderer is not a person with (spiritual or economic) potential but rather a potential future attacking entity. A person who could threaten their position or their possessions. A person who needs to be controlled and/or eliminated. A conservative does not accept that a criminal is person with a potentially rehabilitatable soul. Because a conservative focuses not on rehabilitation but rather elimination for the sake of their own position. Conservatives do not seek to address either the root causes of the threats to society or the possible transformation of these threats to a benign category, but rather their starvation, suppression and ultimately their elimination. Conservatives seek to deprive the lower class and poor in this country of the very means toward productively while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that the threats posed to them often arise from their inflicted positions of poverty. Conservatives do not consider what it might be like to have no wealth, no pinnacle position, no advantageous start, no or poor education. There is no thought that many individuals in this country begin life with an insurmountable starting position of despair. All that is central to conservative values are protection and possession of themselves.

A conservative appeals to other people to conform to their conservative beliefs and their ideals of maintaining the upper class in this country through various means. The most prevailing of which is fear. They motivate people to act by inciting their own basic self-preservation instinct. You better sign on to the Patriot Act’s freedom infringing policies because if you don’t the terrorists will get you. You better permit police to trample constitutional protections and permit warrant less searches and seizures because otherwise the criminals and terrorists will get you. You should permit harsher sentences or the criminals will get out of jail and get you. You should subscribe to the death penalty because it deters other killers from killing YOU. It’s always presented as being to YOUR benefit - but what it really is to the benefit of the people in power, the people with a great deal of money, and the people with a great deal of political connections. In short, the people who have the most things to lose. Do the poor really have a problem with theft? What is the likely-hood that the police are bashing down the door of a rich socialite and obtaining illegal evidence and that that socialite will go to jail (for example for ten years) ? How many rich socialites can not afford the best lawyers? How many rich socialites (by their sheer willingness to throw money at politicians) have some connection at the top somewhere that can bail them out of even the most over-reaching invasion of their civil, human or constitutionally protected rights?

To some extent the middle class in this country have the same core value system of protecting their position because they too actually have something to lose. The difference is that their positions are far less valuable. To offset this fact, the wealthy and super wealthy give the middle class simple diversionary pleasures to strengthen their desire to maintain their own lesser positions. They create positions of just enough comfort to make them follow the leaders.

The second most prevalent tactic of conservatives is to call anyone who is not immediately taken to support the wealthy, and super wealthy and their positions a traitor. Or worse yet, “un-American”. And in doing so they acknowledge that your failure to support the preservation of their wealth will lead to some diminution of our country. This is clever in that it plays upon our animal instinctual need to not only to belong, but to belong to a strong pack. If you don’t support the war in Iraq you’re un-American and you’re jeopardizing our country by doing so. Don’t you want to belong to the strongest pack? Don’t you want us to “win” the war so that we can maintain our position of power? Of course you do - it’s programmed behavior ingrained in all of us. Unfortunately, for so many people the reality is that these concepts are like drugs. They satisfy our programs to be dominant and in control and the strongest while simultaneously permitting us to feel “safe” and “secure”. All instinctual elements of our programming. And in this satiated drugged state we sacrifice our morality, That is why conservatives hammer the notion that they are “better able to protect us”. They know you are (by nature) afraid. They know that your natural instinctual fear will permit them to erode your constitutional rights so that they can keep their stuff and their lives in order. To erode your compassion for the criminal, your compassion for the poor, your over all sense of right and wrong. The real question is not “who is better able to protect you” but “who is better able to protect the possessory assets and positions of the wealthy and super-wealthy in this country?” And the answers are: those who will permit the erosion of our constitutional rights; those who will support the harshest sentences for criminals without addressing human rights, constitutional rights or even a persons humanity; those who will permit the killing (elimination) of the killers as opposed to those who would attempt to address the root causes of crime or the rehabilitation of a person’s soul; those who will permit war; those who will permit the slaughter of innocent women and children in the name of self-preservation.

Conservatives are not about fixing “our” problems but rather they are about maximizing control and/or eliminating “their” problems. They are not about humanity. They do not seek to address the root causes of evil but rather foster a perpetuation of their own morally cloaked evil toward their own self-preservationist goals. The Iraqi war is prime example of this - and naturally an extension of these core conservative self-preservation beliefs and modalities. It also offers us a glimpse in to how conservatives manipulate the public to continue their protectionist policies by “any and all means”. This (of course) includes killing and violence and death. Remember, protectionism of what they have is paramount. And it’s not the protectionism of our “American way of life” or even our safety but “their” way of life and “their” safety. Your safety is how they package it. That’s how they get you to sign on. But the truth is that their lives are a far cry from the lives of we average Americans.

Without speculating on what the Iraqi war may or may not really be about (oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc.), lets look at it in the context of conservative preservation and elimination. In the context of morality. In the context of what we can definitely say it does and does not entail.

The Iraqi war definitely entails violence and death - and the violence and death of innocent people (including women and children). It definitely entails the destruction of American families - over 10,000 dead American soldiers are a testament to this. It definitely entails the destruction of Iraqi families. It definitely entails the destruction of American Lives (over 21,00 wounded Americans) and Iraqi lives (over 40,000 dead an wounded Iraqi’s). It definitely entails the perpetuation of a multi-billion dollar defense industry (also run and controlled by the super-wealthy) - or the continuation of a money making entity for the super wealthy. It definitely entails the continuation of a conflict between Muslin and non-Muslin people. It definitely entails control (and an attempt to retain control or some relationship) over one of the richest oil bearing lands in the world. It short, it definitely entails the protection of self-interested positions and possessions by “any and all means” of the wealthy. Because whose sons and daughters are fighting over there? Whose children are dying? Which people are really exposed to terrorist threats in a public airport?

Ane then there is what the Iraqi war definitely does not entail. It definitely does not entail love, self-sacrifice, kindness, peace, sharing, giving, or compassion. It is never-the-less supported by self-proclaimed morally superior conservatives.

And how was (and how is) the Iraqi war being sold to you? Firstly by fear. You better be afraid of the terrorists so we need to use “any and all means” to protect you. Again through your instinctual need to feel safe. How else? Through your instinctual need to dominate. “We need to win this war to maintain our dominance”. “You like being the big dog don’t you? Well them we got to keep killing and slaughtering and....”

If you’re stuck on conservatism because you also believe that it’s the more “moral” position to partake in, you’d be sadly mistaken no matter which religion you subscribe to. I could get involved on this point, but do the math - what things are most meaningful to the God of Abraham, or Allah and or even Buddha. If you’re a Christian take this simple test - would Jesus be a conservative? Would Jesus support tax cuts for the wealthy? Would Jesus support the death penalty (or would he rather support the eternal soul of the individual and it’s potential to repent or even just grow?)? Would Jesus support a war based upon a potential threat (which as it turns out was probably at best a perceived threat and at worst a lie)? Would Jesus support killing innocent children in the name of one’s personal safety? Who are all these god-fearing conservatives kidding? The truth is, conservatives are not only devoid of any real moral fibre, they are also hypocrites as they continually point top their “good” and “godly” behavior to justify their immoral positions. It’s very easy to be a law abiding citizen and to remain a law abiding citizen when you have all the things that being an unlawful citizen could possibly bring. And while behaving morally when it is unnecessary to behave immorally is their selling point, the truth is something far less contrived. Simply that to be a conservative is to support those things which are most unimportant to god. And to ignore those things which are most important to god. All in exchange for protection of position. Things like self-sacrifice, love, caring, the rehabilitation of souls, the relinquishment of wealth, the relinquishment of power, and the relinquishment of self are abandoned for things like protectionism, accumulation of wealth, power, punishment, control and war.